European Treaty

Speech by Robert Brown MSP on Wed 19th Sep 2007

This is a highly relevant debate on a subject of vital importance to Scotland, the United Kingdom and the future direction of Europe. The EU reform treaty is rather like an operation to unclog heart valves and blood vessels and make the body work more efficiently. It aims to make the European Union, which was designed for a membership of six, work for a Community of 27 countries. It focuses not on the tedious constitutional debate itself but on the things that matter for Europe's citizens, such as energy security, climate change, organised crime and terrorism, and a more effective international voice for Europe.

I say clearly that the treaty is good for Scotland and good for Britain. It will streamline the Commission, allow more effective decision making in the Council and ensure that democratic accountability is transformed, not just by allowing the European Parliament a more substantial role but by giving national Parliaments a central role, which Linda Fabiani touched on.

As it happens, the changes will increase the weight given to population and therefore the UK's share of the votes, thereby increasing Scotland's influence through the United Kingdom. Those changes are important, but they do not increase the power of the European Union as such and they certainly do not merit the furore that we have had from the ever-present Eurosceptics, clearly still alive and well on the Conservative benches-as they have been for the past 30 years. During that time, the Conservative party has been motivated-and blighted-by Europe but, as was pointed out earlier, it did not under the saintly Mrs Thatcher allow a referendum on the much further reaching changes in the Maastricht treaty.

Gavin Brown: Will the member give way?

Margo MacDonald: Will the member give way?

Robert Brown: I will carry on a little, if members do not mind.

I want to make two central points. The first is that it is high time that we changed the tone of the debate from one of carping criticism and strident negativity to one that puts Britain at the heart of Europe-the words, but unfortunately not always the attitude, of Tony Blair. An influential Britain or an irrelevant Britain-that is the choice facing us, which Ted Brocklebank and others should recognise. It is time for us to accept and welcome the European Union.

My second point is directed at the SNP Government. Governments should govern, but the SNP Administration clearly just administers. It is unbelievable that we are not presented with a motion on the SNP Government's attitude to the treaty, which is due to be signed this autumn in Lisbon.

Bruce Crawford: Does the member accept that the business managers from both the Conservative and Labour parties agreed that we should have a debate without a motion? We have had that discussion already, so he is fighting old ground that is not really relevant. Should he not get on to the matter in front of us?

Robert Brown: With respect, I am not fighting old ground: the point is fundamental to how the Parliament operates. We should be holding the SNP Government to account-[Interruption.] I am sorry, but if Mr Crawford wants to make further interventions, let him stand up and offer them rather than make comments from the side.

My point is about the accountability of the SNP Government. The truth is that the SNP has no policies on the treaty. A policy is perhaps beginning to come out from Linda Fabiani, but it should be before members for consideration. I understand that she said yesterday that the SNP Government's priority was to get the best deal for Scotland. Pardon me, but I thought that that was the approach of the previous Executive and, indeed, that it would be the approach of any alternative Scottish Executive. It hardly informs the debate to know that.

Linda Fabiani also said as recently as yesterday that the SNP had yet to take a view on the treaty. As Malcolm Chisholm rightly said, it would help to know whether the SNP still supports the scrapping of the common fisheries policy. The comments of the fisheries commissioner, who said scrapping it was not legally possible and who also negated the idea that an independent Scotland would have a seamless entry into the EU, are very important in that context. What, too, is the SNP position on the charter of fundamental rights or the voting reforms?

I hope that the minister will tell us why we have no Government motion on the matter, why the SNP is running away from the issue, why it has no stated position on vital questions and whether she agrees that such a position undermines the SNP's pretensions as a Government-not just of a devolved Scotland but of any sort.

To read the debate in full please click on the link below:

Related Link:

European Treaty.