EU Referendum and EU Reform (EUC Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the EU Select Committee and say what a pleasure it is to serve on that committee under the wise chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I should like to address my remarks to the shorter of our reports, which attempts to answer the question: a vote to leave is a vote to leave, but what happens then? I will express some personal views on this subject. The leave campaign tells us that it is all very simple, and it has launched something today to that effect. Parliament would legislate to do such things as end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the UK, end the free movement rights of European citizens, stop EU budget contributions and so on, and we would negotiate a free trade deal with our EU partners by 2020.

With respect, the campaigners have obviously not taken the trouble to read your Lordships’ report. Their plans would pitch Britain into a limbo, a state of ill-defined economic and legal uncertainty that would be the most serious self-inflicted damage to the UK economy since the three-day week, which I remember being imposed in December 1973. This economic and legal uncertainty runs a very significant risk of weakening private investment, particularly overseas investment, including overseas purchasing of UK assets, over the next few years. We have needed that overseas investment to continue funding our very substantial trade deficit, which has been in place for a generation. That would be put at risk. It would create an environment in which firms that are able to move their activities to the legal certainties of the single market would do so because otherwise their boards would be failing in their duty to their shareholders to minimise risk. The logic of a Brexit is that any British-based company whose business is mainly with the European single market would, in the event of a leave vote, substantially reduce its risks by relocating its activities within that market. That is what I believe companies will do.

Why do I talk about limbo rather than a quick and clean exit? In my judgment, this would be a painful and protracted state of limbo before—I am not sure I have the theology right—we reach the permanent purgatory of Brexit. It is clear to me how our EU partners would react to a leave vote and the Brexiteers’ plans. They do not want us to leave the EU and there will be a lot of real sadness at our parting, but I do not think there will be any special favours for Britain. Their granting Britain special favours would only encourage the populist forces in their own countries. Like our Brexiteers, they are wrongly and unscrupulously seeking to blame the European Union for difficulties in European societies, in the rest of Europe as well as in Britain, in finding an adequate economic and social response to the structural tensions and injustices of globalisation. That, essentially, is the problem.

Instead, the EU will decide that it will negotiate with Britain in a civilised way, but only within the terms of the treaties that we have signed and that this sovereign Parliament has agreed. The EU would say that Article 50 provides the path and that it will not talk to us unless we follow it. The EU 27 would instruct the Commission to draw up a negotiating mandate for British withdrawal that the European Council must then endorse, without of course Britain being present.

This mandate will make clear that there can be no continued access for Britain to the single market unless we meet existing obligations on free movement and contributions to the EU budget. On this point, the EU will never yield. I expect this mandate to be agreed relatively quickly later in 2016, but there will then be a pause for the French and German elections, so we will not get around to anything serious until the end of next year. After that I anticipate a lengthy stand-off, with a new British Government under a new Prime Minister, and probably after a general election in which the Brexiteers will have sought a mandate to pursue their demands.

However, the Brexiteers are fundamentally divided and inconsistent on one central point, which is their attitude to the single market. On one hand, they say that Britain will no longer be part of the single market and will be free to take back control. On the other, they say that a free-trade agreement will be dead easy to negotiate because we currently meet the regulatory requirements of the single market. Under their plan, they say that they will not accept free movement and contributions to the budget.

As for the regulatory obligations, they use these at one point to argue that we could easily have a free-trade agreement, while also saying that they want to scrap all these regulations because they think it will mean a huge boost to British enterprise. The truth is that the proposition that a free-trade deal will be easy to negotiate depends on an essential fallacy: that we will stick to the single-market rules that the Brexiteers have no intention of sticking to.

Is their aim a better deal, on the Norway model, or is it for Britain to pursue a wholly different economic course? They cannot agree among themselves and it is unlikely that they will get a majority in either House of Parliament for a credible leave option. Vote leave has no practical alternative to British membership of the EU. As Nye Bevan memorably said of unilateral nuclear disarmament, it is an emotional spasm. We should brace ourselves for a long period of limbo that could do incalculable damage to the British economy and Britain’s working people. I pray that it will not happen.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for that interruption. The Government’s commitment is to votes for life for everybody, whether they live in the EU or elsewhere. The point is not in terms of their direct association with the EU, but whether they are British citizens who live abroad. Therefore, the point that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to be making, which had some force, was that it is mere happenstance whether an individual lives in a country in the European Union or outside of it.

Removing the 15-year rule will be a complex and important constitutional change. It is not something that we suggest should in any way be rushed by way of a single amendment. It needs a whole Bill to be implemented properly—a Bill that plainly will be opposed by the party opposite. There are decisions to be taken. The media and the public should have a chance to scrutinise these changes. That is something of an echo of the argument I advanced unsuccessfully on the previous amendment. We will need to consider questions of potential fraud and how we should update the registration system. It is not something that should in any way be rushed through. This is just a small sample of the decisions that would need to be taken and implemented. Changing the franchise in this way is no small task. Giving effect to such a change would take a significant amount of time and resources in central government and in local authorities.

In many ways this is the most complex change to the franchise being proposed today. The group of people in question are almost by definition not known to us, as British citizens do not need to register when they move abroad. There are many, like the relations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, who will be well known and easily identifiable, but for many others it is difficult to have an adequate canvass. We could hardly go door to door, as electoral registration officials can in the UK. I entirely accept the contribution that many who live in the EU have made over a long period to Great Britain, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, although they have not hitherto taken part in general elections if they are outside the Westminster franchise. Verifying identities for others is a complicated task where a person has been away for at least a decade. For example, it might be difficult to prove that they have been previously resident in the UK.

These changes have to be made judiciously and carefully to ensure that the system remains transparent. My noble friend Lord Lexden said in Committee and again today that the Government should have started the process of the votes for life, which would, of course, incorporate this amendment. I know that is an issue close to his heart. I assure him and the House that the Government are committed to this change, but without knowing the date of the referendum I cannot, of course, guarantee that the change will be implemented in time. As I said, the decisions are complex.

