EU is a 'failing' project says Bill Cash

Infamous Maastricht rebel, and thorn in the side of the European Union, Bill Cash now has a job that has raised eyebrows in Brussels - as chairman of the British Parliament's European Scrutiny Committee. He talks to PublicServiceEurope.com about his personal desire to protect national sovereignty, while retaining an impartial stance when moderating debate on supranational law as committee chairman.

With more than a hint of indignation, Cash boasts of how he has tabled between 150 to 200 amendments on each European treaty that has passed through the British legislative system. It is clear he sees this as a badge of honour. And he repeatedly refers to those promoting the EU as "they", as if to suggest that the union is a dark conspiracy.

Contrast this to the strict non-biased approach in which his committee approaches its investigations and it is hard not to feel that there might be a conflict of interest. Surely, the line between his strong "Eurorealist" ideology and the "impartial and non-political" work of the committee sometimes blurs? He insists not, adding: "I'm completely insistent that we hear evidence from all sides of the equation – and the committee is composed of people that come from all sides of the argument. The process is without prejudice to any political views that any of us may have. Our task is to inform the House as to what are matters of legal or political importance and, then, to debate them."

But, even here, his anti-federalist feelings simmer. Cash believes free votes should replace the whip system when it comes to parliament passing EU legislation and debates resulting from his committee's recommendations. "The European Communities Act of 1972 imposes law on the United Kingdom electorate," he explains. "It is amazing just how much the daily lives of the people are impacted by European law – including small business and matters relating to transport, justice, home affairs and arrest warrants. I mean, the list is endless. If you ask the question – is this done with the overt and clear consent of British voters – the answer is that people don't have the information to know that these laws come from the EU. The net result is a tsunami of legislation being passed by qualified majority voting and regulations drafted by the European Commission. Of course, these are scrutinised by the committee - but when parliamentary debates take place the whips do not allow votes against because these decisions are being endorsed by the government. And so, they just go through."

Europhiles would argue that British citizens are, indeed, represented by elected members of the European Parliament and by the government through the Council of Ministers among other accountability chains. But Cash has no truck with such sentiment. "We need reaffirmation of the sovereignty of British parliament," he says, speaking in an individual capacity rather than as chairman of the committee. "My determination on this remains a live issue. Through the British parliament, the freedom of choice from voters in elections as expressed by the legislation that is passed is and must remain the ultimate authority."

So does Cash feel he has been proved right about Maastricht? "Yes and, what is more, other people are saying so," he replies. "There are several former Cabinet ministers like Douglas Hogg and Michael Ancram, who didn't believe there should have been a referendum on Maastricht but have now changed their minds. Even so, the situation has now gone way beyond Maastricht with the Lisbon Treaty.

"Membership has cost the business community £124bn since 1999, in terms of European legislation, so this is not a theoretical distraction. It's not just about constitutional law. My main concerns are democracy, consent and the will of the people. Other member states have no democratic connection with us other than in the most general sense.

"On all the evidence, the Lisbon agenda doesn't work. Youth unemployment is catastrophic – 43 per cent in Spain. Germany's trade balance with us is about £12bn in their favour. You can see the distortions that are taking place and I am absolutely certain that we are right to stay out of the euro forever. I'm equally sure that all the problems of the bailouts and the situations in Ireland and Spain are all the result of the European system just not working."

Cash is unwavering in his argument and has a habit of repeating his fundamental points again and again until the other side gives in. You cannot help but wonder just how his forceful personality plays out in committee meetings behind closed doors. Advocating a different way forward for the EU – without overbearing political or economic governance – he says: "Trying to create out of a number of diverse economies one single political union is what they've always wanted. But it doesn't work economically or politically. We need the whole process to be renegotiated and an association of nation states, where we cooperate where it is possible to do so and veto legislation when it is not in our national interest.

"We should not be involved in treaties that create a vast monolithic framework of law perched on the continent. My advice to the Swedes or the Danes or anyone else that is contemplating joining the euro is, do not get involved in this failing process. The reason for that is over-regulation. Even when Peter Mandelson was trade commissioner, his estimate was that red tape was costing business more than 4 per cent of GDP and I think even that is a substantial underestimate. Small businesses – the engines of the future - do have enormous trouble in complying with burdensome European regulations.

