National Referendum on the European Union

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I shall be voting for the motion tonight because I do not want to be part of what has become a three-party conspiracy against the people. It is an abomination of democracy that the three parties, all of which have promised referendums and then denied the people those referendums and which are now forcing us to vote against a referendum, decided to impose three-line Whips on their followers to vote for Europe. It is behaving like Europeans. The EU is the construction of an EU elite that does not listen to the people: it knows where it wants to go, and it is not bothered what the people think. We cannot have that attitude in this country.

We have to show the people that they can have a referendum. When we had a referendum 36 years ago, people voted for a very different institution—for a trading relationship—but it has now become a European monolith with ever-increasing powers. It is moving towards ever closer union and is claiming to control economic policy as well. It is a very different institution and far more expensive. Budget contributions are £7 billion net a year, rising to £10 billion fairly soon. The CAP costs us £16.7 billion while the common fisheries policy costs us £4.7 billion. The British people must have a say on whether they want to make those excessive contributions. Why should the three parties be denying them?

It would have been sensible for all three parties to agree to give us a free vote so that we could hear the sensible, clear, un-Whipped decision of Parliament. That might well have been in favour of a referendum, but I do not know. It would also have been sensible for the Government to have had a referendum in reserve because it would have strengthened their position in the negotiations with Europe that the Foreign Secretary told us were to come, but they avoided that. I cannot tell how this euro crisis, which is bedevilling us all, will work out—nor can the Prime Minister for that matter—but I question whether it is in our interest to keep the euro going. It would be more sensible for Greece to devalue and come out, and perhaps for some of the other Club Med states to do the same, because it would allow them to expand and grow, whereas at present they face 10 years of deflation. That would also put up the exchange rate of the German—or northern—euro, so that it would become less competitive and take a smaller share of our markets. That would be a logical outcome.

We are going to struggle to use the big bazooka, as the Prime Minister put it, to keep Humpty Dumpty together—I am not sure how we would do that—but we have to bear it in mind that the people of Europe also want referendums. There are a series of policy studies based on the 2009 referendum showing that in Europe, 63% of people—from a sample of 27,000—wanted any future decisions to be taken by a referendum. This has been an interesting debate. It has been interesting how little praise for Europe there has been. It was interesting, too, that the Foreign Secretary defended Europe by praising with faint damns and turned down the weapon that the House was offering. I hope that we have tonight a big vote in favour of the motion. It would send a signal to Europe of what the people of this country think—not the elite, but the people—and would send a signal to the people that they can trust us and that we have their interests at heart.

European Union Bill

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman has half got what I have been saying and has half misconstrued it. I do not think it right that laws passed by Parliament should be put on a different level based on what judges think of them retrospectively. I do not think that that is a democratic way of deciding which law is important and which is unimportant. One may think that the judges will always get it right, but what if they decided that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was amazingly important and this Bill was not, so that the 1991 Act could not be impliedly repealed, but one giving people a vote in a referendum could be? What I am saying is that it is better for us to take this power upon ourselves and say, “Okay, this is an important Act. We’re going to put that in, and say that it is exempt from the Parliament Act 1911.”

The hon. Gentleman asked a good question, which is: why start with this particular Bill? The reasons for starting with this Bill are, first, that the judgment putting the 1972 Act on to a higher plane is relatively recent, and secondly, that I was elected to Parliament only last May and have therefore not had the opportunity before to propose such a measure on a major constitutional Bill, other than the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. The reasons for starting with this Bill are because of that judgment, and because I am now in a position to do this. It would have been a good thing to do earlier, on other constitutional Bills, including on devolution to Scotland.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I am always impressed by the hon. Gentleman’s displays of legal knowledge, but surely his whole point is spurious. The judges’ argument is irrelevant and wrong: there is no distinction between some laws passed by Parliament and others. We cannot say that some are constitutional and others are not. That distinction does not exist: they are all of equal standing. The point that he is trying to make is also irrelevant, because he is appealing to a constitution that does not exist. Essentially, the British constitution is what Governments can get away with, and they get away with it in this place.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I so wish that the hon. Gentleman, who is a most distinguished Eurosceptic, were right, but unfortunately the judges have taken that power to themselves. I return to what Lord Justice Laws said in his judgment on the metric martyrs case:

“Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not.”

The judges have set up for themselves two different types of Act. It seems to me that we should claim that power back for the democratically elected Chamber of Parliament, and say that when we think an Act is of significant constitutional importance, what we will do is not entrench it—that is against the spirit of our constitution—but give it a modest protection by saying that it can be repealed only with the full consent of both Houses. The great advantage of that, for those of us who remember what happened prior to 1911, is that it would require a Government to win a general election—to go back to the people—before they could get something through the House of Lords, if the House of Lords said no. That happened in 1911, with the reforms to the House of Lords, and in 1832, with the Great Reform Bill. That provision has been an historic and traditional way of protecting our democratic rights—one that, oddly, involves the undemocratic Chamber—and that is why I think it would improve the standing of this Bill. It would protect the democratic rights of the British people and deal with the constitutional situation as it is—as the judges have developed it—rather than the constitutional system as the hon. Gentleman and I might wish it to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

Just to remind everyone who reads these tomes, the 1972 Act embodied a decision by this Parliament that laws, directives and regulations drawn up by the European Union should take primacy over an Act covering the same area passed by this Parliament. It was our decision to use our sovereignty to give that primacy as part of the deal of going into the European Union.

My understanding of the evidence is that if we passed an Act that did not contain a “notwithstanding” clause or set out to be a deliberate challenge, and that simply put in place a law that we wished to have, it would have to be challenged and taken to the European Court of Justice before it created any conflict. So the question is: do we accept that that was right and that the judges have the right to do that?

