European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Denis MacShane

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am astonished that my right hon. Friend should say that the value of a country’s currency is not important. If that is so, why did Britain recover after 1931 only by coming off the gold standard? We devalued our currency in 1949 and in 1967, we allowed for a big depreciation after the crisis of the early 1980s, and after the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism we recovered simply because we devalued our currency substantially to bring it into line with the needs of our economy.

[Mr MacShane]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has spent much time holidaying in Europe in recent years, but there has been a substantial devaluation of the English pound against the euro since, roughly, 2008, and what have we seen? A recovery in Britain? An increase in exports? A decrease in imports? An increase in the creation of firms and jobs? In fact, we have seen the very opposite. My hon. Friend is right historically—he is always right historically—but I prefer to live today rather than in history.

The main problem with the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will have the honesty to say so, although the amendment was tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The notion that nothing can be ratified until every other country has ratified it and disposed of putative legal challenges is a circle that can never be broken. If the same rule were adopted by even one other EU member state, nothing could be ratified until we had agreed to ratify it, and we could not agree to ratify it until other Parliaments had done so.

Not only are we, as usual, condescendingly and patronisingly lecturing other Parliaments on what their constitutional settlements should be, but this is nothing short of a wrecking amendment, and I wish that Conservative Members would have the intellectual honesty to say so.

[Martin Horwood]

It is generally a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) in European debates, as he and I share a broad enthusiasm for the European Union and its development. However, I think that on this occasion he is being a little unkind to our hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. I do not think that this is a wrecking amendment; I think that it asks legitimate questions about the timing of the transfer between the European financial stability facility and the European financial stabilisation mechanism and the new European sustainability mechanism—although I think that by demonstrating that we know the difference between the EFSF, the EFSM and the ESM, we are probably all showing that we need to get out more.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the old EFSM, which made Britain liable for the financial bail-outs, could be brought back. That is an interesting question, and I too would like to hear the Minister answer it. I assume that a vote by the Council, probably with unanimity, would be required to bring the EFSM back into operation, given that the Council voted to end it, or at least not to involve it in any new bail-outs. If that is the case, I think that it would reassure Conservative Members considerably to know that the EFSM is, in effect, dead and buried, at least in respect of new bail-outs.

There are two problems with the amendment. The right hon. Member for Rotherham pointed out one of them in what was a rather pre-emptive intervention. This amendment ties the triggering of United Kingdom legislation to actions of other countries—to events in Berlin, Dublin or the European Court, for instance. That is a strange principle for Members who have generally been rather keen to emphasise the unique sovereignty and independence of the United Kingdom Parliament to be trying to introduce into a British Bill. It raises a constitutional question, too: should we be putting clauses into British legislation that are entirely dependent on events in other countries?

The second problem is the political roundabout problem. If other countries follow our example and make their ratification of the treaty dependent on others finishing their processes, we will be like cars at a roundabout, with everybody waiting for everybody else to go, and the whole process will completely logjam. I am not sure whether that is what was intended, but it would make the amendment something of a wrecking amendment, in practice if not in theory. I think this is an impractical amendment—albeit perhaps a well-meaning one, which has produced an at least mildly illuminating debate.

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Denis MacShane

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). I agreed with much of his speech, particularly his emphasis on the desirability and common sense of flexible exchange rates—not necessarily floating exchange rates, but flexible exchange rates, at the very least, so that countries can choose and negotiate currency arrangements that suit their economies. If all countries can do that, they are free to reflate their economies and to drive growth, so everybody benefits. That is the great advantage. Co-ordinated reflation was a slogan that many of us on the Keynesian left called for back in the 1980s. Indeed, co-ordinated reflation would be desirable now, but we have co-ordinated deflation—savage deflation whereby people wonder why the economies of the world are getting into difficulty. It is because Government after Government are cutting deficits, driving cuts and deflating their economies. There is quite a lot that we in the debate have in common.

I should make two points before proceeding. One is to emphasise my support for the strong view put by the Minister for Europe—and indeed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the shadow Foreign Secretary—that civil servants should remain non-political. It should be Ministers who are accountable and Ministers who are political. Ministers, as well as Members of the House and politicians, should make political statements, not civil servants. The great tradition of non-political civil servants for whom Ministers are responsible should be preserved and given strong support. We should not accept the contagion of the officials in the European Commission, who are politicians in the guise of officials who drive policies themselves. Our civil servants are not like Commission officials, and we should not let them drift in that direction due to the contagion they experience in Brussels.

