European Union (Referendum) Bill

Jim Dowd Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

I love the question. Years ago, when I was a very young Member, the BBC kindly asked me—I had been disobliging over official secrets, or whatever it was—whether I would do an essay and a short broadcast for it on the national interest. University being not so far away, I filled rooms with books. What came out on the national interest was that whoever has a majority in this Chamber is the national interest. We will debate it until the end of time, but in the end it is resolved by a vote here, ultimately.

I am more cautious about this grand expression of the national interest. I have the clearest view of what the national interest is: we should have immediately, as soon as possible, a vote on continued membership of the European Union. I would affirm that that is in the national interest. When I hear people casually throwing around questions about what is the national interest, my own truthful observation is that it is, as Madam Deputy Speaker would say, debatable. That is what I see as the national interest.

I want to say of my gyrations through my private Member’s Bills, and this matter, that this is about the most profound question that this House faces. It is not a narrow question of whether the country is interested in dogs, or this and that; the country is indeed interested in all those things. This touches on a living democracy.

The opponents of these measures never understand that this is an ancient collection of islands, an archipelago, in whose history, and in the lines of whose history, lies the very story of liberty and freedom, whether in Scotland or England, with our own Magna Carta. We forget that. This was the integrity.

During my unsuccessful speech in the past, there was a magnificent contribution by a Labour MP; it was Peter Shore. Some will remember him; he was a considerable figure in his own right. He made a contribution to the debate on my Bill, saying that I had

“managed, in a few words, to address two major points, the first of which is the role of the referendum, which offers one of the few possibilities to remedy a fundamental weakness in our constitution. We have no written constitution and no procedures to protect and entrench features of our national and constitutional life. Everything can be changed by a simple majority. Many other countries, as we know, have quite elaborate procedures requiring a majority of two thirds for changes in constitutional matters and arrangements, often backed up with public referendums.”

He continued:

“We have no such defence. Indeed, previously we did not need them, because only this generation of British parliamentary representatives has contemplated handing to others the great prizes of national independence, self-government and the rule of law under our own elected representatives. It would not have occurred to a previous generation to hand to others that which we prize most greatly and have given to other countries throughout the world in the past 50 years. That is the novelty of the proposition, against which, because we did not think it conceivable, we have no defences. A referendum is a major constitutional device for defending the rights of the British people and our constitution.”—[Official Report, 21 February 1992; Vol. 579, c. 590.]

That is what is at the heart of this matter; that is the question we always have to answer; that is what it is about. Why should we hand over our self-government, which we prize, to others? This is not a criticism of other nations’ wishes to do what they want; it is about our ability to judge for ourselves what is most appropriate. This is not a repudiation of our friendships and our commitments to our allies.

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

Not at the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

This is about not consigning to others the making of laws and treaties for ourselves; this is about ourselves. This vote, what we decide and what people in the future decide will determine the character and strength of our national constitutional history, which is being threatened. Why should we defer in such an adventure, when this is the most remarkable and ancient of all the democratic communities within western Europe? Why?

We have had a generation of politicians who have acceded and conceded. As we know, nothing was yielded over Maastricht. I therefore wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary well—God knows where they are in their travels—as they look at competences and all the rest of it. I believe that a referendum is inevitable for the British people, and I believe that what the Labour party decides on this matter is also important to the British people. Labour Members, like Conservative Members, have changed their mind a number of times on this issue. I profoundly believe, as I think all Members do if they reflect on our purpose here, that there should be a change in the law. When change comes from Europe, it comes from an authority greater than that of this Chamber because of the cravenness of a generation of British politicians who did not think that they could govern their own land or believe in their own country. The people must be able to make a judgment. Let the people speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, I want to put on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on a brilliant, deft and extremely well-conducted speech in which he dealt with complex interventions in a very, very mature fashion. I congratulate him not only on his speech but on its content.

I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, despite the fact that referendums were completely off the agenda for some time before the announcement was made in the Bloomberg speech, or in relation to the Bill, has said in the past, as I said in a short intervention, that he thought there should have been a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Of course he was right, and I shall explain why in a moment. In 1996 I introduced a Bill, for which I was given what could be considered a bit of a going-over by the then Chief Whip and the Whips, one of whom is now a Minister. It was an entertaining experience, and all I can say is that it made no difference whatsoever to my attitude to the need for a referendum, as I shall explain.

