European Union (Amendment) Bill

Answering that specific question, I had the honour to be a member of Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee, and the effect on our foreign and defence policies was explored exhaustively under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Roper. We took extensive evidence and came to a wholly different conclusion to that of the noble Baroness. At least the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is honest and clear in his objectives. He wants to leave the European Union and reverse all our policies since we joined. It is sad that the objectives of the Conservative Party in this debate on the European Union are not so clear. The Conservatives retreat into an attempt to recreate the Union in their own image, but that image is not shared by any other member of the European Union and it is therefore a total illusion. The dangers in today’s debate are, first, the temptation to anticipate the debate on the referendum which is to come—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, fell into that trap, as though he were unaware that we will no doubt have several debates on the referendum at different stages of the Bill—and, secondly, the temptation to enter into semantic argument not about lies but about whether this is a federal or confederal matter and whether the treaty is or is not a constitution. We can lose ourselves in the highways and byways of such arguments. Indeed, objectively, the high water-mark of federalism within the European Union was probably the Maastricht treaty. Since then, a number of modifications have moved away from that high water-mark, including the safeguards contained in the Lisbon treaty, which, for example, give much greater powers to national Parliaments. I believe that the spirit of many leaders in the European Union, not least President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, has moved substantially in that direction, probably following their electorates. I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in saying that in effect the 1992 general election was, at least in part, a substitute for a referendum on Maastricht. Even if there were a referendum, it would probably be on a wholly different issue from the purported issue for the referendum, as happened, for example, in the Welsh referendum of 1997. I played a large part in that at the time and the issue was: ““Do you or do you not favour the Callaghan Government?””. When I campaigned with the French socialist party on platforms in France on Maastricht, the issue was not the Maastricht treaty, but ““What do you think of President Mitterrand?”” and various other matters which were basically irrelevant to the terms of the treaty. I remain wholly sceptical about referendums. I think it was President Mitterrand who said that in referendums the French people always answer the wrong question. Sadly, the real danger is how the Conservative Party will react. Will there be a genuinely positive, line-by-line examination of the Bill, or will its members act in the spirit of destruction of all that is there, yet at the same time purport to be good Europeans? Scrutiny, yes; negativity and destruction, no. I look forward to seeing whether there is a scintilla of a positive approach to Europe emerging from the Front Benches opposite. Surely the main point in this debate is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The amendment simply says, "““which amends and alters constitutional arrangements between the European Union and the United Kingdom””." It is absolutely clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, that such a form of words was not used in previous treaties. In previous treaties, all that happened was that the name of the treaty—whether Maastricht or the Single European Act—was simply transmitted from the decision of the intergovernmental council into the form of a Bill which enacted that treaty. So one is bound to pose the fundamental question: what is the difference? Why now, when it was not considered appropriate in those earlier treaties? Perhaps I can turn to the Metternich question. After several days of eyeball-to-eyeball negotiation with his Russian counterpart, news was brought to him at the start of the next day that his Russian interlocutor had died during the night. It is alleged that Metternich said, ““What was his motive?””. I will pose that same Metternich question: what is the motive of the opposition Front Bench in moving this amendment to the Bill when there was no similar provision in earlier Bills? The only reason that I can see for inserting the word ““constitutional”” at this stage is to use it as a kind of paving stone for a referendum. I will avoid the semantic, the tempting discussion of saying what a constitution is. Do we in the UK have a constitution? Yes, we have elements of a constitution. Even written constitutions can be altered fundamentally. Look at the difference between the US constitution of the founding fathers and that which exists today. Look at the way in which, for example, the different presidents—President Roosevelt as an activist president and President Eisenhower as a more placid president—led their country, or look at President de Gaulle and President Pompidou and the constitution of the Fifth Republic. Let us avoid that and come back to this amendment. Of course much will depend on experience, but, in my judgment, this amendment is not necessary. It is a departure from earlier precedents and it is bad practice to seek to amend the clause and to insert this amendment at this stage.