United Kingdom Membership of the European Union (Referendum)
Debate between John Baron and Nigel Evans
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a referendum in the next Parliament on the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union; and for connected purposes.
We, the promoter and sponsors of the Bill, and all those who have expressed support very much welcome David Cameron’s commitment to hold a referendum in the next Parliament and his initiative. I have been overwhelmed by support for the Bill—indeed, there were so many potential sponsors that we had to draw the names out of a hat—and I thank the many people who have contacted their MPs. It is much appreciated.
David Cameron is now in step with the British public—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to the Prime Minister by his name.
Mr Baron
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Prime Minister is in step with the British public. A referendum is only right. The EU has fundamentally changed since we first joined in the early ’70s and it continues to change because of the eurozone crisis. The answer to the crisis from the eurozone capitals is more Europe—more political and economic integration. They have realised somewhat belatedly that they cannot have monetary union and save the euro without fiscal union, but that is not why we joined the EU. We joined for trade, not for politics.
No one can deny that the EU’s role in our daily lives, which some would describe as meddling, has grown over the decades and continues to grow, and yet we have not stopped to ask the fundamental question of whether that is in our best interests. The timing of the referendum is sensible in that it allows for a renegotiation so we can know what the “in” part of the referendum question is. I wish the Prime Minister well—it will be a hard road because the direction of travel is in the other direction—but I hope he can renegotiate a looser agreement or arrangement with the EU that focuses on trade and not on politics. He might well be able to do so, which would appeal to a great number of people in this country. I hope he does more than Prime Minister Harold Wilson did in 1975. He claimed he had renegotiated and repatriated a lot of powers, but under close scrutiny, it appeared to be a thin claim—it did not amount to a tin of beans.
Delaying the referendum a touch allows the eurozone crisis to play out and for a proper debate on the merit of membership. All in all, it is a sensible policy. It is right for the country. The British people will finally have their say, having been barred from having a genuine choice by the political establishment for probably more than 30 years, because all the main parties have looked in one direction.
That is good news, and we welcome it, and yet the policy is dependent on a Conservative victory in the 2015 general election. The Prime Minister made his promise as leader of the Conservative party. Legislation will be introduced immediately after a Conservative victory, so this has become a party political issue. As such, many are concerned that there is deep public mistrust of politicians who make promises about EU referendums, because too many have been broken in the past. We question whether the promise will be believed.
Many people remember Tony Blair’s promise on the EU constitution on the Lisbon treaty. We were promised a referendum and he failed to deliver. Instead, the EU constitution was copied and pasted into the Lisbon treaty and rammed through the House using the Labour Government’s majority. Even Gordon Brown knew—
Mr Baron
Even the then Labour Prime Minister knew the sham of the situation. He refused to join the photo call and signed the treaty in the privacy of a darkened room—[Interruption.] An hon. Friend suggests a darkened room was the right place for it, and I do not disagree.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently offered a referendum, but have failed to deliver, even in coalition. [Interruption.] I see the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), nodding in agreement from the Front Bench. [Interruption.] He turned around then. Scepticism about promises made on EU referendums is such that many are critical of the Prime Minister for not delivering on his promise of a referendum in relation to the Lisbon treaty, despite the fact that the ink on the treaty had dried before he came to power. Legislation in this Parliament would therefore address the deficit of trust. A Bill is far more believable than an election manifesto promise, and a referendum would not be dependent on any one party. Any incoming Prime Minister would find it difficult—not impossible, but certainly difficult—to repeal popular legislation.
Perhaps there is another reason to bring the Bill forward. Legislation now would oblige all parliamentarians to declare their hand and the electorate would then know where they stood. In the past, there has been far too much obfuscation on this issue—no wonder the public have become cynical.
I am delighted that the Conservative party has adopted this policy, and I suggest that it is now more united on Europe than it has been for a very long time. Apart from a number of principled hon. Members across the House, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches seem confused. The Labour leader says one thing and the shadow Foreign Secretary says another. The Liberal Democrat election manifesto says one thing, and in coalition the party does another. I suggest to both parties that their positions are untenable. Let us bring forward this Bill and force them to declare their hand.
To my own Front Bench, I say that the argument that we cannot bring forward legislation—I am delighted to see the Minister on the Front Bench and I thank him for that—in this Parliament because it would contravene the coalition agreement does not hold water. Same-sex marriage was not in the coalition agreement, yet we voted on it yesterday. I am afraid that that is a very thin argument indeed.
Let us not forget that I and my colleagues can see no downside to this. It would be a simple piece of legislation. There is no need even to detail the question, as the 2014 Scottish referendum has proved and which is being drafted in this Parliament. There is, therefore, no downside to introducing the legislation in this Parliament.
In short, a referendum will give the British public an opportunity to have their say, something they have been denied for too long. It is about time we had a more positive relationship with our European neighbours. For too long, it has been a strained relationship. In part, I think that is because the British people have not been happy with the EU’s direction of travel, and in part because they have been frustrated that they have not been able to express their view through the political system, because the three main political parties have all faced in one direction on this issue. That must now come to an end.