My right hon. Friend was right: the most important principle of the Bloomberg speech is the fourth principle, which overrides all the others, as they all depend on it. He said that the root of our national democracy is our national Parliament, but the essence of that democracy is when it is decided by Parliament that we shall give the people the right to make the decision, which is the ultimate test of trust in the electorate.

[Jim Dowd]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Cash]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

It is estimated that 35 million people—35 million voters—have effectively been disfranchised by the continuous evolution, since 1975, of giving away more and more powers as well as the right to determine the kind of policies and government that they want. That is completely unacceptable. I voted yes in 1975, because I believed then that there was a case for allowing a common market and that we should test whether or not it would work. I also voted for the Single European Act, but I tabled an amendment that nothing in that measure should derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is why, when it came to Maastricht, I was absolutely determined to fight it at all costs, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd).

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce]

Absolutely right. There is a growing frustration on the part of the people, which is borne out of years of them not being adequately communicated with or informed about the implications of what was happening in the EU institutions. That has resulted in our public wanting this say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South was quite right that the British people want a say, but I believe that they also want an informed say. Many of them feel they have a gut instinct of how they would vote, but they know that this is such a serious issue and such a major constitutional decision that they must have an opportunity to deliberate, debate and discuss the complex issues around it. Those of us who are today putting forward this proposal for a referendum are saying that we trust the British people to discuss such complex issues and then come to the right decision. Anyone who opposes this referendum is saying, “We don’t trust the British public to discuss issues of this complexity and detail.”

[Jim Dowd]

If letting the people have their say is so important, why is it that of all the Conservative Governments who have ever existed, only one—this one, forced by the Liberals to offer a referendum on the alternative vote—have ever given the people of Britain a referendum on anything? Devolution, regional government, the Mayor of London—all were from a Labour Government. The Tories have never given anybody a referendum on anything; now they are suddenly enthusiasts.

[Fiona Bruce]

The previous Labour Government had plenty of opportunities to grant a referendum on this issue, but they did not do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I shall try to be as brief as possible. It is traditional to congratulate the winner of the private Members’ ballot, and I am happy to do that, although speaking as a Member who has been here for 21 years, I have never even come in the top 20. I say that with no rancour and no bitterness. I am certain that the Bill will obtain its Second Reading today, and will sail through Committee—although after that, who knows? The Bill will do so without my support, so let me briefly say why.

The fact that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) has chosen a controversial subject should not be made into an issue for consideration. Sometimes MPs bring in private Members’ Bills and try to build a good deal of consensus behind them, so that their proposers can get them through. There are plenty of other issues, however. Provisions on capital punishment and abortion, for example, started off as private Members’ Bills, and the Hunting Act 2004 started off as a private Member’s Bill. Whether the hon. Member for Stockton South will have such a smooth ride with his Bill, I do not know.

I will not support the Bill, although together with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) I do support a referendum. I hope to persuade our Front-Bench team—I am perhaps a bit more optimistic on this than my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East—to adopt a rational position on the reform of the EU, eventually resulting in a referendum for the British people to decide. After all, we have only ever had one referendum on this subject, and it was provided by a Labour Government.

I will not support the Bill, first, because it is defective and incompatible with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I do not support it, secondly, because it will never be implemented. If, after 2015, there is a majority Tory Government, they are certain to change course and bring forward a different proposal—as would any other majority Government. If there is a coalition Government, we will be back exactly where we are today. Another reason is that the heart of this Bill is fruit-cake therapy for Tories, in an attempt to provide a talisman against UKIP. That is what drives this issue. A more rational, reasonable and durable approach is required.

This is an attempt to replicate Harold Wilson’s ultimately successful strategy of the early ’70s, but Harold Wilson was a far wilier operator than this Prime Minister. He devised the dissenting Ministers campaign and the referendum campaign principally to reconcile the deep divisions within the Labour party at the time and to avert a destructive split, and that was successful for nearly 10 years, but it did not prevent it. As much as anything, it was the split on the left in British politics that resulted in the hegemony of the Conservative party throughout the ’80s. The split did take place, and it took another 15 years to recover from it.

We are dealing here with fundamental political forces. The difference now is that the split is on the right of British politics. I fully expect this Bill to come back on Report in November, and I will be fascinated to see how it plays out after that.