Peter Rabinowitz, who says public health researchers surveyed nearly adults and children in Washington County, southwest of Pittsburgh. Tomorrow, Scots will vote on possible independence from England, one of the most important issues facing the Scottish people and their heritage. We'll talk with Ron Linden, director of the European Studies Center and professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh.
Along with John Kelman, one of the many natives of Scotland living in the Pittsburgh area, about which way he'd like to see the vote go. A gathering of the clans will take place this weekend at the Ligonier Highland Festival. These topics air Tuesday September 16, at noon and 8pm on With so much of our everyday tasks being done online is it taking a toll on our health? The Miracle Field of Murrysville is a special baseball field constructed for anyone age 10 and older with physical or mental challenges.
Harold Hicks, former president of the Murrysville Rotary Club helped to make it a reality. These topics air Monday September 15, at noon and 8pm on The revelation of her cancer diagnosis has resulted in a Hopewell woman being laid off by her employer, a Beaver County oral surgeon. She was informed of her layoff via a letter which has been posted online and gone viral.
In September of a gathering of delegates from across the United States and its territories took place in Pittsburgh.
Chuck Norris can speak braile.
These topics air Friday September 12, at noon and 8pm on The neighborhood of Lawrenceville was established years ago, by the father of Stephen Foster. In that time the riverside area has seen an interesting range of people, events and industries which helped shape American history and culture. On Friday the th anniversary will be commemorated with movies and lectures presented by the Lawrenceville Historic Society, at the Row House Cinema. While the music is the big draw, the organizers say the goal of the festival is to provide an outlet for entrepreneurs to get the word out on their projects as well as the opportunity to bring major national music acts to the city.
It was fifty years ago Sunday that the Beatles performed at the Civic Arena, their one and only appearance in Pittsburgh. We'll talk with legendary concert promoter Pat DiCesare, who brought the band to town and is producing this weekend's 50th anniversary events. Also joining us in studio is Chuck Brinkman, a former KQV disc jockey who introduced the Beatles on stage on that memorable night in Is arts education being cut at national and local levels?
If so, is it being done equitably? What role do community arts organizations play in arts education? Can arts education be saved by incorporating it into other disciplines? These topics air Wednesday September 10, at noon and 8pm on Like any new city mayor, Bill Peduto has a whole lot on his plate, and room for creative decisions. Share your thoughts with us on these topics. However, can that civic pride result in turning a blind eye to ongoing issues such as race, transportation and poverty?
These topics air Tuesday September 9, at noon and 8pm on Many open questions remain as the deliberations move forward and the details of the agreement emerge. How will this play out? We'll talk with Dr. This week WESA and the Allegheny Front are airing a special series on hydraulic fracturing and state politics — specifically the money spent on lobbying. In addition, as the population ages the need for people trained health professions, such as physical therapy increases.
This week contributor Rebecca Harris looks at the business of physical therapy. These topics air Monday September 8, at noon and 8pm on We'll talk with Benton Becker, former special counsel to President Ford, whom Ford sent to California to negotiate the pardon with the embattled ex-president. American Afterlife: Encounters in the Customs of Mourning is a provocative book looking at the way Americans mourn, with particular emphasis on the ongoing evolution of how we pay tribute to our deceased loved ones, i.
The book's author Kate Sweeney joins us in studio. However, men can suffer from it as well. In his memoir Shattered Image, our guest Brian Cuban chronicles his battles with bulimia as well as his addictions to alcohol, cocaine and steroids. He joins us in Studio A to discuss his struggles and recovery. These topics air Friday September 5, at noon and 8pm on Film production in Pennsylvania, and the Pittsburgh area in particular is an important economic driver. But with annual limits to the tax credits available, how competitive does the region remain?
Dawn Keezer, Director of the Pittsburgh Film Office joins us to talk about the state of movie production in the region. The film tells the story of former Pirates pitcher Dock Ellis, who pitched a no-hitter on June 12, - while under the influence of LSD. After retiring he became a counselor, helping other addicts in their recoveries. We'll talk with director Jeffrey Radice. Post-Gazette Sportswriter emeritus Bob Dvorchak joins us to discuss the Steelers' regular season opener as well as the possible outcome for two Steelers players who were stopped for marijuana possession.
Also, the NFL takes a stronger stance on domestic violence. These topics air Thursday September 4, at noon and 8pm on The August Wilson Center's future remains uncertain, but a group of community volunteers and activists have been holding community meetings to formulate a plan for a new August Wilson Center. We'll talk with Group leader Janera Solomon and committee member E.
Throughout his career Forman has spoken and written extensively on Jewish history and public policy. He will discuss the reported global rise in anti-Semitic sentiment and activity. Before the boys of summer give way to the athletes of autumn, travel contributor Elaine Labalme has some sporting travel ideas. From following the Pirates to destinations within driving distance to college football and pre-season hockey, she stops by Studio A with some fall sports travel suggestions. These topics air Wednesday September 3, at noon and 8pm on The good news for the commonwealth is that is has seen an increase in job growth and a decrease in the unemployment rate.
However, a recent report by the Keystone Research Center indicates Pennsylvania falls below other states when it comes to job growth. These topics air Tuesday September 2, at noon and 8pm on In two months Pennsylvanians will head to the polls. As the gubernatorial heads into its final phase, will Tom Corbett break the streak of PA governors serving a second term?
And, what would a win by Democratic challenger Tom Wolf mean for the commonwealth? The past year has seen a number of news stories about safety on college campuses. Campus safety was one of the motivating forces behind the development of the personal safety device Whistl. Here to tell us more about its creation and use is one of its developers, Jayon Wang, CEO and Co-founder of LifeShel, a device company creating smartphone cases. Is there money to made from this ranking and if so by whom? These topics air Friday August 29, at noon and 8pm on But with transportation funding legislation approved by the legislature and Governor Tom Corbett last fall, the authority plans to add more frequent service to some of the busiest routes.
