European Union (Amendment Bill) Debate

Mr. Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath) (Lab): Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I supported the Labour party’s 2005 manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the EU constitution. Some 240 clauses of the amended treaty are the same as the ones in the EU constitution. The 10 that are different relate to symbolic elements, as the Danish Prime Minister said.
I listened to what the Foreign Secretary and the Liberal Democrat spokesman said. I believe that the Foreign Secretary is an honourable man, but there are other honourable men and women who spoke on the issue after the treaty was agreed. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said:
“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
Jose Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister, said:
“We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution treaty go...It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
Bertie Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, said:
“90 per cent. of it is still there...these changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed in 2004”.
Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Godsiff: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but time is pressing.
Astrid Thors, the Finnish Foreign Minister, said:
“There is nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.”

I have said that I believe the Foreign Secretary is an honourable man. I also believe that the four other people whom I have mentioned are honourable. However, they cannot all be right. If the amending treaty is adopted, there will be a further transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels, as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—who is not here at the moment—has made clear. This will add to the half of UK legislation on business, charities and the voluntary sector that already originates in the European Union.
Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems is that more matters will come under the European Court of Justice? It is an activist Court that is always increasing the federal power, so many more things will be at risk, whatever Ministers might promise.
Mr. Godsiff: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good, valid point.
It has been suggested that, unless we adopt the amending treaty, the EU will be prevented from fighting climate change. However, it already has plenty of powers in areas such as environmental policy. The EU does not need a constitutional treaty to fight climate change. It simply needs to develop policies that work, and to have the political will to pursue them.
It is easy to label anyone who does not support the amending treaty as anti-European, and to say that referendums are somehow un-British. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has pointed out, however, Labour Governments have quite rightly held referendums in the past, including those on Welsh and Scottish devolution and, back in 1975, we had a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the Common Market. Furthermore, even staunch supporters in the media, such as The Observer newspaper, believe that there is justification for the people of this country being given a vote on this issue. In an editorial on 2 September last year, it said:
“The treaty is indeed a purely technical document. But it salvages the political heart of the constitution—streamlined voting, a strengthened European presidency and diplomatic service. So the symbols have been dropped, but the political charge continues apace. What legitimacy can it have without a public vote?”
Some supporters of the amending treaty try to make out that the changes in it are insignificant. On 25 June last year, in his last House of Commons comment on Europe, our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave us one of his great one-line quotes. When referring to bringing together the staff of the Commission and the European Council, he said:
“Are we to have a referendum on an open-plan office?”—[ Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 26.]
That is a great quote, but if all this is about is an open-plan office, one wonders why his friend, Mr. Sarkozy, is promoting our former Prime Minister to be its manager, and why our former Prime Minister is alleged to be seriously considering such a prospect.
The argument about the future of Europe is not, in my opinion, about whether the United Kingdom stays in or leaves; it is about the sort of European Union we want. Do we want a federation—a united states of Europe? I do not believe that that would be in the long-term interests of the people of this country or of Europe. Or do we want a confederation of independent states working for common objectives?

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a persuasive case. Does he agree that the difference in this debate is not between those who believe in an intergovernmental Europe, as he and I do, and those who believe in sacrificing our freedoms to a European superstate? Rather, the difference is between those who want legitimacy expressed through the will of the people and those who are simply prepared to disregard that and, frankly, to be dishonest about the full ramifications of the treaty.
Mr. Godsiff: The hon. Gentleman makes his points powerfully and I shall make a further comment about that in a few moments.
What I want to see is a confederation, but I believe that the amending treaty as it stands is a further step towards a federation—a united states of Europe. However, let me make this point clear—if that is what the British people want, so be it. What I believe is very wrong is to deny the British people an opportunity to have their say. They were promised a referendum by all the major political parties at the last election and I regret to say that, without a commitment to that from those on the Front Bench tonight, I will not be able to support the Bill.