"Trust once lost is a hard thing to regain.  Yet as we meet here today we know that distrust of politicians of all hues and of this House are at historically high levels.  This I believe is the central reasoning for the House to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  There are a number of constitutional arguments and imperatives too but this is what must be foremost in our minds.   

How the ratification of the European Constitution and its identical twin, the Lisbon treaty, have been handled is symptomatic of a culture that breeds distrust and encourages cynicism among the British people.

Distrust and cynicism is impossible to counter when most voters know the refusal to allow a referendum is driven by fear.  The fear among too much of our political class is that the people cannot be trusted to vote for a particular outcome therefore they are to be denied any say.  If the political class do not display a trust in the people how can we expect them to trust us?   

Distrust and cynicism is impossible to counter when a referendum was once promised by all three of the main parties – it was once a matter of British political consensus.  Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported a referendum on the European Constitution and I acknowledge the support of honourable friends from those parties as I bring this bill forward.  So the principle of a referendum had been commonly accepted.  It was a position endorsed by the people in a general election.  Yet now people see a cosy consensus having emerged amongst all three parties of denying the people their say in a referendum.

The government broke that consensus arguing, incorrectly in my view, that the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution were two fundamentally different documents but that does not make the decision of others to follow suit the right choice.

Some may think I exaggerate but I offer this digression. The reverse on Lisbon by Her Majesty’s Opposition was marked by a drop in support for it and confidence in its leadership neither of which it has managed to restore since.  This I believe shows that it went beyond the merits of the issue and had become a trust issue for the public in political parties and leaders.  

William Hague during the debate on the Second reading of the European Union(Amendment) bill on 21st January 2008 said “the case for the referendum rests above all on the need for the House and the Government to honour commitments solemnly given. How many times have each of us in the House toured schools and colleges saying to young people that they should take an interest in politics, that their vote makes a difference, and that what is said at election time really counts? What are we to say to them in future—that the fact that they elected an entire House of Commons committed to a referendum was of no account, that the Government regarded that commitment as a technicality to be escaped from rather than a promise to be kept, and that the promises made at election time do not really matter at all? Today in our country, the word of Government is less readily believed than at any time in our modern history. Ministers, instead of tackling the apathy and cynicism that that brings, will only add to it with the weasel words with which they try to escape their referendum commitment.”

Distrust and cynicism are impossible to counter when people see power and influence slip further away from them.  There is a clear disconnect between the people and Westminster that must be repaired in the next parliamentary term.  However, the gulf between the voters and this house pales in comparison with the chasm between the people and the European Commission and Parliament.  The message of power in the hands of the people appeals and is used but time and time again. No doubt it will reappear in different forms in the upcoming election campaign.  Yet time and time again, governments of every hue proposed handing more powers to the European machine.  If it is said that power will be restored to the people but then send it in the opposite direction how can we expect them to trust us?

The most powerful reason to support this Bill today is that it fulfils the promise made by the main parties to the British people. 

What did the Labour Government say? Labour’s manifesto for the 2005 general election was clear about the European constitution. It said:

“We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote”.

The Prime Minister said just before taking office that he regarded honouring that manifesto as “a matter of trust” with the British people.

Now the Government resorts to its red lines despite the fact that these are almost exactly the same as they were in 2005 when we were promised a referendum. And of course the matter has been examined by the European Scrutiny Committee whose chairman the Hon Member for Linlithgow and Falkirk East said they would “leak like a sieve”. 

The European constitution was supposed to be put directly to the people.  The question had been drafted:

“Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?"  

The vote was penciled in for 2006.  However, in May 2005 the French people chose wisely and rejected the proposed Constitution.  The Dutch voters in June 2005 swiftly followed suit. For once the standard European tactic of calling a second referendum was not chosen. Our referendum was then postponed not cancelled. 

In the aftermath the pro-Constitution leaders and bureaucrats re-grouped not so they could plan how to abide by the referendums but how they could develop a strategy to get around them, the Lisbon treaty strategy - a strategy to produce a new document that made the same changes and structures as before but to hide it. 

Why do I claim there is no substantive difference between Constitution and Lisbon Treaty?  Prime Ministers and Presidents across Europe queued up to tell us that the Treaty and Constitution are the same in substance.   

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated it in the clearest term of them all: 

“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.” 

The then Danish prime Minister and now Secretary of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, tells us what was removed: 

“all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.”  

What about the differences in the two texts? Former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato provides the explanation:  

“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”  

The Chairman of Commons European Scrutiny informed this House of all of this:  

"Every provision of the Constitutional Treaty, apart from the flags, mottos and anthems, is to be found in the Reform Treaty. We think that they are fundamentally the same, and the Government have not produced a table to contradict our position."  

However disguising the true meaning was not enough.  Referendums had gone badly then avoid the referendums.  State after state that had planned a constitutional referendum participated in a willing charade that these proposals were somehow not as worthy as the Constitution and needn’t be put to a vote.  It is bordering on a national disgrace that we, the United Kingdom were not only associated with but full participants in such a process, joining in a near total democratic shutout of the people.    

Only the Irish Republic had no wriggle room and held a referendum. It voted No.  The second referendum tactic was once again applied with bribe and threat enough to push it through.  There is not even the excuse that such behaviour is a one off, a special case or exception that proves the rule.  This wheedling until the desired result is achieved is a consistent pattern of the European project trying to prevent the voters from having their say.  European integration often argues that it is driven by the highest of ideals but its political practices place it with the lowest of the low.  

What of the Opposition? In 2007 David Cameron could not have been more explicit in his personal promise of a referendum, come what may. There was absolutely no wriggle room in the unambiguous pledge he made in September 2007. He offered a “cast iron guarantee” to put any treaty in front of the voters. Specifically he said, on 26th September 2007: ‘If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations [on the Lisbon Treaty]’.  