As campaign season shifts into high gear, Pennsylvania voters are being inundated with political messaging. From television commercials to social media to live debates He talks about the strategy and the psychology behind political messaging. When Overwhelmingly, people wanted to hear a conversation with Etta Cetera, a prison justice activist and performance artist who married the city of Pittsburgh earlier this summer. Etta joins us to talk about why she married the city and how it ties in with her advocacy work. Hickton and his team have investigated the Pitt bombing threats and the PNC denial of service attacks.
Their recent work has resulted in the indictment of Chinese military hackers. Some of the nicest views of Pittsburgh and the night sky can be found at the Allegheny Observatory. Electronic technician and administrator Lou Coban takes guest host Andy Conte on a behind the scenes tour of the building from the rooftop to the telescopes to something you might not expect to find in the basement. These topics air Wednesday August 27, at noon and 8pm on Kevin Gavin guest hosts for Paul Guggenheimer. Westminster College has been awarded a grant through the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation to increase qualifications of secondary educators in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
We'll speak with Dr. In an increasingly global job market how do you attract and maintain the best talent? What if that talent isn't local but global? Those were some of the questions posed at the Governor's Jobs 1st Summit held here in Pittsburgh. Immigration attorney and former U. We'll discover how his breakup is going to benefit others especially the charity Surgicorps founded by Dr. Jack Demos who also joins us in Studio A.
These topics air Tuesday August 26, at noon and 8pm on Senator Bob Casey is laying out a plan to reduce a claims backlog that has impacted residents throughout the region.
He recently chaired a hearing to explore the challenges that former coal miners are dealing with. When Fenice and Nicola Mercurio moved to the United States from Italy decades ago, they brought their cooking traditions as well as a knowledge of Mediterranean gardening. As members of Pittsburgh's Italian Garden Project, the Mercurios and project founder Mary Menniti hold events and demonstrations in order to pass along their Italian heritage. Join us for a visit to the Mercurio garden, and hear about late summer cocktail pairings from contributor Hal B. Carolyn Hare has been an advocate for those with autism for more than 20 years, but she never realized how providing a creative outlet could have such an impact on their lives.
The visit resulted in her starting the Arts for Autism Foundation of Pittsburgh. This week contributor Rebecca Harris looks at the business of school lunches. These topics air Monday August 25, at noon and 8pm on New kindergarten students at ten Pittsburgh Public Schools will be welcomed on the first day of school by groups of parents and supportive volunteers as well as the "Ready Freddy" green frog mascot, the symbol of the program developed by Pitt's Office of Child Development that helps make the first day of kindergarten easier for little ones.
Ken Smythe-Leistico, assistant director of Pitt's Office of Child Development joins us in studio to talk about the program. How can students set themselves up for jobs, internships, fellowships and service opportunities after graduation? He joins us for a preview. Pittsburgh's Urban Forest As the colors of autumn entice us to do some foliage watching, many people in Pittsburgh need look no further than their nearby neighborhoods.
Standing Firm October is domestic violence awareness month. Future Fair The once traditional path of graduating from high school, going to college or work and getting on with your life is no longer the standard way of doing things. Pre-holiday Travel Tips While you may not want to think about it — the holidays will soon be upon us.
Shenango Coke Works The Shenango Coke works on Neville Island has consistently violated local clean air regulations leading some citizens to ask why the Allegheny County Health Department doesn't shut the plant down. These topics air Tuesday September 30, at noon and 8pm on The Future of Google in Pittsburgh Google has been growing in Pittsburgh since , fueled by our local talent, the universities and collaborations with the startup community. HeadSmart Labs. HeadSmart Labs Carnegie Mellon mechanical engineering student Tom Healy has been a punter for the Tartans throughout his college career.
Holder Resigns On the heels of the resignation of U. Ask This Old House. The Invisible Danger Posed by Our Aging Natural Gaslines In the last 10 years, accidents involving gas distribution lines killed more than people and injured more than Johnny Appleseed You may not recognize the name John Chapman from your history books. Etna's Green Masterplan The borough of Etna recently debuted its green infrastructure plan. Salary Negotiation Conversations about money are never easy.
The Manhunt Continues As the search continues for the man accused of ambushing two state troopers more than a week ago, killing one and wounding another, we'll get an update on the manhunt from AP reporter Michael Rubinkam. Firearms in Schools? First, they claimed that Britain's adherence to the social chapter would place jobs at risk. It is touching to find the Chancellor worried about losing jobs in Britain. He was the man who said that unemployment was a price well worth paying.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said: The Government will not support proposals that would destroy jobs". On unemployment, the tears shed by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a crocodile seem sincere. Then, last week, came the next excuse. Yesterday, under pressure, the Prime Minister admitted that the right to strike was excluded from the provisions of the social chapter. That of course is true. It was equally true last week. Why, then, did the Prime Minister last week quote the number of days lost in strikes in and compare that figure with the number lost last year—a recession year, a John Major recession year—and why did he go on to say after Maastricht: I was not prepared to see that record"— the record on strikes— put in jeopardy"?
Even by the Prime Minister's standards, the argument is totally illogical. That is why the Government have been retreating on this issue, abandoning their claim that the social chapter would affect trade union legislation here while trying to leave an impression that it would.
The latest form of words was provided in an address to Tory candidates last week by the Foreign Secretary—a master of obfuscation if ever there was one. Gentleman told the Tory candidates: The trouble about the social chapter is not that it tells us to repeal our industrial relations legislation but that it once again edges industrial relations into that field.
It's the way he tells 'em, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether just Conservative Members have been wondering vainly whether the right hon. Gentleman will say something about his party's policy, or whether he will continue doing that at which he is best—waspish criticism of everything that the Government do. A few days ago, I contemplated asking the right hon. Gentleman to give me a photograph of him to include in my election address, on the basis that it might help me.
Having listened to his speech, I am sure that it would. Gentleman be so kind as to let me have a photograph so that I can put it in my election address and so that the people of my constituency can see that the choice that they have to make at the next election is between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary? I have been in the House of Commons with the hon.
