European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, I must apologise for not being here for the earlier part of the debate but, having a damaged leg, I found that my place in the speakers list clashed with appointments at two hospitals. I thank the Government Whips for allowing me now to speak briefly in the gap. Late last year, Mr Michael Portillo said that on a number of central issues, including Europe and immigration, the electorate have effectively been disfranchised. British democracy, he continued, has been diminished and weakened, not only because most of our laws are devised by an arrogant, self-regarding and unaccountable elite in Brussels but because this situation cannot be changed as the result of a tacit consensus among an arrogant and self-regarding domestic elite. That is surely true. I wonder how long our Government can go on disregarding public opinion on issue after issue, building up hostility in so many areas and behaving at times as though they need not bother about the country outside Westminster. Not for ever, I think. Numerous polls have shown that most of the electorate understand that the treaty is essentially the same as the rejected constitution. A few of them also know that Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the devisor of the original constitution, has said: "““Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way””." Those are hardly the words of a democrat but are said by a leading light of the EU. The new treaty, like the earlier constitution, introduced radical changes in the nature of the EU and in our relationship with it—changes that will go far towards establishing a single European state. The whole structure of the EU is being centralised and strengthened. We are to lose a great many of our vetoes, and the EU is in future to deal as far as possible directly with European citizens, bypassing national Governments. It is to assume a legal personality, giving it the status and powers of a full-blown state. A not unreasonable need for change to cope with the expansion of the EU has been transformed into a great leap forward towards an integrated Europe. This has been done without any consultation with the peoples of the EU, among them the British, who were promised a referendum by all three of our main political parties but are now being denied it. Those who are expert in these matters—not least the European Scrutiny Committee of the other place—say that the Government’s red lines and protocols, which are supposed to protect Britain’s interests, will not give us effective protection. The public understand that we are being asked to agree to a massive transfer of powers to Brussels. More of what is still left of our sovereignty as a nation is to be surrendered. Before too long, there will be no need for deliberation in Westminster on important matters. I have for a long time believed that we should have a much looser relationship with the EU. I remember the debates on Maastricht, when I worked on amendments with the late Lord Tonypandy on matters that concerned us, such as the provision that the Queen should become a citizen of Europe. Those debates included the late Lord Blake’s call for a referendum on Maastricht, which was defeated by the then Conservative Government, who organised a massive vote against it. Now, we again face widespread calls for a referendum but this time it is a Labour Government who oppose consultation with the people. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, quoted in this House on 25 March a speech in which the Prime Minister said: "““The right of all the British people to have their voice heard is fundamental to our democracy””—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/07; col. 818.]" Those are fine words, but Gordon Brown now denies the British people that right. Before we go, it would surely be right for this House to vote to give the people of this country the opportunity to say whether Britain should agree to the Lisbon treaty, with all the consequences that flow from it. In doing so, we should go some way to restore genuine democracy to this country—something that our people surely deserve.