Speaking of Gordon Brown, these were the exact words the Tory leader used in The Sun when he made that guarantee:  

The final reason we must have a vote is trust. Gordon Brown talks about ‘new’ politics. But there's nothing ‘new’ about breaking your promises to the British public. It's classic Labour . . . Small wonder that so many people don't believe a word politicians ever say if they break their promises so casually. IN May 2009 the promise was repeated. Yet in November 2009 the promise was dropped. 

Beyond trust some challenge the concept of a referendum as foreign to the British constitutional tradition.  This is mistaken as our tradition evolved in the last 40 years and a referendum can be reconciled with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.   

It was in Northern Ireland that the principle of a referendum on constitutional change was established with the 1973 border poll. This principle has been followed in the devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales, the rejection of devolution in North-East England and the creation of directly elected mayors and the Greater London Authority. So the principle has been followed in each constituent part of the UK whenever significant changes to governance have been proposed.  Nationally, we have had one referendum, on British membership of the European Economic Community.  So Europe has been the one issue that a national view has been sought. 

A referendum is not only the way in which the people of the UK can be sure that this issue is being taken seriously, it is the only way of ensuring those with whom we have to negotiate in Europe and the the EU Commission etc take us seriously. 

It has been suggested that by putting the plan for repatriation of powers from the EU back to the UK into a party manifesto that is then voted on by the British people that somehow that will give the necessary clout to a new government in negotiations. Leaving aside why people should be expected to vote overwhelmingly on the basis of manifesto promises when previous clear cut and cast iron guarantees have been set aside, the fact is this in no way strengthens the hands of negotiators in the way a clear referendum vote would. 

Without a referendum it is hard to see all the other member states agreeing unanimously to accede to British wishes on repatriation of powers. That applies whether changes are sought by way of the Ordinary Revision Procedure, the so-called Simplified Revision Procedure or by way of Protocols attached to say a future Accession Treaty. 

A referendum also has the effect of ensuring the political classes do actually carry out the wishes of the people. It’s a lot harder to fudge the outcome of negotiations which have been entered into on foot of a massive public referendum result. 

Some people argue that since the Treaty has already been ratified there is no point or value or efficacy in a referendum. How do they square that with the referendum held in 1975 after the UK had already joined the Common Market? 

Some argue that there are ways short of a referendum to ensure that the UK’s position is protected. For instance it has been said that there should be a referendum on any future occasion when a transfer of powers away from the UK to Brussels is proposed. That’s fine except most of the damage has already been done and the building blocks for the European super-state are now almost all in place. 

Its been suggested that legislation should enshrine the primacy of UK law over EU law. One problem with that is the Lisbon treaty confirms the primacy of EU law and disputes are resolved by the European Court of Justice which of course is obligated to promote European integration. 

If I have failed to convince you that they are the same document and proposals then me argue how the Lisbon Treaty deserves a referendum on its own merits.   

What does Lisbon do? 

Almost exactly, down even to the wording, what the Constitution said it would do. The principal changes included:

The creation a president of the European Council, who holds office for thirty months, and is allowed two terms;
A High Representative was appointed, combining the posts of the old foreign affairs and external affairs commissioners: it’s goal is ‘to give the EU more influence on the world stage’;
Voting weights were redistributed between the member states, phased to come into effect between 2014 and 2017. Qualified majority voting will now be based on a double majority of 55% of member states, accounting for 65% of the EU's population. This further weakens the UK’s ability to build coalitions to achieve ‘blocking minorities’;
New powers were given to all of the, European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice, not least in the field of justice and home affairs; The European Parliament has been declared to be ‘on an equal footing. with the European Council almost all EU legislation, including the budget and agriculture;
National vetoes were removed in still more fields, including: ‘fighting climate change’, energy security and emergency aid (a budget even more scandalously corrupt and inefficient in its administration than the Common Agricultural or Fisheries Policies).
The changes in the Treaty are:

New European Union institutions are created with a President, Foreign Minister and its own diplomatic service.
The United Kingdom’s ability to block European laws and regulations are reduced.
The United Kingdom lost a national veto in 61 policy areas
The EU takes on new powers in the fields of civil and criminal law and legal procedures
The EU gains powers over asylum
EU bodies have the powers to commence criminal investigations
A division of competencies that was supposed to provide clarity but through vagueness has ensured the absorption of more policy areas can continue at a steady pace.
The EU will gain powers on issues relating to health
The EU will gain the powers to harmonise of social policies
The EU will gain increased control and influence over trade policy and inward investment.
Crucially the Treaty allows for further powers to be drawn into the European institutions without anything as cumbersome as a Constitution or Treaty.  A near permanent solution to the difficulties of public opinion and referendum results.
On a number of these issues it is claimed we have safeguards and protections.  However, how well this stands up to scrutiny is questionable.  

If the test for a referendum in the United Kingdom is that it involves major constitutional change then the Lisbon Treaty passes that test.  My party would campaign for a No in such a referendum but we know that no such result is assured.  We are willing to let the decision rest with the people.  

In conclusion, some will pretend this is tilting at windmills.  The treaty has happened we need to accept that and move on.  The shrug of “Ach well its Europe what can you do.”  Yet the Treaty itself allows for its de-ratification:   

So it is a misjudgement and error to present the situation as a fait accompli – is it any wonder that turnout is dropping when politicians present themselves as virtually powerless?  We can act on this and we should act on this.  The Treaty is a major constitutional change.  It has become the British practice to put such changes to a referendum.  A referendum on such changes was promised.  This should be enough on its own.  Crucially it offers an added benefit that British democracy is in sire need of, it is a means to re-establish the trust between the people, their representatives and this House."

Print Version