I return finally to the point that I have made before. Indeed, I think it is one of the areas of common ground between this party and the party opposite at least. This process must be seen to be fair. There is clearly a view taken, as exemplified by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, that a change of this sort may have an ulterior motive. I do not presume to guess how anybody is going to vote, whether they live outside the United Kingdom, outside the EU or whether they are under 18 or not. However, it is important that this should not in any way be seen to be some form of specially amended franchise so as to achieve a certain outcome. Nothing should undermine its legitimacy. The public might ask why we have made this change now just in time for the referendum. Should it not have been done as a much more careful stand-alone vote?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am a simple-minded chap but the Government are making a special change to the Westminster franchise to include citizens of Gibraltar to give them a vote in the British referendum. Presumably, the argument for that is that they are deeply affected by the result, as, indeed, they would be because their position in relation to Spain would become much more difficult were we to withdraw. But what about British citizens who have lived in the EU for a long time? The reason a lot of these people have gone to live there is because they were taking advantage of our EU membership. They see themselves as EU citizens as well as British citizens. What is the logic of excluding them if we are including the Gibraltarians?

[Lord Faulks]

The position is that British citizens are not able to vote in referenda in other European countries. This minor exception, which includes Peers and Gibraltarians who are members of the Commonwealth, is a very minor change to reflect that fact rather than to reflect the fact that Gibraltar happens to be in Europe and is part of the south-west area. I do not think it follows therefore that there should be an automatic change to the whole approach.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, wholly agree with what my noble friend Lord Flight said—that if we are going to extend the vote in the referendum to those United Kingdom citizens who live outside the United Kingdom, it should be extended to all of them. However, I do not feel that those who live outside the United Kingdom have quite an equivalent right to vote as those who live here. As democracy was being extended in this country, it was often said, “No taxation without representation”. I seem to remember that when I went to live and work in Japan, I stopped paying United Kingdom income tax fairly immediately, although I did have to pay Japanese income tax, which was at rather a higher rate.

I later became chairman of Conservatives Abroad in Japan, and asked for the franchise for those of us who were abroad for a relatively short time with the clear intention of coming back. If you have been abroad for a long time and made your life abroad and have no intention of coming back to the UK to live, your right to have your voice heard in a general election or referendum is somewhat less. There may well be a case for extending the franchise beyond 15 years to United Kingdom citizens abroad, but there are practical difficulties in tracing who they are. On which electoral register would they be if they no longer have any family members living in the area where they previously lived? It seems rather complicated, so I cannot support the amendments.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

On the point about British citizens living in the EU, of course I go along with the principle of no taxation without representation, but many of our citizens who live on the continent worked in Britain all their lives, paid taxes all their lives and have gone to the continent to retire. So it is a bit hard to deny them the vote on the no taxation without representation ground.

[Lord Dobbs]

If they have gone to the continent to retire after an active working life in this country, the chances are that many, if not the majority of them, will still have the vote under the existing 15-year legislation. Not all of them, but very many.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. He has considerable experience in these matters and I agree with him entirely.

To conclude, we need the Government’s forecasts of the competitive position of the UK if we stay in, tied to a European economy that is becoming progressively uncompetitive in world markets. We know Herr Juncker wants more Europe and more of the social dimension, as he said to the European Parliament. That would be all very well if the USA, China and the Asian economies were also awarding themselves more pensions, more paternity leave, shorter working weeks, higher pay and more social benefits, but they are not and Europe is in slow decline against their economies.

[Lord Liddle]

Has not what the noble Lord just said shown the need for an objective analysis of the facts? Britain has a trade deficit of something between 5% and 6% of GDP, whereas the euro area has, I think, a small trade surplus with the rest of the world. Germany and the Netherlands have massive trade surpluses. Frankly, what the noble Lord is saying is nonsense.

[Lord Blencathra]

I thank the noble Lord for his support. We need a factual analysis of a whole range of things. However, I merely suggest to the Committee that if the Government are tempted to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, or a similar one, on producing a report on the consequences of leaving the EU—some of that would be speculative, as I have attempted to suggest—we also need a report on the consequences of staying in. In many ways that would be equally speculative, although no more so than the outcome of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Therefore, we must have the Government’s analysis of the consequences for the UK if that decline in the European economy continues.

The five presidents’ report envisages competitiveness authorities taking over wage and work conditions. I will not quote from the Commission press release of 21 October, but it talks about deepening the EMU, getting social fairness and paying greater attention to new macroeconomic adjustment programmes, as it did in Greece. We all know that worked very well. Therefore, we need the Government’s view on that aspect of the report.

The report goes on to say that we need adequate access to,

“adequate education and … an effective social protection system … in place to protect the most vulnerable in society, including a ‘social protection floor’”.

I therefore suggest that we need a UK government analysis of the consequences of those proposals when they are incorporated into a treaty. It is no good for the BSE campaigners to say that they will apply to eurozone countries only. The Commission will use the excuse, justification and treaty base of the single market, as it usually does, to make them apply to us, and we will not be able to stop it since the eurozone countries will have an in-built majority.

[Lord Blencathra]

The Government will respond to the Select Committee’s report, but that is different from an analysis of what the situation would be in this country if it were to take place. There may be similarities in the report we would make, but we still need that analysis of staying in the European Union.

I am almost concluded, noble Lords will be pleased to hear; at least I have provoked a bit of controversy in this debate. The five presidents’ report also talks about harmonising insolvency law, company law and property rights. We need an analysis of the dangers of that point.

In his speech two weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of England noted that being in the EU had benefited us in the past. However, in the referendum we will be voting not on the EU’s past record but on what it will do for us in the future. What was most interesting in Mr Carney’s speech was the clear warning over further eurozone integration and its impact on the UK economy. He noted that the five presidents’ report states that there is “unfinished business” over further fiscal and financial integration in the euro area. The Bank’s report cautioned that the “necessary deepening” of integration, coupled with the,

“weight of … the members of the single currency”,

would impair the ability of the Bank to,

“meet its financial stability objective”.

I trust that the noble Baroness will question the Governor of the Bank of England on that statement in the Bank’s report. I look forward to reading the analysis.

[Lord Liddle]

As I understand it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to Berlin today to explain that Britain supports this increased integration in the euro area because we have a strong national interest in the eurozone being an area of more dynamic growth. I just do not understand where the noble Lord is coming from, because his own leadership is arguing for this integration.

[Lord Blencathra]

The leadership is entitled to do so. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are negotiating hard for changes on behalf of the British people and the country. When the Government set out the deal they achieve, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is accepted and the Government set out the consequences of leaving, my amendment merely suggests that they should also set out as far as they can the consequences of staying in.

