---

Debate on the Address

My Lords, the gracious Speech contains only one sentence on the European Union reform treaty, but I have no doubt that, in the coming months, many words will be written and spoken about a referendum on it. After the distinguished contributions already made by so many experts, it is tempting merely to say that I adopt the arguments of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. Opinion will continue to be divided about whether the Government have a moral commitment to hold a referendum in the light of their manifesto promise; whether the treaty is the abandoned constitution in another wrapper, or whether it is significantly different in both style and substance to justify not holding a popular vote. All that discussion and writing will be at the expense of time which should be devoted to the treaty itself and whether it is a good thing for the United Kingdom and Europe. I regret that I cannot agree with my noble friend on my Front Bench about a referendum. I did not believe that we should have had a referendum on the original constitutional treaty; I did not agree with the then Prime Minister when he changed his mind, and I do not think we should have a referendum now. If we had a referendum, leaving out the compelling arguments for Parliament to decide these matters, I fear that, on past performance, the case for the treaty would not be advanced with much rigour. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, indicated at the beginning of this debate, more emphasis would be given to those matters where we have successfully defended ourselves against the combined forces of the Commission and other members, who by the implication of our arguments are apparently so careless with their own sovereignty that they would be prepared to agree to anything. But it certainly will not be portrayed as the successful outcome of discussions between friendly partner states. In any referendum, what is the question? Are we for or against the abandonment of the rotating presidency? Are we for against the increase in the influence of national Parliaments? Are we for or against attempts to improve the effectiveness of the common foreign and security policy? These issues cannot be answered by a simple question. To be sure, these questions will not be the subject of balanced discussion in much of what is, as it likes to describe itself, the serious or quality press. Your Lordships will have noticed that the European Union is responsible for the increase in the price of Christmas trees. If you read the detail, it is because the subsidy in Denmark has been withdrawn, something normally that one would support. By way of example, for months the Daily Telegraph has, in its pages and those of its sister paper, the Sunday Telegraph, been drumming up support for a referendum; the number of signatories now exceeds 100,000. But support is elicited, I would submit, on the strength of a few statements taken out of context and without explanation. It is headed, of course, with a quote from President Barroso: "““What we have is the first non-imperial empire””." Perhaps the use of the word ““empire”” was not particularly appropriate but no one goes on to point out that Mr Barroso was highlighting the difference between a European Union built of 27 free and democratic countries, each with its own elected Governments, and past attempts to build a European empire through force. One phrase taken out of context nevertheless makes the headline demanding signatures to the petition. A number of bullet points follow. Readers are told that the treaty wishes to create a European head of state, no doubt in order to create a certain amount of anxiety among the population as to the status of Her Majesty. Of course, neither the mandate for the Intergovernmental Conference nor the draft reform treaty create a state or threaten the position of the Queen or any other monarch or president within the union as heads of state of their individual countries. Do we really believe that our partner states which have recently regained their independence would again act so carelessly with their sovereignty? We know that what is proposed is a president of the European Council for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. Even opponents of the constitutional treaty agree that the six-month rotating presidency needs reform. The European diplomatic corps and the foreign minister are another bogy man. There is no explanation that the merger of the Commission post and the existing High Representative do away with a situation of two voices, one with influence and no resources and one with resources and rather less influence. There is no explanation that the foreign external active service shall work in co-operation with the diplomatic services of the member states and include staff seconded from the diplomatic services of those member states. In context it is all quite a different picture. The High Representative is not taking our seat on the Security Council. All that is proposed is that when the Union has a defined position—which will in any event require unanimity—the High Representative should be asked to present the Union’s position. This is not taking the UK’s or France’s seat on the Security Council. The giving of the European Union legal personality is seen as a huge threat, although no reference is made to the existing Article 281 of the treaty on the European Communities, which also gives the communities legal personality. The changes in voting are inevitable with enlargement and yet opponents of the treaty are often the proponents of enlargement. Are we assuming that we want enlargement only on the basis that new and smaller members should somehow be second-class citizens? All this and other points were put before the public before even the final form of the treaty was known. For all these reasons—I was but I am no longer, since the beginning of the new Session, a member of the European Union Select Committee—the Select Committee’s decision under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, should be welcomed across the House. Whether or not the reform treaty is the constitutional treaty in disguise depends upon the political approach you take to this issue. Of course, it contains significant proposals which were in the constitutional treaty, and for the opponents of both it will remain the constitutional treaty, but this argument gets us absolutely nowhere in informing the House for the debate that will come. Other people see the reform treaty as quite different in style and substance, but it is essentially a political judgment. So is the request for a referendum. I would submit that if the Select Committee were to produce a report which entered into such waters, including whether or not there should be a referendum, it would threaten the objectivity for which the reports of the Select Committee in your Lordships’ House are well known and respected. Of course, in the debate members will form views on the matters dealt with by the committee and they will use the findings of the committee to buttress their own arguments, but they will do so against the background of a committee report which is intended to analyse the impact that the reform treaty—which is a fact, as opposed to the constitutional treaty which is no longer a fact—will have on the United Kingdom and the existing treaties.