European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

My Lords, the realities of the Commons are different from that very optimistic idea. Be that as it may, we have to be realistic. I hope that noble Lords agree that in reality we are talking about a collection of sovereign countries. In the same way as the United Kingdom has signed treaties all over the world with the different bodies of which we are members—NATO, the United Nations, the WTO—and has defence arrangements in other parts of the world through treaty arrangements, we are talking about a treaty basis for the development of the Union but it just happens to be on a much bigger scale. But where does that scope come from? It comes from the normally collective will of the—yes—sovereign member Governments deciding to do things together. There is no loss of sovereignty intrinsically in that process at all; in fact, each member state gains in sovereignty. I hazard a guess, from his appearance, demeanour and manner, that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is a member of a number of posh London clubs—perhaps not. Other colleagues here are; I am not very posh but I am a member of a couple of clubs. The principle is that people are members of clubs to gain greater, collective strength from the collective actions of that club and its decisions. We accept that. There is no loss to the individual rights of the member therein; nor is there for any member state in the European Union as a result of agreeing to the European Union treaty and the revised text of the constitution that is about to be negotiated. Eighteen countries have ratified it, so we have to give due respect to fact that the majority of member states presumably want an agreed revised text to facilitate the efficient functioning of the European Union and make it easier for it to move ahead on the collective decisions that it needs to make to increase the individual strength and cohesion of the sovereign member states, including Britain, and the collective strength of the Union. The attribution of a legal personality may or may not end up in that text; we do not know. If it does, it does not mean the creation of a superstate—far from it. There has never been any suggestion in recent years from any enthusiastic supporter of the European Union that the sovereignty of the member states is not the key—the fulcrum—of how it functions through all the arrangements. The Commission is now making less legislation. In fact, all too often it is obliged to respond to the member states, making suggestions along the lines of ““Study this, look at that, do this””. There are far fewer directives, and when they come along they are much more of a broad framework. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked for an example of transfers back to the member states. Subsidiarity will presumably be negotiated again in any revised text for the constitutional treaty—I hope so.