My very final point is that the EU has made it clear that there will be no treaty change before 2017 and possibly not before 2020. In that case, I should like to know how the Government will guarantee that the deal that the Prime Minister brings back will be incorporated into a binding treaty change. Any promises not in a treaty are not worth the wasted breath, in my opinion. So I want to see a section in the government report explaining how we can guarantee that we will actually get the changes that the Prime Minister secures.

I am sorry that I have taken so long. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. His amendment is important. I think that all the amendments in this area are important, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I shall describe Amendments 31 and 32, which stand in my name. In the earlier amendments in this group the Government are asked to set out the consequences of leaving the EU, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it is only right and fair that they should set out the consequences of staying in. In my amendments I have selected two issues which I believe are likely to be extremely important to the public in general in reaching a decision on how to vote.

Amendment 31 addresses net migration, which, as most noble Lords will be aware, is about 330,000 a year. Of that figure, more than half—180,000, a number that has doubled in the last two years—are from the European Union. That figure is split more or less equally between the EU 14 and the new members in the A10. How that advances in the future, of course, depends on the economic developments in those two regions, but I think that the figures are likely to remain high unless something is done to reduce the level of low-skilled immigration from the European Union.

As noble Lords may know, 75% of immigration from the A10 and 25% of immigration from the EU 14 is low skilled, or certainly low paid, so there ought to be some scope there and the Government need to set out the effect on that low-paid immigration of their negotiations with the European Union. It is not just a matter of a large number of low-paid migrants without, at present, any break or limit on their numbers; what are important are the implications of the impact on the population of the UK, which will be huge. Noble Lords will have seen this very week the latest population projections prepared by the ONS. Based on net migration of 185,000 a year, it has told us that the population will increase by 2.5 million—more than twice the population of Birmingham—in the next five years and by nearly 10 million in 25 years’ time. Even that projection is based on some very optimistic numbers. The ONS thinks that immigration will be about 185,000 per year going forward, but the average over the last 10 years has been 240,000 and the current level is 330,000.Therefore, there will be a huge impact on the population, and, by the way, the same document shows that just over two-thirds of the future population increase will be as a result of immigration.

[Lord Liddle]

Is the noble Lord claiming that the extra population of 10 million will be due to EU migration? It seems to me that that is not the case: he is muddling together EU migration and migration from the rest of the world. Given that much EU migration involves young single people, does he think that in time the impact on the population from those people, some of whom may well go back to their own countries, is likely to be as significant as the impact from non-EU migration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord exaggerates to make his point. I am not arguing against economic forecasting. I am simply saying that the record on economic forecasting is not very good and the Bank of England is a classic example.

This is not about economic forecasting. This is about the effect on the United Kingdom’s economy of withdrawal from the European Union which is a huge issue. It is not just about the implications for the economy directly as a result of taxation or fiscal policy or matters of that kind. It is about the impact of immigration, it is about what happens in terms of the advantages that we would gain by being outside the European Union, our ability to negotiate our own trade agreements, our ability to be free of suffocating regulation, our ability to decide matters for ourselves, our ability to control our borders—all these things will have an impact on growth rates and the future of our economy. I am simply arguing that the Office for Budget Responsibility does not have the expertise or the ability to do that. I am delighted that the noble Lord supports my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment looking at the other side of the equation, which is staying in.

I will repeat a point I made earlier. It is astonishing to me that we are members of the European Union and the arguments that we have heard from the Europhiles—the people who wish to remain in the European Union—have all been characterised in terms of the threats of leaving rather than the benefits which we have. That seems to indicate a degree of uncertainty.

[Lord Liddle]

I do not know who the noble Lord has been listening to about threats. It seems to me that the pro-European people are making a very modern argument for our membership of the European Union—a case which is far stronger than it was when we originally joined—that in this really dangerous world with chaos in Africa, fanaticism in the Middle East and rising nationalism in Russia, what we should be doing is sticking with our friends and acting as a united Europe.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

We do not have to be in the European Union to stick with our friends, and NATO is a good example of that. I am not referring to the general debate, I am referring to the amendments—for example the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to insert a new clause headed:

“Report on the consequences of the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union”,

but not to report on the benefits of being in the European Union.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

May I just finish answering this point first? I am simply making the point that it is very startling that those who are most enthusiastic about the European Union wish to couch their arguments in terms of what it would be like if we left as opposed to why it is in our interests if we remain.

[Lord Liddle]

There is a very simple reason for that which is that most of the anti-European case that is put forward suggests that it is cost-free to come out of the European Union. That is why these arguments are being pressed; if you listen to the way a lot of people talk who favour withdrawal, they think it is cost-free. They assume we can negotiate anything we want. It is they who are not facing up to the realities of the world.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have to say that cost-free would be a considerable improvement on the £8 billion net contribution that we are currently making because it is certainly not cost-free to remain in.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, may I briefly speak to Amendment 1? It seems to be extremely straightforward. For a fair referendum, we want an entirely clean situation where adequate notice is given and where there is no possible scope for the public sector, the Government, the EU or any public body to spend money influencing the course of the campaign. As has just been stated, the Electoral Commission supported this amendment. It is in line with what the Government have said they are seeking to do. I find it quite irritating that there is such complexity surrounding what is really a pretty straightforward point but I very much hope that the Government will accept the amendment in the spirit in which it is offered.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 2, which has been somewhat incongruously grouped with Amendment 1. However, I do not mind that because I am speaking to this amendment somewhat tongue in cheek, not in the expectation that the Government will accept it but to make a point about the fairness of this referendum and the need for the outcome to be accepted for a generation to come.

My amendment would change the date from 2017 to 2019. I have put this down to make a broader political point: that there is, in my view, a fundamental contradiction in the Government’s renegotiation strategy. They say that they want a fundamental change in the relationship with the European Union and, at the same time, they have chosen to impose a unilateral timetable for this renegotiation by saying that they need to have the referendum by the end of 2017. In practice it should be said—I think that the Government would sort of accept this—that the real deadline is the end of 2016. No one really thinks that you can muddle up a British referendum with the French presidential and German Bundestag elections, which will be dominating Europe in 2017. The Government have in practice set themselves a very tight deadline for their renegotiation. The truth is that they cannot achieve within that timescale some of the objectives which they have apparently set themselves.

