National Referendum on the European Union

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected none of the amendments.

In view of the very large number of Members who wish to speak in the debate, I have imposed a limit of five minutes on each Back-Bench speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I believe that now is the time to start—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I appeal to the House to settle down? A large number of noisy private conservations are taking place, which add nothing to, but subtract much from, the debate. Let us hear Mr David Nuttall.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that it is now time to start the process of consulting the British people once more. I say “start” because that is all that this motion seeks to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman’s response.

[Mr Nuttall]

We always have to be careful about whether we are listening to the vocal minority or the silent majority. I believe that on this issue we should listen to the majority of the British people, who clearly want a referendum.

Some 40 million people of voting age alive today in this country have not voted in favour of Britain’s membership of the European Union, and this motion would start to put that right. Those who oppose it may well be smiling today, but winning votes in the House using strong-arm tactics does nothing to help to rebuild trust in politicians or to persuade the public that the majority inside the House are reflecting their views. Those who oppose the motion may well win this battle, but they most certainly will not win the war. We should remember the saying that he who laughs last laughs longest. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman that I have never been in government, and fortunately never will be?

[Mr Alexander]

The global financial crisis that was suffered in 2007 is hardly news to anybody in the House. Indeed, it seems to me that there is a broadening consensus that international economic circumstances affect the performance of the British economy. We are increasingly hearing that line from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The House has only recently debated the circumstances in which it judged it appropriate for a referendum to take place, and tried to formalise the process by which to decide what is significant and what is not. The current Government legislated for that in the European Union Act 2011.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I support the principle of having an EU referendum, yet I will not support the motion. Let me explain why those two positions are not contradictory.

I am on record as saying that our membership of the EU should be put to the British people. I am 32, and I find it incredible that the last referendum took place four years before I was even born. One has to be 55 to have voted in it. It is therefore understandable that people of my generation do not feel that they have had their say on Europe. They see the EU interfering in our everyday lives, from how fruit and vegetables are packaged, to the number of announcements on trains and, most insidious of all, how long we are allowed to work in our jobs—for just 48 hours a week. [Interruption.] It is clear to me that what was put to the people in 1975—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting courteously; he deserves a proper hearing, and that is what he must get.

[Mr Burley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is clear that what was put to the people in 1975—we should remember that they voted yes—was the Common Market, but the European Union that exists today would be unrecognisable to those who voted then. When Britain joined the Common Market, it signed up to a free trade agreement. Since then, the power of European institutions has changed beyond all recognition. I am delighted that the Government have enshrined in law that a referendum must be held before any further powers are ceded to Brussels. This is a major step—one that I have supported with enthusiasm.

Frankly, given the EU’s propensities for creating new treaties, I suspect it will not be long before the people get the vote that they desire and deserve. That vote will be important. If the public vote in favour of a future treaty, it will rule out for another generation any thought of us ever leaving the EU. If the public vote to reject it, I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, for there not to be a subsequent vote on our withdrawal. Given that the referendum that I want is inevitable, as a result of the laws passed by the Conservatives, I must think carefully about the current motion and its impact on the people of Cannock Chase.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must come to order. It will want to hear Mr Christopher Chope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any reason why the vote is being delayed?

[Mr Speaker]

The Tellers are in. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who has been here a long time—[Interruption.] I do not know why people are referring to three-figure numbers; the hon. Gentleman has not been here that long. His patience will be rewarded. He does not have long to wait and must calm himself. I like to see him in a state of permanent calm. That is my ambition.