Gentleman since we were elected on the same day and I must resist making the right response to what he said. The Tories want to join up with the Euro Christian Democrat group—the European People's party—but Karl Von Wogau, the economic spokesman for that party, said of social policy this week: We believe very strongly in a model that leads to consensus. A social consensus is economically advantageous, as well.mta-sts.mail.romanoguerra.com.br/72-geschaeft-hydroxychloroquin-400mg.php
Calaméo - RLNonfiction13b
The Foreign Secretary said today that the social charter may suit others, but not this Government. The others whom the social charter suits include those Tories in Europe with whom the Government's MEPs are vainly trying to join. The Government have lost all hope of running a competitive economy on the base of good working conditions and good pay. They do not seem to understand that the most successful industrial economies—Germany and Japan—thrive precisely because they provide their workers with good conditions and good pay, but Britain's economic success and prosperity are the last considerations in the Government's mind.
The Government are ready to sacrifice the country's best interests inside the Community to buy off a few right-wing Tory Back Benchers. In our last debate before Maastricht the Foreign Secretary perorated about our constituents—"Our constituents want this" and "Our constituents want that". It is time that the Government enabled our constituents to say for themselves what they want in Europe and enabled them to vote in a general election for a Labour Government so that Britain can go forward in Europe and can get a new start. The kindest thing that I can say about the speech that the House has just heard from the spokesman for the official Opposition on an occasion of such importance is that it filled me with disgust.
At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Kaufman referred to a rare venture by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary into party politics. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was going to venture out of party politics, but, once more, we found that that is the only subject on which he can speak. It was perfectly clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman had never gone through serious international negotiations.
The way in which the Government have conducted the negotiations is as successful as any international negotiations that I have seen in nearly 40 years of experience of international affairs. I shall refer in particular to three British initiatives, which have not been much discussed by the House, but which were all successful—and they are just three of a number of successful British initiatives. I have supported closer European unity for most of my life, but I wish to say something critical about the Commission. I believe that its actions over the years have been responsible, perhaps more than anything else, for the suspicions in the minds of many of our compatriots about the European Community.
I believe that one of the Government's achievements has been to get an agreement which holds out the prospect of reducing the power of the Commission. The Commission has demonstrated an insatiable appetite for expanding its power. I will give the House some examples. Why should the Commission think it right to legislate as to when British farmers may shoot pigeons which might ravage their crops? The Commission would allow them to shoot pigeons for only two months in the year—and the wrong two months.
Why should the Commission wish to legislate to limit the amount of water in our lavatory cisterns? Why should it wish to legislate on the flavour of the potato crisps that we produce? Why should it wish to legislate about which side of one of our country towns a bypass should go—north or south? Such matters have absolutely no relevance for other countries in the European Community. That is not federalism , but something much worse—it is centralism.
In the United States, those matters would be subjects not for Washington, but for Wisconsin, Massachusetts or California. Here, however, in a Europe of 12 separate countries, the Commission is trying to legislate in a centralised fashion. If it were a question of migratory birds which visit many countries in Europe, or acid rain spreading from one country to another, that would be a proper case for Commission action.
The Government are to be congratulated on the successful insertion into the agreement of the reference to decisions being taken as close as possible to the citizen, and on the inclusion of article 3B which spells out the principle of subsidiarity.
- The Terrible Twins.
- Good Questions Have Groups Talking -- Jeremiah?
- Reward Yourself?
I also congratulate the Government on establishing the concept of the three pillars in relation to action on foreign policy: crime, immigration and home affairs. I hate to think what would be the prospect if we had Community action on those subjects. There was at one time a proposal that that should be the case, but the Government succeeded in having it removed.
In general, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House, unanimity will be required in relation to foreign policy. Member for Gorton clearly misunderstood the arrangements that have been made. I believe that the agreement is better than the former proposal under which, in foreign affairs, decisions on policy would require unanimity but implementation would be subject to a qualified majority vote.
I believe that that arrangement would have led to complete confusion. I draw the analogy with the understanding that has existed between my wife and me during 37 years of marriage as to who takes the decisions. I take the big decisions and she takes the little decisions, but we have still not decided after 37 years how we decide which are the big decisions and which are the little decisions.
We are still working on that. On foreign policy we would have faced a similar situation under the original proposals in the earlier Dutch draft. I believe that we have a satisfactory arrangement as a result of the Government's initiative. It is likely to be more effective in practice because in matters of foreign policy the major European countries would not have accepted foreign policy decided by majority voting if they had been in a minority. In addition, the agreement is more suitable if we wish in future years to see the accession of European Free Trade Association countries and the countries of eastern Europe.
The Government's third success deals with another factor which causes annoyance to an increasing number of our citizens, as they realise that while we obey the rules laid down by the European Community other member countries do not. It is significant that, at the end of , only one out of 80 cases before the European Court of Justice affected this country. I refer to the agreement reached, on a British initiative, that in future the European Court will be able to levy fines on countries which fail to carry out their obligations.
Her Majesty's Government have been right on monetary union and the social chapter. They also deserve credit for the three achievements that I have mentioned—limiting the power of the Commission, the arrangements for foreign policy and Home Office affairs, and the European Court's ability to levy fines on errant member states.
Those were all British initiatives, and I congratulate the Government on them. Member for Blackpool, South Sir P. Blaker gave us a touching example of partnership in his account of his relationship with his wife, but he may not have realized that in so doing he touched on one of the fundamentals of another matter that he mentioned—the question of subsidiarity. I was privileged to be present at the congress—the so-called assize—in Rome a year ago and I related a well-known story about the very effective partnership between Mr.
A friend asked them, "How is it that you get on so well? What happens if you disagree? If we do, we have a good rule: I decide on matters of principle and my wife decides on matters of execution. How do you decide then? Member for Blackpool, South rightly raised the subject of subsidiarity. My charge is that the Prime Minister and the Government have, either advertently or inadvertently, misled themselves or misled the nation on the nature of article 3b of the treaty that we are being asked to approve.
