1. What was actually achieved at Amsterdam?

Not much. Indeed Amsterdam was a disappointment to almost everyone - one of the most unachieving Summits in an increasingly depressing series. Europe’s leaders are out of touch with Europe’s people, who are much more concerned with unemployment than monetary union. France and Germany were openly at odds, particularly on the deflationary implications of the Single Currency. Italy, fearing exclusion, was desperate that no firm decisions should be taken on EMU. The Club Med states were anxious to block British and German proposals on enlargement. There was no agreement on voting in the enlarged community, or on whether there is to be a soft or hard Single Currency. There were warm words on unemployment, but little else, except plans for another conference in the autumn.

Despite the failure to achieve agreement on major issues, the relentless drive towards political integration continued. In the Draft Treaty, the Union and its Court are given powers to define EU citizens’ rights to "freedom, security and justice", and to harmonise police and court procedures. More power is to go to the European Parliament. The role of the veto is to be further reduced, and qualified majority voting extended. A European foreign policy is to be developed, and the Euro Foreign Office beefed up. Member States are to be at risk of being penalised, even to the extent of having their voting rights withdrawn, for persistent non-compliance with the EU Treaties. The Schengen border arrangements, previously outside the EU Treaties, have now been incorporated within them. Fast track EU integration, which Britain had hoped to make subject to a watertight veto, may be allowed to go ahead without those not participating being able to control what is done. Groups of EU states would then be able to use EU institutions, for which we all pay, for purposes for which there is no Treaty provision, creating an inner elite, over which there would then be no real check.

Almost no progress was make on the admission of new Member States. The Commission will publish its views on the current applications in mid-July, covering policies on agricultural, structural and social funds, and a future financial framework. Included among other thorny topics, will be a review of the British rebate. There are major disagreements on the voting system. New applicant states will have to accept all the EMU restrictions set out in the Maastricht Treaty, including compliance with the convergence criteria. There seems little chance of agreement. Germany, which wants enlargement, is distracted by its domestic difficulties over EMU. The French do not want to see the Common Agricultural Policy weakened or dismantled, as it would have to be. The Club Med states share France’s concerns, and also do not want new competitors for EU subsidies.

Britain got nowhere on fishing at Amsterdam, particularly on quota hoppers, now 26% of the British fleet. There is no support elsewhere in the EU for a protocol to stop quota hopping, so this objective was not pursued at Amsterdam. Instead, the government accepted a proposal which the Commission has been advancing for over a year, requiring a proportion of fish landings in Britain, or a proportion of crew members to be British residents. These proposals are unenforceable, as experience has shown. They also do nothing to stop quota hopping triggering yet bigger cuts in Britain’s existing fishing fleet. This is likely to happen because the rich British fishing waters attract quota hoppers from worn out fishing grounds, making the overall British fishing fleet appear to grow. Britain’s fishermen therefore receive no EU financial assistance. The quota hoppers, on the other hand, whose home fleets are notionally shrinking, receive massive EU handouts. These subsidies are then used to pay for the construction of new, high tech vessels in Spain and elsewhere, which then come to our fishing grounds, and with which our fishermen cannot compete. This really is complete madness.

A minister must sign the final legal text, probably in October this year. Formally, all that Parliament has to do is to add the name of the Treaty to the list in the European Communities Act 1972 by a simple amending Bill. As a result, debate could be limited. We therefore need a White Paper, setting down the implications of the Draft Treaty text, early printing of the full EU Treaty, as amended by Amsterdam, and an examination and Report by a House of Commons Select Committee before consideration of the Bill. The Amsterdam Treaty requires the most careful and detailed scrutiny. Despite initial appearances to the contrary, there remains a danger that much further ground could be conceded. Should this be the case, is this not the point at which the British people should be consulted through a referendum about whether they really want to endorse yet more continuing movement towards an integrated, centralised European state?