I shall not speak for long, but I want to emphasise that we are in serious difficulty—not just in Britain, but across the European Union. It is my view that the euro will ultimately not prevail and will not last simply because it cannot work. Countries cannot constantly deflate their way to success. There will come a point at which Greek people will realise that it is the euro that is their problem. Some on the left think that now, but many others will come to that view.

When Greece is able to escape from the euro, re-create the drachma and devalue substantially, people will find imports too expensive and what they spend will be directed to the domestic economy, which will help their domestic economy to grow. Greece’s exports include tourism and holidays, and when Greek holidays drop to half the price they are now, many more people will have holidays there.

[Mr MacShane]

I am following the argument, but will my hon. Friend explain why the British pound experiencing a severe devaluation of up to 25%, or perhaps nearly 30%, of its value in the past four years has led to a worsening balance of trade and an increased recession? If devaluation of a currency is the magic recipe, why has it not worked for us?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is a case that we still have not depreciated our currency enough, but demand for our exports is falling because there is deflation elsewhere, particularly elsewhere in the EU. We should consider the history of devaluations; the proper ones have invariably been very beneficial. After the escape from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992, the economy bounced back strongly and many Conservative Members would agree that, had they managed to stay in office for three or four more years, people might have realised that that big devaluation was driving economic growth and falling unemployment. We reaped the benefit of the collapse and what happened in the ERM, particularly in my constituency, which was the epicentre of housing repossessions and negative equity, which led to my having one of the largest swings to Labour in the country, simply because of the ERM.

I was one of the few people who wrote about economics in 1990 who were saying that the ERM would be a disaster. I predicted—I surprised myself, indeed—the precise course of that experience and said what would happen in the end: interest rates would go through the roof and eventually we would come out of the ERM and devalue, which we did. However, that is not the point that I am making tonight.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) on many things, but I do not agree with him on economic policy. I doubt that many Conservative Members read the New Statesman, but in the last week or two it has featured a series of economists who initially signed a letter of support for the Government, but are now recanting, saying that they made a mistake and should not have called for deflation and cuts. They are implying that that situation ought to be reversed. I agree with them, and I was one of the few in the House who absolutely and profoundly disagreed with the Government from the beginning, quoting Paul Krugman and others, who said that they were going in precisely the wrong direction, towards the savage deflation that led to the 1930s’ depression.

We are in danger of going in that direction now. Countries have to find a way to expand their economies, and they will not do that when they are stuck in stupid arrangements such as the euro. We must have a deconstruction of the euro. There is much talk of an uncontrolled crash, but currency zones can be deconstructed rationally. When the Soviet Union collapsed, all the countries of the ex-Soviet Union created their own currencies. That was done fairly straightforwardly. When Slovakia and the Czech Republic separated as Czechoslovakia broke up, they created their own separate currencies. That worked. It can be done in a controlled and not-too-difficult way. I shall not say that it will be that easy, but it is not impossible and there are examples of such a thing happening. I suggest that, initially, Greece, and perhaps one or two other countries, ought to quit the euro and recreate their own currencies. That might mean freezing banks for a few days and so on.

European Union Fiscal Union

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Denis MacShane

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in the debate and to support the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in his concerns about fiscal union.

The issue has been raised because the eurozone is in deep trouble and is starting seriously to fall apart. A fiscal union would mean that one had substantial redistribution between the wealthy parts and the poor parts of an area. That would be acceptable in a democratic member state with a meaningful polity, but the European Union is not one. I suspect the German people would have something to say about such a proposal, if it ever went ahead. As we have seen, the German representative on the European Central Bank has already resigned because he knows that such a proposal will cause serious problems for Germany and is completely unacceptable.

