 |
SECOND
CONGRESS FOR DEMOCRACY |
| Sir Michael Spicer MP
extended a warm welcome, especially to the foreign observers, to the Second Congress for
Democracy and expressed the hope that the Congress would discuss how to relate to
political processes in other countries which had not joined the single currency. He handed
over the chairmanship to Austin Mitchell MP, Vice-Chairman, Labour Euro-Safeguards
Campaign of Parliamentary Labour members. Austin Mitchell MP welcomed attendees to the Second Congress for Democracy and introduced the Rt Hon William Hague MP. The Rt Hon William Hague MP described the Congress for Democracy as a unique event bringing together many different people from different organisations and parties who, while they disagreed on some things, shared a passionate commitment to they democratic freedoms of this country and a fear that joining a single currency could undermine those freedoms. The British people had, he felt, sent a clear message to the Government in the recent elections for the European Parliament that they wanted to keep the pound, and he saw the battle for the pound as "a battle for the economic prosperity of the British people and a battle for the independence of the British nation". The argument against the euro was reasonably familiar; he described it as a pretty strong case, which no one had yet answered. However, there was a need to put the case for the pound, and he had established a commission under Sir John Nott to consider the positive case for the retention of an independent currency in the UK. The commission was expected to report in the autumn but he felt it was time to start to outline the components of the case for the pound, and he made eight specific points in favour of keeping the pound:  the
freedom to run the British economy in the interests of British business and British jobs; the
advantages of exchange rate flexibility against the euro and all other currencies; greater
exchange rate stability with countries outside the eurozone; greater
ability to resist European tax harmonisation and the import of expensive labour market
regulations, given the political will; continued
attraction of overseas investment to the UK because of lower taxes and more flexible
employment laws; the City
of London could retain its freedom and continue to enjoy its advantages over other
financial markets; the
retention of its free economy could make Britain more influential in the world; keeping
the pound could give the British people a say in their own future.Finally, he said that for him the most important argument of all was that keeping the pound could be "essential to keeping our national democratic accountability, and the battle for the pound, a battle for democracy itself." Austin Mitchell thanked William Hague. He said that Congress was made up of different parties from all sides of the political spectrum as well as trades unions and business people. He stressed that it was important not to make party points against each other; the object was to develop a united front against Britain's membership of the single currency. Mr Mitchell continued, reminding those present that the last Congress had agreed to commission research on attitudes towards the euro, on what the public thought and the grounds on which a campaign could be mounted against the euro. Research International Qualitatif had been commissioned to undertake the research, and he introduced Nick Spencer and Jane Gwilliam to present the results of that research. Several key points arose out of the research which was conducted across regions, socio-economic groups and political persuasions: people in general were eurosceptic but they were also unconfident in their views. They thought we would join the single currency over their heads and against their wishes. The research pointed towards the need for people's gut feelings and emotions to be backed up with more information about the credibility of the alternative to joining the Euro. Austin Mitchell commented that it was reassuring to hear about the basic attitudes but worrying to learn of the lack of confidence and the feeling that there was an inevitability about the euro. He invited comments from the floor. The Rt Hon Michael Howard QC MP He saw the research findings as a warning. He had noticed in some recent comments in the press that there was a tendency to argue that the battle was more or less won and that our opponents were in retreat; the implication was that we could relax and rest on our laurels. This was wholly and completely misleading, and the presentation supported that view. It remained the intention of the Government to hold a referendum early in the next Parliament - we should not be fooled. We had to press the positive case for keeping the pound, the positive case for survival as an independent nation state. The Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Chairman, Campaign for Independent Britain He said he was interested to hear of the widespread ignorance about issues of the euro and membership of the European Union. The recent elections had sent a message that people had doubts about progress towards European unity, and the information just received showed that people were with us; we had to build on that and make sure that they got the information they were looking for. It was quite clear that they were not getting it from the Government spin doctors, nor from the BBC or ITV. Our job was to make sure we got the message across. In his speech William Hague had urged people not to back-track from speaking up for Britain and the pound; if he went around the country speaking like that we should have a good