John Redwood

|

Redwood calls for a referendum on Europe

Speaking in a House of Commons Debate on the European Parliament Representation Bill in the House of Commons, John Redwood called for a referendum. The following is his speech:

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for drawing the House's attention to the crucial matter of principle that arises from the power that we are now debating in detail. He is right that the principle that the Government seek to establish could have many evil consequences if it were followed more generally in the treatment of European legislation. Cannot even the Minister see that it is a democratic outrage to ask the House to legislate in advance of agreements, deals and decisions elsewhere and to accept whatever takes places and in whatever circumstances without it having the opportunity to reconsider and to introduce the normal primary legislation that we would expect for matters of constitutional and democratic significance?

There used to be a strong principle in the House-the Government have destroyed it along with many other traditions-that any constitutional matter had to be debated at the length that the House chose and on the Floor of the House. We always thought that the constitution was so important that it was right that every Member of Parliament should have free and unfettered access to such a debate and that the debate should carry on for as long as the House saw fit even if it went on for much longer than the Government of the day wanted. We are now told that an important constitutional matter-the style and number of the representatives that we have in the European Parliament-can be determined by an unelected Minister and rammed through in a statutory instrument with very limited debate and no scope for amendment.

The Liberal Democrats' spokesman was typically wimpish when I asked him whether the British people should be entitled to express their view on the clause and the wider principles behind it. All the electorates in the applicant states get a vote and the voters in places such as the Republic of Ireland have a vote on enlargement. The British people do not get a vote and so cannot express their view on this crucial matter. Their Parliament is now invited by a Government with a very big majority to ram through an unsatisfactory Bill with this crucial power at its heart. That will prevent or stifle debate.

It is important to distinguish between the wish to vote in an election and the wish to vote on the constitutional settlement of this country. Many people might want to vote against a widening of the European Parliament and its representation because they are not impressed by it, but they are not given the opportunity to express that view and their Parliament is being asked to accept this unsatisfactory legislation.My only worry about the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is the modesty of his amendments. He welcomed the protocol and the intent of the negotiation. I do not think that it was a good deal well done because so much of it was unnecessary for enlargement. The applicant states need free trade, which they seem unable to get from the European Union, but do not need much of what will be forced on them and us. There is a problem with his proposals, but they are much better than the Government's.

Mr. Cash: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but he might remember that I tabled about 240 amendments to the Nice treaty and such matters were covered in principle at the time. I have said that once something has been done, we can say that we did not like it, but equally we can say that we wish to renegotiate it. I did what I did with a sense of purpose, which was also the case with the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties, and much of what I said at the time has come about.

Mr. Redwood: I agree entirely and am full of praise for my hon. Friend's energetic work. I was not criticising him but merely remarking-I think that he would agree-that his proposed remedy to the difficulty is modest and partial. There are much bigger sins of commission and omission in the underlying treaty and negotiation that we cannot discuss under the amendment or solve tonight. Despite all that, I urge the House to vote for his amendment. It goes some way to dealing with the problem and certainly highlights for those in the press and public who are interested in such arcane but important matters that there is a big problem. We must stop the Government getting the idea that they can legislate in increasingly general terms and then ram all the important detail through at any date in the future through statutory instruments, which cannot be amended and can be debated only at short length.

Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are confident that they can railroad through a facilitating provision that allows them to agree to a reduction in British representation in the European Parliament without proper debate, thereby showing a contempt for the institution, it is scarcely surprising if the British people feel precisely such a contempt themselves?

Mr. Redwood: I agree. According to the enthusiasts for Europe, we have missed the train in Europe, but it has come to my attention during the debate that, not only have we missed it, but it is going to run us down, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) remarked.

The Bill is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation. The Opposition are right to highlight its deficiencies and propose remedies. I hope that the House will vote for the amendment because it goes a little way to tackle a huge underlying problem as Parliament is invited to undertake a very undemocratic act.