European Union (Amendment) Bill

I will not even try to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—I could not—but if this debate is a foretaste of the 20 days to come, it is a very gloomy foretaste indeed. We have heard a couple of excellent speeches, from the Opposition Benches unfortunately. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) gave a brilliant speech and although our former Prime Minister is angling to become president of the European Union, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks still has prospects as president of the Oxford union—he could keep the flag flying there. The former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), made a fascinating speech. Euro-enthusiasts on the Labour Benches were saying, ““I wish I could have given that speech””. It was honest and entertaining; I did not agree with much of it, but it was certainly effective. However, most of the debate has not risen above arguing that if we pass the treaty it will advance motherhood, apple pie, animal welfare, the environment, child care, the NSPCC, bishops and the war on dandruff, and ensure the regular return of library books. Enthusiasts for the treaty say that anybody who is against it—as I am—automatically wants the destruction of Europe. I think the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) said that, but it just ain't true. We should not trade caricatures in that way. My position is clear. I do not want the treaty because it would advance a European superstate, which I do not like. I want a referendum on the treaty as a matter of principle, because we are being asked to abdicate from the power given to us as MPs by the people—power to take decisions on their behalf. If the people want to do a thing, we take the decision. If we can no longer do so because the power has been transferred to Europe, that is no longer democracy; we are incapable and the institution of Parliament is weakened. That is the reason both for holding a referendum and for opposing the treaty. We have run into the nether reaches of the debate, which is when I always speak, so it is good that the Foreign Secretary is still in the Chamber listening to the arguments. The treaty takes us further towards a superstate. The Foreign Secretary told us that the treaty was not a constitution and that the seven years of travail, which I thought were about a constitution, were in fact about institutional reform. I do not believe that. Ninety per cent. of the treaty is the constitution that emerged from the long travails in which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) played such an important part. The treaty has not been changed by the red lines, because they were there before. If European leaders such as Angela Merkel and Bertie Ahern tell us that the treaty is the same as the constitution, if Giscard d'Estaing tells us that it is the same as the constitution but cleverly disguised, if it looks like a constitution, smells like a constitution and reads like a constitution, as far as I am concerned it is a constitution. We do ourselves no good by saying that it is not a constitution but a completely different document—it is not. It is said that diplomats are honest men sent abroad to lie for their country. Well, I do not want Foreign Secretaries to be honest men kept at home to tell untruths about the European Union. That is effectively what has been happening. I do not say ““lies””; I say ““untruths””. Perhaps I should call them Euro-truths, because that is about the same level of accuracy. I looked pedantically at the ““Shorter Oxford English Dictionary””. It is a very big volume; I nearly ruptured myself getting it done from the shelves. It says:"““Constitution…3. a decree, ordinance, law or regulation…6. the mode in which a state is constituted or organised…7. the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state or body politic is constituted and governed.””" Whether we call it a treaty or a reheated Euro-dog's dinner, the document has all those characteristics. It is therefore effectively a constitution. It is no good telling us that black is white. We are already viewed with suspicion by the great mass of this country's electorate, who think that politicians lie, who automatically distrust anything that comes from a Department and disbelieve it and who tell us that they do not believe a word that we say. So it is no use telling us that black is white, when it manifestly is not. That does not encourage any respect for Europe, for the constitution or for the institutions of Government. So let me apply the Paxman test—nothing to do with underpants. To paraphrase the Paxman test—I would apply it to many in the European Union—why is that untruthful person of uncertain parentage telling me what I believe is not true? I can answer that test: Europe is saying that this is not a constitution but a treaty, because in its view, a treaty does not need a referendum. Our Government are telling us that the treaty does not need a referendum, because they know that they would lose. It is as simple as that, and we must be honest about it. I found the Liberal Democrat position absolutely extraordinary. The Liberal Democrats want a referendum on something entirely different from the constitution, but that just shows that their love for Europe is greater than their love for democracy. I have always thought that that was their view anyway, so it no great revelation.