European Union (Amendment) Bill

I am grateful for that guidance. Let me say briefly—we are not rehearsing the debate—that my recollection of the treaty is that it refers not to diverting supplies, but to assistance. Yesterday, we had a debate on international aid, and previously we had a debate on foreign policy. There is an overlap between those subjects, although they are separate, and that overlap was part of the debate. The idea that those nasty foreigners will tell us what to do on the international stage about aid or foreign policy is completely off the mark. To use the noun that I employed yesterday, the proposals mean ““leverage”” for the United Kingdom. To use an expression from the earlier debate on foreign policy, they can mean an each-way bet as opposed to a one-way street. If we are alone on an issue, the treaty will allow us to stand alone in terms of the competences, decision making and allocation of powers, because foreign policy has to be held in common and determined by unanimity. If we agree with the other member states, we have leverage. When the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) about qualified majority voting and the blocking minority—I intervened subsequently—he presented the position negatively, as if it were always a question of how we could build a blocking minority—the unspoken sentiment in brackets being, ““How can we stop those nasty foreigners doing things to the UK?”” That is such a negative perspective. We should consider ways in which we can work with other member states when QMV covers the competence to build a coalition to get what we want for our country and our national interests in the European Union.