I suggest that if the hon. Member for North East Somerset genuinely wishes to see that change, he should not apply to the good offices of the 1911 Parliament Act. I agree with the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) that it is wrong that we should appeal to an undemocratic institution. I believe that we should look to a justice Act of some kind to determine that judges cannot make such a ruling or decide that there are two kinds of laws in this country. Some people think that the European Union takes up a lot of time, but I think that the more important laws are those that will determine what is going to happen to people’s pensions in this country or to their employment rights. I hope that the hon. Member for North East Somerset will come back to the House with a justice proposal, which I would be happy to support, saying that the courts cannot make a ruling that overrules the right of this democratic Chamber to decide the law of this land.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am trying to follow the argument, but, being a European argument, it is very difficult to follow. Surely the situation is that if we pass a law that negates the implementation of a European Union law in this country, our courts would have to accept the European Union law rather than ours. We could not pass such a law unless we specifically exempted it from the European Communities Act 1972.

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend’s point is correct, but that is not what we are talking about. He describes a situation in which this or any Government decided to challenge the original decision. A law could be passed that would continue to run contrary to European Union law; I believe that that is happening in many countries. We and the Norwegians are the most obsessed with trying to get everything right in terms of fitting in with European directives. A challenge could be made, however, and we would then have to decide whether it was right for us to negotiate a change in the relationship or to abandon our law and accept the ruling of the European Union. At the moment, that does not happen.

My main point is that we in this democratically elected Chamber can overturn these decisions at any time if we have the will to do so. We are not bound by them for ever. Like any other law, we will be able to challenge this legislation in this Chamber, which is why I do not believe that we have to go through the rather tortuous, although eloquently described, process of applying an amendment to the Parliament Act 1911.

On the ability of the Lords to protect us from changes to our democracy, they have not protected us from this shabby coalition, which is proposing a law that would guarantee that the coalition would run for five years—a proposal that I spoke against in the first debate in this place after the election—unless the shabby minority part of that shabby coalition, the Liberal Democrats, decide to pull it down, because no other person in this place could do that. If the Lords could protect us from that, I might have more confidence in the 1911 Act.

European Union Bill

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that important point, and I was immediately coming to it—I have in my hand the explanatory memorandum, to which I referred before he intervened, precisely for that purpose. It stands in the name of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. A scrutiny matter is still outstanding, so paragraph 26 comes under the heading of “Other observations” and states:

“The Government regrets that the Scrutiny Committees”—

those of the Commons and the Lords—

“did not have time to consider this document before it was agreed at Council.”

I can tell the House that that happened because we were in a caretaker period and the European Scrutiny Committee, as such, was not sitting in that interregnum. The memorandum continues:

“It should be noted that whilst agreement on behalf of the UK was given by the previous administration, cross-party consensus had been gained.”

That is why I made the point that the responsibility lies with both this Government and the previous one.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I am following the discussion with great interest and some concern. As I understand it, we are talking about a decision that could have been taken, and was being taken, by a majority vote, and our outgoing Chancellor could not have stopped it anyway. Is that correct?

[Mr Cash]

People keep saying that, but let us examine the actual operation of the European financial stability mechanism. The final decision is taken under the regulations concerned—this is what happened in the context of Ireland—only after the request has been made by the member state. I do not know whether this is one of the reasons why the current Taoiseach—only for the time being, it appears—is in deep trouble, but that is possible. What I do know for certain is that the prescribed procedure laid down under the regulations made under article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union was infringed by the manner in which the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank and others moved into Dublin before a request had been made. As we can recall, the Irish Government were saying that they had not made a request and that they did not need the money. It is also true to say that Mr Socrates is saying much the same at the moment.

[Austin Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman is being very patient with us and the serious explanation he is giving is well worth considering. I also understood that article 122 was intended to apply to a destabilisation of the euro because of some kind of natural disaster. The destabilisation that took place was caused by the inherent faults in the euro, so why has article 122 been extended to cover a destabilisation resulting from the cracks and failures of the euro itself, given that it should have applied only to natural disasters?

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman and I have engaged in debates on the European question since we first met. I have the greatest respect for him and he has hit the nail right on the head here, because this problem does not just arise because of our exposure to what happens in Portugal and Spain in the future; it also arises from the lack of a sound legal base for the decision taken in the first place by the outgoing Chancellor and endorsed subsequently by the incoming Chancellor. We know that there was a consensus and that an agreement was reached—that answers the question put by the hon. Member for Ilford South. I would not be going about this if I did not believe that substantial matters of principle and of huge cost to the taxpayer are involved.

[Mr Cash]

I was not necessarily here when an impression was being given one way or the other. What I do know is that I have an accurate record of what did take place. I also have with me an article from Monday 10 May containing what are clearly accurate descriptions of the position of the then Chancellor—I believe he was just still the Chancellor then, because the coalition agreement had not been entered into. I recall writing to the Prime Minister on that day, suggesting, among other things, that he should go for a minority Government. I also said that if he was determined to go down the route of a coalition, he should require the Liberal Democrats to abstain on any matters relating to Europe that came up. That possibly explains some of my concerns as matters have developed and more and more European decisions, roadblocks and other difficulties in respect of the decisions we took in our manifesto have emerged.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very patient. I normally agree with his views, even though I usually express them in rather shorter compass. He still has not answered my question, however, about whether what was agreed at the meeting was a distortion of the original purpose of the machinery, which was intended for coping with natural disasters and should never have been extended to destabilisation and problems caused by the euro.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

The short answer is not at all—that is the problem. That is why I tabled the amendment. I am very sad that more people do not have the opportunity to listen to this, because we are talking about a grand total of £8 billion of British money, which is a vast amount given the austerity that is expected of people. After the Irish bail-out payment has been excluded from the same zone, there is also the completely unwarrantable notion to which the decision commits us, unless it is unlawful and is challenged. I invite the Government to challenge it in the European Court—that is the route they should be adopting. That is what I have recommended to the Chancellor. I said, “You must vote against this and challenge the legality of it.” Whether or not he entered into some understanding at the time is a matter to be unravelled, but what is certain, to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), is that the decision does not come within the framework of article 122—and the European Scrutiny Committee believes the same.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am puzzled, because the hon. Gentleman is attaching his faith to the €400 billion fund, which would mean that the new arrangement, which was agreed by the then Chancellor and the European Council on 9 May, would not be necessary. That is a puny fund compared with the scale of the problems. If Portugal goes and Spain follows, all that fund will be absorbed and will be necessary, and we will have to fall back on the provisions of article 122. The Irish loan has been portrayed by the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor as a one-off loan between friends and business partners, but it must have been paid under the article 122 arrangement, so we have already sold the pass.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is not wrong to say that the situation has already taken place for Ireland, but that must be seen in light of what has yet to be established—whether or not it was lawful. More investigation is needed on whether that payment would ultimately be ultra vires, or beyond the law, and therefore reclaimable. I do not want to go too far down that route other than to say it needs to be looked into. Furthermore, the financial stability mechanism has not yet passed the scrutiny of the European Committee that is meeting on 1 February, so it is still subject to a decision of the House, although some might argue that the Rubicon has already been crossed.