A referendum would lance the boil and, whatever the result, I hope would allow a more positive relationship with the EU based on either trade and co-operation or political and economic union, yet this matter of singular importance to the UK is dependent on one party winning the general election. This issue is far too important for party politics. As such, I urge the House to support the Bill and bring in legislation in this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr John Baron, Mr James Clappison, Mr Nigel Dodds, Richard Drax, Mr Frank Field, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr Julian Lewis, Jim Shannon, Bob Stewart and Mr John Whittingdale present the Bill.
Mr John Baron accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 March, and to be printed (Bill 133).
Banking Union and Economic and Monetary Union
Debate between John Baron and Nigel Evans(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Like many other Members, particularly on the Government Benches, I have a healthy respect for the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench this evening—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington)—but I believe that they are trying to defend the indefensible. I find it hard to understand how a Government who are prepared to use the veto, and who have used it in defence of City interests, can be prepared, by passing these regulations unamended, to enter negotiations without being able to assure the House that cast-iron guarantees are in place to ensure that qualified majority voting will not be allowed adversely to affect the City.
I have asked the Minister at the Dispatch Box where those concrete guarantees are. Unfortunately, I have not heard anything to convince me that they actually exist. The idea that the European Central Bank would not be allowed to overrule or override non-members of the eurozone is, I am afraid, not a strong enough guarantee. I do not see where that stands up, particularly given that the legal opinion that has been sought and confirmed brings that sort of red line very much into dispute. There is no guarantee there at all. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about what other concrete guarantees exist in defence of the City. Going into negotiations or allowing these regulations to pass without a clear idea of what the guarantees are could, I suggest, turn out to be a fool’s errand.
We all know how the eurozone has got into this mess. The eurozone went for monetary union, courtesy of the single currency, but we all know that there cannot be monetary union without fiscal union, so now it is playing catch-up. Easy credit and easy money have led to Governments borrowing too much, and the eurozone is trying to sort out this mess.
I have to say to the Minister, if he is listening, that having just returned from Germany with the Foreign Affairs Committee and having asked about the possible solution, I know that fiscal union or fiscal compact is definitely on the table—despite the fact that most members of the fiscal compact that is coming into effect next year have already broken the parameters of the financial limits set. The universal answer, whether one spoke to politicians of the left or the right or to trade unions, businesses or lobby groups, was more integration and more political union in order to make the fiscal compact work. We are on a collision course with the proposals that are now coming out of the eurozone.
My suggestion is that that is fine: let the eurozone members get on with it; we wish them well in their endeavour. I doubt whether it will succeed, because the economics do not stand up and time does not allow any further exploration. Let them proceed, but my concern as they do proceed along that journey is what damage they will do to our interests. My deep concern is that, if we are not careful, we are going to walk into negotiations without having the ability to call upon cast-iron guarantees if they are needed, and that our interests will be adversely affected as a result.
We all accept that in this country we perhaps need to rebalance the economy somewhat and to get manufacturing up. We cannot, however, ignore the importance of the City to our economy. We have been prepared to use the veto in the past, and it makes no sense for the Government’s proposals to proceed without those cast-iron guarantees in place. There is little doubt that if we enter into negotiations without those safeguards in place, we will stand a real risk of allowing others adversely to affect the City’s interests and, in the end, our prosperity as well.
I look to hear from the Minister what those concrete guarantees are. If, as I believe, they are not forthcoming, I will have no hesitation, having put my name to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in supporting him in the Lobby—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to cut back his winding-up speech to just five minutes so that every Back Bencher who wanted to could participate in the debate.
European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]
Debate between John Baron and Nigel Evans(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are going a little wide of amendment 1.
Mr Baron
I take your point, Mr Evans. My hon. Friend was clearly not listening, because I was talking about currency blocs, and to the best of my knowledge we were not a member of a currency bloc in 1967. However—I throw this back at him—I do not for one moment believe that he is arguing that our exit from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992 did this country any harm at all. In fact, our economic recovery kicked in, almost to the day, because we left what was in effect a currency bloc.
In summary, I fully endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. We should delay the introduction of the ESM. There are too many questions that need answering. I would very much welcome some clarity on the points that I have raised, particularly about the design flaws in the ESM. I would also ask the Minister for Europe to address the fundamental point: why the Government continue to believe that by joining in the political mantra that we need to save the euro, we are doing our eurozone partners any favours. I would point out to him that all the economic evidence suggests that by sticking to that mantra, and indeed by implementing the policy, we are prolonging the agony and delaying the inevitable.
Iran
Debate between John Baron and Nigel Evans(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. May I remind Mr Baron that he has already taken 20 minutes? This is an over-subscribed debate, and we will impose an eight-minute limit on speeches after the Front-Bench contributions. He would be generous to his colleagues if he began to draw his remarks to close.