I have something of track record on this issue. Thirty-two years ago, I did not think I would be speaking in such a debate. At that time, I wrote a brief for the general secretary of the union I worked for—the National and Local Government Officers Association. Economic policy was one of my areas, and I wrote a brief urging him to suggest to the TUC that we should not join the European monetary system, or the snake, which was a forerunner of the exchange rate mechanism and the single currency. He took my brief to the TUC, banged the table and demanded that the TUC take that line, which it did. The TUC then went along to see Denis Healey and banged the table, and he did not join the snake. I do not say it was all down to my brief, but at least I was on the same side, and we got the right answer. Unfortunately we joined the exchange rate mechanism a little later, and that was a mistake, but I could see the direction of travel then, and that it would be a disaster for both democracy and economics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who is no longer in his place, raised the question of democracy. It must have certain features: not just votes, but votes for people who will have power—Governments and representatives who can make decisions on voters’ behalf, and make the votes meaningful. If the vote has no meaning at all—if it is just a declaration and power is held by other people—that is not a true democracy.

Another feature of democracy is the ability to change Governments, as we have just done. The change we made was not to my taste, but nevertheless that is democracy. The way to keep the far right, and extremists of all kinds, away is to have a meaningful democracy, in which Governments can be changed, and where they have power over the lives of the people they represent. If they have no power there is no point, which is when street politics takes over. We do not want street politics. The things that happened on the extreme right and left before the second world war made for a very unpleasant time, which led to the war. We do not want that to happen again.

[Mr MacShane]

Does my hon. Friend take comfort from the fact that the most dramatic rise of the far right has been in Sweden, while the most dramatic and horrible single incident associated with it was the terrible slaughter in Norway? There was also the anti-Muslim referendum in Switzerland on places of worship, sponsored by the hard-right nationalist SVP. Does my hon. Friend take comfort from all those countries either being outside the European Union or not using the euro?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

With the far right we need to look at each individual case; I think that in Norway it was just one lunatic—an obsessive. Of course the far right attracts people who I would suggest are not entirely sane. Nevertheless, the far right in general has not taken hold in post-war Europe because we have had meaningful democracies; but I think those meaningful democracies are starting to fade. Fiscal union would, again, mean democracy taking more of a back seat.

It is clear that the founding fathers and mothers of the European Union in the 1950s wanted a world in which electors did not have the power to change Governments; they wanted power safely in the hands of a stable body. That is why the Commission was set up—to make sure that we do not have distasteful changes of politics and Government. However, changes of Government mean that people believe in democracy and work for it. They know that they will have a chance of getting their party into power next time. I shall certainly work hard next time to make sure that our party comes back into power; and no doubt our Conservative and Liberal Democrat colleagues will do the same. That is why democracy means something: we know it matters because those elected have power, and because it is possible to change the Government. That cannot be done with the European Union.

We are in a European crisis. The hon. Member for Stone constantly refers to Europe, but I refer to the European Union. The European Union is not Europe: they are two concepts. Europe is a wonderful continent full of fabulous people and great culture, history, music, art, languages, and literature; but the European Union is a political construct imposed on some of the countries of Europe. I fully support the idea of a different kind of European Union—a loose association of democratic member states co-operating for mutual benefit. I do not support a bureaucratic and anti-democratic machine that controls our lives and makes our votes decreasingly meaningful at national level.

The polity over which a Government govern must also be meaningful. If national boundaries are dissolved, and other structures are imposed—especially if those are not democratically controlled—that is not democracy. The great thing about democracy is that it is accepted these days that it will govern a national state. I am an internationalist, but I think that internationalism is about good relations between states, not the abolition of states, national boundaries or national entities. We get on extremely well with other states around the world because we co-operate across national boundaries, but we do not want them to disappear completely. We have culture, language and history that unite us in particular polities. That is why Germany, for example, could unite its east and west and spend a vast amount of money rebuilding East Germany. It was accepted that it was part of Germany. I doubt whether it would have spent so much money rebuilding, say, Greece—because Greece is not part of Germany but a separate country.

I think that many people would be upset if the same kind of money that went into rebuilding East Germany went into helping Greece. Greece now has the opportunity to get out of the euro, recreate the drachma and devalue. Suddenly, Greece would become the cheapest place in Europe for people to holiday, and the tourist industry would take off like nobody’s business. Greece would recover, because that is what it will be good at. It is a beautiful place, where people go on holiday. That is the logic for Greece.

