European Union (Amendment) Bill

I imagine that at the end of tonight's debate I will probably be on the losing side after going through the Lobby with those who, as has been the case many times during these debates, find themselves on the right side of the argument but on the wrong side of the vote. That is sad. I believe that the vote this Parliament took last week on the referendum, and that which I suspect will be taken tonight on the treaty itself, will do irreparable damage to our own image, the powers of this Parliament and our country. It is clear that there is a distance between a large number of Members of this Parliament and the electorate, to whom Members promised that there would be a referendum when this constitution was finally arranged. I know that many arguments have been made to the effect that this is not a constitution, but simply a treaty. However, as late as June last year, when the negotiations had been going on for some time—I suspect that the Government were aware of what was likely to be agreed and what was not—the Prime Minister was still saying:"““The manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.””" Even in the middle of the negotiations, the Prime Minister was still saying that the manifesto pledge was a matter of trust with the electorate, yet that has now been broken. I have listened to the arguments that have been made over the days of debate, and again today. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) were telling us that we had nothing to worry about because this was not a constitution. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, let us see what the Dutch, the French and the Danish have said about this, but they, of course, have an interest in playing down the constitutional aspect of the document because they have populations that have made it clear that they will not tolerate a constitution. Two of those countries have voted against it. Twelve of the other countries have no axe to grind—they have not had a referendum—and seem to have no great concerns about whether it is a constitutional treaty. I am not going to put their views on the record again, because over the weeks of debate on this subject, hon. Members have put on the record what all of those other 12 countries, the original author of the constitution, the European Parliament and the European Commission have said. They are all on the record as saying, ““This is a constitution. This is the same as the document that we negotiated previously, with very little difference.”” The second argument is that the treaty does not represent a massive transfer of power—but let me mention some of the ways in which there is a transfer of power: the setting up of new EU institutions; the weakening of the UK power to block legislation; the reduction of national vetoes on votes in Europe; the new EU powers on health, social security and trade policy; and a legal toolbox for further changes, which is perhaps the most damaging aspect, because there can be more changes without us considering them in this form again. We are told, and many hon. Members have put it on the record again, that the sort of language used in the document has been chosen because it is important for the content and the real intent to be hidden in some way. The Prime Minister of Luxembourg said:"““Britain is different. Of course there will be a transfer of sovereignty””—" it does not matter what is said here; those who do not want to highlight the transfer of sovereignty will try to hide it—"““But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to the fact?””" Of course he would not, not when there is a sceptical public in the United Kingdom. The other reason suggested as to why the arguments against the treaty should not be listened to is that we are ““scaremongering””. It is difficult to take lectures about scaremongering when hon. Members imply that if we do not keep faith with the EU and the treaty we will be pushed back into a world war: apparently we will be at Germany's throat, we will be fighting the French, or we will be after the Spanish. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) implied that if we do not vote for the Bill, somehow or other paedophiles will run free around Europe, guns will be all over the place, and we will not even get a European spaceship.