hearing and a great success. He (Lord Stoddart) had been a member of the Labour Party for 50 years but he felt that this issue transcended party politics; the future governance of this country was more important than which party governed it. Tim Melville-Ross, Director-General, Institute of Directors He urged the use of the word "for" and not "against". Arguments for staying out of the euro included lower prices; European regulation and harmonisation led to higher costs and thus higher prices, contrary to the arguments used by those who wanted greater integration. Of course there was an alternative to joining the euro; we were the fourth largest trading nation on earth with much lower unemployment than other euro countries. We had a very strong case for staying as we were outside the single currency. John Haywood, Trade Unionists against the Single Currency He said that in the trade union movement things were beginning to go our way. He referred to a meeting held on 30th May in favour of the single currency at which practically every speaker throughout the debate had been against the single currency. Britain had the capacity to be independent. He preferred to have discussions with employers in Britain under British law rather than with European multinationals covered by European law. Roger Helmer, Conservative MEP He congratulated the European Research Group on the work done and the research company on its excellent research. Britain was not a third rank country. On the contrary we were the fourth largest economy in the world and had a great future as a global trading nation. The public feared that behind the EMU message there was a political agenda. He said he was delighted to be at the Congress for Democracy; he had been at a conference of EPP where Jacques Santer had confirmed the political agenda behind EMU. He wanted Europe to be a free trade area and nothing more. If the EU were reduced to a Common Market it would not need a Commission, Council of Ministers or Parliament. He would be happy to talk himself out of a job. David Hearnshaw, Chairman, Business for Sterling South He made the point that Business for Sterling had an important role; it had been successful in mobilising business against the Euro. Sixty per cent of businesses surveyed were against the Euro. Michael Holmes, UK Independence Party MEP He referred to an article in The Daily Telegraph that morning. If the Conservatives sat with the EPP in the European Parliament they would strangle themselves. UKIP would not be sitting with EPP. He saw a need to re-build confidence in our nation. The Conservative slogan was a contradiction in terms: cannot be in Europe and not run by Europe. Brian Prime, Federation of Small Businesses He reported that the regular Federation of Small Businesses survey showed that 86% of small businesses were against the single currency. He said it was a pleasure to attend such a congress which dealt with the main issues. While the talk was of economics the main issue was the political one. Congress was an oasis in the desert of deceit and propaganda. The nation and democracy were under threat as never before. Small businesses needed a commitment, undertaking and guarantee that democracy and sovereignty would not be surrendered. Howard Flight MP He found the results of the focus study fascinating because they translated politically. The comments telling us it was inevitable we would join the euro were a direct result of the two main parties being divided and soft on the euro issue for the last 25 years. What was now needed was strong leadership by one of the two main parties. The objective must be to win the war, not necessarily every battle. There was not yet a strong enough majority in this country which wished to resign from the European Union. There was a majority against the euro and he urged that the movement should aim to win that battle first and not risk losing it by jumping ahead too quickly. Strong leadership in British politics was needed now. People needed to be told the truth and they would follow. John Mills, Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign He commented that the euro might well fail. Signs of dissent were beginning to materialise, for example in Italy and Germany. Over the next 10 years more strains would emerge. Unemployment in particular was rising - currently over 10% in the euro area. Political parties were emerging which wanted to pull out altogether. The euro was a very high-risk strategy for the European enterprise. Bill Cash MP, European Foundation Britain was signed up to the European Union. The Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties had to be re-negotiated. We deceived ourselves if we believed that under the present Treaties we could maintain independence and govern ourselves. We were all subservient to Treaties. This was about the democracy of the UK and of Europe. We had saved Europe repeatedly over the last centuries and we could do it again. Lionel Bell, Anti-Maastricht Alliance He argued that if we were to succeed in preventing this country from heading into EMU and political union we would have to have an organisation to run our campaign. (i) In connection with Neill and the referendum campaign, public money would have to go to an organisation capable of receiving and accounting for it. The campaign did not have such an organisation, nor did the "yes" side. (ii) If faced with a challenge of argument the campaign needed to pull together and to have a single response; a variety of responses would give the other side the opportunity to divide and rule. The Prime Minister appeared to be preparing himself to launch a single movement. He warned that the Government attack would split us unless there was a united response. Summing up the discussion, Austin Mitchell commented that the research had shown that those involved in opposing the euro needed to be more positive, to put forward a positive alternative to the euro and to give people the information they said they lacked. Congress approved the following resolution: On the basis of the findings of the qualitative research undertaken for the Congress for Democracy, this Congress proposes that a substantive paper be produced for publication detailing the benefits to this country from Britain's remaining outside the single currency and keeping the pound. |
