On economic and monetary union, I stressed that we would be ready to move beyond the present position to the creation of a European monetary fund and a common community currency which we have called a hard ECU. But we would not be prepared to agree to set a date for starting the next stage of economic and monetary union before there is any agreement on what that stage should comprise. And I again emphasised that we would not be prepared to have a single currency imposed upon us, nor to surrender the use of the pound sterling as our currency.
It is our purpose to retain the power and influence of this House, and not to denude it of many of the powers. I wonder what the right honourable gentleman's policy is, in view of some of the things he said. Would he have agreed to a commitment to extend the Community's powers to other supplementary sectors of economic integrations without having any definition of what they are? Would he? Because you would've thought he would from what he said. One of them was that the Commission wants to extend its powers and competence into the area of health. We said no. We weren't going to agree to those since on what he says, he sounded as if he would, for the sake of agreeing, for the sake of being little sir echo, and saying, "Me too."
Would the he have agreed to extending qualified majority of voting within the Council, to delegating implementing powers to the Commission, to a common security policy, all without any attempt to define or limit them? The answer is yes. He hasn't got a clue about the definition of some of the things he is saying, let alone securing a definition of others.
Yes, the Commission does want to increase its powers. Yes, it is a non-elected body and I do not want the Commission to increase its powers against its House. So of course we are differing. Of course the chairman or the president of the Commission, Mr. Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, he wanted the Commission to be the executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No.
Or, or perhaps the Labour Party would give all those things up easily. Perhaps they would agree to a single currency to total abolition of the pound sterling. Perhaps being totally incompetent with monetary matters, they'd be only too delighted to hand over the full responsibility as they did to the IMF, to a central bank. The fact is, they have no competence on money, no competence on the economy, so, yes, the right honourable gentleman would be glad to hand it all over. And what is the point in trying to get elected to Parliament only to hand over your sterling and to hand over the powers of this House to Europe?
Norman Tebbit：My right honourable friend not agree that the mark of a single currency is that all other currencies must be extinguished. And not nearly extinguished, but that the capacity of other institutions to issue currency has to be extinguished. And that in the case of the United Kingdom, would involve this parliament binding its successors in a way which we have hitherto regarded as unconstitutional.
This government has no intention of abolishing the pound sterling. If the hard ECU evolved into much much greater use, that would be a decision for future parliaments and future generations. It would be a decision which could only be taken once, and a decision which should not be approached in this atmosphere, but only after the greatest possible consideration. I believe both Parliament and sterling have served our country and the rest of the world very well. I believe we are more stable and more influential with it, I believe it is an expression of sovereignty. This Government believe in the pound sterling.
Dr. David Owen: Is it not perfectly clear that what was being attempted at Rome was a bounce and a bounce that led only one way, and that was to a single federal united states of Europe? And is it not vital that in this House, across party lines, it is possible for a prime minister to go and make it clear, if necessary, that Britain is prepared to stand alone? We don's relish it, but that if necessary, if we are faced by the imposition, by treaty of an obligation to a single currency and a situation which would prevent enlargement to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, Britain would be entitled and right to use the veto?
Dr. David Owen：我们现在还不是很清楚，罗马经济是否在反弹，经济反弹又会给这个联邦制的欧洲合众国造成怎样的影响？并不是至关重要的，在这政府里，跨越党派界线，就有可能靠一个首相去弄清楚，如果有必要，英国正在准备孤军奋战？我们不喜欢它，但是，如果有必要，如果我们面临的实施，通过条约的义务统一的货币和情况来防止欧盟东扩至波兰、匈牙利和捷克斯洛伐克，英国将拥有和有权使用否决权吗？
Mr. Ron Leighton: There is no majority in the House for EMU, but is the Prime Minister aware that I attended a conference in Italy last year at which an Italian Minister spoke to me about EMU? I said, "What if Mrs. Thatcher opposes it?" And ungallantly, he laughed loud and he said, "We have met Mrs. Thatcher many times - she squawks and makes a noise at the beginning but always comes round and gives way in the end." Now what assurances and guarantees can seek of this House today that she will not give way on this issue, as she did give way on the Madrid condition about British inflation before joining the ERM?
