European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who earlier set out very succinctly indeed my position on the European Union and the Common Market. I was not in favour of going into the Common Market, and I still believe that we should leave the European Union. For that I have been called a ““little Englander””, a ““nutter”” and all that sort of thing. Today, however, we had a new one from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who described people like me as ““Luddites””. We had better put that on the record as being not very diplomatic from a former diplomat. I hope that he will think very carefully before he hands out further epithets. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned that the Government have reneged on their promise of a referendum. It is not good politics to fail to honour an election pledge and to accept the plaudits of Mr Sarkozy rather than gain the respect of the British people. That is what seems to be happening to our Prime Minister. The way that the Bill was whipped through the House of Commons is against all parliamentary principle. The Prime Minister himself promised that there would be a full and proper debate on and examination of the treaty in the House of Commons, clause by clause, line by line, for at least 21 days. They got 12 days. They did not examine the Bill clause by clause and line by line. A new procedure was introduced under a guillotine and, in fact, the Bill was hardly examined at all. I believe that the House of Commons failed to stand up to the Government, and for that I have great regret. Today, we have heard lots of arguments about why this treaty is not going to alter the relationship between this country and the EU. Bearing in mind that there is an opposing view and that a promise was made, what is the matter with the Government? Why have they no political nous? Why do they not go to the country? That would be the sensible thing to do. That would be good politics because in that way they win under any circumstances. They win both ways because if they won the referendum, it would be a great victory that would settle the European question for a long time, and if they failed to win, they would at least get the credit for having kept their promise. By refusing a referendum, they lose both ways. That is very foolish indeed. They ought to consider the politics of the situation if they want to win the next election. I am glad that this House is to have the opportunity to have a vote on a referendum, and I hope it will be supported across the House. We have already heard what this treaty does. It creates a powerful new institution, a full-time president of the council, which itself becomes an institution of the EU. We know what happens when you appoint chairmen; they want more power and influence. That is exactly what will happen. There is to be a new EU foreign minister in charge of an EU diplomatic service who will make recommendations and act for the EU in negotiations and on EU matters in the United Nations. There is to be an EU public prosecutor. The treaty also gives the European Parliament new powers, scraps 51 vetoes, takes further steps towards a European army and lays the foundations of a European police force and judicial system, not to mention the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Some of us saw this in 1985. During the debates on the Single European Act, the late Lord Bruce of Donington and I sat on the Opposition Front Bench and opposed it on behalf of the then Labour Opposition. Times have, of course, changed since then when the Labour Party was all in favour of coming out of the Common Market and the EEC. That has changed now, and it wants to stay in under any circumstances. Lord Bruce and I opposed the Single European Act from the Labour Party Front Bench. We predicated that the SEA was taking a big step towards a federal or unitary state, but we were ridiculed and given assurances that all would be well, that a lot of it was intergovernmental and that we did not need to worry about the loss of sovereignty. Now, in this treaty, we find that intergovernmentalism is dead and has collapsed into a single European treaty with a single legal personality. I have been around this for a very long time, and will, no doubt, be around it for a lot more time yet, God willing. I turn to a couple of other matters. Together with many other people, I am concerned about the position of Her Majesty the Queen. What will be the effect on her precedence when in the presence of the President of the European Council—in a country of the EU or in this country itself? That is important, and I think we should be told exactly what her position will be. I should also like to know what will be her position vis-a-vis the Commonwealth. Will she still take precedence in the Commonwealth? Will the Commonwealth still want her to be its head, bearing in mind that we have virtually immersed ourselves into the European Union? Are we quite sure that, by asking her to sign the Bill, she will not be in breach of her coronation oath? Those are questions that need to be answered. They have not been answered previously and they ought to be answered now. Last week, we had a visit from the French President, Mr Sarkozy. He had the effrontery to urge the Prime Minister to get rid of all his red lines, give up our rebate, agreed to a European army, stop moaning about the CAP and scrap the pound in favour of the euro.