[Austin Mitchell]

This is an important amendment for which I shall certainly vote, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman pushes it to a Division so that I have that opportunity. The legality of the decision and the use of article 122 in this way—for a purpose for which it was not intended—is subject to a decision by the European Court, which is a federal institution and always rules in favour of the federal side of the argument. So, I am afraid that his hope that the decision will be ruled illegal will not prevail.

[Mr Cash]

That is a general proposition with which one might agree in many instances, but analysis of the use of article 122 in this case, if it is examined as carefully as it should be, would give rise to so many uncertainties that the Court would have grave difficulty in trying to justify its use. However, that is looking to the future.

--- Later in debate ---

Do we wish to have our criminal justice and civil justice system—our legal system—determined in this House, or do we want to hand it over to the European Union, the European Commission, the European institutions and the European Court of Justice for them to rule on?

[Austin Mitchell]

I rise to speak for two reasons. First, I do not want all the speeches from Opposition Members to be an unremitting chorus of euro-enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I are stalwart opponents, and I do not want the chorus from the Opposition Benches to be like the slaves chorus from “Nabucco”, singing the praises of the instrument of our own punishment—the European Union. Secondly, I support some of the amendments—81, 8 and 79 in particular.

I am very supportive of amendment 81, which was tabled by Members representing two glorious ports—I did not know they were fishing ports—in Essex, because it involves an important principle. There are constant attempts to remove our national limits, which were agreed when we entered the common fisheries policy in 1972. A few months before we began our entry negotiations, the policy was stitched together to get European hands on our fish, but we managed to preserve some national limits: the 6 nautical miles around most of the English coast, and the 12 nautical miles around north Britain and Scotland. We police the waters up to the median line, or 50 miles.

When I went out on a fisheries protection vessel, I was distressed to find that when the crew detected European vessels over-fishing, they did not have the right of hot pursuit, so all the European vessel had to do was to beetle across the median line and it was safe. My suggestion that the protection vessel should shell and sink the European vessel was taken as an unfriendly act towards Europe and, for some reason, discounted, but it is important to preserve our waters.

My concern arises from the recent Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall programmes, which provided a very good service by highlighting the problem of discards. They are inherent among fish allocated by catch quotas. Indeed, if one allocates fish by catch quotas in mixed fisheries, one is always going to get discards. The discards increase as the quotas go down, because fishermen are bound to catch fish that are not in their current quota.

Indeed, I wrote to Fearnley-Whittingstall, suggesting that it would be a brilliant idea to establish a very expensive restaurant on a cruise ship that went round picking up Grimsby fishing vessel discards and cooking them for an exclusive clientele at enormously high prices. He does not seem to have implemented it yet, but it is a viable idea. It is very difficult to stop discards when there is equal access to a common resource, but that is the basis of the common fisheries policy to which Ted Heath unfortunately agreed in 1972 as the price of entry into the EU. He was so desperate to go in that he accepted that condition.

We certainly have to work to control our waters, as amendment 82 suggests, and to stop or reduce discards. There are various ways to do that. I am hoping that Fearnley-Whittingstall will come along to the all-party parliamentary fisheries group to tell us his ideas. I will not tell the Committee mine, because I would go off the subject.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As my hon. Friend knows, I agree entirely with everything he is saying. Does he agree that we could operate British waters in the way that Norway operates its waters? It controls its own fishing grounds, every fishing boat is monitored, there are no discards and there is no over-fishing. It protects its fish in a proper way. That can be done only if countries husband their own resources in their own fisheries. That is the only way forward.

[Austin Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as usual. The key is the ability of a nation to control its own waters up to the 200-nautical-mile limit, which it would have been sensible to retain, and which we could have retained had we negotiated harder in 1972, but we did not. Only a nation can conserve its own national resource—what is handed on to the next generations of fishermen. The Heath Government made a tragic decision from the point of view of the fishing industry. I want to reverse that, and we should work to do so. I still want to pull out of the common fisheries policy. Perhaps it would require a few gunboats around the coast to establish that.

[Martin Horwood]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but does he not fear that if we returned fisheries entirely to national competence, not every nation would be quite as observant of their own rules as the Norwegians, and there might be a free-for-all that would fatally damage the British fishing industry?

[Austin Mitchell]

That, of course, is nonsense, because nations that have taken control of their own waters and their own 200-nautical-mile limit, such as Iceland, have operated very good and effective conservation policies. It is only nations that have to admit other nations into their waters, under force of European law, that cannot do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Spanish fleets would not fish in our waters, because the idea is that countries would fish in their own waters. I cannot see the problem and I agree with my hon. Friend.

[Austin Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Liberal Democrats are slavish in their idealism of Europe at any price, and will abdicate any British interest to express their devotion to the nefarious construction called the European Union.

[Martin Horwood]

rose—

[Austin Mitchell]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to express more devotion to the farce of the European Union, he is welcome to do so.

[Martin Horwood]

I am just intrigued about precisely what method the hon. Gentleman would use to defend our waters. The Icelanders use gunboats. Is he advocating gunboat diplomacy from the Labour Benches?