I raised the matter yesterday with the Prime Minister , because in his carefully prepared speech he referred to an article that specifically enshrines the crucial concept that the Community should undertake only those measures that could not be achieved at a national level". Then, in response to my intervention , he said: If it can better be done at national level, it ought not to he done at Community level. I believe that the CBI and others interpret the whole concept of subsidiarity in the nutshell of the phrase that the Prime Minister used.
Indeed, there has been a successful campaign—I shall not say a sales campaign, although it has been something of the—sort all round the world. It has gone so far that the right hon. Member for Selby Mr. Alison said last night: The ready and instinctive way in which our constituents reach out for rulings from the European Court illustrates the way in which the man in the street benefits from the principle of the separation of powers, of which the Community treaties are a manifestation.
Gentleman declined to give way to me at that point—understandably, in view of the minute limit on speeches—and continued: The principle of the separation of powers, which is enshrined in what we are currently negotiating, gives real scope for not less but greater freedom. Gentleman claimed that there was a principle of the separation of powers.
I think that he was wrong, but many people outside the House hold the same view. I shall quote from Mr. Baker—not the right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton Mr. Even the United States Secretary of State has either been misinformed or has not read the treaty. There is no separation of powers in the treaty of Rome, in the Single European Act or in the treaty before us. There are, of course, provisions which permit powers and vires to be exercised, but there is no topic, "separation of powers", as there would be in a true federation.
Through some process which I cannot define, describe or analyse, many Conservative Members—several of whom have spoken in the debate—and the United States Secretary of State believe that a principle exists in the treaty, although that principle is not there. I quoted from the treaty yesterday, but I shall do it again because this is such a crucial matter. In the words of article 3b, subsidiarity, such as it is, will apply only to areas which do not fall within its"— that is, the Community's— exclusive jurisdiction". When I asked the Minister of State, the hon. Garel-Jones , last night if he could define or find out where the exclusive jurisdiction lay, he was unable to do so and quoted a broad part of the article.
As the House will hear, he gave an ineffective reply. He quoted this passage: Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty. There lies the clue. Article after article of the treaty says what should be decided centrally and that regulations relating to such topics which bypass Parliament entirely should be applied throughout the Community, including this country.
I am glad that the right hon. Howe is with us tonight. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup Mr. Heath is not here. When those two were advocating our entry into the Community, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that the Queen would not be affected. However, every central power and every regulation issued from Brussels bypasses Parliament. It does not go with the advice and consent of the Commons and the Lords Temporal ; it does not go to the Crown for an initial.
It is as though this place did not exist. In , the right hon. We heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East Mr. Paice , who had been involved with the common agricultural policy. I wonder whether he realised that from the moment the treaty came into effect on 1 January there was no longer a British agricultural policy. The drab uniformity and detailed regulations which he rightly criticised in his interesting speech last night applied from that moment on to the United Kingdom in the realm of agriculture—to the way in which man relates to the soil.
That could hardly he more fundamental to our basic existence. It was as if a rural byway had been constructed round the House which was not noticed. Nor was it noticed that the control had gone, because after that qualified majority voting applied to all agricultural matters. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not come back and say, "I am sorry, I was outvoted", but we are getting to that stage now.
That is what happened in agriculture and fisheries negotiations from onwards. The Single European Act continued the trend because the scope of central decision making was widened still further. In the debate on 21 November , I charged the right hon. Thatcher with misunderstanding the Act. I said that she may have misunderstood it, or she may have been misinformed, or she understood it and did not tell the House about it. Perhaps we shall have some enlightenment from the right hon.
He introduced the Single European Act at the Dispatch Box and spoke about streamlining and getting things through quicker. He knows that the criterion for the single market was the elimination of frontiers. If frontiers are eliminated in relation to any commercial matter, to any matter of specification or to any matter concerning markets, adjudication and the source of law are transferred from 12 centres to one. I think that the right hon.
Member for Finchley did not understand the importance and power of articles 8A and A. I must confess that, despite being a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation which studied the Act, I did not spot the explosive mixture of article 8A and article A. I charge the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in saying that the Queen was not affected when in fact the Queen in Parliament was eliminated, and, secondly, with coming before the House with the Single European Act without either fully explaining it to us or, if he did, not knowing the effect of it. We now come to the third instalment in the dismemberment of the United Kingdom Parliament and the power of its people—the so-called "treaty of union".
The treaty of union may be called the Maastricht treaty, but, as the House may know, it should really be called the treaty of Rome-Maastricht because in the two green volumes containing the treaty of union and the treaty on economic and monetary union, almost all the articles relate to amendments to the treaty of Rome. We shall have one small treaty of Maastricht and one much enlarged, beefed-up and fundamental treaty of Rome which will really be a union treaty.
It will be the treaty of the constitution of the European union which is why it refers to European union. I come back to my earlier point about Sidney Webb. The treaty will have almost entire power over almost everything that we can think of which has been so far the ultimate responsibility of the House. One day we shall ask the Attorney-General where the scope of the treaty does not run. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton Mr.
Kaufman efficiently gave us the list of areas affected which included culture, education and health. One can have reports on health and desirable standards, but how far does that go when it comes to voting money? In the Select Committee, we have seen what happens. We receive a report about the topic, then we get a programme of research, then a programme of co-operation and then legislation.
We see the assumption of powers to an unprecedented and unforeseen degree. Just as I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup misled us about the powers of the Crown and the constitution, and just as I think that the right hon. When people come to us in our surgeries to ask about prospective legislation about which they have read in the newspapers, they will say, "What can you do about it?
We will tell the Minister what we want, but there is qualified majority voting. We cannot stop it. Members will have to tell them to go to their MEP because in the new treaty there is a long-stop in co-decision. How many people will come to us when they have heard that? We all know that people will go where decisions are made. We have here a treaty whose consequences I have tried to paint in a fair and objective way.