First, there is no prospect of comprehensive treaty change by the time of the referendum. Secondly, even on matters such as benefits for Polish workers in Britain, while it may be possible to achieve some kind of political consensus among the member states about what changes are necessary, there is very little prospect that such changes in European legislation, even if agreed in principle by the Council of Ministers, could have gone through the complex legislative procedures of the European Union, given the role of the European Parliament and the Council in co-decision, by the time of our referendum. I am sure that the former Members of the European Parliament who are in this House will agree with that. We are dealing with a situation where the Government will have to be content with agreements in principle and, possibly, devices such as the protocols which were granted to Denmark and Ireland, which were basically promissory notes of future changes in EU treaties when such treaty changes come to be made.

I would like to see honesty from the Government about this situation because if we are to win this referendum we do not want to create a situation where lots of people who campaigned against British membership immediately turn round and say, “We was robbed”, which is what happened in 1975. I think there is some risk of this so the Government have to be franker than they have been so far about their renegotiation strategy and what they can achieve within the timescale they have imposed. Let us remember, this is a unilateral British timescale; the European Union is not causing the problems. It is a unilateral timescale that we have laid down.

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was heartened by his aspiration that this would be settled for a generation but how can he be confident about that, bearing in mind that the agitation against our membership after a massive two-thirds majority in 1975 began only 10 or 11 years afterwards with the turbulence around Maastricht and all that? The evidence is that there is a minority in this country who are very strong xenophobes and chauvinists and dislike particularly European foreigners, so how can he have that kind of confidence in such a clear result, particularly when there is a the danger of quite a close result in the end?

[Lord Liddle]

The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is right, of course; after 1975 some people said within a year or two that they would not accept the result. This was true in my own party so I remember that. However, I think that the Government can act in order to mitigate the risk.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Are there not two other good precedents? In Quebec the Parti Québécois and the Separatists kept on going back in the hope that they would one day have a majority of one, if only that, which they almost did in 1994. In Scotland, were the Brexit to take place, the Scottish referendum would be immediately revived.

[Lord Liddle]

My noble friend is, of course, right. My point is this: assuming that the Government reject my amendment, which I am sure they will—as I say, I moved it tongue in cheek—and we stick with the deadline in the legislation, if we are going to win this referendum there has to be honesty on the Government’s part about what it can and cannot achieve.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. On the subject of honesty, I know that the Labour Party’s policy is a little fluid at the moment and there is a debate on these matters, but will he explain how his amendment, which says that we should delay the referendum until as late as 2019, is consistent with the Opposition’s attack on the Government that by holding this referendum they are creating a period of uncertainty which is doing damage to British business?

[Lord Liddle]

Of course the noble Lord is right about that. However, I think that at the same time, he and some of the supporters of Britain’s withdrawal from Europe who argue that they will stay only if they get fundamental treaty change, the right of the national Parliament to overturn EU laws and a fundamental alteration to free movement, are hypocrites because they are saying things that they know are not achievable. If we are to have a decent conversation with the electorate in this referendum, we have to be honest about what can and cannot be done.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is the noble Lord calling me a hypocrite?

[Lord Liddle]

I am saying that those who argue that they will support continued membership of the EU only if there is fundamental treaty change hold a hypocritical position because that is not possible to achieve within the timescale that the Government have set out.

The Government should follow Harold Wilson’s example—

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

Given the scenario that the noble Lord has described, why do we not smoke them out and find out a bit quicker, rather than leave it until 2019?

[Lord Liddle]

Because there might be fundamental treaty change—for instance, within the eurozone—by that date. There is no possibility of that within the date of the renegotiation. This means that the Government have to be honest about what they can achieve and what they cannot; they have to adopt the position that Harold Wilson wisely adopted in 1975 and say, “We did want to achieve quite a lot of things in this renegotiation. We haven’t achieved them all, but we have achieved some useful reforms which in our view justify staying in”. I think that that is the best that the Government can do on their own policy. That is why I have tabled the amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I am rather in sympathy with the noble Lord’s proposal. Does he not agree that, as the years progress, the whole of the eurozone in particular and the EU generally is becoming more and more accident-prone; that one drama follows another; and that by 2019 the whole thing will probably be falling apart?

[Lord Liddle]

No, I do not agree. Britain should not push unreasonable demands in the next 12 months on top of the very real issues the European Union has to deal with: resolving the long-term issues arising from the euro crisis—the short term has been resolved—and putting together the more Europe that we need effectively to tackle the migration crisis. Those are very serious problems, and Britain is getting in the way of solving them. That is an added reason for the Government to be honest with the people about the feasibility of the fundamental reforms that some noble Lords appear to think are possible—they are not.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I support my noble friend’s amendment because I do not believe that the British public should be bounced into a snap poll. There has been talk by some spin doctors—probably around the edges of the staying-in campaign—that a quick poll in 2016 would be advantageous. They seem to feel that the longer the electorate has to consider whatever deal the Prime Minister brings back from Brussels, the more likely it is that the electorate will vote against it. I suggest that some people may perceive that there is an incentive for the Government to try to rush the poll as soon the Prime Minister says that he has a deal that we can sell to the British people and we should stay in.

Everyone rightly says that this is the most important vote in 40 years—and maybe for the next 40 years. Therefore, the pros and cons must be given very careful consideration. The Government will have to set out their case. There are amendments on the Order Paper asking for a White Paper-type document which sets out not only the facts of the deal that the Prime Minister has achieved but the consequences of staying in and the consequences of leaving.

That document will not be like party-political manifestos, which set out the already well-known policies of the political parties. Manifestos may have a few nuggets of new information but no real surprises on the political direction of each party. Thus, one can get away with publishing a political manifesto two or three weeks before an election and the public are not really kept in the dark by that short timescale. The document that the Government will publish on the EU referendum will not be like a party-political manifesto. It crosses all party boundaries and there is no clear policy decision known in advance of the deal that the Prime Minister will get.

We have no idea what the deal will be. There may be big concessions or there may be small, trivial, cosmetic ones. The consequences of staying in or leaving will be immense, and both campaigns will have to issue their own views on the deal and conduct big public debates on it. That process cannot be rushed; we would be doing a huge disservice to the public. Nor does my noble friend’s amendment call for an indefinite delay. Announcing a date 10 weeks hence seems to be a reasonable period of time for all the relevant documents to be published and the debates to be held. It does not hold up any poll indefinitely.

