European Union (Amendment) Bill

No, I do not agree with that. Interestingly, there are different constitutional situations in different countries. My understanding is that nine countries planned to hold referendums on the old constitutional treaty, of which one was the United Kingdom. Because it was regarded as a constitutional matter, not just a political decision, many countries were legally obliged to do so. Because the Lisbon treaty is so different, there is no need to have referendums in most of those countries—I think that Ireland is the exception. The view taken by the Dutch Council of State—an independent body that advises the Dutch Government on the steps that they must take to ratify treaties—is particularly instructive and helpful. It is a constitutional requirement that there must be a referendum on a constitutional matter, and that body advises the Dutch Government on particular measures. Its conclusion on the constitutional treaty in 2004 was that it had to be put to a referendum, because it would change the Dutch constitution. Its conclusion on the Lisbon treaty was quite different, stating that it"““provides no arguments for the gradual expansion of the EU towards a more explicit state or federation. The treaty is substantially different from the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe.””" So there was a significant difference in the view and recommendations of the independent Dutch Council of State. There is clearly a difference between the two treaties, which is why eight of the nine countries that originally planned a referendum no longer do. The treaty of Lisbon contains a modest set of proposals that will provide a stable framework to allow EU expansion to be more effective. The differences between it and the constitutional treaty are major and significant. The Foreign Secretary took us through a few of them, and, although I do not wish to detain the Committee by going through a long list, we should be prepared to recognise them.