[Austin Mitchell]

Frankly, yes. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not so distrustful of our European partners and friends that he believes that if we took legal control of our waters, they would come in and try to steal our fish. Is that his estimation of their character? Is he telling us that there are nations of thieves that would come in and steal our fish if we took our own waters, as is our right? Is that what he is saying? Apparently not.

Amendment 81 expresses an important principle that we need to express and defend constantly. The amendment is a way of defending that principle, so I shall certainly vote for it if it is put to the vote.

I shall move on to amendments 8 and 79. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in drawing the attention of the Committee to this situation, because it is extremely dangerous from a British point of view. He said essentially that we will be liable, under article 122 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, for difficulties produced by the failure of the euro, and that we will have to make a contribution. That will be decided on by qualified majority voting. If correct, that is an appalling situation. It is important for the Government to tell us tonight whether it is correct.

In my view, one of the greatest achievements of the previous Prime Minister was that he kept us out of the euro when he was Chancellor, against the overwhelming enthusiasm of the then Prime Minister, who saw joining the euro as a romantic gesture of support for Europe—almost an emotional spasm of support for Europe—against the wishes of the majority of the Cabinet, and against the pressure of the Liberal party, which has always been slavishly devoted to any European instrument, however damaging the consequences.

[Martin Horwood]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

During the debate on the exchange rate mechanism, I remember the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) leading a huge Liberal crowd up and down Whitehall chanting, “Move to the narrower bands now! Move to the narrower bands now!” That was the Liberal party’s contribution to that great debate. It is slavishly attached to European gestures such as the euro, as was our former Prime Minister. The previous Prime Minister, when Chancellor, kept us out. That was a great achievement. He kept us out and warned that the regime was unstable.

There cannot be a common currency without a common Government to back it and redistribute money to the regions that are damaged by the common currency and the higher interest rates imposed by it. The basic problem is that the euro cannot work, because it brings together regimes under one currency that vary enormously in their productivity and power. The southern economies are not only weaker, but insolvent to boot and certainly uncompetitive. Those uncompetitive economies cannot be united in a currency with the powerful German economy, which is extremely competitive. Inflation is kept very low in Germany by investment, the restructuring of the economy and the agreement with the unions to keep wages down. It is impossible for economies such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland to remain competitive in that situation. To be competitive, they face a constant diet of cuts and attempts to get their inflation rates down to the German level. That is difficult and it has to go on for years. By joining the euro, those countries effectively said that they would deflate their economies, punish their people and face riots in the streets for 20 or 30 years in a desperate attempt—which will not work—to get their levels of competitiveness down to the same as Germany’s. That situation does not work.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend again. It is interesting that there has been friction recently between France and Germany because France wants to integrate the whole European economy more deeply and Germany is holding back. Germany can see that it will constantly have to shell out euros—or disguised Deutschmarks—to help the poorer countries in Europe, and it does not want to do that because it would become the paymaster of the whole of the European Union in perpetuity.

[Austin Mitchell]

That is true. Under the old system, the inflation rates in France and Italy were higher than that in Germany, so they were constantly getting out of kilter and becoming uncompetitive. They constantly resorted to devaluing, which brought them back to a competitive level because it reduced their costs of production in terms of foreign currencies. There is a history of France and Italy devaluing. They cannot do that when they are in the euro.

[Mr Cash]

Would the hon. Gentleman be interested to know that the Library has given me some figures showing that our balance of payments deficit with Germany was £12 billion in 2009? Heaven alone knows what it is now. Between 1999 and 2009 there was a deficit of £5 billion between the other 26 EU member states and ourselves, but we have a surplus of £11 billion with the rest of the world. His point is extremely sound—the EU is just not working.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am grateful for that point, which is absolutely true. We are earning a surplus in the rest of the world, which then goes as a tribute to finance our deficit in Europe. Before we entered the Common Market in 1972, we had a surplus in our trade with Europe. It then became a deficit, which has become ever heavier as the years have gone on because of our economy’s uncompetitive nature compared with the German economy. All the other weaker European economies face the same problem, and there is no way for them to get around it without facing a diet of cuts, freezes and squeezes for decades, and having to depress the living standards of their own people to keep costs down. That strain is built into the system, which Germany dominates and swamps because of its competitiveness and low inflation. Good luck to it—it has worked for that and run its economy in a very sensible fashion, but a common currency cannot be maintained in that situation. There will therefore be crises.

Those inevitable crises have, under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, now been portrayed as the results of a natural disaster. That means that we, who have wisely stayed out of the scheme and warned of the consequences of going ahead with that insane regime, must also contribute to cost of clearing up the mess that is implicit in the system. That is a monstrous imposition.

I take it that at his last Council of Ministers meeting on 9 May, our previous Chancellor was conned. He was told that article 122 would apply under qualified majority voting, so it was no use his opposing it because we would be bound by it in any case. That was just not true, because if it applies to mutual support in the event of natural disasters, it cannot apply to faults inherent in the structure of the euro itself. That is not a natural disaster; it is a folly of man.

[Mr Cash]

I add a point that I really ought to have made in my own contribution. When the European Council arrived at the new mechanism that it has just set up, which the Prime Minister announced the other day, it used the most extraordinary language. It used the expression that there was “no need” for the continuation of the mechanism that was set up last May. It is not anything to do with need, however; it is about the fact that they know perfectly well that it was unlawful.

[Austin Mitchell]

Absolutely right. We need to be intellectually devious in trying to read through European documents, because they are extremely cunningly written and always cover up the reality very well. The same is true of Government statements on matters European. The Government do not want the full horror to emerge, so statements are rewritten to make them safe, saleable and acceptable. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is correct, and he has done the Committee a great service today in warning us of the situation and pointing out the consequences if it is prolonged. I believe that the arrangement extends to March 2013, or is it May?

[Mr Cash]

March.

