European Union (Amendment) Bill

I thank my hon. Friend for his acknowledgement that our battle here has been effective. I think that the key question has to be what the Liberal Democrats will do in the upper House. We wait to find out the answer to that question. We also debated the referendum last Wednesday, and I do not propose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reprise the whole debate again. However, the Foreign Secretary's case against the referendum veered from one position to another with all the consistency of a series of Liberal Democrat ““Focus”” leaflets. He was finally reduced to arguing that a referendum was originally promised in order, as he put it that night, to ““clear the air””. Well, I put it to him that if it was appropriate to clear the air then, why can we not clear the air now, and give the people the referendum they were promised? That brings me on to a fundamental weakness in the Government's whole argument throughout the passage of the Bill. If they are so confident in the treaty and believe that it is such a good deal for the people of this country, and if they contend that it is so markedly to our advantage, why do not they not have the courage of their convictions and go the people of this country to argue the case in a referendum debate—not least because they promised it in the first place? As my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary previously indicated, we shall table a referendum amendment in the other place, where the battle to give the people the say that they were promised will continue—and continue vigorously. Even ardent pro-Europeans must realise that the way in which this whole process has been conducted has done little, if anything, to advance their cause. In fact, it has done quite the reverse. The public may not have followed all the intricacies of the debate, which is exactly what the Government hoped, but they do know that they were promised a referendum, which they have so far been denied. There was considerable press comment in the aftermath of last week's vote, but I was particularly struck by an article by Camilla Cavendish in The Times on 7 March. It was entitled ““A squalid exercise in dishonesty””, and she noted:"““The powers that our politicians are giving away are powers that they hold in trust for the people. Some of those who voted on Wednesday sincerely believe the EU and were voting on principle. But many more simply found it expedient not to know too much.””" She went on to argue:"““Historians may relish the irony that so much now rests with Irish voters in their referendum and with unelected Lords. Let us hope that the Lords debate is more honest.””" From the Conservative Benches, we certainly hope so, too. If the House grants the Bill a Third Reading tonight, it will fall to the other place to apply what my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has previously described as the ““Salisbury convention in reverse””. It will fall to the unelected peers to hold elected Commons Members to the promise on which they were elected to Parliament in the first place! I have sat through every single debate on this treaty, and I have contributed to just about every one of them. Having done so, and seen this process in action, I believe that the only type of victory that the Government can hope to win tonight is a pyrrhic one. I believe that this remains a treaty without a democratic mandate; it lacks public support, and it lacks any endorsement by the people. When people were given a chance to vote in 10 constituency referendums, 88 per cent. argued for a referendum on the constitution. There is now only one way for the Government to legitimise this treaty in the eyes of the people—finally to have the courage of their convictions, to abide by their own manifesto, and to let the people decide.