The problem, of course, is that banks—and particularly French banks—have lent vast sums of money to Greece, and will be in trouble if that happens. However, as was said in a good discussion on “Newsnight” last night, either the euro will collapse and there will be a crisis with many people losing their money, or we will deconstruct the euro in a progressive and managed way, and some banks will have problems. Then Governments will have to step in and no doubt recapitalise those banks, if they choose to keep them alive. That is a difficult choice, but the logic is for countries that cannot sustain membership of the eurozone to get out, recreate their own currencies and devalue.

Ireland’s major economic partner is Britain. The British isles is not a single economy, but we are close. The fact that we are not in the euro and have depreciated our currency substantially means that the poor Irish, who are stuck in the euro, are massively over-valued relative to Britain, and so have a trading problem with Britain. I have suggested to Irish friends that they should recreate the punt, depreciate and rejoin the sterling zone, which is where they belong, instead of remaining in the eurozone, where they do not. I have not had any positive answer to that suggestion, but that is the logic of where we should be going.

I could speak for much longer, but others want to speak and I have probably said enough for the time being. I support the hon. Member for Stone in arguing the strong case against fiscal union.

European Union Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Denis MacShane

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

Not many Members wish to speak, Mr Hoyle, so I was trying to reply to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), but I now invite him to read some expert books on the subject instead.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

For the last time—because mine was intended to be a very short speech—I give way, as always, to my hon. Friend.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend, as always, for being so generous.

No doubt we should welcome the extra seat in the European Parliament as a small extension of democracy, but my right hon. Friend is right about accountability. Would it not be a good idea for some powers to be repatriated to national Parliaments, and would it not also be a good idea to return to single-Member, first-past-the-post seats in the European Parliament? Would that not increase accountability?

European Union Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Denis MacShane

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

My treat, which I can never find the resources or time to put into effect, is to send the comments that hon. Members on both sides of the House make to our fellow European politicians. I should like President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Tusk or the representatives of any one of the nine Nordic and Baltic states that were hosted by the Prime Minister at Downing street last week, to read that someone stood up in the Chamber of the House of Commons and said that we are about to abolish national elections. They would realise what a wonderful world the House of Commons can become. To paraphrase Karl Marx on history in the famous opening lines of “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, the House of Commons, when it debates the EU, starts as muddle and descends quickly into farce. We are already firmly into those two categories today.

Clause 6 refers—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr MacShane]

Might I just finish my point on clause 6? My hon. Friend and I have had many exchanges here and in the Tea Room over a number of years, and my affection for him grows with each passing moment.

Government amendment 57 calls for a referendum with reference to an extension of the powers of the European public prosecutor’s office, but clause 6(4)(c) already lists the requirement for a referendum when there is any change in the treaty involving the participation of the UK with the EPPO. That is just the technical muddle.

I remember sitting on the Government Benches, where the hon. Member for Broadmoor is now sitting.

[Mr MacShane]

There are times when the European Union debate makes me think that I am in Broadmoor—in respect of speeches made on both sides of the House, some of which reach the highest clouds of fantasy and invention.

When I was on the Government Benches, getting the wording right was interesting. Foreign Office officials are brilliant draftspersons, but they are not necessarily quite as focused on the detail or on internal contradictions in legislation, because they do not always produce Bills. Clause 6 and amendment 57, which I assume will go through tonight with a Government majority despite the best efforts of Conservative Back Benchers, actually contradict themselves.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The important thing about elections is not just that they are a method for electing people to a Chamber such as this, but that those people have power to exercise on behalf of the people who vote for them. Should we not be careful to ensure that this House, this Parliament and our Government retain power? Otherwise, democracy becomes meaningless and we would just be a decorative part of the constitution instead of an effective part, as Bagehot would say.

[Mr MacShane]

My hon. Friend is one of the most decorative parts of this House, and I hope that, after the reduction of representation in the wretched Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill becomes law—it will weaken the House of Commons unless the other place defends our constitutional rights—when there will be 50 fewer of us, he is to be found among the survivors.

