European Union (Amendment) Bill

My hon. Friend has pre-empted me. I will come to the trade unions in a moment. The Government have comprehensively lost the argument that the two documents are different. Hardly anyone in the media and less than 10 per cent. of the public believe them on that point. It is, to coin a phrase, patently obvious that the emperor has no clothes, but still the Government have to maintain this desperate pretence; and, crucially, they are asking every member of the House to suspend all independent judgment and become complicit in the deception tonight. Under pressure, the Government fall back upon their supposed red lines— which in any case are almost exactly the same as they were in 2005, when we were promised a referendum. However, the European Scrutiny Committee, in two detailed reports, examined the Government's red lines and found them wanting. The Committee's Labour Chairman, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), told the BBC's ““Today”” programme that they would ““leak like a sieve””—and that at the end of an examination that took some two months. Not only do the red lines fail to protect our sovereignty; as clause 6 shows, the treaty carries forward from the original constitution the new so-called ““simplified revision procedure””. That is the ““ratchet clause””, which means that in future individual vetoes could be surrendered for ever after a brief debate on a simple House of Commons motion. If the Bill is passed tonight, we will table amendments in Committee to strengthen the protection, so that no veto can be given up under the auspices of the Bill itself without primary legislation being required. The Government's reaction to all this amounts to crude scare tactics. In the weekend press, the Foreign Secretary described opposition to the treaty as an ““extreme position””, but the people of France and the Netherlands voted against the constitution in 2005, and no one called them ““extreme”” as a result. As the polls consistently show that three quarters of the British people want a referendum on this treaty, is the Foreign Secretary calling three quarters of our electorate extreme? If he is, his colleagues in marginal constituencies might not thank him for that judgment. The trade unions, which voted overwhelmingly for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty at the TUC conference last autumn, might well not thank him either. Let me read out the words of Paul Kenny, the general secretary of the GMB, who proposed the motion. He said:"““The GMB is not an anti-European union. The GMB is not an anti-Labour union…If there is disenchantment with Europe, blame the lack of political vision of MPs but don't blame the trade unions for reminding politicians of their promises to the British people””." That motion was carried overwhelmingly. Labour's manifesto for the 2005 general election was clear about the constitution. It said:"““We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote””." The Prime Minister said just before taking office that he regarded honouring that manifesto as ““a matter of trust”” with the British people. Given that, how can any Labour MP who votes to give this Bill a Second Reading tonight go back to their own electorate—or, indeed, their own constituency Labour party—and look people squarely in the eye when they will have betrayed the manifesto on which they were originally elected to this House? The Government's wriggling on this issue has been matched only by that of the Liberal Democrats, whose Members are present in force tonight—all three of them. Their 2005 manifesto commitment was equally clear. It stated:"““We are clear in our support for the EU constitution, which we believe is in Britain's interest—but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people””." Liberal Democrat support for such a referendum goes back even further than that, however. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks pointed out, when the new leader of the Liberal Democrats—whom I congratulate on his forthcoming promotion to the Privy Council—was still an MEP he wrote an article for The Guardian in which he argued forcefully for a referendum on the EU constitution. He said—and I hope I get the pronunciation right—that:"““Nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide, that we do not have the 'cojones' to carry our argument to the people.””" I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat spokesman this evening was rather confused. At one point, he argued that what we needed was an in-out referendum on Europe, and then, a few minutes later, he said we could not have a referendum on the EU constitution—on the Lisbon treaty—because he claimed that that would represent, effectively, an in-out referendum on Europe. That was the argument he put to the House. I say to him and his colleagues, when the Division bell rings in a few minutes' time, let us see exactly what cojones the Liberal Democrats have and which Lobby they go through. That brings me on to one further argument against giving the Bill a Second Reading. Leaving aside all the technicalities of the treaty—the ratchet clause, the red lines, the collapse of the third pillar—every Member knows from their postbag that, despite the work we all put in every week, support for politics and politicians is diminishing. Will voting for this Bill improve that situation or make it worse? Will it bolster or weaken our authority as an institution in the eyes of an increasingly sceptical public if we surrender even more of our remaining powers without public consent and on the basis of a con that is plain for all to see? Even if the Government were somehow to force the Bill through the Commons on a three-line Whip, I believe the best they can hope for is a pyrrhic victory. They might regard that as a short-term advance, but it could turn out to be something of a strategic defeat in respect of the long-term attitude of the British people towards the European Union; and because of the way it had been done, it could only serve to undermine the credibility of the House in the eyes of the people who sent us here. Every Member is ultimately accountable to their electors for how they cast their vote. We shall ensure that voters in every Labour and Liberal Democrat constituency are made well aware of how their Member votes on this treaty. Members on both sides of the House should consider that the Government have completely failed to convince the media and the British people that this treaty is anything other than the constitution under another name—they have also failed to convince the majority of Labour Back Benchers deep down in their heart of hearts. We are the guardians of the people's liberties—[Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but we are. The powers vested in this House belong ultimately to the people. In a sense, they are not ours to give away—certainly not without a democratic mandate and definitely not on the basis of a false premise. Let us reject this Bill and defend the interests of the British people, unless and until they are allowed to decide the matter.