European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, this House should seek as far as possible to be in tune with public opinion in the country. The more it is, the greater the respect it enjoys and the more influence it has. But on our relationship with Europe neither the Governmentnor we in this House are in harmony with public opinion. The Government’s enthusiasm for the EU was expressed most recently in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on 23 May, reported at col. 645 of Hansard, and this House is predominantly Euro-phile. People outside take a different view. They are perhaps most exasperated by the continued flow of regulations affecting nearly everything they do. But, increasingly, well informed people recognise the massive disadvantages of our membership—our net contribution, already £3.4 billion a year, which with the surrender of our rebate is set to double before very long; the lamentable CAP and CFP, the latter now described by the responsible commissioner as ““morally wrong””; the level of mismanagement and fraud, and the blizzard of new laws and regulations, about which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, spoke so eloquently. Above all, there is the unending pressure forcing us towards a single European state. Numerous polls show that two-thirds or three-quarters of the public believe that we should leave the EU, or at any rate have a much less constricting relationship, while only a small minority favour continuing membership. The latest poll I have seen found that 69 per cent would either like to leave the EU or would like a looser relationship with it and that only 27 per cent said that they wanted to remain in it. The majority of our people apparently regard the great benefits claimed by the three major parties as largely illusionary, while they are increasingly aware that our laws are now largely made in Brussels and that what remains of our national sovereignty is being steadily eroded. This disillusion is steadily growing, but it does not seem possible for us to continue to ignore it. It has become clear that withdrawal or loosening up are real options. Against this background we ought to know what the real implications of a change of direction are. Therefore, I welcome the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I shall be surprised if he persuades the Government to agree to set up a committee, as proposed in the Bill, but even if he does not it is nevertheless important to bring this question before the House and to test public opinion outside. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, whose knowledge of the ways of the EU is unrivalled and whose determination and persistence are exemplary, tried this with a very similar Bill four years ago, as has been mentioned. When we gave that Bill a Second Reading I said that we had been advised that there was no authoritative and impartial report on what detachment from the EU, in whole or in part, would mean for the United Kingdom. I said then that I did not suppose that this Government, or any other in sight, would do as we proposed, though, of course, they should, and I suggested that a Select Committee of this House should do so, enabling all of us to judge whether withdrawal would be a catastrophe or bring benefits to this country. Fifty-one Peers, many of considerable distinction, joined in a consequent request to the Liaison Committee, comprised of the great and the good in this House. But, sadly, it turned us down, saying darkly: "““The establishment of such a committee is likely to be regarded as a negative intervention in the process by this House and we doubt whether it would be possible to isolate the committee’s deliberations from wider political consequences””." The House supported the Liaison Committee, so a good opportunity to give us a solid basis for our deliberations was lost. Meanwhile, matters are getting worse. We await the EU summit on the 21st of this month with apprehension. Will it abolish more national vetoes, set up an EU foreign Minister and move towards giving the EU a legal personality, so making it a state?Mr Blair has not consulted Parliament, so we do not know to what he may commit us in the last days of his premiership. The power-hungry European Commission forges on. It has just, with the assent of the European Parliament, destroyed the livelihood of our traditional makers and restorers of barometers. It wants to submerge our universities in a European higher education area. It never stops meddling in our affairs. Only very occasionally is there some relief, notably in how Mr Gordon Brown has so far saved us from the euro. Perhaps his imminent succession gives us a ray of hope. I do not think that the Government can continue to ignore the views of the British people and condemn us to subjection to a centralised European state that the British people emphatically do not want. Is there no alternative? I believe that there is. We could take a stance similar to those happy and prosperous countries Norway and Switzerland. Then, perhaps, we might cease to be a worried and depressed country and become instead a lively, merry, tough and successful little country. We once were that, in the time of the first Queen Elizabeth. I was recently in the National Portrait Gallery and saw there hanging next to each other the portraits of her three chief advisers, Cecil, Gresham and Walsingham. I felt like saying, ““Come back and help us””. On our own, we would be much happier and much more prosperous.