This is the eternal argument. The most sovereign person in the world was Robinson Crusoe on his island. No one could tell him what to do, and he did not tell anyone else what to do. Our nation’s history is entirely about finding partners and allies and making treaties. I invite hon. Members to go to the National Gallery and look at the depiction of the signing of the treaty of London signed in 1604, which has four British dips and four Spanish dips and you cannot tell the difference between them. That treaty brought to an end 50 years of conflict between Spain and Britain because—

European Union Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Denis MacShane

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

As the hon. Gentleman spent time in France, he may have read in the French papers reports of blockade after blockade of French ports by French fishermen, outraged that the British interpretation in Brussels of the common fisheries policies prevented them from doing what they wanted to do. This is a collective decision that we have taken, and I suggest that Government Members are honest: if they do not like the European Union, they will not alter it one little bit by putting new forms of words into clause 18.

Our representatives in Brussels and in all the Ministries that negotiate every aspect of our relationship with the EU will not be impressed by the proposals. If hon. Members do not like it, they should pull out—that is the honest position to take. There is no magic form of words that can get us out of our obligations under this or any other treaty. If they do not want to be in any of the treaty-based organisations, all of which are part of international law and which can, if necessary be prayed in aid by our judges, they should say so. There is a completely separate problem concerning the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to our courts. We are writing into our unwritten constitution judicial power that exists in other countries. The Germans have a constitutional court, and its rulings guide and control part of Germany’s relationship with the EU. We do not have such a court, but perhaps we should have. We all know full well the strength and power of the Supreme Court in the American constitution. We have never allowed that; we have wanted everything to happen here in Parliament and have not moved to a form of written constitution. We could put into one an obligation to have referendums on new treaties, as the Irish constitutional court has and the Danish constitution does. All those things are possible.

The Government could simply have said, “There will be a referendum on each new EU treaty—period.” That would have been very powerful and given the sovereign people the right to decide what should or should not happen. It would have severely limited the chances of this or any future Government negotiating changes to a treaty that we judged to be in our interests.

It is no accident that any reference to a referendum on enlargement is excluded from the Bill, because the Government want Turkey to join the EU—and so do I. However, nobody in the House can possibly imagine that the question of whether 85 million Muslim ladies and gentlemen from Anatolia should have free access into this country would not receive a resounding “no” from the British people in a referendum.

So we go back to the clause, again and again. Nothing in the amendment strengthens the Government’s hand or puts backbone into the UKRep spine—straight and sturdy though I am sure it is.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

I shall take one last intervention, and then I must stop.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Time and again my right hon. Friend poses the alternative: accept what we have, or get out of the European Union. Yet now we are talking about reform and change—perhaps even withdrawing from the common fisheries policy. I shall leave that there.

I want to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who talked about officials. I suggest that the politicians, particularly the people at the Commission, pushed Britain to the brink. Recently, we came close to having a referendum that would certainly have produced a no vote. This signal that we are giving to the European Union will emphasise the point that Britain was pushed to the brink of a serious referendum, with a no vote being the certain outcome. This signal will make sure that they do not push us again.

[Mr MacShane]

There is this version of Britain contra mundum—the 26 member states all ganging up against us. We have allies and friends, and we win arguments. The European Union is seen around the world as a model for open trade. Lorries leave Portugal and arrive in Poland. A lorry cannot leave Mexico with its Corona beer and unload it in San Diego; it has to unload it on to protectionist lorries controlled by trade unions in the United States.

I put it gently to hon. Members that they should be careful before getting what they wish—the disaggregation of the European Union, with every country rejecting European Court of Justice decisions that they do not like. France believed that it was sovereign when it refused to accept a pound, or a kilo, of British beef, at the time when the whole world thought that the beef was contaminated. We could not export it to Australia, and Canada would not accept it. The Commonwealth would not have it. Hong Kong, our Crown colony, would not have it. But the European Union had to accept British beef because the European Court of Justice accepted our scientific arguments that the beef was fit for sale in the common European market.

European Union Bill

Debate between Kelvin Hopkins and Denis MacShane

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I remind my right hon. Friend that one bit of Euro-realism is that the euro is in a state of collapse. Is that not realism as well?

[Mr MacShane]

I do not want to enter into a duologue with my hon. Friend about the euro, although I expect that it will be around a little longer than its gravediggers may imagine or hope. If we are to revert to that Hobbesian world in which every currency fights against every other, devaluing and insisting that products be traded on a different basis every month or every week, there will be no swifter invitation to the setting up of protectionist barriers such as existed before the Common Market, the European Community and the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

We have only a short time. My hon. Friend will have time to make his own speech.

