The hon. Lady makes just the point that I was about to make. First, the treaty has not been ratified. Indeed, it could well be argued on the American side that there is no need for any hurry. If it is being implemented on the British side, why should there be any hurry on the part of the American Senate to ratify it? There is no incentive to do so. The hon. Lady rightly made that first point, and her second one, too, remains relevant. Even if it is ratified the imbalance remains, so it is not just a question of the Senate acting in due course. Apparently, great efforts are being made on the British side to get ratification, but even if that happens, the imbalance and the controversy will continue. As has been said already, no other country in Europe—not even countries that are no less favourable allies than ourselves—has the same sort of arrangement that we have negotiated with the United States.
I conclude my brief remarks by saying that I am far from being anti-American, and I have shown that over recent events. Like the Prime Minister, though perhaps not to the same extent, I believe that it is in the interests of Britain to have a close, friendly working relationship with the US. It may come as a surprise to one or two people on the Opposition side to hear me say that, but that has nevertheless been my position. I do not believe that since 1945 it would have been to this country’s advantage not to have such a close working relationship with the US. We have already lived through the cold war and now face acute terrorist threat and danger, as we saw only yesterday in India and in what happened on 7/7.
Obviously, I do not work on the basis that we are necessarily countries of equal size or influence; it would be nonsense to believe that. I am concerned, however, that there is a growing feeling in Britain, even among people who would not view themselves as anti-American, that in our relationship with the US we are not getting the balance and equality that we should. People feel that what the US wants, we concede without too much difficulty, and without going properly through all the ramifications. There is a real danger that such feeling could turn into real antagonism towards the US, which, as I said, would certainly not be in Britain’s interest.
I ask the Solicitor-General to reflect on the fact that we are talking about three individuals now, but who knows what will happen next year or the year after? It may not necessarily be bankers next time. If that happens, there will be far more of an outcry on the Labour Benches than we have seen today. The principle is the important thing, and I hope that even at this late stage, my right hon. Friend will give further consideration to this matter. There is a great deal of anxiety in the country. He may think otherwise, but for all the reasons advanced in the debate, I believe that the anxiety is very considerable.
UK-US Extradition Treaty
Proceeding contribution from
David Winnick
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 12 July 2006.
It occurred during Adjournment debate
and
Emergency debate on UK-US Extradition Treaty.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
448 c1423-4 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 21:32:38 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337012
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337012
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337012