We have all been discussing the possibility of a referendum on Europe for years. When this Bill becomes an Act, we might just be a minimum of six months away from a poll, and it may possibly be on a date two years from now; so in relation to that long timescale that we have been discussing and that we might face, a period of 10 weeks to give proper consideration to the deal and its consequences is nothing in comparison. I support my noble friend’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I slightly worry about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and his use of words such as “hypocrite”. Earlier in the week, we had a noble Lord from the Opposition referring to the Prime Minister as a liar. We have rules in this House about asperity of speech. If the noble Lord cares to look at the Companion, he will find that it is a very difficult and unpleasant process if those rules are called into being.

[Lord Liddle]

I was not seeking to call the noble Lord a hypocrite. I was saying that people who make the argument that they might support European Union membership if certain unrealisable goals are achieved in this very short timescale are hypocrites.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have dealt with the problem of the use of rather extreme language, so I shall deal with the problem that arises from the noble Lord’s assertion. To suggest that people who take the view that we should leave the European Union but are open-minded enough to think that if certain changes were made they would change their position are somehow hypocritical or acting improperly is ridiculous. It is plain common sense. If the Prime Minister comes back and says that we can control our borders and decide our own social legislation and that Parliament not Europe can, for example, decide the amount of money that people have protected in their bank accounts, I, for one, will raise three cheers and see a completely reformed European Union. The noble Lord is quite extraordinary. He seems to be advancing a case that whatever is decided, and whatever happens to the European Union, Britain must remain a member. I can see that from the European Union’s point of view, it might be in its interests, but he is supposed to be in this Parliament to look after Britain’s interests.

[Lord Liddle]

That is Labour Party policy. Whatever comes out of this renegotiation, we will campaign to stay in the European Union because that is our judgment of the national interest. I believe that it is possible that Mr Cameron can achieve a useful set of reforms through his renegotiation. I do not believe that the kind of fundamental changes that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was talking about are achievable in any sense whatever, and he knows it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord may be right about that, but the reason I am against his amendment is because he is not prepared to let the British people decide this by March 2017. He wants to delay because he wants Britain to remain in the European Union whatever the British people think, and if he had his way, we would not be having a referendum at all. As was pointed out, the Labour Party’s position is that we need to get this sorted and out of the way in order to end the period of uncertainty, so he is out of line with Labour Party policy as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I do not see the point of that intervention at all. I was going to say that, because there is no reciprocity, there is no reason for us to give European citizens the vote in what is a purely national matter, in spite of what the noble Baroness said. She said herself that we do not know what is going to happen with European citizens if and when we vote to leave. People live here because they like living here, not because we are a member of the EU, so that will not change at all.

[Lord Liddle]

One reason why so many EU citizens who have not become British nationals as a result of marrying British people live here is that we are a member of the EU and they feel that they are treated on the same basis as British citizens. You are dividing people who see themselves as British residents and have committed their lives to this country, and you are wrong.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I am so sorry if I am wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that the Companion advises against the use of the word “you”.

[Lord Liddle]

I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is correct on these points and therefore I shall follow his advice as best I can.

With regard to all these amendments, if we were talking about the situation in the 1970s when we were joining the European Union, I would have said unequivocally, “That is a decision for British citizens”. But we made the decision to join a Community—and it is a Community—in which many British citizens have gone to live in other countries and many European citizens have come to live here. People have moved because they have felt that they will be treated on a very fair and equal basis as members of the European Union.

Now, the structural change that our membership of the EU has brought about means that this is not like any other election. It is not a national election or a national referendum on a matter specific to our country; it is about our future in the European Union and it affects everyone—British citizens living in the European Union and European citizens living here.

I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has a point about a residency requirement. However, I know many people who have married people from EU member states who are not British citizens and the idea that their future is going to be decided without them having a say over it is a monstrous injustice.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

I invite the noble Lord to step behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and imagine that there are 1.8 million people in this country who we are pretty sure are going to vote overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. Would he still express the same passionate enthusiasm for enfranchising them?

[Lord Liddle]

One of the miracles of the European Union is that people have been free to move. Surely they have some right to vote. It should not be the case that the British citizens who have stayed here are the only people who can vote in a referendum.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, in that case, how is it that no other European country allows foreign citizens to vote in their referenda?

[Lord Liddle]

Because this is a referendum about leaving the European Union. I am not suggesting that this become the electorate in a British general election or on any other matter. However, this referendum is about the rationale for why these people are here.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, we have been discussing virtually all day how we are going to try to make this referendum fair. We want to keep the playing field as level as we possibly can. Enfranchising 1.9 million people of European nationality is a blatant opportunity to try to swing the vote in favour of staying in the EU. Of course, so much is going wrong for all these people who want us to stay in the EU. Let us face it: the EU is imploding as we watch and one crisis follows another. It is going to be quite tricky for anybody who wants us to stay in the EU to win this referendum. Therefore, I agree that those people who do want to stay in have got to try every trick in the book to try to swing it in their direction. However, let us see this for what it is: this is a referendum for the British people to decide whether or not they want to stay in the EU. This is not a decision for foreigners who happen to be living in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

If Britain votes to leave, a whole range of things would need to be decided and negotiated. No one is suggesting that on the day or within a couple of years of Britain voting to leave, all EU nationals working here would be slung out and not allowed to work. A British Government would make a determination by looking at each case of employment and refugee status—at a range of issues that could be decided on individually. It is not right to say that we are back at square one and that if we vote to leave, all the rules related to other people working in this country go back to 1973.

[Lord Liddle]

If decisions are taken individually, that implies that some EU nationals will be thrown out. Is it the Government’s position that if we vote to leave the EU, some EU nationals may be thrown out?

[Lord Blencathra]

I do not want to get totally bogged down in this argument. I was asked a hypothetical question: what would happen to those people if we voted to leave? I was given a hypothetical answer: it would be up the Government of the day to decide the rules on employment in this country for people from any other country. I was not suggesting that the Government would throw people out. They may decide unilaterally that all 1.8 million should stay and maybe we should add a couple of million more. It is a totally hypothetical issue but it does not detract from the argument that no other country allows non-nationals to vote in important national referenda. We should follow that example.

