European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, the hour is indeed late. On the other hand, a number of my noble colleagues of a broadly sceptic disposition have had to scratch, notably my noble friend Lord Neill of Bladen, so perhaps I may be allowed to speak for a few minutes. First I gladly join others in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Grenfell and his colleagues for an excellent and very well set-out report. I cannot claim by a long shot to have read every word of it, but I sense that the conclusions do not entirely vindicate all of the Government’s reassuring claims. My thanks also go to the noble Baroness the Lord President for her very useful briefing, even if many noble Lords, I fear, are likely to remain unconvinced by her seductive reassurance that the treaty embodies the best of all possible worlds for the United Kingdom. For some months now, the Government have claimed that the treaty is quite different from the draft constitution, thereby implying that Mr Giscard d’Estaing, Angela Merkel and other senior European statesmen and politicians are either liars or fantasists. But let us suppose for a moment that the Government are right, despite 96 per cent of the treaty being identical to the draft constitution, and despite the truly alarming proposal to give the European Court of Justice a much greater role in criminal justice and home affairs; right that, overall, the changes are fewer than those imposed by the Single European Act and the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties; and right that, theoretically, there is therefore no need for a referendum. My quarrel with that contention is based primarily not on the doctrine of the sanctity of a manifesto commitment, important though that undoubtedly is, not least to maintain public confidence in Parliament and our institutions, but on the fact that, even if the proposed changes are less far reaching than those in earlier treaties, and assuming our opt-outs or red lines can be made to stick—which is a very big ““if””—the changes, in particular the extension of QMV, represent the last straw that breaks the long-suffering British camel’s back. I refer to the remorseless erosion of our powers of self-government. I voted no in 1975 and in a minor and wholly ineffectual way campaigned for a no vote, sensing the way in which things were likely to evolve, despite assurances to the contrary. Most but not all of my family, friends and acquaintances thought my stance rather eccentric, even subversive—indeed, Bennite. It is difficult to remember it now, but enormous numbers of people at that time were in total fear of Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn and the supposed cohorts of Maoist subversives lurking in the shadows, waiting only for his command to unleash mayhem. It seems ridiculous now, but that is how millions of people thought in those days. These friends and acquaintances happily accepted the assurances of Messrs Wilson and Heath that joining the EEC, as it then was, would be essentially liberating, with no adverse consequences, notwithstanding some unease about the treatment of our allies and kinsmen in New Zealand. The idea that the EEC and its successors would gradually but remorselessly extend their powers so as to push their way into the nooks and crannies of our everyday lives was at that time quite inconceivable. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has given us a few examples of the way in which the EU has interfered in the internal affairs of various countries, not only our own but other countries as well—we must be vigilant to protect the rights of the citizens of other countries as well as our own. Let us look at what has come to light in the past 10 days alone in this country. First, rural bus networks are being crippled by an EU directive obliging bus drivers to be given 45 hours’ time off after driving a mere 31 miles. It would take no more than an hour and a half to drive that distance on a rural road in a remote area. Secondly, a small manufacturer of alcoholic fruit cordials is told that he must switch from 37.5cl bottles to 35cl bottles at enormous cost to his business, even though he does not sell these cordials in the EU as far as I know and his customers benefit from the slightly larger bottles in which they buy the stuff. Thirdly, a couple have been told that they cannot live in a rather splendid-looking house, judging by the newspaper photographs, but must live in a caravan in the garden for several months because some rare newts have been found adjacent to the house. To the EU, newts are apparently more important than human beings. Fourthly, pub landlords have been told that they could be hit with a massive financial penalty if customers chat up barmaids. This sort of thing—and things that are far important than that—has been happening month after month, year after year without the democratic consent of the British people. Subsidiarity has turned out to be a total farce. The moral case for a referendum is this: for almost 33 years the British people have experienced the consequences of the 1975 referendum vote. They have seen the powers of national parliaments gradually whittled away and felt the tentacles of the EU force their way into the nooks and crannies of their everyday lives, rather than the EU confining its intrusions to matters with a genuine cross-border dimension such as the single market, to which I have no objection. Foreign affairs excepted, the proud, ancient nation-states of Europe are now left with far less autonomy than the princely states of India pre-1947, and in many respects with less than Rhode Island, Delaware, South Dakota, Alabama, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, New South Wales and Queensland, to name but a few. Of course, these states and provinces share our individualistic, democratic, Anglo-Saxon heritage, where the tradition is ““trust the people””, however unpredictable and often awkward they may turn out to be. Continental elitists have never really ““trusted the people”” whom they regard as volatile and often tending towards a narrow Poujadism, and who accordingly cannot be trusted to follow the right advice or think along the right lines. Hence the Euro-zealots vastly prefer a genuinely benevolent paternalism exercised by a dispassionate Olympian enarque such as Monsieur Giscard d’Estaing, or the equivalent of the enarque in other continental countries, which they believe to be a far safer and tidier arrangement. Such people equate uniformity with stability and order and shudder, for example, at the idea of each American or Australian state or Canadian province deciding on its own traffic laws, let alone its own criminal law, including, for example, the application of capital punishment. ““How untidy, cher collègue, how anarchic””, I can hear them say. National differences and idiosyncrasies can be permitted by this reasoning provided they are confined to matters which the French term ““folklorique””. At one time one hoped that the eastern and central European countries, liberated from tyrannical uniformity less than 20 years ago, might join with us in fighting to preserve individuality and resist obsessive harmonisation and the nanny super-state. Alas, with the possible exception of the Czech Republic, they are too preoccupied with financial problems at present. I readily concede that there are one or two desirable aspects to this treaty but believe that they are heavily outweighed by the less desirable ones. We are not, of course, permitted to pick and choose so I shall most certainly join those noble Lords pressing for a referendum.