European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, I was very surprised to see this amendment put down late last night because I can find very little in it which has not already exhaustively been discussed in Committee and on Report. I am rather surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted it. The arguments about Network World and why Britain’s relationship with Australia, Fiji, Tonga and Kiribati is more important than its relationship with France, Germany and everywhere else are familiar to us. We have enjoyed listening, even after dinner this evening, to the good cop/bad cop routine on the Conservative Front Bench, with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, telling us that he loves the European Union and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, telling us that he hates the European Union. We should not have what is a Second or Third Reading speech in the final stages of Report, but here we are, so let us grasp what we have. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, wants to have an end to politics. He says he wants to have all the questions completely answered. My understanding of democratic politics, let alone international politics and diplomacy, is that politics never stops. You never get a final answer and if you ask to stop the world and get off, you will never achieve that. Of course we will continue to cope with new problems by negotiating new solutions. That is the nature of the world in which we live. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, mentioned canvassing how often we hear the issue of the EU raised on the doorstep. I have been trying to remember if there has been any occasion in the last five years when I have heard someone mention the European Union on the doorstep and it is very difficult. I remember canvassing in Hull in 2004 with an American friend from the National Journal in Washington who wanted to hear responses to the Iraq invasion. The first door we knocked on, we got a very strong reaction on parking on the verges in the local council estate. Ninety seconds later we had moved on to Iraq, passing through the European Union mean time. But the European Union is not something I often hear about on the doorstep. I hope what I am about to say is not entirely out of order. We have heard a lot from the Conservative Benches about flags. I hope that this is not a story about one of our noble Cross-Benchers. When the European Union negotiated the question of a European flag in the mid-1980s under the Government of Mrs Thatcher—now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—the proposal was made that the European Union should adopt a flag. An anonymous British official is alleged to have said—I have this story from someone in another Government—that Mrs Thatcher would never accept a flag, but if the European Union would agree to accept an emblem which could then be put on a flag, that might be acceptable to the Conservative Government and herself. We do not officially have a European Union flag; we have an emblem which is carried on a flag—a very important and subtle distinction which infringes British sovereignty less. That is quite enough for a short after-dinner speech, but I simply want to say that I still do not understand why this amendment is on the Marshalled List and why we are repeating arguments that have already been made several times. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.