European Union (Amendment) Bill

The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has a very beguiling bedside manner, but I fear that I cannot follow her prescription. I much prefer the prescription offered by Dr Owen—I beg his pardon, the noble Lord, Lord Owen—who advocated constitutional medicine. This is definitely a constitutional treaty. To pretend otherwise is utterly absurd. We have not heard many quotes, so I will give the House a few quotes this evening. My noble friend Lord Howell mentioned Angela Merkel, who said: "““The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact””." The Spanish Prime Minister has said: "““This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe … We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional treaty go””." It has also been said that 96 per cent of it is still there. The Czech Republic said: "““Only cosmetic changes have been made””." Denmark said: "““The good thing is ... that all the symbolic arguments have gone, and that which really matters—the core—is left””." So we go on. Belgium said that the new treaty takes up the most important elements of the constitution. Speaking for Luxembourg, Herr Juncker said: "““The substance has been preserved from Luxembourg’s point of view.””" Monsieur Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the author of the constitution, was delighted, and notes on this blog that: "““a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty””" is still there. Then up pipes the small voice of our Foreign Secretary who says, suddenly, against all the evidence: "““The constitutional treaty has been abandoned””.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/07; col. 803.]" How very odd. He is the only person, the only Foreign Minister, to say that, and only our Government seem to believe that this is not a constitutional treaty, so they are not having a referendum. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Howell is absolutely right. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Anderson, that you can justify not having a referendum on the Maastricht treaty because it was in no political party’s manifesto, whereas having a referendum on this treaty was a manifesto commitment. That is a major difference.