ASSOCIATION (UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES, & FORMER DOMINIONS) BILL
24th April 1996
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to strengthen institutions to promote economic, cultural, and political ties between the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States, and
New Zealand.
Madam Speaker, Malcolm Turnbull is the leader of the Republican Movement in Australia. He defended Peter Wright in the "Spy Catcher" trial. Some have even said he might even have been Australia's first President. While I do not support his republican views, I am a royalist, I find some of his arguments interesting.
Similarly, while I would not now suggest that Britain should leave the European Union, Malcolm Turnbull's beliefs that we turned our back on our natural friends and allies when we joined the European Economic Community - as it thenwas - are persuasive.
Quoted a few months back in the Sunday Times, he said -
and I quote:
"I think that was a terrible mistake for Britain. Why should you at this point in history, when technology has made distance more irrelevant than ever, suddenly choose to become a political part of Europe?" he says. To carry on: "Technology has made geographical proximity irrelevant, and geographical proximity was the only reason for being part of Europe". To carry on - his words, not mine! "Britain would have been much wiser focusing on and developing closer relations with those countries with which it really did have a lot in common in terms of language, background, human relationships and institutions. And
those countries plainly were the Anglo-Saxon countries - the Old Commonwealth and the USA".
End of quote.
Madam Speaker, I was educated for a while in America and like you, I have worked there. You were based on Capitol Hill in Washington DC working in Congress, I worked out of a base in Newhaven in Connecticut - not so far away - setting up and financing radio stations.
And having worked in Europe too, I have long held views similar to Mr Turnbull's. But with one big difference. There does not have to be mutual exclusivity between membership of the European Union and strengthening ties with the Old Commonwealth and the USA. Indeed the Government already does just this.
But I believe we are reaching a cross-roads in this nation's history. This country cannot survive and prosper on its own. We have always needed to be part of a trading bloc: in the 18th and 19th centuries it was The British Empire. Those who now think we can just go it alone live in an economic cuckoo land.
But the cross-roads are fast approaching as a confluence of technology and dissatisfaction with existing trading blocks fast approach each other. They create a window of opportunity, an unlocking door to a future of mutual prosperity that this nation must not miss lest future generations rightly condemn our short-sightedness of the obvious and our failure of stewardship of our country.
Before I speak of the confluence of ways, the unlocking door, let me just state the obvious and the not so obvious about Britain, Australia, Canada, the United States, and New Zealand.
We all share a common language. Sure, we speak in different dialects, but there is greater diversity in the British Isles than, say, between London and any State in the U.S.
We all share a common heritage. The Kings and Queens of England are still taught in Brighton near Melbourne, and Brighton near New York - even if not in Labour controlled Brighton, Sussex.
We all share a common legal system. Have you any idea how important that is to British trade? Can that be why the U.S. is still the biggest holder of investments in the U.K. and why the U.K. is still the biggest holder of investments in the U.S.? And is it not startling that despite America having won its independence from the Crown in 1783, their independent legal system developed in parallel with our own
after all these years. So we still share a common basis in law; our sense of natural justice is similar to that in America or in the Old Commonwealth. Wittgenstein was right to illuminate the immutability between language and cognition and it is well demonstrated by our common jurisprudence.
We all share common economic cycles. While Britain and America enjoy growth, continental Europe wallows in recession. Let us all pray that France and Germany's slump does not pull us down too.
We all share a common state of economic development. No need for cohesion funds. No need for huge fund flows and tides of immigration from one nation to another.
We all share a view that we should not subsidise industries, like airlines, which ought to stand on their own two wheels. Other nations do not.
We all share relatively wealthy populations. Britain, the U.S. and the Old Commonwealth combined have a population of around 356 million. Slightly less than the European Union population of 369 million. But whereas the GNP of the European Union is US$7,280,975 million that of the UK, US, and Old Commonwealth is in excess of US$8,274,500 million.
And finally, we all share a common culture bound together by a common history. Our nations' folk memories are not scarred by recent lesions caused by war and invasion. There is felt to be no need to concede the nation state in order to seek the will of the wisp of peace for all time.
But what of the confluence of circumstances I mentioned earlier that create the unlocking door we should now seek to push ajar? There are two.
Firstly, the nature of trade has altered over the years. In extremis, we no longer export locomotives, we export microchips and software. We no longer export girder bridges, we export financial services though not enough in Europe where borders are not yet open to the City of London. In 1970, 9% of our import costs were insurance and freight. In 1994, these had reduced to 2% and the trend continues downwards. Distance is no longer the object in international trade. In my own experience, the price of selling a British made broadcast console in Copenhagen is higher than the selling price in Auckland. The local market
determines the price, not the distance travelled. And I don't have to remind Hon Members that phoning distant destinations has been transformed since the recent laying of trans-world fibre optic cables. No more satellite delay or echo. Calling Seattle is as clear as calling Lichfield.
Secondly, there has been a more fundamental change.
For the first time in its 220 year history, the United States has recognised the need to form strategic trading alliances. It has joined the North American Free Trade Area of which Canada is also a member. Yet Canada and the United States find they are exporting jobs to and importing finished goods from Mexico. Australia and New Zealand trade with the Pacific Rim. Yet Australia and New Zealand too are
exporting jobs to and importing finished goods from countries like Vietnam, Taiwan, and South Korea. These countries assumed, wrongly, that trading blocs must consist of geographically close nations not economically and culturally close nations. They are beginning to recognise with growing uneasiness that other, more compatible, partners may need to be sought.
For surely, Madam Speaker, whether one enters into a marriage partnership, a business partnership or a
geo-political trading partnership, if it is to endure, it has to be more than just a marriage of convenience.
So my Bill, Madam Speaker, recognises today's reality and the future's certainty. The world is going through a time of change. It is unlikely, but the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade may make all trading blocs obsolete. But if no such Agreement is reached, Britain needs to keep all its many options open. The Foreign Secretary and President of the Board of Trade have rightly spoken again and again of
the need for an international view.
This Bill recognises that Britain trades with the world; this Bill recognises that no alliances are forever; this Bill recognises that Britain cannot be a "Little England" and needs geo-political trading partners; this Bill recognises that our partners need to be compatible; this Bill recognises that we should never allow this country to be boxed in or be without alternative options; and this Bill will strengthen the already excellent work undertaken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Board of Trade through their own initiatives and participation in international organisations including GATT, the OECD and G7.
Madam Speaker, This Bill is not anti-European, and I for one hope that we shall in time resolve our differences with Europe - the beef crisis being just the latest - and I will not seek to divide the House if the Bill is opposed.
But the Bill focuses on the need for our country always to have realistic and sensible alternative strategies should they ever be needed. This strategy is not for the present, but for the sake of yet unborn generations of Britons for whom we are the stewards, I beg that this Bill be given a second reading.
Bill Agreed to and brought in by Michael Fabricant supported by:
Rt Hon Norman Lamont
Rt Hon Jonathan Aitken
Sir Ivan Lawrence
Sir John Hannam
Sir Michael Spicer
David Alton
John Butcher
Patrick Nicholls
David Martin
James Pawsey
John Wilkinson
