European Union (Amendment) Bill

I intervene in this debate with trepidation, given the expertise in this Chamber. But I find myself searching to understand what these words in the treaty, like so much else in it, mean. The trouble is that we seem now to have a common pattern where we are told that the words should not be taken to mean what they say, because somewhere else in the treaty there is a declaration or protocol that says exactly the opposite, or the Government assure us that the words do not need to be taken seriously because they have them under lock and key, and that they would never be used. As an example, the article referred to by Amendment No. 20 talks about, "““the progressive framing of a common defence policy””." It goes on to say: "““This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides””." To me a common defence means an integrated force. It does not say ““a common policy”” or ““an alliance””; it says ““a common defence””, which sounds as though we are forming a common force with our allies to defend ourselves jointly. That may well be what is intended and it does say, "““when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides””." But many of us have a problem with the thought of a common defence. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, assures us that it would be a building block of NATO rather than duplication and yet, in the cold light of day, we know that many of our European neighbours have a very different view of NATO—indeed a fairly antagonistic view. The thought that we would be forming a common defence force with those other members of Europe that would not be antagonistic—