European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, this debate, while it is an essential parliamentary process of ratification, is nevertheless a demonstration of the ambivalence at best and outright hostility at worst that some still feel towards the European Union, of which I remind your Lordships we are part, in which we play our part in the decision-making and of which, as with our partners, our democratically elected Governments have thought fit to take us into membership and to maintain that membership. Those Governments also played a part in the evolution of the original EEC into the Union of today, the most recent chapter of which is the treaty of Lisbon. So let no one say that this has all happened without our knowledge or because of the unelected Commission. Too often—and the debate about the Lisbon treaty in the press clearly demonstrates this—the relationship between the UK and the EU is expressed as one in which the two are competing or opposed to each other rather than complementary. We are a world away, however much we applauded last week, from the obvious pride in France and the European Union demonstrated last week by the President of France in his address to both Houses. I find myself very much in agreement with the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. I am sorry if it sounds churlish towards the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, given her introduction of the Bill, but the Government’s role in all this has hardly been a striking example of dynamic leadership or commitment. Was it not the then Foreign Secretary who commented that the abandoned constitutional treaty was not a constitution for a European state and that it was a tidying-up exercise and who, ignoring the important changes that it contained, said that the name was of no significance and that even golf clubs have constitutions? The then Prime Minister Mr Blair bowed to pressure and conceded a referendum—perhaps the time when all our problems began. France followed suit and, as they say, the rest is history. The Government then hailed what became the Lisbon treaty as a replacement for the doomed constitution but quite different, with all the constitution elements having been dropped. However, before the capitulation over the referendum, they maintained, correctly in my view, that the original treaty had not been a real constitution. The Government now tell us how superior the Lisbon treaty is with all our opt-outs, opt-ins, emergency brakes and protocols. People ask, ““Why did we agree the first treaty if there was so much wrong with it that we had to negotiate a new one?””. Of course the public are confused and feel that the Government are trying to pull the wool over their eyes. They cannot be sure whether the treaty is good or bad. The Opposition say that it is different and the Government say that it is only good because we have managed to achieve opt-outs, protocols and brakes, which will enable us to be a bit player in some of the most important areas. By and large, the press perpetuates the myths and largely goes unanswered. If the people who negotiate this on our behalf cannot be more enthusiastic, how do we expect the public so to be? There is nothing to be gained from comparing the treaty of Lisbon with the abandoned constitutional treaty. What matters is how the Lisbon treaty changes the position of the United Kingdom compared with the position under the existing treaties. I submit to your Lordships that the European Union Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, whose excellent report we have before us tonight, was correct in adopting its approach to prepare an impact assessment. It is worth noting that, had the original treaty been proceeded with, it would have been much clearer, replacing as it would have done all the existing text. Of course, provisions in Lisbon were proposed in the constitutional treaty, but to pretend that it is totally different is just to add to the confusion. Lisbon is an amending treaty and has to be read as such. Actual amendments are clear, but some that appear new often repeat important elements of replaced, as opposed to amended, articles. The treaty contains important changes that I welcome, such as the end of the rotating presidency, to be replaced not with a president of Europe or a head of state, as per the Daily Telegraph, and not with a mere Eurocrat, but with someone elected by the elected heads of government. Is anyone really against steps to try to ensure a more effective CFSP? Is anyone against a reduction in the number of Commissioners? Indeed, some people are against more majority voting but, before we cite the number of instances to which that will apply, perhaps we should note the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, and his breakdown of the changes that are actually involved. Do we need unanimity to approve the appointment of a member state’s nominee to the Committee of the Regions? Anyway, are we always going to find ourselves in the minority? Perhaps we should note the matters of importance where unanimity has been retained in foreign policy and defence. Are we not in favour of the involvement of national parliaments? There are considerable changes in the areas of freedom, security and justice. The Law and Institutions EU Sub-Committee, of which I am a member, looked at that under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Mance. In many instances, the new treaty is more specific and open to less doubt than the provisions of the existing one. I draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 6.140 of the Select Committee report, which says: "““The power under the current Article … to adopt measures of judicial cooperation in civil matters is … potentially broad, since the list of areas of potential action … is non-exclusive””." The new article, "““contains a more extensive list of … of potential action. However, these in practice are areas in which cooperation has already been undertaken under the current Article, and the list given is exhaustive””." Similar statements are made on page 141 about judicial co-operation in criminal matters, but I will not delay your Lordships by reading that now. Notwithstanding all that, myths are already growing about the threat to common law and about foreign police stamping over England’s green and pleasant land. We also looked at the Charter of Fundamental Rights together with the protocol. Contrary to some statements, the protocol will have the force of law if the treaty comes into force. The recommendation makes it clear, however, that the protocol will make little or no difference. Before those who are totally opposed to it cheer, I should point out that the charter draws on the European Convention on Human Rights and other instruments by which the United Kingdom is already bound. I must confess not to understand the hostility towards the European Court of Justice, as if it were a lawmaker rather than an adjudicator. We have to recognise that independent courts sometimes give rise to decisions uncomfortable to Governments. I should have thought that Governments of all persuasions in this country would have learnt that from their encounters with our own domestic courts. I did not believe that the constitutional treaty amounted to a constitution despite its name, and I have always been against a referendum, even before Mr Blair’s surrender. I regret that this puts me at odds with my noble friends on the Front Bench and others on the Back Benches, but I cannot change my view just because of a manifesto commitment to which I did not agree and to which I personally did not sign up. I have to ask what the alternative is to ratification. Is it to remain with the existing treaties, or do we believe that they should be renegotiated? That indeed would be a recipe for years of dissent, which would make the years of the convention and the years of reflection seem like a brief interlude. As for the issue of passerelles, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, makes a persuasive case for primary legislation. In my view, however, the provisions of the treaty and the provisions of the Bill combine to provide significant safeguards, not least because they will require the agreement of both Houses of Parliament—and this House, appointed for life, is a rather greater safeguard than a House predominantly elected from lists drawn up by the parties that some would prefer to see us replaced by. Do we really want proposals for primary legislation that will lead us into long debates and discussions about the merits or otherwise of the European Union and our membership? I personally believe that not to be good for the United Kingdom or for the European Union. Of course the treaty of Lisbon is a compromise, but it is not the end of constitutional and parliamentary life as we know it. We should bear in mind the fact that our partners are also proud nations, some of which have regained freedom in relatively recent times. To suggest that Lisbon threatens their national sovereignty is to suggest that they have colluded and in some way been careless with that recently regained freedom. We have our opt-outs, our opt-ins, our protocols, our emergency brakes. Let us accept with good grace that these are compromises by our partners as much as by ourselves and, of course after proper scrutiny, let us get on and ratify and pass this treaty.