However, just as in the past we have had two versions and the results have been unexpected, even by those who promoted the treaties, so it will be with this treaty, if it is endorsed. The House will lose its powers and so will the voters who sent us here. It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South Mr. Spearing in a European debate.
As a member of European Standing Committee B, the material for which is supplied by the Select Committee on European Legislation of which he is Chairman, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to his tremendous work for us and for the House as a whole in that context. I add my most sincere and warmest congratulations to the Prime Minister and to the Government on the extraordinary and remarkable treaty which they brought home from Maastricht.
I cannot recall any major international negotiation on which one party came away with per cent. That appears to have happened on this occasion—. That great achievement is clearly the result of two factors. The first is the remarkable negotiating skill of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The second, which is no less important, is the willingness of our European partners to go a long way to accommodate us. That in itself is a reflection of the tremendous success of the personal diplomacy in which the Prime Minister has been engaged in Europe since he took office a year ago.
As a result of those two factors, we have not only a treaty which allows us the two major derogations that have played such a major part in our debate so far, but a treaty whose architecture and contents have British fingerprints all over them. The architecture is the intergovernmental structure on which I know that the Government set so much store. Let me take three important elements from the contents. The first is the convergence criteria for economic and monetary union, which is an extremely well worked out British proposal which has been accepted by our partners.
The second is the proposal that, for the first time, non-compliers with Community directives should be fined for their non-compliance. That has also been accepted. That, incidentally, gives the lie to the suggestion that British proposals are always of a centrifugal nature when they are not deliberately obstructive. This is a very integrationist proposal, but one which, I am glad to say, is also characteristically pragmatic and sensible.
The third is the concept of subsidiarity which we, as the whole world knows, were instrumental, together with the Germans, in bringing into the treaty. I should like to highlight four aspects of the treaty, of which the first is subsidiarity. The subsidiarity clause establishes a new and promising basis for the evolution of the Community.
One thing that will flow from that is that the institutions of the Community will he able to concentrate on their own extremely important jobs instead of feeling that they have to justify their existence by continuing to extend indefinitely the periphery of their activities and interfering in the competence of individual member states.
I hope that we shall shortly see an end to the kind of nonsense with which European Standing Committee B had to cope yesterday morning when we were discussing draft resolutions and recommendations on sexual harassment. I cannot think of a less justifiable waste of the Commission's bureaucratic resources than that, or of a more inappropriate interference in the area of proper competence of nation states.
I hope that from now on we shall begin to get from the European Court of Justice what I call "negative jurisprudence" and that the court will feel able, on the basis of the subsidiarity clause, to throw out initiatives which are inappropriate to and inconsistent with subsidiarity. I hope that we shall then not only have the existing positive jurisprudence, but negative jurisprudence also, with clear guidelines to remove the possibilities for mutual suspicion and disagreement between the member states and the European Community and its institutions, from which we have already suffered too much.
In that context, I hope also that subsidiarity will begin to reduce the suspicion that some hon. Members of all parties continue to have about everything that comes out of Brussels. I hope especially that that will help people to see that there is no fundamental conflict between our role and our constitutional importance and those of the European Parliament. Under subsidiarity, it is clear that we, the individual member states, decide what functions should be devolved to the Community and what functions should be properly exercised by it because they can be exercised more effectively at Community level.
Once the essential decision on giving a certain function to the Community has been made, the question of the weightings between the different institutions of the Community in the way in which they take decisions and carry out responsibilities within their area of competence is not a matter involving any further loss of competence or sovereignty of this House. We and the European Parliament exist on separate planes. We each have our own roles. It is fundamental nonsense to believe that there is some kind of zero sum game between ourselves and the European Parliament and that an increase in its powers is made necessarily at the expense of ours, and vice versa.
I hope that we shall be able to discard that illusion. The second aspect that I should like to highlight is foreign policy. That must be the pre-eminent area in which we can be most effective as a Community. As an individual country, our scope for bringing our influence to bear and affecting the future course of events in different parts of the world is minimal and, in many cases, non-existent.
However, as a Community we are enormously powerful. We are potentially one of the world's superpowers. If anybody came to this globe from Mars to study human affairs, especially in the political area, he would be enormously struck by the contrast between the economic Community which has been an economic superpower for some time, and the fact that, as a political power, the Community remains a minnow.
That can and must change. In the next century, I should like to see the European Community or the European Union—as we may come to call it—become one of the world's superpowers. Along with the United States and Japan, it should form one of the three essential poles of stability, prosperity and civilisation on this earth. To me, that is a noble and worthwhile goal, but we can achieve it only by developing effective mechanisms for a common foreign policy. I do not pretend that I am totally satisfied with what is in the treaty on that subject or that I regard it as the last word.
I am not totally confident that the Presidency acting alone will, in all cases, be able to provide either the resources or the continuity to enable us to develop that effective and coherent foreign policy. Although the Commission is not totally excluded from that area of the treaty, its restricted role introduces an element of artificiality. In foreign policy, it is unnatural to distinguish between the political and the diplomatic on the one hand and the economic on the other.
Given that the Commission has responsibility for economic and trade policy and, if need be, for trade sanctions, it cannot be sensible to keep it out of the formulation of a common foreign policy. However, one must be grateful for the substantial step forward that has been taken, and I am. I hope that we can celebrate the introduction of limited qualified majority voting by overriding the unacceptable Danish veto which, at present, is preventing the European Community from lifting its sanctions on South Africa.
Through my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary , who is now on the Treasury Bench, I should like to express to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary my hope that we can inaugurate a common foreign policy by bringing our influence to bear on the events in Yugoslavia rather more effectively than we have up to now. Serbian aggression against Croatia has, up to now, been unrestrained and unsanctioned.
Tens of thousands of people have already been killed. If it continues, the figure may be hundreds of thousands before long. The cities of Croatia have been destroyed, including Split and Dubrovnik, which are among the most historic in Europe. The third aspect that I wish to highlight is the social chapter. I believe that the 11 have scored an own goal and that we have scored a remarkable coup— [Laughter.
