European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, this is a very timely debate. Day after day and week after week, changes are happening to the governance of this country and to our unwritten constitution of which today the British public are not generally aware. At Westminster, there is almost a conspiracy of silence regarding this intensely important issue. I realise that many on the opposite Benches welcome the surreptitious transfer of sovereignty to the EU. Presumably, when they see how inept the present Government are, they welcome any other form of administration. After 10 years of a Labour Government, I am not surprised that they have more confidence in the ability of others to manage our affairs. However, one has to ask why, and at what cost? To many of us, the dream of Europe has turned sour. Here in the UK, our infrastructure is a shambles. We look like a third world country in contrast to the ports, roads and airports that one sees when one visits Spain, Portugal and Ireland; many of them have been generously paid for with the help of our money. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred to the billions of pounds that we pay relative to the rebate that we get back. Just think what could be done to our infrastructure—our railways or roads—if we had kept that money and administered it ourselves. Even more serious than the direct cost is the hidden cost of the never-ending cascade of EU regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made that point well. Some of those regulations may be helpful but the vast majority are unnecessary. The cumulative effect of those regulations—last year alone, there were more than 2,000—is very damaging, as is reflected in the UK’s declining productivity. It is all very well to talk about the grand design of Europe but every now and again one has to see how in reality it affects other people’s lives. One needs to remember that the macro-economy is the micro-economy writ large. Take, for example, the way in which the working time directive is beginning to affect the management of old people’s homes. Sleeping in is now being classified as being on call and that counts as work. Consequently, the housekeeper who worked during the day is now no longer allowed to work overnight. Thus it is deemed that she need no longer be supplied with a flat. So she now has to pay tax on the estimated rental value of that flat and an extra employee has to be taken on to cover nights. That is a huge and wholly unnecessary addition to costs. This type of nonsense has been repeated thousands of times throughout the British economy. Increasingly, we see the damaging effect on drivers’ hours, junior doctors’ hours and even recruitment to the TA; all are choking on red tape. That illustrates how our opt-outs, with regard to the working time directive, are being continually eroded. Rather than helping the British economy, we are now restricting our freedom to create the freeand flexible economy that we need to succeed in the 21st century. The harmonisation of working hours is upon us; tax harmonisation will be next, to be followed by overtime restrictions. Overtime is the essential mechanism in a market economy that helps to bring supply and demand together. Limitations on voluntary overtime would be deeply resisted by the working man, as it is one of the few routes that he has to self-betterment. It is through the window of such regulations that the British see the EU, and they do not like it. Not surprisingly, they are disenchanted. The reality is very different from the noble vision that is held by so many in Westminster. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, is not in his place. All those ex-Eurocrats who are enjoying the comfort of their pensions should descend from their ivory towers and see the world as it is. The British people hate the impact of this bossy, regulatory approach by which new laws and interdictions endlessly necessitate the employment of new taxpayer-funded officials to enforce them. I wonder how many people are aware that you can be fined £5,000 for burning a window envelope, as it is now illegal to burn plastic on an open hearth. You can bury a pet dog but you cannot bury a pet lamb. On the wider national scene, one cannot even deport convicted criminals who came to our country as illegal immigrants. Excessive regulation leaves no room for natural morality and common sense. Those sorts of nonsenses undermine the average citizen’s regard for the law, greatly to our national detriment. The more laws there are, the more they get broken. As we adopt EU laws, we are, without recognising it, also changing the whole nature of our society. The tangible effects are obvious; the intangible effects are a cause for even greater concern. We take for granted our natural liberties without realising that these stem from common law. Under common law, everything is allowed except that which is not allowed. Roman law—EU law—works the other way round: nothing is allowed except that which is allowed. So, as we harmonise our laws with those of the EU, we are changing the whole relationship of the citizen to the state. The citizen becomes subservient, and civil servants are no longer servants to the public but masters. I give an example. Only last week, the Government announced that pregnant women ““must not””—not ““should not””—drink because they might overdo it and not drink in moderation. What does this do to the national psyche? It means that gradually our respect for government and the law changes into disrespect. A caring Government become an oppressive Government. We are destroying the Britain that we love and know. That is compounded by the underlying weakness of the EU: its democratic deficit. It does not have a democratic structure, and the trappings that exist are largely a sham. There is no electorate to which the major EU institutions are generally responsible, and it is virtually impossible to unscramble bad regulation. The UK carries only 8 per cent of the voting powers, and most change needs unanimity. The undemocratic nature of EU law-making is clearly shown by the fact that our own Westminster scrutiny committee—