[Austin Mitchell]

Right, and then it will lapse. Until then, we could be liable for enormous sums. Imagine what the British electorate would say. We have already extended a massive loan to Ireland, even though the Chancellor tells us that our country is over-borrowed and cannot borrow any more because world markets will cancel our credit cards and stop our credit on the bond markets. Suddenly, however, he can borrow huge sums—billions—to help Ireland. He says that it is a one-off and not a precedent, but if it is carried out under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, it is a precedent for acceptance of a mechanism that is designed to deal with natural disasters.

The hon. Member for Stone hoped that the mechanism would be ruled illegal by the European Court, but I have given up faith in the European Court. It never rules how I want it to rule, whereas our courts do sometimes. It is probably composed of Liberal Democrat jurists, for all I know. It certainly gives that appearance.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Again, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The ECJ has shown itself to be a political organ, not a legal one, by taking the side of employers in the Viking Line dispute and other cases. It is a court of the business class and of big business, not a court for ordinary people.

[Austin Mitchell]

That is true. It gives any verdict one wants, provided that it supports and advances the EU. That is the nature of the European Court, so should we ask that body to rule on the legality of treating article 122 as an all-purpose rescue operation to which we have to contribute?

The Minister smiles—indulgently, I hope. I hope that he will explain the Government’s view on the matter, because to my mind it is crucial that amendments 8 and 79 are accepted. I am glad to hear that the hon. Member for Stone will force a vote, because they are key amendments. We need to be sure that the British electorate will not be faced with a series of massive loans, such as the Irish loan, to support Portugal, for instance, or Spain if things go belly-up there. That is quite possible, and the costs there would be huge because Spain has a much bigger population than Ireland, Greece or Portugal. Why should an electorate who are facing a blitzkrieg of massive cuts and tax increases welcome with joy a decision to fork out more billions to help people whom we warned that they were entering into a disastrous situation by taking on the euro? That would be totally unacceptable, and the Government would be laughed out of court.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people from the UK are very generous people, and that they always like to help, but they do not have bottomless pockets and cannot keep on bailing out every country in the EU. Does he agree that a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, so that lending to other countries and subsidising them stops?

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree absolutely, and that line in the sand is here. Actually, it has to be a line in the concrete, because we cannot go on making contributions under article 122, which is meant for another purpose entirely.

[Ben Gummer]

Notwithstanding our treaty obligations, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is getting hung up on article 122. Is he really arguing that even if it were in our economic interest to support the bail-out of a country whose trade with us means that intervention is necessary, he would still oppose it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

I have not actually said that, have I? I have said that the Chancellor treated the Irish case as a one-off, but it is not. It opens the door to giving aid to other countries that have put themselves in the same situation through a foolish adherence to a euro that is fated to collapse. I make no judgment about the Irish case, although it is a big bill to pay for a country that the Chancellor tells us is over-borrowed and has no credit on the world market. Why should that country start raising huge loads more money to pay other countries because of the failures of the euro?

[Stephen Gilbert]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but can he imagine a situation in which rather than being a giver, the UK is the receiver of aid under that arrangement? Is he really saying that rather than get the aid that our financial sector might hypothetically need in a quick and timely way, he would want a referendum lock to apply?

[Austin Mitchell]

I am afraid that that is ridiculous. I was leaping with joy when the hon. Gentleman, a Liberal Democrat, said he was taking a point that I had made. I thought that sense had at last dawned, but alas it turned out to be only stupidity. Nobody is suggesting that the UK would want Europe to be liable if our system failed. The crucial point is that we did not enter the euro. Having not entered it, we should be immune from the consequences imposed on those who did. That is all I am saying. I do not want European aid. The wisdom of former Chancellors in keeping us out of the euro allows us to adjust our exchange rate. Other nations have problems because they cannot do that. We have had a 25% devaluation, and the pound could—and should, in my view—go lower. That reduces the cost of our currency and makes us competitive once again. That is our adjustment. We do not need help or aid because we have the flexibility of being outside the euro. Does the hon. Gentleman want this economic education class to continue or will he keep quiet?

[Stephen Gilbert]

Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we are both outside the euro and outside the effects of the euro? Is he saying that Portugal, Ireland, Italy or any country that needs European financial help in future can be allowed to collapse, and that that will have no effect whatever here in the UK?

[Austin Mitchell]

Oh it is difficult talking to Liberal Democrats! I did not actually say that we would be outside the effects of the euro. In fact, the foolish deflation that is going on all over Europe damages us, because half of our trade is with Europe and we want our exports to Europe to increase. With our ability to devalue, we have the ability to increase our exports, and they are increasing for the first time in many years—thanks to devaluation. I want markets in Europe to be healthy, but I do not want the British taxpayer to be asked to support Europe in its folly.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend is saying. We have a massive trade deficit with the rest of the EU. Even if in some mad world we decided to have a trade block, that would be beneficial. We would have more money to spend on our own things and to generate our own economy, and more money to spend elsewhere in the world. The idea that we benefit massively in trade from the EU is complete nonsense. It benefits massively from having us next door.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

That is true—and then the EU forces us to eat its overpriced agricultural products. The EU gets it all ways. It steals about £3 billion-worth of our fish every year through the common fisheries policy, and costs us about £18 billion on the common agricultural policy, and then expects us to buy its overpriced exports.

[Martin Horwood]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Iceland has just unilaterally increased its mackerel quotas, which if anything—I would not use the word “stealing”—is potentially damaging to Scottish fish stocks? That is quite a major diplomatic issue at the moment and it has occurred under precisely the regime that he is recommending.

[The Temporary Chairman (Mr Graham Brady)]

Order. May I suggest that we are ranging a little wide? Ranging as far as discussing Iceland might be out of order.

[Austin Mitchell]

You are absolutely right, Mr Brady. By raising mackerel, the Liberal Democrats were seeking to bring a lot of red herrings dancing into my view. I hold no brief for the Scots who want the Icelanders to stop catching mackerel. They have a perfect right to do so. It is daft to talk about cutting quotas of imports for Icelandic fish, which we need, to punish Iceland for mackerel fishing.

