---

European Union (Amendment) Bill

Let me quote some of the countries. There is Germany: "““The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact””." That was German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in the Telegraph on 29 June 2007. Or there is Spain: "““We have not let a single substantial point of the constitutional treaty go ... It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a New Europe””." Or there is the Czech Republic: "““Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same””." Or there is the Austrian Government on 25 June 2007: "““The original treaty for a constitution was maintained in substance””." Or—the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson will be interested in this—there is the European Parliament, which, "““welcomes the fact that the mandate safeguards the substance of the constitutional treaty””." I could go on and on, but I know noble Lords will not want that. Finally, there is Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg: "““Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?””." The British Government seem to be alone amongst its partners in saying there is a difference between the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty. There plainly is not, and nobody else believes it. As noble Lords know I always want to be helpful to the Government. I want to be helpful in this instance and urge them to do the right thing, to keep their promise and have the referendum. I am sure that their rating in the polls would go up overnight.