Member for Durham, North Mr. Radice ; he laughs, but I hope that he will listen to what I am about to say, with which I believe that he will find it difficult to take issue. I shall outline three simple propositions and should like to know with which one, in practice, he or any of his right hon. Friends wish to take issue. The first proposition is that one cannot regulate oneself into prosperity. The second is that if one starts to regulate the conditions and the maximum hours of work, one starts to affect the cost of labour, the demand for labour and how competitive one's businesses are.
By definition, if one reduces working hours, one also reduces productivity, output, the demand for labour and, therefore, the country's level of employment. Those are simple propositions. My third proposition is that if the Community as a whole decides to reduce its average productivity it will be less competitive than not only the other industrialised countries, such as Japan and North America , but the newly industrialised countries, and investment, whether from foreign or Community investors, will tend to go to other places.
We shall thus undermine the basis of our future jobs and prosperity. Could one not argue that Germany regulated itself into prosperity? By making generous social provisions, Germany created the industrial climate that has enabled it to be highly competitive. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Germany achieved, through free market policies—policies which this country began to implement only in the s—the highest productivity levels in Europe in the s and s.
It then decided to appropriate some of those productivity gains by means of social legislation. I accept that Germany has the least to fear from the introduction of the social chapter. The Germans, Dutch and other northern European countries are imposing on the rest of the Community the industrial costs which they have already accepted and which they can withstand because of their high productivity. Anyone who seriously wants the Community to move forward to monetary union and a single currency must think seriously about the consequences of the social chapter on the potential viability of a single currency regime.
Once a country denies itself the weapon of devaluation to compensate for lower average productivity, it is particularly important that economies within the Community with lower average productivity should be able to compensate by using their natural advantages.
- Guns don't kill people, Chuck Norris does..
- Stakeout (Stanley Hastings Mystery).
- Subscribe for MarineBio Updates.
- Focus On Photographing People: Focus on the Fundamentals (The Focus On Series);
- ‘No First Use’ or ‘Pay to Play’?.
- Get PDF Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici).
If those advantages are in the form of cheaper or more flexible labour, they should be allowed to utilise them. An effective integrated economy cannot exist without more flexible prices, markets and labour markets. History will pay great tribute to the judgment and resolution of the Government in fighting the nonsense of the social chapter which, in retrospect, will be considered a mistake.
I shall not list the potential advantages of a single currency because I spoke in the House three years ago about the advantages for trade and business and, therefore, output and wealth creation, and the advantages in terms of beating inflation. Those are now generally accepted. I had some difficulty following the Government when they said that there were political disadvantages. I see no threat to the sovereignty of the House through having a single currency or common monetary institution—far from it.
After all, the fight for the sovereignty of the House in the 17th century was about this place being able to determine not monetary policy, but fiscal policy, which I shall continue to defend. Monetary policy was always a matter for the King and the responsibility of the executive branch. I pay tribute to the executive branch in this country because it has already given up the devaluation weapon and said that it is a self-defeating way of compensating for failure in the economy.
Therefore, we lose nothing by enshrining that policy. My hon. Friend is quite wrong on this. The Government may have decided that membership of the exchange rate mechanism should be managed in such a way that we do not devalue, but if we wish to devalue, we can. Friend's remarks about a single currency alarm me greatly because I much admire his intellect, not to mention the fluency of his speech.
But I urge him to accept that a single currency, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby Mr. Lawson made clear the other day, means a massive transfer of political and economic power to the centre. Friend and I share many ideas, including, I believe, those on monetary policy. Although the gold standard is no longer practical, it was not a bad thing. It was not a destructive episode in the monetary history of humanity. When we adhered to the gold standard, the House had no say in monetary policy because the money supply was dictated arbitrarily and objectively by the volume of gold discovered in the world.
I doubt whether our predecessors in this place before thought that the powers of the House were compromised or undermined as a result. If we are to adopt a single currency, we must achieve the theoretical advantages which are there to be grasped. If we are to achieve those in practice, we must first prepare the ground carefully. I pay tribute to the convergence criteria, which were largely a British proposal.
Secondly, we should consider carefully the statutes of the monetary institution. The document before us goes a long way towards providing for the independence of the monetary institution, which will be a crucial element in the success of a single currency. However, I should like to go further and suggest that the minimum term of appointment of the governors of the institution should be eight rather than five years, to ensure that it goes way beyond the electoral cycle of any member state.
I should prefer that the appointments are not given to the governors of the banks of individual member states. It would be undesirable if governors from the central banks of member states felt that they had, in some way, to be the advocates of the interests of their own member states. If the project is to be successful, it is vital that, as with the Swiss national bank, when the board of that monetary institution meets, it has only one consideration in mind—how to reconcile the requirements of price stability and liquidity in the Community as a whole.
Having achieved this excellent treaty of Maastricht and secured the derogation on monetary policy, by which the Government have set so much store, may I make a plea to them? In the morrow of great victory, will they show some equanimity and, above all, not give business in this country or abroad the impression that in practice we are any less committed to a single currency than any of the Twelve or that we are any less likely to be a part of it? If that impression were unfortunately given—I am sure that it will not be—investment from both British and international investors, would be deflected from this country and it would go to the continent to other areas likely to adopt the single currency.
Moreover, in that event, it might become difficult to manage our parity in the years leading up to — Those currencies which currently belong to the exchange rate mechanism and are not perceived by the markets as likely to join at least the first echelon of a single currency may come under pressure in the market. People will be reluctant to hold them, and that would have unfortunate consequences in the form of higher interest rates.
It is also important for the City to ensure that the central bank and monetary institution come here. I totally accept the assurances that I have received that the derogation negotiated at Maastricht does not reduce our chances of having the central bank in the City of London. I take great comfort from that assurance. I look forward to this country being in the vanguard of the single currency because of the advantages that it will bring us and the Community.
