Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

There is an expression—I hope that I do not offend the proprieties of the House by giving it in Latin—that says, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes," and means, "I fear the Greeks and those who bear gifts." I am extremely gladdened by any faltering steps towards re-establishing the position on the referendum. I do not wish to undo the idea of having a referendum on any matter relating to the European Union. But as I have already indicated—and because I will not look a gift horse in the mouth—I understand the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I repeat, simply and quickly, that we should have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. For all the reasons that I have explained publicly for some months now, I do not buy the argument that the treaties have disappeared. As we all know, we have been discussing treaties for the last few hours. The fact is that the treaties remain part of the schedules and annexes to the European Communities Act 1972, and the position in law—and politically—is that we implement those treaties. It is the law as implemented by this House that represents those treaties, word for word. One of my problems with that is that the world moves on, and world and domestic politics evolve, but we are locked in to legislation that cannot be changed except by the unanimous agreement of 27 member states—and that is a form of political and economic suicide. It is a ridiculous position for us to be in, and I therefore agree that we should have a referendum on any future extensions of competence, but we should also have a referendum on the consolidating Lisbon treaty. In parallel to that, however, runs another point, on which it is surprising that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and I should agree—although I am not sure whether he would agree with the content of my private Member's Bill relating to the principle of United Kingdom parliamentary sovereignty. As I have just said, however, if we are to have a referendum, it must be endorsed by Parliament in the first place. I do not see any problem or irreconcilability, therefore, between a referendum on the one hand and the sovereignty of the people on the other. I would go further. I have the honour of being a member of what I believe to be a very distinguished group of radical reformers—although we might prefer more radicalism than we are being offered under the guise of the Wright Committee—entitled Parliament First. I have suggested—I hope that one day we will take this up—that we be called People and Parliament First. That touches on the essence of what I have to say today. The Labour party held a referendum in 1975. It is no good saying, "Well, that was a long time ago." In reality, of the present population, including those not yet able to vote, about two thirds have effectively been denied a referendum since 1975. I concede that that was an in-or-out referendum. However, it would make sense to hold another one, as a step towards injecting some rational argument into this subject, and the question should be, "Should the United Kingdom renegotiate its relationship with the European Union, within the European Union?" The bottom line is that we are a member of a club. I happen to believe in an association of nation states, so I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has recently been referring to such an association of member states. In essence, each country has to preserve its own sovereignty, and ours must do so in line with the White Paper way back in 1970-71, which said that we must retain the veto not only to maintain our vital national interests, but to preserve the fabric of the Community itself. We speak about maintaining the fabric of the European Community, which is now the European Union, but I remind the Minister for Europe and the right hon. Member for Rotherham that if we do not maintain the democratic safety valve of enabling people to express their views, with the ever deepening critical mass of integration and the consequent black hole, I fear that, given the levels of unemployment—I said this in the early 1990s—this country, and Europe, will see, under the stresses of financial crisis and high unemployment, what I predicted in those days would be the rise of the far right. Next to my constituency, on the other side of the A34 in Trentham, the British National party is now on the march. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) was on local radio only last week talking about it. I am simply saying that the rise of the far right is associated with the failure of the democratic deficit. That comes from the critical mass created by European integration without the safety valve either of a referendum or the kind of freedoms that the people of this country want. The net result has been the creation of serious social and immigration problems, which I shall talk about in a moment.