---

Debate on the Address

My Lords, there was no reference in the gracious Speech to a Bill to ratify the EU treaty. I totally support what my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said about the Commonwealth and what the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has just said. I do not apologise to the House for banging on a bit about the Commonwealth. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford: we are going in the wrong direction, at great expense. Today, by the grace of God, we do not have to make a decision, but sooner or later, when we have the benefit of the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, we shall have to make a decision. The report will be a great help towards making it. However, it is not so much our decision that matters; it will be the decision of the electorate at the next general election. The Government, at their behest and will, will have this treaty ratified. As my noble friend Lord Howell said, this is a very serious time for reflection—not so much for our reflection but the reflection of the electorate. On a manifesto commitment, the electorate will have to decide whether to withdraw from the treaty. That is the simple position. There are many factors and one can mention only a few in a few minutes. One is that our national global interest, our relationship with the Commonwealth and with the United States—never let us step aside from that—is a wholly different quality of interest from that of any other member states. When my noble friend says that we are moving in the wrong direction, he is right. The point is not what we think—I come back to this again—it is what the electorate will think. The very esoteric arguments that one hears in this place—as they always are—have to be reduced into very simple terms. At the end of a debate in both Houses, the electorate will be enabled to piece together, with the aid of the media, the press and everything else, what they think. One comes back to the democracy point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luce. That will be how this matter is resolved. One or two matters arise from this. What do the people think? What will they say about this as a sort of staging post towards the dream of Jean Monnet to create a unitary European state? I do not know. In the Written Statement on 22 October, there was no mention of the European Court of Justice, or indeed of the manner in which it has exercised its jurisdiction to favour integration on the balance of objectives. In this context, the authoritative contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, on 9 October at cols. 121-22, is crucial, as it correctly states the tendency and the jurisprudence of the court to favour integration. The Government made two assurances: first, that the national interest is protected; and, secondly, that they will stem the tide of integration for 10 years on ratification. Those assurances are not well conceived. They cannot be made by a Minister of State or a Government; they can be made only by the European Court of Justice, which will favour integration. We are in a cleft stick; on ill conceived assurances, one sets out to sea in a sieve with the owl and the pussycat in the light of the moon. Even the report from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, which gets as near as you can get, is no substitute for the decision of the European Court of Justice or for what the people may think—the democracy point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luce.