This is an important discussion. Deputy Doherty is right to probe this particular area. We were at the centre of the storm not so many years ago in relation to something of a similar nature, although from different origins. I remember being at a meeting in the oval room where the Commission meets. I think Viscount Davignon was its chair at the time and chaired that meeting. We were presented as the bold children of Europe, who departed from the rules laid down and took upon ourselves trends and policies that were to the detriment of European stability. That is how our actions were seen. We were chastised openly at that meeting, which was not a nice place to be. It was embarrassing, especially when some of our fellow member states had been the very first to depart from the economic and financial restrictions laid down by the European Union some years previously. However, those states were bigger than us and were able to withstand more. The small country that was on the agenda at that meeting appeared to be at the centre of the storm. It had an effect on the European Union in general, which took some time to recover its independence, stability and sense of purpose. That will always be the case. It is extremely difficult to determine, at this stage, what the risk might be because it can change from time to time.
There are two issues in that regard. The first is whether we are perceived to be restricting ourselves at this stage. We are then dependent on our friends in Europe to drive forward and proceed cautiously in the clear knowledge that this is the European Union and a mistake by one is a mistake by all. That was the situation at the time. We are right to probe it but we have to also recognise that if we set a border or an upper limit to what we are prepared to do to ensure stability, growth and safe policies throughout Europe, that has an impact as well, and there is nothing we can do about it because it is in the future. If things go wrong for one, they go wrong for all. The danger from Ukraine's point of view is that the European Union might be seen to falter at this stage at a crucial time for Ukraine. The invading country, Russia, does not need to have any regard whatsoever for the feelings of the European Union, which it has completely ignored heretofore, or the feelings of its individual member states, which it is ready to ignore. Let us never forget that the Russian ambassador gave a firm commitment that he and his country had no interest in invading Ukraine. Those are famous words, which Russia broke a couple of weeks later. This is to provide everybody with the knowledge that we can make famous statements that we intend to break.
Another thing that has happened in Europe, which we all know about, is Brexit. We now have an indication from a country at the centre of Europe, the Netherlands, to the effect that a leading political party there intends to have a referendum on the future of that country remaining in Europe. That is serious stuff. It affects every country in the European Union because it could be seen as the beginning of the end. Europe has to do what it has to do to ensure the stability of the overall European map in the face of threats that occur now and threats that are likely. Its response has to be balanced, but it has to give some kind of recognition to the threats that are there and how Europe as a whole is likely to respond.
Like every other country, we are beneficiaries as well as net contributors. We have the benefits of the European Single Market. I heard somebody commenting on pharmaceuticals or something and the scene in this country as she saw it. She said that we are a small country and insignificant in the European Union. We are not. We are the same as everybody else in the European Union. We are participants and contributors to the Single Market, which means that every country in that Single Market, and committed to it, has the right of access to it and the right to the benefits of it. If there are negative parts we have to shoulder, we have to shoulder them, in the short term at least. However, there is a need to inform our colleagues across Europe because they occasionally take their eye off the ball and make grand speeches and so on and so forth, and sometimes become very popular for the stands they take. The European Commission needs to remember that at all times. Insofar as all the countries of Europe are concerned, while it was a Single Market a few years ago, it is not the same Single Market it was before Brexit.
If there is another threat to the European unity that was in existence heretofore, that will diminish the sum total of what Europe represents, whether we like it or not. We can talk about it afterwards, and point out the mistakes that were made, but we should not ignore some of the signs and some of the concerns that have been expressed. We need to look at them again. We have to take a risk, which is a difficult thing to do. We are in the position of being in the Single Market and are an integral part of the community. We have equal rights, albeit under qualified majority voting and so on.
It was always recognised that the member state is the ultimate authority on taxation matters. That is no longer certain because an approach has been made under competition rules that seems to run across that previous entitlement. The qualified voting majority now applies, which can also have an impact. The point at issue has to be whether somebody in the Commission or whatever sees an opportunity in the future to reduce the importance of each member state and the contribution, especially the positive contribution, each member state can make to the Union. It is also about whether the Commission takes its eye off the ball on that and tries to apportion blame around the place, distribute the negative impacts of it, and assume unto itself areas that were previously clearly set out as being part and parcel of an issue that was the preserve of the member state only. It is a very important issue as regards such things as a corporate profits tax and so on. How dare the Commission identify this country as a tax haven? That was done deliberately to discredit the country. It knows full well what that does but it still persists. The Advocate General, unfortunately, should have thought more about it before issuing a non-binding conclusion regarding issues that were before that office at the time.
Like everybody around this table, I am a committed European.
I believe Europe has to prevail, and the positive side of Europe has to prevail. We also have a contribution to make in relation to its stability, its growth and its economic progress into the future. We also have to take into account and take some responsibility, collectively, for the issues that confront Europe as a whole, and how best to deal with them. Apologies, Chairman, but I spent time at those meetings and I did not like what I was hearing. Every time issues I hear related to them again, I think about it and I get angrier every time.
