European Union (Amendment) Bill

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is some deepening in the treaty, but had John Major not taken the position that I have described, there would have been either a bust-up of the European Union or a whole lot more deepening. Earlier today, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) talked about constitutional tinkering. I think that ““tinkering”” was the noun that he used—[Interruption.] It may be a gerund, in fact, I am told. It describes a constant process within a dynamic institution that has expanded greatly in recent years. Many in the House would wish to see it continue to expand. When an organisation expands, it sometimes involves not simply a quantitative change but a qualitative change. With that qualitative change, we need what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as tinkering. We need to change things, and while the treaty perhaps does not get everything to do with the distribution of competences and powers right, it goes a long way towards sorting things out. I shall close—[Hon. Members: ““Hear, hear!””] There will be more later. I shall close by pointing out that, as some hon. Members know, I spent a lot of my professional life in negotiations. When people negotiate with partners, they often have ongoing relationships, as I did when I was acting for the victims of industrial injuries; I had them with insurance companies, for example, which would come in on one case and then on another the next week. When people have ongoing relationships in negotiations, there has to be give and take. It cannot be a one-way street—take, take, take—which is what the official Opposition seem not to understand about negotiations.