International Criminal Court

25.06.03

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – I am delighted to follow Mr Magnusson, who spoke about an issue that we should all be discussing: our future role.

If we were really cynical – as I probably am – and really suspicious, we would be both those things when considering what the EU was getting at when it decided to put the charter together. Having read many of the relevant documents, I feel that it represents a partnership of despair. The EU knows that it has lost contact with the people of Europe, its electorate, and democratic processes have been seriously eroded by its lack of communication with and care for them. It has not explained to the people what it stands for.

I also thought that the Council of Europe felt threatened by the charter, and saw a need for a response establishing again what we are about. It was as if we had to make excuses to the EU for our continued existence. That is a manifestly false premise, and I am delighted that Terry Davis and many others have spoken of the Council’s ongoing role so eloquently today. It does not take an Einstein to realise that in a divided Europe with twenty-five inside and twenty outside, the twenty that are outside will be even more conscious of the division than they are at present. And my goodness, how difficult it will be for some of those twenty to get into the club! The twenty-five will find it very difficult to accommodate some who will seek to join the EU family in the future.

Only politicians, reading these documents, can genuinely expect more transparency and democracy in Europe. This will take people even further away from the institutions of the EU. No effort has been made to sell the EU case to the Council of Europe. Nowhere do we see the refreshing view that people in Europe matter – not just those who are lucky enough to sit in the European Parliament, to work for its institutions or to benefit from it. In my constituency, I see little evidence of anyone trying positively to sell the role of the EU. What is there in the convention that clearly establishes that energy and time will be devoted to making decisions more transparent and that effort will be made to include the people in the organisation?

We should not be apologetic in saying that we have a future role. Mr Magnusson was dead right when he talked about the things that the Council of Europe has done for the people of Europe in areas other than democracy, the rule of law and human rights. He was right clearly to establish the links that we have had in the areas of culture, defending the roles of minorities, youth, sport, animal rights and many other issues, including the environment and agriculture. These links have been crucial in establishing criteria and frameworks for countries to work within, as agreed by forty-five countries. That must continue.

Let us not be afraid of the charter. When the compromises and options have been considered seriously by intergovernmental conferences, it will not resemble what we have so far. I resent more than ever the fact that most of the people in Europe will be denied the opportunity to vote on the convention and charter. I only wish that the United Kingdom would give people the opportunity to vote on it.