SESSION 2 |
| The Rt Hon Lord Shore of
Stepney, Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign He made the case for Britain to resist any further integration with the European Union. The exceptionally low turnout in the recent elections for the European Parliament demonstrated the public dislike of the regional closed list system of voting by proportional representation and British voters' contempt for the European Parliament, the European Commission and the whole structure of the European Union. He traced the beginning of the loss of UK democracy back to the negotiation of the Treaty of Accession in 1972, through the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam, claiming that the current position was that there remained hardly an aspect of UK affairs over which the European institutions did not possess exclusive or shared control. The inexorable process was from single economy to single government. The single currency was the most recent demonstration of the erosion of parliamentary democracy in this country, and he predicted that it would lead to demands for a fiscal union. He also reminded Congress of the aim that there should be a Single European Foreign and Security Policy and of recent calls for a Single European Army. Meanwhile, the European Parliament, which had started as a forum for the exchange of views by members of the national Parliaments, would continue to acquire more powers until it became equal in law-making and decision-making with the Council of Ministers. He stressed that in his view there could be no democracy in Europe as there was no such thing as a European people. Whereas there was a strong bond between the peoples of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland no such bond existed between the British people and the European partners in Continental Europe. The British people wanted friendship, alliance, co-operation, trade, investment and reasonable free movement with the Continental neighbours, but not union, integration and the single state. Sir Michael Spicer thanked Lord Shore and introduced Frederick Forsyth to speak on the Neill Commission and Referendums. Frederick Forsyth The British had managed to govern themselves, for some 300 years, with parliamentary democracy. We had first used the referendum in 1975 and now found ourselves in an era where it was being used a great deal (four times in the last two years). Referendums had been used in various parts of the world, eg the Commonwealth. Among the reasons for giving the referendum to people abroad was to discover how and by whom they wished to be governed; we in Britain had never envisaged the day when we would need to ask ourselves the same question. That would appear to have changed. Now there was a need for standards for referendums. General elections were girt about by rules and regulations all intended to ensure that our elections were scrupulously fair. It was therefore ridiculous and unacceptable that the referendum, which was as important as a general election, was still unregulated. What was urgently needed was a constitutional commission in the form of an adjudicatory body. Examples of the questions it should answer included the following: When and
under what circumstances should a national referendum be deemed mandatory? What
issues should be subject to a referendum? What about
regional referendums? Who should
frame the vital question? Who should
be eligible to vote? May two
different questions be included in the same question? - PR had been included in the Welsh
and Scottish referendums. What
should be the minimum gaps between referendums asking the same question? What
provision should be made for a change of mind by the population regretting a decision and
wanting to change after a short period? Was there
a case for making voting in a referendum compulsory? - Should there be a requirement of a
50% minimum including abstentions? If state
money was involved who should adjudicate as to which bodies truly represented the
competing views of each campaign?Robert McCartney MP, Leader, UK Unionist Party He described the referendum as the tool of dictators. There had recently been a referendum in Northern Ireland and democracy had been treated abominably by the use of Government funding and propaganda to produce the result the Government wanted. He urged Congress to learn from the experience of the referendum in Northern Ireland about the techniques and technologies of persuasion available to the Government. David Green, Liberal Party The Liberals wanted to get out of the European Union. He warned that the day Tony Blair called a referendum on the euro our cause was lost; he would not call it unless he thought he could win it. The campaign needed to prevent Tony Blair ever calling that referendum by marshalling arguments and resources to fight. The Liberal Party needed a clearing house to channel ideas in support of this campaign. He said he would like to go to his national