European Union (Amendment) Bill

I was merely seeking to prove my credentials for voting for Third Reading by showing that I am not a pushover in any way. I was trying to say that, as a—reasonably—objective person, I do not like many aspects of drift in Europe and also some elements of this treaty. In political life we must judge things in the round, however. There are things we agree with, and other things we disagree with, and overall this treaty recommends itself to me and to my colleagues, and I believe that there will be a majority in favour of Third Reading in the House tonight. That does not mean that there are not elements of the treaty that could be forensically studied and on which I would have misgivings. I think that all Members would agree with that, if we were honest. We do not agree with 100 per cent. of anything; I certainly do not. As I have said, I also thought that way about Maastricht, and certainly about the new voting arrangements under which we do not know who our regional MEPs are because they do not have a defined constituency. I have never liked that. Looking to the future, I do not unreservedly welcome the possibility of Turkey joining the EU. That makes my position slightly different from that of those who say that the entire treaty is right; I think that the majority of it is right. I have not been present for all the debates, but although I understand their position I am not convinced by the arguments that I have heard from articulate Members from both sides of the House—who have voted against the Bill in Committee—that the treaty is the same as the constitution. One reason why I shall be voting in favour of Third reading is that the treaty is fundamentally different from the constitution. I share the view on why Giscard d'Estaing said what he said; it made me very angry when during a long debate that I attended yet another speaker stood up to quote Giscard d'Estaing. One reason why I like the treaty—and prefer it to the constitution—is because it builds incrementally on other treaties. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about English common law being built up over centuries. Europe is new, and we are building its measures up in a way that is parallel to the building up of English common law. We have had a series of treaties, and I like that process; one of the reasons why I shall vote in favour of Third Reading is because the treaty builds incrementally. I was a Member of this House at the time of debate on the Maastricht treaty, and I voted on it, as you did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I remember all the arguments then, saying how wicked and iniquitous it was to have a guillotine. Members used to say that Mrs.—now Baroness—Thatcher was wicked to introduce guillotines on such important matters and that that was the end of parliamentary democracy as we knew it; and we have heard the same arguments again over the past weeks. However, we must see such steps in the context of Governments having to get their business through. They will get their business done; I am afraid that that is the nature of this place. However, it must be said that Lisbon is a much less significant treaty than Maastricht; that was the big hurdle. The Lisbon treaty is better than the original constitution. The constitution would have wiped out all the previous treaties and started again. I did not like that; I did not think it was necessary. As a politician, I preferred an accretion of effort—building on the last thing that we had constructed and modifying it and changing the bits that have not worked or that we did not like. I do not like the common agricultural policy and what it has done to our agriculture, and I do not like aspects of the common fisheries policy, but I do like other bits of the treaties. Let me explain why I shall go home tonight content about voting for Third Reading. My generation was born during the dark period when this House was being bombed by German aircraft. We can remember the second world war; I was born towards the end of it, but I can remember what Europe did to itself then. I think what a wonderful life I have had and what a wonderful life my children and grandchildren will have bearing in mind certain ghastly things in English history. There are wonderful things about English history, but for goodness' sake there have been wars after wars. The Napoleonic wars were followed by more wars and then by the first world war. The war that brought more of my generation into politics than any other was the first world war, because we thought that it should never happen again. One can read about the history of the first world war and the disgraceful decisions taken by politicians of every party across Europe that made that war happen and made millions of young men die in the trenches. Like many people of my generation, I came into politics to build a country and a Europe where that would never happen again. I have gone on about this in my interventions, but I believe that this treaty builds on the things that we have secured over the years since we became part of the European Union—a European group of nations. This treaty will help to secure the maintenance of peace and prosperity. Let us not underestimate this country's enormous prosperity. Although it brings all sorts of problems, it also brings something that one finds in the American constitution, but not in ours—the pursuit of happiness. I believe that we come into politics so that the people—the people in Huddersfield whom I represent and the people whom we all represent—can have the freedom that they want to pursue the good life and happiness. People have said that we do not have a written constitution. We do not have it in one document, but we have lots of bits of our written constitution and they are all important. They are not tidy or joined up, but they exist and I do not believe that this treaty contravenes them. It becomes part of this great synthesis as we progress—and not just as an old-fashioned nation state that thought it could do anything I hope that when people talk about the nation state they look back at what the nation state brought us—the horrific periods of our experience as a nation—and what it meant, perhaps not for the ruling classes that run the country but for the poor bloody infantry that fought the wars, dug the ditches and did all the ghastly things that happened—[Interruption] They should also look back on slavery and the dreadful things done in the name of the nation state. This exclusive club and company has been discussing the treaty for so many days and I feel honoured to have had the opportunity to put some things on the record. I am not passionate enough to condemn people for their positions—I understand where they come from and my position comes slightly from the outside. This Third Reading and this treaty deserve my support and that of all sensible, good-thinking Members of this House.