That Liberal Democrat red herring has robbed and wasted the Committee’s time and delayed my final peroration. The final word from me is this. The situation can be remedied by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, particularly amendments 8 and 79. It should be remedied, because it is potentially disastrous to accept that article 122 of the Lisbon treaty can be applied to extract support from the UK for the failures of the euro, when we are not members of the euro. I hope that the Government clarify that position, and that the amendments are made.

European Union Bill

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

That is a very important question. It shows the respect that the new Government have for our democratic process, for consulting the people and for taking bold steps in the national interest—not just bringing Britain back from the brink of bankruptcy, but ensuring that the British people have a say in referendums.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I want to speak briefly. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) might have a more sceptical view of Europe, living so close to it in Dover, but I agree generally with his views on Europe. He was sceptical about the strength of the committee proposed in new clause 9, but he would also be justified in being a little sceptical about the intentions of his Government, because the Bill is weaker than it needs to be and will not provide the strong defence that I think we need against the further aggrandisement of European power. I say as a warning: do not trust anybody in matters European.

Although I support and will vote for amendment 11, I am puzzled by new clause 9. I am not sure what it means, nor why it invokes so many decision-making processes. I do not know why it does not invoke the Mothers Union and the Privy Council as well.

As with all European debates, this debate has skirted around the main issue, which is that the Government always get their way on matters European and steamroller what they want through the House. This country has a system of government by party, in which the Executive effectively control the legislature. Party loyalty means that, whatever platform MPs are elected on—whether it is Eurosceptic, Euro-enthusiast or “don’t care two stuffs about Europe”—they get dragged along by the chariot. Government by party guarantees that.

Europe has a remorseless power to drag us in. It is rather like the conversation between Brer Rabbit and the tar baby—punch it, and we are stuck. The drive to ever-closer union drags us in, because Ministers never want to rock the boat or be disruptive. They do not want to stand and fight on any particular issue. Even the courageous and esteemed Yorkshireman who holds the position of Foreign Secretary is now beginning to say nicer things about Europe in the dulcet tones of his Yorkshire accent. That is a symptom of the way in which this Government are being drawn in. Instead of making a stand on the increase in the budget by 2.9%—it will go up because there are in-built drivers that will make it rise—they accepted the remorseless rise in contributions. The cost of implementing all the regulations must now cost the country about £40 billion a year, which is as big as the cuts that the Government are trying to make.

Each party gets drawn in. Ministers do not like confrontation, so we go down the path remorselessly. I do not know who said, “Talk tough and carry a big stick”, but Ministers talk tough and carry a feather duster. They come back from Europe waving the feather duster saying, “I didn’t get exactly what the House of Commons or the people wanted. I had to make compromises, of course, so I went along with this. Believe me, it is only a small increase in the power of Europe. We can trust them. This will cause no problems and will be acceptable.” Disastrous consequences follow. That is how Europe progresses. In this country, we always discover the extent of the disaster and the damaging consequences of the concessions long after the event. The classic example is the common fisheries policy, which was sold as an accommodation to Europe that would not be difficult or cause many problems.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Austin Mitchell]

I am not sure that I should give way to a Member who does not represent a fishing port.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman giving way, notwithstanding my not representing a fishing port. I want to know the position taken by the hon. Gentleman and his party on the idea of the referendum lock. In all his eloquent words, I have not worked out his position on that question.

[Austin Mitchell]

When the hon. Gentleman has been here longer, he will appreciate that my position is not exactly the same as that of my party’s Front Benchers. My position is sensible, austere and Eurosceptic, and I am anxious for the consultation of the people on any matters that involve the sacrifice of power to Europe. We should have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty—I concede that point. I and other hon. Members argued for it strenuously at the time, but we were overruled. That was a retrograde step that made the treaty and its provisions less acceptable to this country, because the people felt that they were being imposed on them. I am in favour of referendums, and I do not think that the Bill is strong enough in that respect.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I do represent a fishing port. Does he agree with David Blackburn of The Spectator that the Bill

“would introduce a watertight referendum lock on future EU treaties”—

perhaps salt-watertight—

“I doubt whether the Lady herself could have done much better in the circumstances”?

[Austin Mitchell]

All I can say is that David Blackburn must be more naive than I thought.

I was giving the example of the CFP, which was sold to us as harmless. We were told that it would lead to effective conservation because everybody would be involved, everybody had access to our waters and everybody would make decisions collectively. However, it led to the decimation of our fish stocks and the looting, frankly, of about £3 billion-worth of fish and jobs. There is nothing that we can do about that, because it happened under Ted Heath, who used to come down to the House in every fishing debate and justify his mistake. It is all in the past, and we discovered the problem only later. That is what happens.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) argued that people are not interested in the details, which is certainly true. We in Grimsby are perhaps more interested than people in Wales in all matters European, particularly to do with fishing boats, but people are not interested in details. The consequences of what happens are interesting, however, because they cause the loss of jobs and employment.

There was a provision in the Lisbon treaty—was it article 121?—stating that aid could be invoked by majority vote in the event of threats to the euro from natural disasters. It has now been invoked for aid to Ireland, which will drag us into making huge contributions not only to Ireland—the Chancellor of the Exchequer projected that as a one-off—but to the other states that follow in the domino-like collapse that will happen. The consequences of concessions that are said to be of no damage, of no great moment and unimportant become clear only later. The Bill provided an opportunity to resist that process, but disappointingly, it is not strong enough.

When we consider the amendments, we should view the European situation with a certain amount of scepticism. The committee referred to in new clause 9 would be controlled by the Whips and by Government, whatever we are told about the intentions behind it. I am suspicious of proposals to modify European powers that come from Euro-enthusiasts such as my party’s Front Benchers. What is in it for them? They want Europe to have its way, and the new clause is a way of allowing that while appearing to protect us.

I support amendment 11 and shall certainly vote for it if there is a vote—I hope there is, because I want to support it. However, we cannot be sure that, if the House were faced with a choice of whether to reverse a Minister’s decision that an issue was not worth a referendum, it would take the decision independently. Debates such as today’s give a clue as to what would happen. We happy band of Eurosceptics, including most of the Members present, have argued consistently, been right all along and warned of the consequences of what has happened. Those disastrous consequences have emerged, but nobody has said, “Oh, my God, we should have listened to the Eurosceptics on this matter.” People have constantly abused us for rocking the boat and as dissenters and just a nuisance, but we are right, and we are right to fight.