executive committee and say Congress had decided how to prevent the referendum being held. Michael Shrimpton, Barrister, Constitutional Law Mr Shrimpton reminded congress that a referendum could only be called by Parliament: terms would be determined by Parliament, not just the House of Commons but the House of Lords also, and the House of Lords was in a strong position. It would not be right to have just one question - the issue of the single currency went far beyond the currency. It was about (i) Abolishing the pound (ii) Controlling interest rates (iii) Taking taxation powers away from Parliament (iv) Transferring reserves It should only be valid if there were positive answers to all four. In his view, positive answers would have to be given by two-thirds of those voting. We could not have a repetition of the farce of the Welsh and Scottish referendums when a very low electorate gave approval for major constitutional changes. Patrick Nicholls MP, Opposition front-bench spokesman He returned to the focus group finding that there was a feeling among the public of the inevitability of joining the single currency. There was a need to get over to those who did not want to join the euro that they were not alone and to give people the confidence to back their own instincts. It was not within our gift to decide whether we had a referendum - it was up to the Prime Minister. He warned that the Prime Minister would phrase the question in such a way as to get the answer he wanted. It would be up to the campaign to make sure he got the answer the country wanted. Once the country had made a decision not to go into a single currency the relationship with the EU would have changed forever. Brian Farmer, Business for Sterling He felt that the Congress for Democracy had to have a public face. There needed to be re-consideration of the decision not to form an "umbrella" organisation. Darryl Godbold, skipper, fishing industry He stated that the fishing and farming industries had been shattered by the European Union. Pamela Barden, Labour Euro-Safeguards She reported that a "People's Conference" had been funded by the EU, but the people had not been invited. She had not been allowed in as an individual. Those attending had to be nominated by organisations funded by Europe. John Bercow MP, Opposition front-bench spokesman He asked whether it was extreme to be opposed to handing over control of interest rates and taxes permanently to people we did not elect and could not remove. He argued that it made sense to focus our efforts on the single currency. We needed to work together to defeat the Government on the biggest threat that we faced. Rodney Atkinson, Campaign for UK Conservatism He felt that the Congress for Democracy should try to challenge attempts to subvert the purpose of education. Euroquest (being circulated in schools) was evil propaganda whose purpose was to destroy what remained of our national identity. Shirley Marler, Democracy Movement She urged that we must get out people at the grass roots; supporters of the Democracy Movement were 100,000 strong. Martin Harvey, Democratic Party The Government had control of the media; propaganda was the problem we faced. Whilst we were continuing the battle for the pound regionalisation was going on and an alternative legal system was arising without access to juries. There would no doubt be continued harmonisation and increases in taxation even if we were allowed to keep the pound. What were we to do? Renegotiate? How? The only way to bring democracy back to our country was to withdraw from the political side of the European Union. Howard Pedraza, Anti-Common Market League He suggested setting up a small committee headed by Frederick Forsyth to consider how to prevent the referendum, if and when it came, from being a biased "trap". Idris Francis He stressed the necessity to safeguard freedom and democracy in this country. William Hague had made an excellent speech; every reason he had given applied to getting out of the European Union altogether. At the end of the discussion Sir Michael Spicer invited Congress to consider a resolution relating to the conduct of the referendum. He also commented that Frederick Forsyth had said that he would be prepared to take this matter forward. Congress then voted and passed the following resolution: Congress stresses the need for an independent standing commission to regulate the referendum on the single currency and the appropriate majority threshold, to ensure fairness in respect of funding and access to the media and the electorate, and to insist on fair and appropriate wording of the questions. Congress therefore suggests the proposals for the Commission's role should be developed to be put before the next Congress. |
SESSION 3 - Closed Session |
| Sir Michael Spicer asked
Congress to consider where we went from now onwards. After the informal discussion it was agreed: To hold a
third Congress for Democracy on Friday, 10th December; To set up
an agenda-setting committee which would be as widely representative as possible.The matters which would need to be discussed by the Agenda Committee in preparation for the next Congress were: (i) A report from the sub-committee under Frederick Forsyth looking at Referendum rules; (ii) Co-operation with interested parties in European countries which were not part of the single currency; (iii) A report from trade unionists opposed to the single currency; (iv) A report on the positive alternative to British membership of the single currency; (v) The proposal for a rapid response unit. |
CONGRESS FOR
DEMOCRACY, 58 KESWICK ROAD, GREAT BOOKHAM, SURREY, KT23 4BH |
 |