European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, the Bill, for which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is to be thanked, ought to be welcomed with equal fervour by both Euro-enthusiasts and Euro-sceptics—to use the conventional, albeit misleading, shorthand—given that each side should theoretically be convinced that the results of such an inquiry would wholly vindicate their own position. However, the fact that the Euro-enthusiasts show little appetite for such a Bill, to put it mildly, indicates a decided lack of confidence in their own arguments. I shall briefly revert to the matter of misleading labels or descriptions. Though an undoubted Euro-sceptic, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has made it plain on many occasions that he regards himself as thoroughly European in a genuine sense, revelling in the art, literature, music and history of the continent of Europe. He is also bilingual, as I believe is his UKIP colleague on those Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I think that the same applies to a good number of us, not least my noble friend Lord Moran, who will be speaking shortly, with his distinguished diplomatic background. Though, alas, somewhat less linguistically accomplished, I, too, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, feel myself to be thoroughly European in a true sense. I lived in Geneva for a while. I have been to all but three of the well over 30 European nation states, if you discount some of the component parts of the former Soviet empire, and I know several of those countries rather well. This time last week I happened to be in Bosnia-Herzegovina, for what that is worth. I mention all that to forestall the rather childish accusations of ““Little Englandism”” that get hurled at us. Of course there are Little Englanders in our ranks; that cannot be denied. However, they are more than counterbalanced by the ““Little Europeans”” on the other side, those who look back nostalgically to the imaginary golden age of the Carolingian Holy Roman Empire—which, as we all know, was neither holy, Roman nor an empire—and who tend to be averse, as other speakers have said, to the wider world, manifesting a particular distaste for the United States of America, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out, and for the Anglo-Saxon world generally. Two can play at that game, and if we could agree to avoid this rather juvenile name-calling we would have a better series of debates on this topic, both inside and outside the Palace of Westminster. Inevitably the Bill concentrates on that which is measurable and excludes intangibles. There is really no other way I can see in which it could have been drafted. If an inquiry were to establish that Britain would be better off out financially, Euro-enthusiasts might well assert that prosperity is not everything and that they would feel happier and safer if Britain remained within the comforting bosom of the EU, even if it hit them in their wallets. In their view, our senior membership of the Commonwealth, NATO, the G8 and, by implication, EFTA and the EEA, were we to withdraw, would not be enough. Conversely, were the inquiry to find the opposite, that EU membership was on balance financially beneficial, many Euro-sceptics might feel that, rather than having the trains run on time—I use that phrase metaphorically—they would be happy with less punctuality in return for less bossiness and less bureaucracy. In other words, an inquiry can evaluate the practical consequences of staying in or withdrawing but not the psychological ones. Nevertheless, the practical consequences are the ones that are extremely important to the great majority of people in this country. As to the wording of the Bill, one must assume that all references to, "““membership of the European Union””," in Clause 1(3) are to membership of the European Union as it stands constitutionally and not as we might like it to be. Many Euro-sceptics would be a lot less sceptical if substantial chunks of the iniquitous acquis communautaire were to be repealed so that the proud nation states of Europe were once again, as an absolute minimum, allowed to enjoy the same degree of autonomy and self-government as Delaware, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Manitoba and Tasmania. But, realistically, that is not likely to be achieved, although I wish it were. So we have to accept the EU as it has evolved, warts and all—and what an awful lot of warts there are. Inevitably, I suppose, opponents of the Bill will seize on Clause 1(3)(c). As I have said before, I do not think that there can be a single educated individual in the United Kingdom—apart, perhaps, from Peter Simple’s creation, the failed author Julian Birdbath, living down a disused lead mine in Derbyshire—who has not given at least some thought over the years to the EU and its precursors and the pros and cons of Britain’s membership of those organisations. But this minor defect can be easily remedied in one of two ways in Committee. The first is to substitute the words ““be open-minded”” for ““hold no opinion””. The second is to adapt the formula designed to ensure the maximum impartiality when evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of implementing major legal changes, devised by my noble friend Lord Neill of Bladen and incorporated into Clause 212(3) of the Legal Services Bill, which has now gone to the House of Commons. This Bill has the potential to clear the air and set the record straight in a most helpful and beneficial way. I wish it well.