Mr. Ron Leighton：支持货币不统一化的占多数，但是部长你还记得去年我在意大利参加会议时，意大利部长和我说的这件事吗？我当时说；“如果撒切尔夫人反对的话怎么办？”他笑的很大声，然后说，“我们见过撒切尔夫人很多次了，她总是在一开始意见很多，反对不休，但最终会妥协。”在这种情况下，什么样的担保和保证能够确保她一开始的反对不会化为最终的妥协呢？尤其是她曾在英国通货膨胀之后妥协于马德里条约加入了汇率机制。
That is what they said, Mr Speaker, when I was negotiating for a better budget deal for Britain. Twice, they and the people in the Commission and our people in the Commission and we had the presidency of the Commission, advised me to give way. They found out differently.
Mr. Tony Favell: Mr Speaker, next Wednesday, the doors of this Chamber will be closed to Black Rod as a symbol of the independence of this House. What would be the effect on the independence of this House and the nation which elects it if the power to veto proposals affecting social affairs, the environment and taxation were to be removed?
Mr. Tony Favell：下周三，这个房间的门将会对黑人关闭，作为政府独立的象征。那么政府的独立会有什么样的效果？投反对票的国家呢？受到影响的社会事件，环境以及税率会变吗？
Mr Speaker, I hope that, when the next election comes, people who want to come to this House will come to uphold its powers and its responsibilities, and not to denude the House of them. We have surrendered some of them to the Community. In my view we have surrendered enough. 我希望，当下一届选举到来之时，人们想要进入政府的能够担当好自己的权利和责任，而不是屈服于政府中的其他人。我们已经向某些人妥协了，我认为已经足够了。
Mr. Tony Benn: And then is the Prime Minister aware that what we are really discussing is not matter of economic management, but the whole future of the relation between this country and Europe? Are the British people when they vote in a general election to be able to change the policies of the government that has previously veto? And it is already a fact, as the House knows full well, that whatever Government is in power, our agricultural policy is now controlled from Brussels, our trade policy is controlled from Brussels and our industrial policy is controlled from Brussels and if we go into EMU, our financial policy will be controlled. It is a democratic argument, not a nationalistic argument. But now as they say this is the Prime Minister and it’d be the member of the Government who took us into the EC without consulting the British people, having been the Prime Minister of the Government who agreed to the Single European Act without consulting the British people, having now agreed to the ERM without consulting the British people. We find it hard to believe that she is really intent on preserving democracy rather than gaining some political advantage from waving some national argument in the eve of a general election. That is why we do not trust her own judgment on the matter.
Mr. Tony Benn：部长意识到我们实际上讨论的并不是经济的管理问题，而是我们国家和欧洲未来关系的走向问题。英国人民在大选当中投票能够改变政府先前的投票结果吗？这已是一个事实，政府心里也很清楚，无论政府有着什么样的权利，我们的农业政策是掌控在布鲁塞尔手里，我们的贸易政策，工业政策也是如此。如果我们加入统一汇率机制，我们的金融政策也会被控制。这是一个共和的争辩，并不是一个国家的争辩。但是他们说这是部长，政府的一员使英国人在不知情的情况下加入了欧盟，那么也可以在英国人不知情的情况下加入统一的货币机制。我们觉得很难去相信她真正的目的保留共和而不是在大选前夕从一些国家辩论中获得更多的政治优势。这也是为什么我们不相信她在这件事上将会做出合理决断的原因。
Mr Speaker, I think that I would put it just a little bit differently from the right honorable Gentleman, although I recognise some of the force of some of the points that he is making. I think when the Delors proposals for EMU came out, the economic and monetary union, it was said immediately by my right hon. Friend, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was not really about monetary policy at all. It is really about a back door to a federal Europe, a federal Europe taking many many democratic powers away from democratically elected bodies to non-elected ones. I believe fervently that that is true, which is why I will have nothing to do with their definition of economic and monetary union.