[Lord Liddle]

It is not a totally hypothetical issue. If you listened to Mrs May’s speech at the Conservative Party speech, you might have thought that there was a certain desire to throw out people who were not British citizens. There is a real question: what is the future for EU nationals in this country if we vote to leave? If the Government are not prepared to give an honest answer, of course people are going to demand a right to vote in this referendum.

[Viscount Ridley]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who I know is trying to get in, but I want to add a quick postscript to my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s point about fairness. As I said at Second Reading, we must get this referendum so fair that after it is over the argument is over—we forget it, we shut up about it. The further we divert in all these directions from the Westminster franchise, the more likely we are to end up in the situation that he and the noble Lord, Lord Green, described, in which the balance of judgment in the referendum comes down to one small group of EU nationals, for example, and the argument does not go away.

[Lord Liddle]

Does the noble Viscount accept that the argument will be over for EU nationals if we vote to leave?

[Viscount Ridley]

If we vote to leave that argument will continue, but as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, that is when we will deal with it.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure on my part to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds on his excellent maiden speech in this House. It was charming and well constructed. Since I joined your Lordships’ House five years ago, I have come to appreciate the wisdom that emanates from the Bishops’ Bench, and I think that “Bishop Nick”, as he is known, will make a good contribution. Like me, he is a lover of the miracle of modern Germany, yet we need to make a stronger and more modern case for Europe. Like me, he has written books; the difference is that it took me five years to write a book, while he seems to write one every year. He is also a voice of the north, and I was glad to see that his first curacy was in my home patch of Carlisle—so welcome, and congratulations.

I would also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on making his maiden speech in introducing this debate, which is a very difficult thing to do. It was an excellent speech; I did not agree with all of it, of course, but it was an excellent speech. He is joining a very select trade union in this House, of former special advisers, of whom I am one. Again, I welcome and congratulate him, particularly since special advisers need protecting against what former Ministers say—inaccurately, perhaps—about them.

The centrepiece of the gracious Speech was the European Union Referendum Bill, which marks the opening of a period of profound uncertainty about our constitutional future as a nation. Our membership of the EU and the very future of the United Kingdom itself are inextricably linked. I accept that the referendum is now inevitable and that it would be constitutionally wrong for the Lords to try to oppose it in any way. When the referendum comes, I shall hope, at least, to be on the same side as the Prime Minister, fighting with the heart and soul that he once promised us to maintain Britain’s membership of the EU and save him from the potentially disastrous consequences of his own folly.

I have to say that I did not undergo a doorstep conversion during the general election campaign. Although the referendum Bill is inevitable, I do not and will not support it, because I believe that it is a reckless gamble with Britain’s future. It was on this issue that I believe that Ed Miliband got it right; it is a reckless thing on which we are now embarked—and it is reckless for two reasons. First, in setting up a series of demands for a change in our relationship with Europe, particularly on the issue of migration, we are setting up things that will be objectives, and which will be extremely difficult to achieve, if not impossible, in any renegotiation. The rather modest results that I expect from the renegotiation can only strengthen the hand of the populist anti-Europeans when the referendum comes. Because of this risk, I strongly urge pro-Europeans and, particularly, pro-Europeans in my own party in the other place, not to get involved in some competition over who can demand the toughest reforms. Reform in Europe is, of course, needed but Labour’s continued support for our EU membership does not depend on reform. Under all circumstances we must be the champions of our membership of the EU.

I fear that the referendum also poses a reckless risk to the unity of the United Kingdom. I spent five days of the general election campaign on the doorsteps of Cumbernauld, so I know a bit about the Scottish situation. They were a particularly difficult and miserable five days for a Labour campaigner fighting for someone who was an excellent Labour Member of Parliament—and it grieves me deeply that Gregg McClymont is no longer in the House of Commons.

We face a critical situation as regards the union of the United Kingdom. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said—namely, that we now need a cross-party constitutional convention to think about the future of how we hold this nation together. The one event that would have the power to derail that effort to find a new constitutional settlement would be an EU referendum vote where England votes to come out of Europe and Scotland—as is now almost certain—votes to stay in. Make no mistake, this would be a vote for the break-up of Britain. The no-sayers to Europe in England could end up being the disuniters of our United Kingdom.

I do not believe that there would be consequences just for Scotland; there would be knock-on impacts in Wales as well. A vote for EU withdrawal would also greatly discombobulate the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, about which very little has been heard, as it would result in one of the pillars of the Good Friday agreement crumbling to dust—namely, the fact that the island of Ireland is united on both sides of the border by the fact of EU membership. Therefore, I think we face a very serious situation.

Mr Cameron argues that the decision on our membership of the EU is one for the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I am not convinced that he is absolutely right about this. If our future is as a federal Britain—I am not saying what the constitutional convention may come up with—the rights of each nation within that federation deserve proper and equal respect. Does England have an automatic right to enforce its will on the Scots or other parts of the UK just because of its population and dominance?

At the same time, the constitutional convention must address the question of English identity. The alienation from politics that led to a large number of votes for UKIP in working-class constituencies such as my home town of Carlisle in my view reflects a powerlessness on the part of communities that had the economic heart ripped out of them in the 1980s, and where nothing substantial offering hope has been put in its place. The answer to that has to be effective devolution all round, particularly of economic power, to our city and county regions to give them the power to rebuild their economies. I welcome the Chancellor’s emphasis on his northern powerhouse, but it has to be more comprehensive in its approach and reach. This is the way to address the English question and establish consensus, and not allow the Conservative Party—I make a partisan point—to lead the charge on,

“English laws for English votes”,—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/2015; col. 1637.]

as Gordon Brown once aptly put it.

The case for Europe is fundamentally the same as the case for the United Kingdom: we are better together, meeting together the multiple challenges and threats we face in a spirit of solidarity with partners whose interests and values we fundamentally share. Just as we can revitalise our democracy by offering the prospect of genuine self-government to our nations, regions and cities in the United Kingdom, so through our membership of the EU we also gain the possibility of self-government on issues such as climate change and security that are now beyond the reach of even the biggest European nation states. Let us try to see off the risk of a narrow English nationalism taking over this country and seek a new constitutional settlement based on a federal Britain in a united Europe.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I do not know whether the noble Lord popped in at this hour or a couple of hours ago, but he will find that it is the inconsistency that is worrying me. If we were to have a consistent approach on these matters, then the Boundary Commission would have, to some extent, greater flexibility available to it in the decisions it is required to take.

