Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about shoddiness, he can talk to the leader of his own party. He can talk about his leader's cast-iron guarantee and demand the right hon. Gentleman's apology at a meeting of the 1922 Committee. The amendments show not just a fatal inability to draft decent legislation, but an Opposition who have a wholly dangerous degree of Euro-fundamentalism at their heart. Why have the Opposition insisted on only European treaties being subject to a referendum? Why have they not included any treaty that limits—albeit voluntarily—the UK's power to act? Why not, for instance, include a referendum on the UK-US extradition treaty? Why not include treaties on reform of the International Monetary Fund or the United Nations? Why not include a referendum on any climate change treaty that comes about later this year? The trouble is that there is no principle to the Conservatives' position; if there is, it is one of swivel-eyed, obsessive Pavlovian, dogmatic and fundamentalist objection to anything that even mentions the European Union. This group of proposed changes, including the new clause that the hon. Member for Rayleigh tabled, seeks to do one thing and one thing only: to appease the Conservative Back Benchers and the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party. It has nothing to do with good governance or sensible policy making. It is the Leader of the Opposition's way of saying sorry to the likes of the hon. Member for Stone—sorry for abandoning the cast-iron guarantee. Sadly, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has not even the grace to blush. There is a narrow calculation in the proposals. There was a calculation that, by showing a little bit of Eurosceptic leg, the right hon. Gentleman would secure the leadership of his party; there was a calculation that, by opting out of the largest grouping in the European Parliament, he would avoid the fate of his predecessor; and there is a calculation now that, if he offers a so-called referendum lock, his Back Benchers will not demand a referendum on him for abandoning his cast-iron guarantee. The trouble is that he is now left with an unworkable policy and a bunch of allies in Europe who consign him to the extremist margins. He is undermining the national interest. These amendments would subject Parliament to the courts, subcontract out our governance to the lawyers, and fatally, abjectly and ludicrously undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, and I oppose the whole lot of them.