European Union (Amendment) Bill

I will try to pronounce the word adequately next time. I am sure that many of my colleagues do not understand the original Spanish. The Government clearly promised a referendum. The second element of our debate is whether the constitution and the treaty are the same. At 11 o'clock this morning, we were issued with the consolidated text of the EU treaties, as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. If it looks like a constitution, smells like a constitution and has the weight of a constitution, it is a constitution. The last line of the document states:"““Printed on paper containing 75 per cent. recycled content.””" In my view, a greater percentage is recycled. Government efforts to present the treaty as entirely new are akin to fitting a new set of tyres on a car and claiming that it is a new car. We all know that it is the same thing all over again. The public know that, too, and denying it undermines my party and our credibility as elected politicians. Although I find a lot to support in the treaty—I am especially happy about multi-speed Europe, asymmetrical progression and so on—I am not convinced that the Government's red lines will hold. The Government must prove that they will hold, because I fear that they will be undermined by an activist European Court of Justice. I end with the point that the Government have prayed in aid several organisations, many of which receive money from the European Union, and should declare an interest. Oxfam said to me:"““Oxfam has no stance on whether or not the EU treaty is adopted or whether or not there should be a referendum—these issues are outside our competence and mandate.””"