European Union Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David]

The week before last, the Committee enjoyed an excellent debate on the sovereignty clause of the Bill. Perhaps surprisingly, there was a high degree of consensus on the need to ensure that Parliament remains central to our democracy. Indeed, it must be said that even the Government appeared to acknowledge that there was at least a genuine debate on whether Parliament owed its sovereignty to common law or whether sovereignty was a fundamental right. Consequently, we look forward to seeing how the Government rewrite the Bill’s explanatory notes to acknowledge that debate.

That makes it all the more surprising that part 1 of the Bill so profoundly departs from the consensus established in the House that Parliament is central to this country’s democratic process. The Government do that by proposing that most extensions of EU competence or power, even relatively small ones, should be subject to a referendum if the change has a material impact on the UK’s relationship with the EU.

The Government set out in the Bill in mind-numbing detail umpteen scenarios when a referendum might be triggered. The Opposition believe that there is a case for referendums to be held on important constitutional issues. For example, in government, we introduced referendums on devolution in Scotland and Wales, and indeed, there will be a further referendum in Wales on 3 March.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

With reference to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on holding referendums on fundamental matters that affect the UK, does he regret not giving us a vote on the Lisbon treaty?

[Mr David]

Not at all, because it is pretty obvious to anybody who has given the matter any detailed study that there is a fundamental difference between a proposed constitution on the European Union and the treaty of Lisbon.

--- Later in debate ---

It is important for us to recognise that having a proper national debate on technical issues presents a real problem. If this were to happen, it might mean that debates focused on other issues and voters might not vote on the question on the ballot paper. That is perhaps a fundamental problem with all referendums, but it is certainly the case with referendums on issues that are highly technical and very specific. A second problem is that such referendums might attract only very low turnouts. For many people, a shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers on the issue of permanent structural co-operation might not be a huge motivator to come out and vote.

[Mrs Main]

I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman really means to imply that the voting public are so dim that they cannot understand the question asked of them. I seriously hope that that is not what he is saying.

[Mr David]

The hon. Lady should realise that all Members have had enormous difficulty understanding this Bill. Can she, hand on heart, say that she understands every dot and comma of the Bill before us? Please answer.

[Mrs Main]

With the greatest respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is dodging the question. I asked him whether he felt that the voting public were too dim to understand the question put on a referendum, as he seemed to imply that they were.

[Mr David]

What I am saying is that if some of the questions implied by the Bill were put, no reasonable human being, including Members in this House, would understand what on earth the debate was all about. Nobody would. Debating how many angels can stand on the head of a pin might be okay for the middle ages, but it is unlikely to enthuse people in 21st century Britain.