---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most   Gracious Speech

My Lords, I thought that it was rather perspicacious of Her Majesty to go so far as to refer to our relationship with the European Union in the gracious Speech. After all, there was not much mention of it during the general election campaign. We Eurosceptics found that not only somewhat surreal but also very dangerous for what is left of our democracy. I say that because the Government admit that a large majority of our new laws now originate in Brussels, with the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House acting largely as a rubberstamp on what is agreed in the Council of Ministers. If any noble Lords think that I may be overstating the case, I would point out that a year ago the Cabinet Office estimated that 54 per cent of all our major laws and a larger percentage of all our laws came from Brussels. Last week, the German Government estimated that 80 per cent of all their legislation now does so. There is no reason to suppose that we are much different. When the Government say that legislation originates in Brussels, they of course mean the EU’s legislative procedure, whereby new laws are passed either under the qualified majority voting system or by unanimity in the Council of Ministers. When they have been so passed, the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House have to enact them. Huge areas of our national life are already subject to the QMV. The UK has about 9 per cent of the votes in the Council and about 30 per cent is needed to block a new law. Roughly speaking, all of our commerce and industry, our social and labour policy, our environment, agriculture, fisheries and foreign aid are subject to QMV. Our justice and home affairs, and our foreign and security policy, can also be decided in the Council of Ministers, although in those areas our executive or government of the day retain the veto. The fact still remains that the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House—or Parliament, as I hope I may still venture to call it—must enact all legislation passed under either of those systems in Brussels. That is known as the democratic deficit in Euro-speak—if your Lordships will forgive me. I hope I can be forgiven, too, for suggesting that, given even this present state of European integration as represented by the Treaty of Nice, the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House are already largely redundant. And yet no one, apart from brave little UKIP, saw fit to mention this state of affairs during the general election campaign. Perhaps this is one reason why the people showed so little interest in the manifestos of the main parties, why turnout remained depressingly low and why UKIP—with all its internal problems and lack of finance—nearly doubled its vote. One cannot help wondering what might have happened to the Conservative vote if that party had gone to the country on a clear commitment to leave the European Union, especially if it had spent the previous year or so explaining the huge advantages of such a policy, instead of lamely saying that it wanted to renegotiate the Treaties of Rome but not daring to say that it would leave the EU if it did not get what it wanted, which of course everyone knows it would not. In fact, I understand that a casual observation of the polling results shows that the UKIP vote was enough to deny the Conservatives some 26 seats. One can only speculate how many more seats the Conservatives would have won if they had been on a ““come out”” ticket and the UKIP vote had gone to them, together with an unknown quantity of votes which were not cast because the voters in question did not think it was worth wasting a vote for UKIP and could not bring themselves to vote Conservative. Of course we shall never know, but I trust that it is food for thought. Turning to the proposed constitution, I suppose the Government have a point when they say it is only a ““tidying-up exercise””. I suppose they have a point because it would sweep the remainder of our sovereignty under the Brussels carpet. Anyone who doubts this clearly has not read it. Indeed, most people never will read it. As a substitute, perhaps I may suggest that any noble Lord who thinks that the proposed constitution is nothing new—and therefore, presumably, innocent—should read the leader in today’s Daily Telegraph, which is a brief and brilliant exposition of what is proposed in the constitution. I recommend it as a ready reckoner, to be cut out and kept in the pocket, for the national debate which may lie ahead. I say the debate ““may”” lie ahead because, of course, the French may vote down the constitution in their referendum on 29 May, as may the Dutch on 1 June. I do not suppose it matters much what the Dutch say because their referendum is only advisory, their Government are very committed to the constitution and they are a small, if original, country in the EU scheme of things. But if the French vote ““no””, I fear that we Eurosceptics may be in deep trouble because a French ““no”” would almost certainly kill the constitution as such. However, of course, it will not kill the project of European union; it will not kill the corrupt octopus in Brussels. It is just that its most aggressive and powerful tentacle will have been lopped off. So what will the Eurocrats do? I fear they will regroup. I fear that they may set up another intergovernmental conference—proclaiming that they are listening to the people, of course—and within a couple of years we will have another treaty revision. That treaty will be written in much more impenetrable language than is the constitution, which is really quite easy to understand. Hidden in that impenetrable language of the new treaty, a number of little doors will be left ajar—and it is through those little doors that the Commission and the court will later walk, just as they have always done in the past. So I fear that that new treaty, those amendments to the Treaty of Nice, will achieve much the same effect as the proposed constitution. But, of course, we will not be offered a referendum on that next treaty. I can already hear the Government intoning, yet again, that the Conservatives did not offer a referendum on the Single European Act or Maastricht—which, indeed, they did not—and that one was not held on the Treaties of Amsterdam or Nice—which, indeed, it was not—so why should we have one on this new, innocent, little treaty which merely makes it possible for the European Union to function better? In the mean time, the Eurocrats will proceed to implement their plans under the Treaty of Nice, as indeed they are already doing. They are already integrating their defence expenditure and setting up their battle groups, with troops already in the Congo under the EU flag; the Galileo project is going ahead, with the obvious purpose of undermining the United States’ global positioning system and in spite of US objections; they have already taken control of our asylum system; and the Luxembourg court is already invading our national ability to collect corporation tax. So the juggernaut rolls on. It will not be prevented even by a French ““No”” to the constitution. But if they vote ““No””, and the constitution is taken off the table, I cannot see how we will get a referendum if there is no proposal upon which to hold it. So Eurosceptics must hope that the French vote ““Yes””. Then we will probably have a referendum, and we will win it. Only thus can we be sure of starting the   process of disengagement from the project of European Union which a majority of the British people now seem to want, even if they have never been told by any of the main political parties why they are so right to do so. Indeed, recent opinion polls show that 64 per cent of 18 to 25 year-olds would vote to reduce our relationship with Brussels merely to one of free trade with the single market. I suppose it is quite an unusual experience for the destiny of this country to be held in the hands of the French, but I hope they rise to the challenge. If they do not, we shall be forced to continue the process whereby our Parliament grows ever weaker and whereby the fundamental tenets of our sovereignty continue to be betrayed. One of those tenets is that the British people should elect and dismiss those who make their laws—the Members of the House of Commons. Another is that the British people have given Parliament the power to make all their laws for them, but they have not knowingly given Parliament permission to give that power away. Both principles have been betrayed by our political classes over the past 33 years. If the French vote ““Yes””, we in the United Kingdom will probably have the opportunity to save ourselves by our endeavour, when we vote down the constitution. Perhaps, in the ensuing confusion, we shall even help to save the real Europe, the Europe of democratic nations, by our example.