European Union (Amendment) Bill

I defer to the noble Lord’s greater knowledge on this but many instances have come to my attention where the French, in particular, are quoted as taking an antagonistic view towards the United States and their role in NATO, and to NATO more generally. The point remains: are these words meant to mean that we end up with a common defence force or are they not? If they are, that is quite consequential for the United Kingdom’s future policy. The Government may say, ““This will never happen. We are not advocating a common defence. When the European Council acts unanimously, we will do this. We will never agree to it. You can forget all about it because this is a locked room””. The trouble is, this treaty is full of locked rooms with the Government saying, ““You do not need to worry about what is in this room because we will keep it locked””. I feel slightly uneasy about agreeing to a treaty that has lots of rooms that the Government will keep locked because they can veto them. Or are the Government saying, ““Actually, we are very keen that this room should be part of the treaty. We want this common defence””? In that case, this seems a very significant step to include in one article of the treaty without explaining more fully to the British public and to the House what ““a common defence”” means. I support these amendments, Amendment No. 20 in particular, until such time as the Government explain to us whether they agree to the formation of a common defence and what a common defence in reality would mean for the UK.