[Lord Liddle]

I support, particularly, the first part of the argument of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the argument of my distinguished noble friend Lord Kinnock. The key point about this section of the Bill which the Government have not satisfactorily answered is that the function of the Boundary Commission, as it has operated since the Boundary Commission was established by all-party agreement during the Second World War, will be drastically curtailed by this legislation.

Although all the nice, reassuring words about taking account of communities, geography and so on will still be there, the work of the Boundary Commission will be curtailed as a result of the cap on the number of MPs. The Bill does not say that we should have 600 MPs but the Boundary Commission can increase the numbers by five or 10 or 15 in order to take account of local circumstances; it imposes a rigid number. There is also the corset of the 5 per cent on either side of the quota. The effect of these two measures will be to completely change the flexibility and discretion that the Boundary Commission has been able to exercise, under all-party agreement, since the Second World War. Why do the Government feel that they have a mandate to make that change without consulting all parties through a Speaker’s Conference? What argument do they have for doing this? I do not think that there is a good argument.

Once again, from my own part of the world, I shall use an illustration of what the impact of these changes will be, so that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, understands how he is tearing up decades of cross-party agreement on how the Boundary Commission should operate. Let me talk a little about my beloved Cumberland. Before my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours became MP for Workington, I remember as a young man that the Boundary Commission came up with a proposal that Cumberland—this was before Cumbria—should be created—

[Lord Rennard]

Will the noble Lord tell us which amendment he is speaking for or against in these remarks?

[Lord Liddle]

I am in favour of the amendments that would change the wording from may to shall or must because I feel very strongly that the wording is being kept as it was in the previous legislation but disguising that a fundamental change is being introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, knows that very well. It is all part of a deal that his party has done with the Conservative Party without consultation with other parties, which is without intellectual justification.

Let us think about the situation in the 1960s when the Boundary Commission suggested that Cumberland should come down from four to three seats. There was an inquiry and it was decided that on grounds of community and geographical representation the four seats should be kept. In the 1980s and 1990s, with the new county of Cumbria, as I mentioned before, the quota did not justify having six seats. The Boundary Commission used its discretion that because of the special geographic nature of Cumbria, there should be six seats. That is what the Government will destroy. The Boundary Commission will not have the ability to show such discretion. We are all in favour of equal-size constituencies and the principle of equality, but you have to have around the edges flexibility to cope with special situations. Therefore, I urge the Government to think again.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, Amendment 75A, to which I shall speak shortly, is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. The Committee has just heard a superb speech from my noble friend Lord Liddle, which both parties in government should take note of. He put his finger on the problem with this part of the Bill more clearly than has been done before. The debate has highlighted once more what we think is the Government’s undoubted folly in seeking to subordinate every other factor in the construction of parliamentary boundaries to the overriding goal of creating seats that fall within the bounds of a very narrow electoral quota threshold.

We do not oppose moves to create more equally sized constituencies; indeed, we support them. That is already the letter and spirit of the present law and what the Boundary Commissions strive to deliver. We recognise, too, that the current law could be improved in that regard. We have tried to help the Government to deliver such an improvement but, alas, they have chosen to reject every amendment that we have advanced. As a consequence of this failure to engage in the normal and proper process of revision in this House, which is the role that this House is traditionally supposed to perform, serious flaws will be left uncorrected in this legislation. I appreciate that the Government have taken away one or two amendments to look at and we welcome that very much, but there has not been the normal give that Governments accord to Bills of this kind.

The focus of this debate is the proposed new rule 5, headed “Factors”, in Clause 11. We believe that this is a prime example of the Bill’s fundamental defects. As the Committee knows, rule 5 lists a number of factors that the Boundary Commissions are permitted to take into account when drawing up constituencies. These include having regard to special geography, issues of accessibility, local government areas, local community ties, the inconvenience attendant on changes to constituency boundaries and the encouragement to work within the framework of the existing European electoral regions. Of course, these are all sensible factors that ought to be considered by a Boundary Commission in the course of its deliberations and should impact on the outcome of such deliberations, but the interplay between this rule and some of the other rules set out in the Bill mean that the Boundary Commissions will not be able to give proper weight to this list of factors.

Take the issue of inconvenience. Rule 5(1)(d) states that the,

“Boundary Commission may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit … the inconveniences attendant on such changes”.

But if we read across to rule 9(2)—that reference appears to be a small drafting error—we find that,

“rule 5(1)(d) does not apply in relation to a report under section 3(1) of the 1986 Act that a Boundary Commission is required, by subsection (2) of section 3 of that Act as substituted by section 10(3) above, to submit before 1 October 2013”.

In other words, inconvenience attendant on boundary changes may be considered by the Boundary Commission in future reviews but not in the review that the Government intend to rush through before the next general election.

However, even if that anomaly was removed, there would still be a problem about Boundary Commissions taking into account not just inconvenience but any of the factors in rule 5. This is simply—I am sorry if I am repeating a point that has been made before, but it is fundamental to the understanding of this Bill—because sub-paragraph (3) of rule 5 states that the rule is,

“subject to rules 2 and 4”.

Those are the rules relating to the electoral quota and, in the case of rule 4, as we have debated today, to the area of constituencies. In other words, the Boundary Commission may take account of a variety of factors but only within the bounds of the overriding requirement to make constituencies adhere to within the 5 per cent threshold of an electoral quota and consistent only with the special rule on the maximum territorial extent of a constituency.

The major problem here, to which the government side appears deaf, is that the degree of tolerance from the electoral quota is just too narrow. Rule 5 might state that Boundary Commissions may take into account geographical factors, local ties, issues of accessibility and so on, but the Government know that the very tight threshold regarding the electoral quota means that in practice—this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was making—it has very limited room for manoeuvre. We know that because the heads of the Boundary Commissions have said that the strictness of the electoral parity target will mean that local authority boundaries will have to be criss-crossed, county boundaries overlapped and wards divided. We know that islands will have to be split, historic borders transgressed and natural boundaries such as rivers, valleys and the sea just plain ignored. The Boundary Commission secretaries conclude that the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result in many communities feeling that they are being divided between constituencies.

