European Union (Amendment) Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has put forward a most superficially attractive argument in his usually engaging way. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with it because it seems to me that those who have come to the conclusion that this amendment, if carried, would be unduly restrictive—I would go further and say emasculative—of the Government’s scope of manoeuvre are correct. I do not believe that there is anything other than sincerity behind the noble Lord’s attitude in this matter. It is an institutional objection on the part of the Conservative Party to the treaty itself. The party has been utterly consistent from the start. It has rejected, almost in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, the treaty and all its works. It seems to me that the one thing that the Conservative Party, with great respect, is incapable of doing is saying one word that is benign, charitable and laudatory in relation to the treaty. It reminds one of the story of Napoleon going to a village in the Vendée in about 1810, when there were doubts as to the loyalty of the people of that locality to his administration. No guns had been fired by way of salute and the mayor ran out and said, ““The powder is damp and we would not have been able to fire the guns. Furthermore, the countryside is very dry and had we done so it would have caused fires. Thirdly, Emperor, we have no cannons””. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the Conservative Party in this matter; it has no intention whatever of giving any support to this treaty. I raise one matter by way of a request for information, because it has some bearing on the matters that we are now considering and will have to consider over the next few months.