European Union Bill

My Lords, we have had a brisk debate so far, to put it mildly. I want to try to meet an argument that has been put today by two noble Lords opposite about the question of balance. It says that the Bill basically provides a sensible balance between the position that the European Union is not the most popular institution with the great British electorate and what should be done about it. The question of balance is being raised. Let us just analyse this for two seconds. It applies to Clauses 3 and 4, to Clause 6 and to the schedule. The basis for the so-called balance is that if certain issues arise, the great British public will be reassured because there will have to be a referendum. That is the whole basis of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 set out which treaty amendments will require a referendum. I see that under Clause 4(1)(a) to (m) a referendum will be required. Quite how would you frame a question for a referendum on, for example under paragraph (d), "““the conferring on the EU of a new competence shared with the member States””.?" Will you ask, ““Are you in favour of this new competence shared with the member states, which the Government have already approved and put to Parliament””? Does that make sense? Is that balanced? Of course not; it is a gross distortion of the whole process. That is Clause 4—the height of the Bill. Go to Clause 6, which is unbelievable as far as balance is concerned. The Bill gets worse as it goes on but I will just deal with Clause 6, which says: "““The decisions to which subsection (1) applies are … a decision under the provision of Article 31(3) … that permits the adoption of qualified majority voting””." Look at paragraph (c), which refers to, "““a decision under Article 86(1) … involving participation by the United Kingdom in a European Public Prosecutor’s Office””." That will demand a referendum. What will we ask? Will we say to the British people, ““Are you in favour of the United Kingdom’s participation in a European public prosecutor’s office””? Will it be feasible to have a referendum campaign on that? Will people be lined up on each side of that argument, saying ““Yes, I am in favour of a public prosecutor’s office”” or ““No, I am not in favour of a public prosecutor’s office””? Look at the next one.