"All our trade policy is organised through Europe and now we have got Baroness Ashton acting as the so-called foreign policy supremo. Many member states come into the EU because they want the money in the short-term - but almost immediately countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary get a brief uplift from accession followed by economic chaos. The underlying efficacy and economic prescription doesn't work because what you actually need is less regulation, more free enterprise, more choice at the ballot box and laws that reflect the people in the country concerned. The whole fabric of the system is not working in the way in which they pretend, but they just plough on regardless. What you need is something more like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations - but, perhaps, with more political cooperation."

The EU and Referendum Lock in the UK do not escape his wrath. Outlining some of the evidence gained in scrutiny committee sessions on this subject, Cash says: "Simon Hix (a prominent academic) has said that Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam should all have had referenda. The fact is that it is the first time a referendum has been built into British legislation in relation to Europe, that is how the government has sold it. But the question of whether or not it will ever be used is regarded with considerable uncertainty."

And how about the exemptions in the legislation? For example, major strategic change such as Turkish accession can occur on the say so of ministers alone; no public vote is needed. "It's not only accessions, although I think Turkish accession is still probably a long way off anyway," adds Cash. "What is not a long way off is things like the eurozone agreement, which claims to exclude the UK – but, by definition, cannot exclude the UK if we are part of the treaty. It does affect us and there should be provisions for this. It is dangerous to have an exemption of that kind."

In the Conservative Party, before it entered into coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, only Ken Clarke voted for the Lisbon Treaty and against a referendum on the issue. "Because of the coalition, Lisbon has been accepted and we are implementing it," admits Cash. "It has many additional competences and powers in it. The penny is only just beginning to drop that we are being Europeanised, and that this is not consistent with the general public's view when you look at all of the opinion polls of the last few years. Whereas we would like to cooperate and trade with Europe, where possible, we want to reject European government and the idea that our national parliament only has qualified sovereignty, according to the courts. The courts having the ultimate authority is just plain wrong."

Another target is the British media, which often fails to cover European issues in a satisfactory or measured way. "The BBC, for example, does not give anything like enough coverage as to what goes on in this sphere," says Cash. "I have written to the various director generals all the way back to Greg Dyke and John Birt, trying to explain that they are frankly oblivious to what is going on. There is a culture that says if it has the word 'Europe' on it, it is boring and glazed-eye territory. If the BBC does not cover the scrutiny committee or the progress of European legislation as it goes through the House, then people outside are just unaware that it's going on."

Strangely, Cash is not so forthcoming about MEPs expenses and allowances – a regular target for the dominant right-wing press in the UK. Perhaps, this is down to his own experience of feeling bruised by the media glare when his own spending was questioned in the MPs' expenses scandal. He retorts: "I was completely cleared and that is that. As regards the question of MEPs, that is not a matter that I would get involved in. I would just pass on that, it is not an issue I have any intention of getting into."

On other topics, he regains his voice. The EU's response to the Libya uprising was "completely absurd" while on the most likely next member states of the union, he says: "There are real problems in Croatia and the Icelandic situation is somewhat curious because of the debt. It may be that they only really want to come in to relieve their current financial difficulties, I can't think that's a good reason to change the democratic rights of your citizens."

Finally, he cannot resist returning to Britain's complex relations with the EU. "I voted for an in-out referendum the other day, but the real issue is to be or not to be a democratic nation state - because, ultimately, the question is whether or not we can break the cycle of just accepting whatever Europe offers. And acquiescing in treaties that have a huge effect on the UK and create a juggernaut on the continent, which by all of the evidence is failing to produce good levels of employment and quality businesses, is wrong. The EU is not doing the UK any good. By the same token, 50 per cent of all our regulation comes from the EU. By legislating for ourselves again, we could start building up our small businesses and global trading - overriding supranational legislation where it is necessary."

Playing devil's advocate – I suggest that surely he sees some EU value in certain policy areas where member states have achieved more together through critical mass than they ever could of hoped to by acting unilaterally? "There are a number of areas – like international pollution, for example – where I can see a case for the EU, but I would like to know of any European legislation that we couldn't have passed at Westminster anyway and then entered into bilateral arrangements with other member states. The EU is now even moving into the zone of direct taxation, when it should be exclusively and solely a matter for national governments. This is what is going on." With that, Cash is off to another urgent appointment. No doubt, his relentless mission to convert people to his cause will spill over there too. His indefatigability certainly commands a degree of respect.