Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hague of Richmond (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on European Union (Amendment) Bill.


European Union (Amendment) Bill

I will give way in due course. The constitutional doctrine now appears to be that a referendum is held when the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—who were both in the Government when a referendum was promised—want to clear the air. The potential for holding referendums when there is a need to clear the air is probably limitless, given the number of issues at any one time on which the air needs to be cleared. Whether it be the closure of thousands of post offices at the hands of an incompetent Government or the release ahead of time of thousands of prisoners, which is even more incompetent, there are many issues on which people would love to clear the air. If a national ballot is to be held every time we need to clear the air, how about having a general election, so that we can clear out the Government as well? As the Foreign Secretary is perhaps the brightest member of the Cabinet, the confusion into which he entered by making this argument is a sure sign of the intellectual incoherence to which the Government have been reduced. The reason why this is so revealing is because it confirms a truth that has been put to the Government several times during the course of our debates by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is not present today. I have always respected his support for the treaty and opposition to a referendum, because he has always been so clear about that, even in general election campaigns. He has called on the Foreign Secretary to stop the nonsense of pretending that the two treaties are fundamentally different, and to admit that the early commitment to a referendum was entirely for short-term party motives, for which the term ““clear the air”” is the shorthand. For the truth is that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister now believe that the former Prime Minister made a serious error in promising a referendum, and that that error has reduced them to arguing that something that is 90 per cent. the same is fundamentally different. The Government promised a referendum in 2004 because they were approaching a general election and the former Prime Minister thought he might even win a referendum, whereas today we are probably somewhat further from an election and the current Prime Minister thinks that winning a referendum is beyond him. That is the truth of the matter.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
473 c165-6 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Accountability Administration of justice Asylum Children's rights Climate change Competition Constitutions Health services Firearms Human rights European Convention on Human Rights Immigration Environment protection EU law EU withdrawal Energy Drugs Human trafficking EU enlargement European Union European Parliament EU internal trade European Constitution Treaty EU common foreign and security policy EU institutions Labour and employment EU reform NHS Qualifications Police Organised crime Older people Referendums Parliament Paedophilia Terrorism Treaties Research Treaty on European Union UK membership of EU Smuggling European Court of Justice Council of Ministers Qualified majority voting Treaty of Lisbon EU presidency
Legislation
European Union (Amendment) Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk