My Lords, around 40 per cent of the voters in the Irish referendum, when asked why they had voted no, said that they had done so because they did not understand it. Some of the blame must rest on the Irish Government and the main political parties in Ireland for failing to provide a much fuller and better explanation of a treaty which they supported. However, much of the trouble rests on the unsuitability of the treaty itself for a decision by referendum. How can you expect hard-working people to spend time learning about the operation of the passerelle clause, the consequences of merging the Third Pillar into the First, or the powers assigned to the proposed President of the Council?
The voters were never given adequate reasons for voting ““yes””, or for seeing through the smokescreen of misinformation spewed out by the ““no”” campaign. That is why, when the ““no”” voters were asked for their reasons by the media, so many of them came up with irrelevant or mistaken reasons, such as: concerns about the recent increases in the cost of food and fuel, which were far beyond the control of the EU; the idea that the treaty would deprive Ireland of its right to neutrality, or force its young men into a European army; the idea that the treaty would require the legalisation of abortion; and the idea, put forward by the leader of a small left-wing party, that the treaty would somehow limit workers' rights, which it does so much to protect.
So Ireland has proved the absurdity of a referendum on this treaty. I would go further and say that this applied also to the so-called constitution, which was to a large extent no more than what we in Parliament would call a consolidation Act, putting what was previously in several documents into one. I believe that Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and Charles Kennedy as leader of my party at the time, were wrong from the start in supporting a referendum.
It is difficult to see a way forward. But I have no doubt that the right course for those of us who believe that the Lisbon treaty will make the EU both more efficient and more democratic is to vote for a Third Reading now. The enactment of the Bill will make ratification of the treaty possible. It will not in itself amount to ratification. Ratification, as the law now stands, is an exercise of the royal prerogative and it will be for the Government to decide when that happens. But I believe it is important, and will be helpful in the negotiations which will now commence, for those countries which support the treaty to make their position clear by ratifying it as soon as possible. I will vote accordingly.
European Union (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Goodhart
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on European Union (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
702 c1050 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:07:40 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483458
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483458
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483458