However, we cannot be sure that we will win the fight. Should a matter be referred to the House under amendment 11, the House would be whipped as always and Members would see their careers relying on voting with the Government. They would think, “I shall get a powerful position even more quickly, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Bathing Pools, or I shall be given a junior ministerial job in charge of seeing that library books are returned promptly”—if any libraries are left open under the Government’s proposals. Ambition, love of the party and support for the party will always whip people into line. Amendment 11 would not put a roadblock in Ministers’ way; it would erect another hurdle that they would be forced to jump. That would be salutary for them, because the more hurdles they jump, the more exhausted they will get and the greater the chance that we will eventually prevail.

[Neil Carmichael]

It is a great honour to participate in this important debate.

Members have mentioned the number of people who come into their constituency surgeries to talk about Europe. I am not overwhelmed with European issues in my surgery, but I do hear a lot of concern about Europe when I go to businesses and large organisations in my constituency. They are getting concerned about regulation, excessive interference and so on, and they think—and are sometimes right to think—that it all emanates from the European Union. It is therefore important that we give due consideration to the need to allow the electorate as a whole to speak about Europe. That is why the Bill is so important. It will, once and for all, stop the disgraceful situation of a Government promising to have a referendum on a significant change—the treaty of Lisbon—and then failing to do so. The Bill will prevent that, and quite right too.

European Union Bill

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

I would accept that, except that even since the new coalition Government took office, this country has given away some more powers and given up things. We are already going to support directives that we should not possibly be supporting. It is the drip-drip-drip nature of the European Union that really gets me.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is really closing the stable door after not only the horse has bolted, but the stable has caught fire?

[Kate Hoey]

That is my point, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will never get the issue that is big enough for a Minister to say, “We are going to have a referendum on this.” Ministers will find some excuse not to do so, which is why the only honest thing is to work towards having a debate in the country and a referendum on whether we want to stay in the European Union. We hear all those Members, Ministers and shadow Ministers continually saying, “Ah, but it would be desperate. We could not possibly leave. We couldn’t even think about it.” They should put their arguments to the people. Let the people decide. Let them say what they really think and let us see what that decision would be.

There is one little book that every Member in this House should buy. If the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Ministers have not read it, I will give them a copy. It is called “Ten Years On: Britain Without The European Union”. I wish it had said “the United Kingdom”, rather than “Britain”, as that would not have left out Northern Ireland. This brilliant book actually says, “If we were to leave the European Union, this is what this country would look like 10 years on.” Let us have the confidence to say to the people that it is time that we have that real debate. Let those people who are confident that the European Union is the right thing for this country put it to the people and give them the say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

We have had a menagerie-type debate: Pandora’s boxes have been opening, Trojan horses have been jumping out of them and there have been mice of different sizes to contemplate. But there is a broad division—between Labour Members, along with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and most of the speakers on the Government Benches. They have a rather Hobbesian view of Europe, in which there is an undeclared war of all against all.

I take the view that Immanuel Kant—or, as it should be pronounced properly in German, “Immanuel Kunt”—put forward in his perpetual peace argument. He argued that Europe needs a construct of rule of law, a Lockean Europe, in which we can live together in perpetual peace, as he thought. It has taken perhaps 200 years to get that far, but that is my version of Europe rather than the permanently negative one where it is Britain contra mundum, about which we hear so much from the Government Benches.

[Austin Mitchell]

As my right hon. Friend is representing his views as those on the Opposition Benches,—I do not think that they are—may I ask whether his own constituents are Kantians or Lockeans?

[Mr MacShane]

Perhaps I shall leave the reply to my old friend, Jim Naughtie.

We have also seen again today what surely must be an iron law of British politics—people can campaign in opposition as Eurosceptics, but they have to govern as Euro-realists. The outbreak of Euro-realism in the coalition Government was not brought about simply by the presence of the Liberal Democrats; it has happened because no Government of Britain could remotely sustain themselves in a relationship—not just to their European partners, but to partners around the world—on the basis of the hyped-up rhetoric that we heard from the Foreign Secretary when he was shadow Foreign Secretary. From that most powerful and amusing orator of the current Commons, we heard a very workaday speech. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made a powerful and witty speech that reminded me of the late John Smith. But there we are—I have described what happens when people become Foreign Secretary. Realism has to break in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I am enthusiastic about speaking on this Bill, because I would not want the views of Labour Members to be taken to be the extrusion of Euro-cant that has poured in from Rotherham and the Rhondda. The views of some Labour Members are much more in tune with what our voters think. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has given us a clear indication of those views.

The problem is whether the Bill is worth supporting. It is a sad little Bill that should really be called the “Closing of the stable doors after every horse has bolted across the countryside” Bill. I am sure that the nation wants a referendum on this issue. It wants to be consulted and wants its say on Europe, but it has not been allowed it since 1975, when it was consulted on something totally different called the Common Market—a harmless, fun place that was going to make the weather better and make everybody happy. That is the last time that people were consulted, and they now want to be consulted on the shape of the current monster that is taking more and more powers.

This Bill does not provide for that consultation. The Conservatives told us in opposition, and I think in their manifesto too, although I do not have it here to check, that they were going to repatriate criminal justice and the laws on social and employment issues, but that has all gone. The stable is empty, for practical purposes, and I see the pathetic spectacle of the Foreign Secretary stood at the stable door after he has closed it singing “Will Ye No Come Back Again?” to the horses from Europe galloping all over the United Kingdom’s countryside.

The Liberal Democrats’ approach was even more comic. They promised us a referendum on the treaty and then suddenly became aware of the fact that it would be defeated if it were put to a referendum. They therefore changed what they were asking for from a referendum on the treaty, which they said was no longer a treaty, to a referendum on “in or out”, with which they thought they might stand a better chance. However, they knew that nobody would give them such a referendum; they were trying to get a referendum that was an impossibility.

