European Union Bill

I am mindful of the time constraints on speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that all hon. Members can participate. I welcome the European Union Bill and the concept of the referendum lock. After so many years of broken promises on Europe, the Bill is essential to regain the trust of the people and to give them faith that the EU will not continue to gain powers from this country. It has always been my opinion that the sovereignty of the country belongs to the people, and that they, not politicians, should make the decision on whether it is transferred to other bodies or countries. Should justice and home affairs not be subject to the referendum lock? Many of my constituents find justice rulings the most frustrating aspect of our EU membership. The recent ruling that gave prisoners the right to vote, after a convicted murderer appealed successfully to the European Court of Human Rights, is just the latest example of the EU overruling the will of the British Parliament and its people. Although I support the principle and aims of the Bill, one word that concerns me greatly is ““significant””. My concern can be summed up by adapting a famous Sir Humphrey Appleby statement: ““Anything can be attacked as a loss of sovereignty, and almost anything can be defended as not a significant loss of sovereignty, which seems to signify that one should appreciate the significance of significant.”” What impact does the term ““significant”” have in the Bill? It could be argued that a future Government would find it difficult to amend something that would not fall under the significance condition. They could claim that the referendum requirement was too rigid and disproportionate to a treaty change that was sought. I also believe that it would be politically courageous for a future Government to remove the referendum lock from the statute book. This should therefore be a permanent piece of legislation. What constitutes significance needs far more definition so that the Bill is not seen merely as a sop to Eurosceptic Back Benchers, of whom I count myself one, but as a genuine change in the way in which we view the sovereignty of our country. It should not be the Executive who decide what is significant. At the very least, Parliament should dictate what is a significant transfer of power. I refer back to my maiden speech, in which I said that as MPs"““we must not consider ourselves to be the owners of sovereign powers. We are merely the custodians of power and sovereignty for future generations. Sovereignty is not ours to give away; it belongs to the people who elected us, and to their heirs and successors.””—[Official Report, 3 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 654.]" I intend to support the Bill this evening, but I issue a warning to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench. I and many hon. Members will not stand idly by and witness the death of our country's sovereignty, bled away by a thousand cuts, however small, that some may think insignificant.