No, because we need a clearer question about Britain's membership of the EU. I hope that that is helpful, but the fact that we would want a different question in the referendum is not the only reason for our opposition to the amendment. Another reason is that we think it is fatally flawed. As far as we can see, it would require a referendum on the transfer of any competence, however minor. That could lead to referendums on issues of policy that are relatively minor and which certainly have no real constitutional significance. That surely is an unsustainable position. I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) supports it, and I shall be interested to see whether he votes with his hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh in the Lobby tonight. Neither can I believe that, in government, the Conservatives really would honour the amendment to the letter, because it is so fatally flawed.
It may come as a surprise to find that the Conservatives wish to debate referendums. After all, they have had a rather embarrassing few months after the dropping of their cast-iron guarantee. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is not in his place at the moment, was quite right to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he had a cast-iron guarantee for his proposal. He was not able to answer that, and I am not surprised.
The hon. Gentleman, as usual in these debates—there is always a bit of déjà vu to them—tried to tease the Liberal Democrats, but I remind him and the House that the Conservatives voted against the Liberal Democrat proposal on 14 November 2007 for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. What is worse, they worked with the Labour party to stop this House even debating the proposition on 4 March 2008 about whether we should have a referendum on the in-out question. He says that he will not take lectures from us; likewise, I repeat that remark to him.
The Conservatives' voting record on referendums in this Parliament does not bear scrutiny. Their record on referendums in government is worth recalling, too, as the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said. Did they offer a referendum on the single European treaty or Maastricht? No. The Liberal Democrats joined forces with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and argued for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, because it really was of constitutional significance and it deserved a referendum.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ed Davey
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c235-6 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 09:56:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617564
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617564
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617564