Ironically, the Bill exposes the problems caused by the 5 per cent threshold in the special exemptions that it gives to Northern Ireland and parts of the Scottish Highlands and Islands. That begs the question why Northern Ireland and the Scottish Highlands and Islands are the only places in the United Kingdom deemed worthy of rescue from the iron law of the electoral quota. Why are other islands or areas of peculiar geography not being afforded special protection?

When we come to Amendment 79A, we will debate that more fully. For now, we can rest on the knowledge that many parts of the UK have been, without any adequate explanation, denied that special treatment. We are trying to help the Government to tidy up the Bill and to avoid some of the negative outcomes that are the inevitable consequence of the severe electoral quota requirement, both by suggesting a number of areas that should be guaranteed an allocation of whole seats and by proposing a greater tolerance in the electoral quota threshold.

We propose that, although a 5 per cent disparity from the electoral quota should be the general aim of the Boundary Commissions when drawing up constituencies, an outer limit of 10 per cent ought to be allowed where overriding factors such as those that we have discussed on all sides of the Committee warrant it. The amendment would not make any difference to the Government’s aim of adjusting a perceived electoral bias; it would just deliver a more sensible process. Alas, up to now, the Government in this House refuse even properly to debate this matter and do not give us a response as to why they are taking this attitude.

Referendums: Constitution Committee Report

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, I also welcome this excellent report by my noble friend Lady Jay’s committee. I should like to add my thoughts on referenda as they apply to the European Union.

I suppose that, so far in my life, I have been involved in one real referendum and two failed referenda. I took part in the 1975 referendum on the European Union. I was one of the organisers of “Oxford says yes to Europe” and greatly enjoyed the campaign. In my period working as a Europe adviser to Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister, I was also involved in debates and discussions on two referenda on the European Union, neither of which actually happened—very regrettably, a referendum on whether we should join the euro; and, very thankfully, a possible referendum on the constitutional treaty.

In 1975, I had come to the view that a referendum was a good thing because it would settle the Europe issue for all time. Well, it did not. I think that that should be a warning to all referendum enthusiasts—it does not settle issues for all time. When I started working for Tony Blair I allowed myself to be persuaded again that a referendum on the euro would be a good thing. It was the arguments of Hugo Young that I found most persuasive. He said that this would be an existential choice for Britain, about Britain’s future direction in the world, and it was right that we should have a referendum on it. As we know now, that issue became bogged down and blocked in questions of whether the economic circumstances were right for Britain to join, and whether the five economic tests were fulfilled. In retrospect my view is that if a referendum were to have been held, it should have taken place in 1998 or 1999, on the principle of whether Britain should join the euro. Then the decision on when we did it, according to when the economic circumstances were right, should have been left to the Chancellor and to the Cabinet. That was what the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead urged on the Prime Minister at the time, and in retrospect he was right.

The constitutional treaty referendum was announced by the Prime Minister to the House of Commons in April 2004. I could never see a case for it because the constitutional treaty, despite its portentous title, was nothing more than a classic amending treaty to the basic treaties of the European Union. In its policy content it was a lot less significant in its effects than the Single European Act. I remember a meeting at which Mr Blair expressed these views very forcefully to the then Foreign Secretary, saying, “Jack, are you saying that we should have a referendum on this treaty? That would involve running up and down the streets, telling people to come out and vote in favour of a double-hatted Foreign Minister. Do you think that that is what people are going to respond to?”.

When the referendum was proposed in 2004, it was done purely for tactical reasons, not for reasons of principle. The tactical reasons were, first, a misjudgment about how this House would vote on the treaty and a feeling that a referendum clause would be added; and secondly, a fear that the issue would be very damaging to Labour in the European elections that were coming up. Those are not good reasons for having referenda, and I was extremely pleased that when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, he saw no case for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and that, once he had made the decision and explained it clearly, the passage of the Bill through the House was a complete damp squib. I remember the then Minister for Europe, Mr Jim Murphy, telling me that he had had hardly any letters about it in his postbag.

In the recess, the coalition Government announced in a Written Ministerial Statement by David Lidington on 13 September that legislation would be introduced this Session for multiple referenda on matters European, on the basic test of whether a transfer of powers would take place. According to the Statement, not just new treaties but so-called ratchet clauses which amount to the transfer of an area of competence or power from the UK to the EU will be subjected to a referendum. Well, I find it deeply objectionable. First—this is a point about referenda—the Government's language is all about transfer of powers. That is not how I see it. We are talking about a pooling of sovereignty to give us more power to act over things that are important to us. Technically we may be surrendering sovereignty to Brussels, but we are gaining real power to act. That raises real questions about how the questions would be posed in such referenda on so-called transfers of powers, because that would confuse people.

Secondly, if the Bill had been in place in 1997, we would have had referenda on every amending treaty that has passed since—not just on the treaty of Lisbon but on those of Nice and Amsterdam. That makes three referenda in all. Technically—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, may correct me—we would have had a fourth, because in 2004 it was decided under a passerelle clause to make immigration and asylum a matter of qualified majority voting, which certainly would have passed the Government's test of what would have required a referendum. So many referenda in such a short period would be ridiculous and I do not think that people would know what they were all about, but having referenda on so-called passerelle clauses is an added great confusion. Who will decide which passerelles represent a fundamental so-called transfer of power? That is very unclear. We will probably have the Supreme Court deciding which matters should be subject to referenda. Therefore, I see this as an undesirable development, and frankly I am amazed that my good friend the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Liberal Democrats have agreed to these proposals being brought forward by the coalition Government. I find it amazing that what was the most pro-European party in Britain has agreed to them.

I do not rule out all referenda. If we in Britain are to have a referendum on Europe, let us have it on big and simple choices. Let us have a referendum on whether we are going to be fully committed members of the European Union or whether we are going to pull out. It seems that we could have a referendum on that. However, do not let us kid ourselves that, except on these very big issues, referenda are a way of dealing with the problem of legitimacy in our democracy. We do that by restoring trust in our parliamentary institutions and by having politicians and political parties that are prepared to argue and lead—not to go for the cop-out of referenda, which I believe just encourage the backstairs politics of tactical manoeuvre.