The Foreign Secretary’s speech was to please the party faithful, as will be the one we hear during the wind-ups. The fact that it so singularly failed to do so was reflected in the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash); perhaps we will hear that from other speakers, too, if they catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. One cannot please the Daily Mail and represent Britain faithfully and effectively.

I read through the Bill fairly carefully, as I hope we all have. It is not so much a mouse, as a mouse without definition. The key adjective—and I am nervous of legislation that is built around an adjective rather than a substantive—appears in clause 5, under which a Minister has to come to the House and say, “I think there should be a referendum because in my judgment there is a ‘significant’ transfer of powers.” But “significant” is not defined; it will be in the eye of the beholder.

I am not sure whether that will lead to references to the courts. I hope not. I see before my eyes the gradual atrophying of Parliament, as judges decide bitterly fought election campaigns. Libellous and defamatory remarks have certainly been made about me in election campaigns that I would not dream for one second of taking to the judges, who can now set aside the sovereignty of the British people and say that an election is null and void. More generally, judges want to have a much greater say in our parliamentary democracy. I will not use the Pandora’s box metaphor, but the Bill opens the door to a lot more of that.

The extraordinary shopping list in the Bill also worries me. The Library document refers to 57 items that must trigger a referendum, but I think that the list contains 56 items. Schedule 1 states that any change that involves an

“approximation of national laws affecting internal market”

must trigger a referendum. As Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher did nothing of greater service to this nation than to bring in the Single European Act, which led to the greatest approximation of national laws affecting a market of many different nation states in the history of humankind. I utterly welcome that. We need more approximation and more open markets.

It would be good to have a single patent system, but if 26 other European countries followed our route, any approximation of the internal market, such as a single patent system, could involve a referendum in Estonia, Poland or Hungary, which would begin to roll back that single market. What is sauce for the British gander will be sauce for 26 other member states’ geese. Those member states will take the message from the Government and from this House of Commons today—sorry, I am about to use the animal metaphors that I decried at the beginning of my speech—that because this wretched little dormouse or shrew of a Bill will be passed tonight, Britain is turning its back on them.

Oddly enough, the Government are not completely doing that. I was always told the adage that money is power and power is money. We are blithely giving away £7 billion of taxpayers’ money to help Ireland out of its hole without having any serious debate or discussion. This is a profoundly important point. It is not good enough for the Leader of the House on Thursday mornings or the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), whom I like and respect, to say it is up to the Backbench Business Committee to decide whether to have a debate on Europe. It is of profound importance to the House of Commons that we have a thorough debate on Europe twice a year.

Tomorrow, there will be an EU-Russia summit. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has raised profound points about Khodorkovsky, human rights, Sergei Magnitsky and other appalling cases of the treatment of people inside Russia. In addition, we have huge worries about relations with Turkey. I am a supporter of Turkish accession. What a preposterous notion it is that the accession of Turkey, which is comprised of 80 million people from completely different backgrounds, should not be submitted to a referendum, but the question of whether there will be an extra advocate-general or judge-advocate should be submitted to one. This is absolutely ridiculous and the British people—and I am afraid the people who hate democracy, such as those in the British National party and the UK Independence party—will mock us because of the issue of Turkish accession. Yes, the Foreign Secretary may say that it is some way off, but it will dismay a great number of people that we are legislating for eternal referendums on minor issues, but not on Turkish accession.

I will put my cards on the table. The Foreign Secretary said wrongly that Germany has similar provisions in its law. It does not. The German constitution was devised not by us but by the German people and it expressly forbids plebiscites for good, clear, historic reasons. Yes, there is a German constitutional court, but that is because it has a written constitution. Perhaps that is a road we need to walk down.

I hope that the Bill is opposed, because it weakens Parliament and Europe. It sends a message that, under this Government, the commitment, concern and leadership that Europe is so desperately lacking will not come from the present crop of Ministers. That is a shame. Europe needs leadership because it is going through a crisis, and the absence of that leadership from this Government is to be deplored.