We shall be there thanks to the excellent monetary and economic management that we have enjoyed in the s and will continue to enjoy for the rest of the s under a Conservative Government. I shall mention some of the issues to which the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding Mr. Davies referred, although there seemed to be a lack of logic in his remarks because he cheered the Government on while encouraging them to be careful.
Unlike the Labour party, my party was at least prepared to table an amendment to the motion, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. People sometimes think of Northern Ireland Members as isolationists, but we have always played a role within the United Kingdom. Although the United Kingdom is on the continental shelf, it has played a positive part in Europe's history. Our people have regularly rallied to save Europe from military and political dictatorships.
Religiously, to go to the other extreme, we were partners in giving Europe a living Christian faith. Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, shared in that significantly as the old Celtic Christian church sent missionaries throughout the continent, and there were Ulstermen in the Napoleonic war and both world wars. We are not isolationist, but we question whether incipient integration is actually the way forward. Reference has been made to economic and monetary union, which have played a role in the discussions.
Closet federal Europeans earlier maintained that the EC was merely a gigantic free trade area; now they boldly affirm that political and monetary union were always at the heart of the treaty of Rome. The Prime Minister has returned from Maastricht and claimed that federalism and the opening of the door to a delayed decision on monetary union is the successful result of his able negotiations. What is the reality? Although the countries of the European Free Trade Association had worked out trade arrangements with the Community, recent decisions of the European Court ruled them to be incompatible with the treaty of Rome.
I shall take up some of the comments of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding on a single currency. I do not believe that it will necessarily enhance trade opportunities; I think that those who have argued that have done so superficially. Japan has not found the fluctuations of the yen against the dollar and European currencies a serious barrier to its ability to increase exports. The United Kingdom sharply increased its volume of exports to the United States in the s, when the dollar gyrated wildly.
Let us compare that with our experience in the EC. I am glad that two Treasury Ministers are present. Therefore, is it surprising that the Ulster Unionist party pleads for a wider vision and a clear protection of our interests and those of the old Commonwealth countries in any new European arrangements? The Government regularly claim that they want value for money.
Are we obtaining that in Europe? The Confederation of British Industry has stated that the agreement is good for business. British business and industry must sell itself better, certainly in Europe, and maintain its markets with the rest of the world, which may turn away from us as we turn more towards Europe. Perhaps we can be of greater help by standing further apart from the new colossus, bridging the world with our American, African and Asian connections, as well as greater European contacts. We should bear in mind one narrower aspect: the principle of subsidiarity, through which democratic processes should be devolved to Northern Ireland—and I also echo the cries from Scotland and Wales.
The European grants, correctly assigned to Northern Ireland due to its isolation within the market and its relative poverty, should not be gobbled up by parsimonious Treasury Ministers as they hide behind the concept of additionality. I have for a long time been suspicious of the doctrine of gradualism in politics and the foibles of the Foreign Office , which uses the double-speak of diplomacy, as I saw in the Anglo-Irish diktat and now smell in Maastricht.
We have been assured that major European policy decisions, especially on foreign affairs, will have to be unanimous. However, as has already been mentioned, Germany quickly broke ranks with the rest of the EC and the world over Croatia, which led, in the words of our Foreign Secretary , to "an acceptable compromise". Perhaps we can find some hidden logic if we compare Chancellor Kohl 's statement of 28 November when he said: European economic and political union is irreversible.
Will other "acceptable compromises" be imposed? What is the Government's view within the European family on those countries that have accepted and signed the treaty of Rome and the Helsinki agreement?
Those treaties accept the territorial boundaries of member states, yet the countries that sign them blithely ignore their undertakings. Gibraltar is one such glaring example and, nearer home, the false claim of the Irish Republic is another. It broke the international agreement of and, in its constitution, made de jure claim over Northern Ireland. For years, that was shrugged off merely as an aspiration or dismissed as Unionist propaganda, not to be taken literally or seriously. Now the Belfast newspaper, the Irish News , argues for the retention of such a claim in articles 2 and 3, while the Dublin Supreme Court described the matter as a "constitutional imperative".
We have referred to promises and understandings given in the European context. Promises were given at Sunningdale in that articles 2 and 3 were to be withdrawn and were repeated before Hillsborough in The improper claim remains as a spur to terrorists, proxy bombers for those who see the claim as a "constitutional imperative". What is the position in Europe, where we recognise each other as partners? I believe that the Irish Republic should join the democratic countries in the new Europe and renounce such a claim, as Germany did over Alsace and Lorraine.
The reunited east and west Germany had to endorse the Oder-Neisse line before it was recognised. The Ulster Unionist position on that is clear from our amendment. We maintain the integrity of our nation as we promote better relations between neighbours. At this season of the year we should remind ourselves of the parable that neighbours are not simply the people who live next door, rich friends, or even merely those with whom we agree.
In that context, I trust that we as a nation will continue to maintain our integrity and influence. It is now almost 7 o'clock and the Standing Order limiting speeches to 10 minutes must be applied. It is an honour to follow the remarks addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Belfast, South Rev.
Most Popular Gun Sau Movies and TV Shows
Martin Smyth. Like him, I am a member of a union. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is formed by people with one language, with sentiments in common and by their feeling and will to make it work. That is the union that I understand. Today we are considering a union of Europe, and I do not know how to relate to it.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding Mr. Davies , who almost conveyed the impression that he had been parachuted in to an Amazonian jungle in which democratic accountability plays no role, and that we needed the benefit of a judgment on arbitrage and merger policy from New York city. Ours is a democratic country, in which democratic accountability lies at the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The House will have noticed how assiduous the Leader of the Opposition was yesterday in not speaking one word about democracy and how the peoples of this land hold their Governments to account.
Nor did he raise one word about the history of his own great movement, about the fact that the working people of this country were urged to organise and to use their vote, through which they could change the policies under which they lived. In our democratic age, that is essential to the concept of our rule of law. We expect the law to be enforced, we expect it to be held because every citizen who lives under that law may change it. In the treaty of union, where is the mechanism by which we may change the law? Where is the mechanism whereby we may hold Ministers accountable?
