The Prime Minister made a statement, yesterday, at the House of Commons, on last Sunday’s European Council. Bill Cash made the following intervention.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on recent developments in Libya and yesterday’s European Council.
(…)
This Council was about three things: sorting out the problems of the eurozone, promoting growth in the European Union, and ensuring that as the eurozone develops new arrangements for governance, the interests of those outside the eurozone are protected. This latter point touches directly on the debate in the House later today, and I will say a word on this later in my statement. Resolving the problems in the eurozone is the urgent and overriding priority facing not only the eurozone members, but the EU as a whole and indeed the rest of the world economy.
(…)
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): The Prime Minister has made it clear that he advocates fiscal union within the eurozone. Can he explain to the House how it is that fiscal union of that kind is not a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union, bearing in mind that it is established that the constitutional position is clear that where there is fundamental change, there must be a referendum? How can he square that circle?
The Prime Minister: Let me be clear with my hon. Friend. I think that fundamental changes are coming in Europe; they are clearly coming in the eurozone. That may lead to pressures, as we saw over the weekend, for treaty change. That will present opportunities for Britain and we should respond to those opportunities. The question for the House tonight is whether it is right to go off down the path of having a referendum that includes an in/out option, just when there are big opportunities as the eurozone and the EU are changing.
The Treaty of Lisbon makes absolutely clear that “The currency of the Union shall be the EURO”. So whatever changes are made NOW or in the near future will affent all those 27 Member States that are in the Union.
Even those that have an “opt out” of the Euro, will be affected and thereofr for any changes to the Treaty must5 have a referendum on the matter.
ARTICLE 2 (in a Treaty we are not part of “ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN STABILITY MECHANISM” (ESM)
It states “New members”, yet it does not clarify which “NEW MEMBERS” is it to the Euro? or to the EU Only?
1. Membership in the ESM shall be open to the other Member States of the European Union as from the entry into force of the decision of the Council of the European Union taken in accordance with Article 140(2) TFEU to abrogate their derogation from adopting the euro.
I have mentioned before re previous arguments about the definite “No Bail Out” clause to which all 27 Member States have ratified in the Treaty of Lisbon. This still stands quite clearly in the Treaty now lodged with the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties. Any change, particularly this change and the previous “bail outs” given already to Member States in the Euro area are contrary to the Treaty of Lisbon. This further Treaty Thursday 7 April 2011 ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN STABILITY MECHANISM (ESM) is absolutely contrary to the Treaty of Lisbon. The two cannot stand together. This requires a Treaty Change on which all 27 Member States. Failing that, perhaps the Second Treaty disqualifies or nulifies the Treaty of Lisbon?