I cannot be over-critical because my own party’s position was, at best, ambiguous. We said, “Yes, we shall have a referendum”, and then we said, “Well, this isn’t really a treaty—it’s something else.” Perhaps it was a German sausage or something; I am not quite sure what it was supposed to be. Anyway, we said, “It’s not a treaty worth having a referendum on; it’s something else, and therefore we won’t give you a referendum.”

This is a history of betrayal by all three parties, and we have to make good to the people, who want a referendum. There is a need for a referendum, but this Bill does not provide for it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, it will be a lawyer’s charter, and one that ignores much of what is going on in Europe. What is going on is the steady process of accretion of power, money and control over this country.

We should look at the increasing costs of Europe. The annual budget contribution is now £7 billion, and rising because of devaluation—it will rise to £10 billion fairly shortly. There is £2 billion for projects such as Galileo, which will build, at enormous expense, a satellite guidance system that the Americans already provide for free. There is £8 billion for the costs of the common agricultural policy, which comes from buying food on a dearer market when it is available more cheaply elsewhere. There is £2.8 billion for the costs of the common fisheries policy, with our fish being caught by foreign vessels and taken to Europe to provide jobs there. There is the cost of regulation, which has been calculated at £20 billion. Then we can add the cost of the monstrous machinery of the new foreign service, the European External Action Service, which will be more expensive than our own Foreign Office. All its ambassadors will have, at enormous cost that we are paying for, bullet-proof cars and bomb-proof embassies. If we add that lot together, we get to £40 billion—perhaps more. If we were not paying this Eurogeld every year, across the exchanges, we would not need the diet of cuts that the Chancellor and the Liberal Democrats are proposing for us.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend has omitted to mention—I know that he knows this to be true—that we have had slower growth in the European Union than we would have had had it not existed. We had faster growth when we had stable but separate currencies, and that led to the prosperity that we knew in the post-war era. Slower growth in the European Union, which has been compounded over many years, means that we are now less well-off than we would have been had there not been a European arrangement.

[Austin Mitchell]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We have suffered from slower growth, and now we have a 25% devaluation. We cannot generate the exports that we want because of the deflation in Europe that is necessary to heal the problems of the euro.

That brings me to the second problem that I want to deal with. Not only have the horses bolted from the stable, but it is on fire as the crisis of the euro continues. We warned Europe that it would not work and it has not worked. One exchange rate and one interest rate cannot cover the varied circumstances of Europe. A central Government is needed to redistribute to areas that suffer from the single currency and the single interest rate. Countries all have different rates of inflation. It is impossible for the weaker economies to get down to Germany’s low rate of inflation. The result is that their trade suffers, because they cannot get export prices down to a competitive level. Gaps have therefore emerged and those gaps have led to a crisis, and Europe’s way of dealing with that is to dole out more funds from a big bucket—a bucket to which we have contributed in the case of Ireland.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is a critic of the European Union, and he is listing many differences that he would like to see in the European arrangements. Does he not think that changes that the British Government want and that are in the national interest might be harder to achieve if this legislation is passed here and is copied across the EU?

[Austin Mitchell]

My argument is that the Bill does not help us to deal with, or give us a veto over, the problems of Europe as they are. Those problems are the real threat to this country. Let us say that we are doling out £100 billion to Greece and £100 billion to Ireland and if Spain is the next to collapse, the figure could be about £400 billion, so the whole fund of £750 billion could be gone in one fell swoop. Germany will not let that go on. At some point, the system must collapse.

The Bill has nothing to say on that process and the Government will not tell us what they are doing in the European negotiations. What is our point of view? Are we prepared to support that process and to commit money? The Bill will not give us a veto over any such commitments and the Government will not even tell us what those commitments are. That is a disastrous situation. There will have to be a big bail-out. This situation cannot be dealt with by Elastoplast, with a bit here and a bit there. It must be dealt with by a fundamental reorganisation of the euro. In my view, a default is the only way in which to save the situation.

The Bill does nothing about that issue and nothing about one of the other major issues facing Europe—the entry of Turkey. The Foreign Secretary said that that matter is excluded from the Bill, but it would be a fundamental change to Europe. We should think of the immigration problems—to say the least—that would occur if Turkey, which has a much bigger population than most existing member states, were allowed into the European Union.

[Thomas Docherty]

I struggle to understand what makes Turkey so different from Romania, Hungary or any other eastern European nation. Is there not a danger that we will be perceived, wrongly, to be singling it out because of its Muslim nature?

[Austin Mitchell]

That may be true, but the British Government want Turkey in. I am not unfavourable; I am just saying that its admission will be a fundamental change in Europe and that the Bill will not give the British people a say over any of these matters. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) is making a Gallic gesture or whether it is a sign for me to sit down and shut up.

[Mr MacShane]

On the contrary, I am completely in agreement with my hon. Friend, which is rare in a European debate. It is a preposterous Bill that does not include the question of Turkish accession. That is the fundamental change that will come about in the nature of the EU and in our relationship with it. I support Turkish accession, but not to put it in the Bill just shows what a—what is smaller than a shrew?—worm of a Bill we are debating tonight.

[Austin Mitchell]

The mountains will labour and a ridiculous mouse has been born. That is certainly true. I am sorry that I mistook my right hon. Friend’s gesture—he is so European that I thought he was going, “Je m’en fous.” I gather that he was not.

I agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. The Bill does not give the British people a say; it gives them a tiny squeak, and on things in which they are not particularly interested. To give them a squeak is better than to give them nothing at all. I have to consider whether I shall support the Bill on that basis, which frankly I am loth to do. Is it worth the effort? I am certainly not enthusiastic about the Opposition amendment, which really says nothing at all. Faced with that dilemma and being somewhat jetlagged, the best solution that I can think of for tonight’s vote is to go home and read a little Keynes—I wish that the Chancellor had done the same.