We have witnessed the reduction of a great Department of State —the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food —to a branch office in Whitehall. Our farmers, seeking retribution or justice, and our consumers, who are equally seeking those concepts, now have to go to Brussels, for there is no way in which we may satisfy their aspirations.
We have handed over that power. Howe , the former Foreign Secretary , advanced some curious concepts of constitutional independence. If constitutional independence is what sovereignty is, I do not know how one can reduce it by pooling it. That is a contradiction in terms. Sovereignty says nothing about the state one lives in, whether it is a democracy or an autocracy, but it means constitutional independence. That is what has been at issue since the Single European Act —I was not here before that—and today with the treaty of union.
I cannot give over any of the powers that I, as a Member of Parliament , elected by the citizens of Aldridge-Brownhills —and each of us elected by our respective constituents—was given when I came to this Parliament. Yet every leading member of the Government and the Opposition talks as if we were merely bankers. Our country, as a nation, has a spirit and will—it is much bigger than merely the mechanisms of markets. We are humbled and brought low by them, but the spirit of man—and I now have to say woman—and the freedoms that we enjoy lie within our grasp as long as we hold this House.
That is what we have lost, in the sense that the people scorn us because of the way we march to tunes through the Lobby. We can no longer represent their wills or their expression. Of course we scorn that. We came here knowing that, if injustice existed, we could set it right. The Leader of the Labour party—of all parties—yesterday stood there and talked about passing away the power to redress the grievances of our citizens. The speed limit on our motorways was reduced the other day, and I give a cheer for that.
For years, I have wanted the Government to reduce the speeds of lorries and buses going down the M 1 and the M6 , but Europe did it. It imposed it on our system of government, and now we cannot change it, whether it was right or wrong. Since John Locke and the formation of our constitution through the late 18th and the 19th centuries, the question has been, where does authority lie? We do not have sovereignty in this House; it is a shorthand for the sovereignty of the people.
That is who we represent, and those are the arguments that we have to judge. Is it not shaming that the leaders of great parties cannot tell us that they are asking us to set aside our ability to live under laws that we set? Hitherto, when they asked us to obey those laws, we have known that we could change them, but hereafter a combination of people with different languages, understandings and cultures can set, and are by combination setting, upon us standards, rules and laws which may be suitable for Greece, central or northern Europe, France or Spain but which are not right for us.
We have a choice. So many hon. Members have poured scorn, but what makes a political society work? The greatest level of polity—political organisation—is democratic self-government. There is no higher form of government. One can expand the boundaries, and because it is the sentiment of the people that one should expand the boundaries, it has manifestly worked for nearly two centuries in the United Kingdom. We break that trust by handing over power to unelected people without any mechanism for changing their decisions.
How can people have faith in us if vie hold our job to redress the grievances of those who set us here as unimportant? I urge those on both Front Benches to reflect on how they can make up for that democratic lack. The great Labour party—which brought together militants, because it thought that they knew what they could do for the working people of this country—is scornfully setting democracy aside.
I watched its bemused leader struggling with economic concepts which he can barely grasp. I say this with scorn, because the leader of the Labour party can no longer hold out to his people the prospect that they may change the law through this place. Were the Labour party to have the trust of its people, it could legislate for every item in the social chapter tomorrow. It could make that the central point of its election manifesto if it is so profoundly excited by it. Then it could justify to the people the costs and benefits associated with it.
Why does the Labour party want others to introduce those measures? Is it because the Labour party does not believe that it could convince the people, on its own terms, that those are meritorious things to do? We must ask the question, why? Is it because the Labour party feels that it could not convince the people but could achieve its objectives through a centralist bureaucracy in Europe—rather than through argument and persuading its own people?
No, I shall not give way. How do we control that process? No one is tackling that. Ministers are saying, "We good fellows will talk together, and we'll come up with a decision. Let us assume that per cent. What do they do? Let us think back to the proposition of the right hon. Benn , who reminded us of our history. We changed law by riot.
That is not the way. That is not the sort of society that I would wish to belong to. The tensions of racism and fascism are rising in Europe—all the things which we resolutely moved armies to defeat in the past. By holding on to that possession, the people of this country would be able to hold on to the banners of freedom. We have watched eastern Europe grapple for freedom and the liberty that we enjoy, yet I have heard the House of Commons talk solemnly as if this were merely a question of a pile of money at one end of a table or the issuing of financial intruments. It is not—it is about the spirit and life of a nation.
I cannot let this go down—sinking—without leastways an exclamation mark and a cry, "It is wrong. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills Mr. Shepherd , who is a near neighbour. I hope that the Hansard writers will be able to capture the spirit in which his speech was given. It struck me as being very 19th century in its oratory, and I compliment him. In many ways the hon. Gentleman's speech was 20 years too late, because the horse has bolted. The arguments about whether to join the European Community were won or lost two decades ago. I campaigned against continuing British membership in , and we lost.
I am not an enthusiastic European, but we cannot turn back. We must try to meet many of the objections made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. Clearly the Community is not a democratic institution. However, the cry for a return to an era of independence and economic autonomy for Britain is not an available option, so we must make the best deals possible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. It was an interesting debate even before the speech by the hon. The introduction by the Foreign Secretary —the thinking man's Jeremy Beadle —was exceptional.
Once he got over the task of being his own warm-up man, he settled down to a logical and persuasive speech. He commented on the Opposition 's silence in terms of tabling an amendment , but there has been a far greater and more dramatic silence from the right hon. I am delighted to participate in the debate, which is not part of the ratification process. There will be no treaty to sign for a couple of months, and I hope that the Government do not assume that, having won this debate, the task of getting Parliament to ratify is over, because we have not even begun the process.
There is much life left in people who wish to argue further. This legislature does little to impress its views on the process of declaring war or peace or ratifying treaties. We probably have the least effective role of any western legislature. We shall have a greater role to play in the Community, but that role is not being exercised now. We were told that Maastricht was a victory for everyone and that for Britain it was game, set and match.