---

European Council

The hon. Gentleman is much better on the internet. Was not the author of the constitution himself, Giscard d’Estaing, telling the truth when he said that"““the public is being led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly.””?" Above all, was not the Irish Prime Minister telling the truth when he said that 90 per cent. of the substance of the constitution is still there? Indeed, the treaty itself states that it is bringing back the constitution. Clause 1 of the mandate for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference states:"““The Reform Treaty will introduce…the innovations resulting from the 2004””" intergovernmental conference"““as set out below in a detailed fashion””." If it looks, reads and feels like the constitution, that is because it largely is the constitution, which is why there should be a referendum. Now let us have a look at the red lines, which do not include the EU President, the single legal entity or the vetoes, and even the areas that they cover are falling apart. The Prime Minister has said that British foreign policy is not being displaced, but we find that that red line is only in a declaration, which is not legally binding. The Prime Minister has said that the charter of fundamental rights could not change British law, but that red line has already been challenged by senior judges. In any event, his whole argument is bogus, because at the time of the constitution he said that the same red lines were met, but he offered the people a referendum. He said that the constitution"““does not and will not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between member states and the European Union.””" However, he went on to say:"““Parliament should debate it in detail and decide upon it. Then, let the people have the final say.””—[Official Report, 20 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 155-57.]" What has changed? The Prime Minister’s third claim is that the treaty does not mean a significant transfer of powers from Britain to Brussels. That is simply wrong. Will the Prime Minister confirm that power is being transferred in 60 areas as the veto is abolished? Far from their all being minor areas, they include energy, transport, employment law and the new EU diplomatic service. The new treaty even gives up some powers which members of his own Government have warned against. Two weeks ago, the Foreign Secretary said that putting criminal justice under the control of the European Court would be a ““major change”” and a ““matter of some controversy””. So why did he sign up to it? The Prime Minister himself said that the EU being given a legal personality across all the areas of its work would be ““potentially damaging””. So why did he sign up to that? The Leader of the House––the once and future Foreign Secretary––described the Foreign Minister and the EU President as central elements of a constitutional treaty, which could not be introduced without a referendum. So where is the referendum? With this treaty, something is being done that was not included in any previous treaty. It does not just transfer specific power from Westminster to Brussels; it also includes a new ratchet clause that allows many of the vetoes that survive to be abolished without a new treaty. The Prime Minister shakes his head. He obviously does not know what he signed up to. This can happen without an intergovernmental conference and without the British people being allowed a say. Is not that another reason why we need a referendum? This summit could have been about free trade, climate change and a trade deal to help Africa. Those things do not require a single extra central power in Brussels. They simply require political will and a sense of purpose. All three main parties in the House signed up to a referendum at the last election. The Prime Minister has broken that promise, but within two days he will be gone. We will have a new Prime Minister, one who has promised, unlike his predecessor, to be humble, to be a servant of the people and to listen. If that new Prime Minister, like us, really believes in power to the people, he must hold a referendum and let the people decide.