Mr President, it is the custom of some national parliaments, when a new Member rises for the first time, as I am rising today, for him to avoid controversial or difficult subjects. Well, we do things very differently in the European Parliament, don't we, because it is a very controversial subject that I shall be talking about today.
Before I begin, I would like to say what a pleasure and privilege I regard it as being, under your presidency, to have the opportunity over the next five years to make my small contribution to the European debate and the European discussion. That European debate is at a very early stage, and it is for that reason that I am sad to have to say as one of my first remarks that I do not think I shall be able to support the proposed compromise resolution, which I regard as premature.
But there are three things I would like to talk about in the brief time available to me. I would like to talk about the institutional structure of the Community; I would like to talk about the question of a two-speed Europe; and I would like to talk about the role of the European Parliament.
As far as the institutional structure of the Community is concerned, it seems to me that over the next eighteen months we will be trying to give an answer to the question which was left unanswered at Maastricht. That question is: do we regard the institutional structure, set up by the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, as being adequate and acceptable for an enlarged Europe in the 21st Century? I have said the debate is at its early stages, but there is one general remark that I think we should make. Beware, Mr President, of the maximalists on either side of the argument. It seems to me that those who say that we need a United States of Europe yesterday and a European government this afternoon are in some ways very similar to the extremists on the other side of the argument, who say that the only future for Europe is an intergovernmental one - loose cooperation between sovereign nation states. Both of those views seem to me to correspond to the strict definition of a heresy, an over-emphasis of a pa
rt of the truth. The institutional structure of the Treaty of Rome has served us well and will continue to serve us well. But I do think there are delicate areas such as foreign policy and defence where, at least in the medium term, perhaps even in the long term, there will need to be an element of intergovernmentalism. Rational men and women can differ as to where exactly the balance should be. But I hope our debate will be a serene and objective one and, in particular, that minority views will be respected.
Speaking of minority views brings me on to the question of a two-speed Europe and the CDU paper. For all its merits, perhaps the most extraordinary merit of it is that it brings out the difficulty - the intellectual, the organizational and the philosophical difficulty - that the Community gets into when it tries to go forward other than together. The paradox of the paper is that, seeking as its original objective to persuade, to coerce even, a small minority of countries that are reluctant to go in a particular direction, it ends up by recommending a minority to go ahead. A hard core of Europe is perhaps, curiously and paradoxically, a Europe à la carte. That is something we should think very hard about before we start, before the IGC has even begun thinking in these terms.
Finally, a word about the European Parliament. Conservatives in the European Parliament recognize and rejoice in the democratic legitimacy of their mandate. I am sorry that Mrs Dury appears to have left: I would not have embarked on this polemical point, but I will conclude with it. I prefer to look at deeds rather than words. John Major's deeds were that he signed the Maastricht Treaty and took it, with great difficulty, through the House of Commons. I think this Parliament should be grateful to him.
