European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, if the noble Lord will give me time to finish my argument—he was not here earlier when I referred to his contribution—I should be delighted to answer. If he listens carefully, I think that he will get his answer. Perhaps I may continue. The undemocratic nature of the EU can clearly be shown by the fact that our own Westminster scrutiny committee has passed 157 resolutions from the Lords and 180 resolutions from the Commons seeking change, and every one of them has been overridden. We thus have regulation without rectification—the direct descendant of that which caused the American War of Independence: taxation without representation. It is the impotence of EU citizens, faced with no effective way of controlling what the EU does, that has done so much harm and led to the failing support for the EU. They see that micro-management does not work and they cannot do anything about it. I suggest that the chances of reforming it are almost negligible. The EU is largely run by an unelected Commission buttressed by unelected judges at the Luxembourg Court. The European Parliament is a consultative assembly, not a Parliament which can decide who the Government should be and whom the electorate can dismiss when it has lost confidence, and the power wielded by the EU machinery of government steadily increases. One has to remember that, sadly, there are many Euro-philes who want to see the disintegration of the nation state. It is the job of this House to make it clear that European integration by the back door amounts to a revolution of how our country is governed. If Members of this and the other place want to give our freedoms away in perpetuity, they should at least have the decency to ask the electorate first. I remind them that they got it wrong over the euro—we have done very well outside it—and they will get it even more wrong with further integration. If they say that we should be at the centre of Europe to command it and help it more, I also remind them that being at the heart of Europe when we had the presidency got us absolutely nowhere and proved rather an expensive operation. We should be bringing powers home, not surrendering them. We are all concerned about the reform of this House. Far more serious is that there will be very little left for Westminster to do, whether it be the Commons or the House of Lords, unless we face up to the far bigger issue of the transfer of powers to a federalist Europe while we strut about enjoying a residual but fading glory. Indeed, this Government will have completed the job that Guy Fawkes failed to do many years ago. The democratic deficit brings with it a crisis for democratic legitimacy when there is no workable framework for making and then unmaking the decisions that affect our daily lives. To quote Professor Siedentop, the recognised authority on these matters: "““That is why the greatest danger lurking in the process of integration is that democratic political cultures may be weakened in the nation states without being replaced at any other level””." The ever-falling voter turnout at elections is a clear warning. It is all too easy to forget that democracy is an imperfect glue that holds society together. That glue is fracturing. So how can we get out of this mess and put things right? The Government obviously fear a referendum on the EU constitution because they know they would lose. Such a referendum would give a signal that the British people have had enough of integration and we should start substantially repatriating powers. If this seems impossible—I think it will—then we should contemplate withdrawal. What would be the consequences of withdrawal? Others in this debate will go into more detail, but I reiterate that Norway remains contentedly outside the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy—with its 800,000 tonnes of good fish annually thrown back into the sea—the common foreign and security policy, the common justice and home affairs policy, economic and monetary union and, critically, the EU customs union. We could do likewise and do better. The EU is not the UK’s main market; it is not even Germany’s main market. The world speaks English when it trades. The EU needs us more than we need it. Even the Institute of Economic and Social Research, in its report Continent Cut Off? says, of the macro-economic consequences of UK withdrawal that, "““most, if not all, UK jobs involved in exports to the EU would carry on as before””." Every Gallup poll shows that a majority wish to change the UK's relationship with the EU. This is not an extremist view; it is a majority view. Britain’s economy has outperformed those of other major countries, a point so well brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. China and India are now the major players. Britain as a major trading nation must be free and flexible to take every advantage, and not to have its hands tied by so much wasteful and stultifying regulation, so damaging to our competitiveness. The repatriation of powers would enable our budget contributions to be employed domestically by cutting taxes and improving public services. Britain could have a wonderful future, but it must be freed from the EU's political and regulatory shackles. The EU appears unreformable. We have little to lose and much to gain by returning self-governance to this country, while working closely with our European colleagues and NATO, which has always provided our basic security. The consequences of withdrawal would be overwhelmingly positive. I hope that those who feel otherwise—and they are of course fully justified in airing their views—will support the setting-up of an appropriate committee to examine and report on the implications of withdrawal, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to whom we are deeply indebted for this debate.