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, rather than denude it of many of its
powers. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman's policy is, in view of some of the things that he
said. Would he have agreed to a commitment to extend the Community's powers to other
supplementary sectors of economic integration without having any definition of what they are? One
would have thought, from what he said, that he would. The Commission wants to extend its powers
and competence into health matters, but we said no, we would not agree to that.
From what the right hon. Gentleman said, it sounded as though he would agree, for the sake of
agreeing, and for being Little Sir Echo, and saying, "Me, too." Would the right hon. Gentleman have
agreed to extending qualified majority 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 does not have a clue about the definition of some of the things that he is saying, let
alone securing a definition of others.


Yes, the Commission wants to increase its powers. Yes, it is a non-elected body and I do not want the
Commission to increase its powers at the expense of the House, so of course we differ. 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.
Perhaps the Labour party would give all those things up easily. Perhaps it would agree to a single
currency and abolition of the pound sterling. Perhaps, being totally incompetent in monetary
matters, it would be only too delighted to hand over full responsibility to a central bank, as it did to
the IMF. The fact is that the Labour party has no competence on money and no competence on the
economyso, yes, the right hon. Gentleman would be glad to hand it all over. What is the point of
trying to get elected to Parliament only to hand over sterling and the powers of this House to
Europe?


. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mark of a single currency is not only that all other
currencies must be extinguished but that the capacity of other institutions to issue currencies must
also be extinguished? In the case of the United Kingdom, that would involve Parliament binding its
successors in a way that it has hitherto regarded as unconstitutional.

. This Government have no intention of abolishing the pound sterling. If the hard ecu were to evolve
and much greater use were to be made of it, that would be a decision for future Parliaments and
generations. That decision could be taken only once.
It should not be taken in the current atmosphere, but only after the greatest possible consideration. I
believe that both Parliament and sterling have served this country and the rest of the world very well.
We are more stable and influential with sterling, and it is an expression of our sovereignty. This
Government believe in the pound sterling.




. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)
Is it not perfectly clear that what was being attempted at Rome was a bounce which led only one
wayto a single federal united states of Europe? Is it not vital that, in this House and across party
lines, it should be possible for a Prime Minister to make it clear, if necessary, that Britain is prepared
to stand alone? We should not relish it, but if we were faced with the imposition by treaty of a single
currency and with a situation that prevented the enlargement of the Community to include Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia, would not Britain be entitled and right to use the veto?
The Prime Minister
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the stance that we took. It is the
stance that we have taken on many previous occasions. The European monetary system to which we
belong is designed for 12 sovereign states, in co-operation with one another, to come to an exchange
rate mechanism. What is being proposed noweconomic and monetary unionis the back door to a
federal Europe, which we totally and utterly reject. We prefer greater economic and monetary co-
operation, which can be achieved by keeping our sovereignty.


Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)
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?" Ungallantly, he laughed out loud and said, "We have met Mrs. Thatcher
many timesshe squawks and makes a noise at the beginning but always comes round and gives way
in the end." What assurances and guarantees can the Prime Minister give the House that she will not
give way on this issue, as she gave way on the Madrid condition about British inflation before joining
the ERM?
The Prime Minister
That is what they said when I was negotiating for a better budget deal for Britain. Twice, the people
in the Commissionour people in the Commission and the presidency of the Commissionadvised
me to give way. They found out differently.

Tony Favell (Stockport)
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 on the
nation that elects it if the power to veto proposals affecting social affairs, the environment and
taxation were to be removed?
The Prime Minister
I hope that, when the next election comes, people who want to come to the 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, and in my view we have surrendered enough.

Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
Is the Prime Minister aware that what we are really discussing is not economic management, but the
whole future of relations between this country and Europe?
when the British people vote in a general election, they will be able to change the policies of
the 882previous Government. It is already a fact, as the House knows full well, that whatever
Government are in power, our agricultural policy is controlled from Brussels, our trade policy is
controlled from Brussels and our industrial policy is controlled from Brussels. If we go into EMU,
our financial policy will also be controlled. It is a democratic argument, not a nationalistic argument.

. Lady is a member of the Government who took us into the European Community without
consulting the British people, given that she was Prime Minister in the Government who agreed to
the Single European Act without consulting the British people, and given that she has now agreed to
joining the exchange rate mechanism without consulting the British people, we find it hard to believe
that she is really intent on preserving democracy rather than gaining political advantage by waving
some national argument around on the eve of a general election. That is why we do not trust her
judgment on the matter.



The Prime Minister
I think that I would put it just a little differently from the right hon. Gentleman, although I recognise
some of the force of some of the points that he makes. When the Delors proposals for economic and
monetary union came out, it was said immediately by my right hon. Friend [ Nigel Lawson ] the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was not really about monetary policy at all but about a back
door to a federal Europe, taking many democratic powers away from democratically elected bodies
and giving them to non-elected bodies. I believe fervently that that is true, which is why I shall have
nothing to do with their definition of economic and monetary union.