House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Feb 1992

Mr. Garel-Jones : Can my hon. Friend name a single enthusiast for the federal goal of Europe, in Europe or in this country, who believes that the Maastricht treaty has been a step in that direction?

Mr. Cran : I understand my right hon. Friend's question, but I was concentrating on the wide gap in the original debate between what was said and what eventually occurred, and I was arguing that I fear that the same will happen again. I said that it would depend on what the parties involved in the agreement were saying. In this regard I must admit that I am immensely unimpressed by the fact that no hon. Member has mentioned that Mr.

Column 607

Kohl--who is rather more important in this matter because it is often said that the European Community, or union, will be dominated by the Germans--said clearly on 23 May 1991 at the Europa Institute in Edinburgh :

"Europe will be a federal Europe".

I am singularly uninterested in what some hon. Members may say about federalism, but I am very interested in what Mr. Kohl said.

Mr. Garel-Jones : I understand my hon. Friend's point about the past. It is probably true that, until recently, the whole thrust of the development of the European Community was toward a single structure or, as we call it, a federal structure. My hon. Friend will know that the word, "federal" means something different to Chancellor Kohl. However, one of the triumphs of the Maastricht treaty for the Government and the Prime Minister is that, far from bringing that debate to a federalist conclusion, it has opened up a debate and a prospect of a wider, intergovernmental Europe which I believe is more satisfactory to the instincts of the House and the British people and which, in due course, if we fight that argument robustly in Europe, will carry the day.

Mr. Cran : I have no difficulty in agreeing with my right hon. Friend that the Prime Minister went to Maastricht and hammered out a good deal--some would say a very fine deal. He understood perfectly well the feelings in the House. After the general election, however, hon. Members on both sides of the House may be freer to express their feelings on the issue, uninhibited no doubt by the proximity of a general election. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the protocol, the social dimension and the fact that the United Kingdom is not, prima facie, totally committed to economic union. However, having agreed to the treaty in principle, we are on a slippery slope. Many of my hon. Friends are worried about that, too.

Mr. Favell : Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend and the Minister. It is true to say that the Maastricht treaty was not the federal finality that people such as President Mitterrand and the Chancellor Kohl wanted. However, in 1996, perhaps before the election after the forthcoming one, there will be more intergovernmental conferences and another treaty, which will put the final nail in the coffin for those who want an independent United Kingdom.

Mr. Cran : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Despite the fact that I was slightly abashed earlier to hear about his antecedents and where they came from, I still have the utmost confidence in him and implicitly trust his judgment. He is absolutely correct. The kernel of the issue is not only the slippery slope argument but, as he eloquently pointed out--I was going to discuss it later in my speech--the fact that there will be other intergovernmental conferences and agreements. By that device, the ratchet effect will proceed.

Mr. Garel-Jones indicated dissent --

Mr. Cran : The Minister shakes his head and I respect his view. However, he must understand that those who feel as I do fear that the ratchet effect will continue.

Mr. Garel-Jones : Surely my hon. Friend must share my confidence in the ability, not just of our party but of this Parliament and the British people, to win that argument in Europe. Of course, the argument goes on and some people in Europe still dream of a unitary super-state. There is

Column 608

nothing sinful about that. The Conservative party and Parliament as a whole are confident that we can win that debate, which is far from over. My hon. Friend will recall that, during the intergovernmental conference, the presidency presented a text that was a federalist tract. He will also recall that that text was supported by only two of 12 member states, so the argument is far from lost. We can and will win it.

Mr. Cran : My right hon. Friend is being characteristically winning and persuasive and using the precise language, so how in heaven's name could I possibly disagree with some parts of his proposition? Of course, I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet know where the marker points are in that argument, but I am less clear about what will happen once they leave the scene. There will be other faces who may take a different view about the whole proposition. Consequently, if as a Member of Parliament I give way now, that will open the door for someone in the future to say yes, notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said no-- [Interruption.] My hon. Friends make compelling points. May I return, however, to my original argument about the Rubicon? I believe that I have a right, as do my constituents, to say yea or nay to that collection of proposals.

As has been pointed out, particularly by the Minister, the treaty has been tightly drawn. There is no question about that. Therefore, if one is simply to go on that fact, notwithstanding the protestations of some of my hon. Friends, one might simply say that we should proceed because of all the opt -out clauses and protocols. However, the intention is the important aspect and my view of the intentions of some of the major players in the Maastricht agreement is that, ultimately, they want what the treaty speaks of and what hon. Members who have already spoken have already alluded to--a European union. For goodness sake, let us all speak plain language. What does a European union mean if not that we all get together at this, that or the other conference to decide matters between us which might be different if we decided them separately?

Mr. Favell : A Scot would know what the word "union" means.

Mr. Cran : I shall not be put off by that.

There have already been perceptible changes in British foreign policy, where the United Kingdom might have taken one view--I think especially of Croatia or the Gulf--but its policy has been surreptitiously changed by European conferences. That is not to say that I am not in favour of reaching, as far as we can, a common position. However, if the United Kingdom does not agree with the common position, it should not proceed with it. I shall not continue for much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker, because several hon. Members wish to speak and, as always, I am conscious of that.

The issue was summed up by the Financial Times on 12 December 1991. Of course, the Financial Times is not the final arbiter of these matters ; it merely takes an opinion, as we all take an opinion. However, it is a fairly sober and authoritative source of opinion. It said :

"The Maastricht Treaty is indeed the biggest milestone in the Community's 34-year history. It contains, among the goals cited in its preamble, many of the attributes--common citizenship, defence and money--of a potential Euro-superstate."

Column 609

I would not go that far, but I go far enough to suggest that we are on a slippery slope. I want the United Kingdom to take its own decisions on all the major issues on defence, the economy and foreign affairs similar to which a sovereign state should take. That does not preclude co-operation with our European partners and, on that device, I am as good a European as anybody else. It is on that principle that I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and I end as I began, by congratulating him. Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Dykes : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The last four speeches lasted for 24, 23, 19 and 22 minutes respectively. Will you be making your customary appeal for brief speeches ?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I think that the hon. Gentleman has done the job very nicely.

11.42 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : If not brief, I hope to be pungent and to the point. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) has left the Chamber. Although he may have honourably made clear his position on these matters to his electorate, the reason for this debate on a possible referendum is the fact that successive Governments--I am being neutral for the moment--did not seek any mandate from the electorate in the elections prior to the signing of the treaty of accession or the Single European Act--or, indeed, the signing of what is being called the treaty of Maastricht. Unlike the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran), I am not delighted to be supporting the Bill, although reluctantly and for certain reasons I may do so. All referendums have many of the disadvantages that were referred to by the hon. Member for Chichester--the manoeuvrability of the question, the dangling of a hope or promise and the spectre of fear if one does say yes. Most important, does the person answering the question have a real understanding of the fundamentals or is he really answering another question, "Will you trust our Harold" or something like that? That was the reaction of many people in 1975. Were those who should be in the know aware at the time of the actual questions and issues?

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)--who is not with us ; I wish that he had stayed--claimed that democracy was entrenched in the United Kingdom and, he thought, unsatisfactorily in this House. At the time of that referendum, the same Harold Wilson--as he then was--quite properly relied on the unwritten Luxembourg agreement and said that no law could be passed in Brussels without the consent of a British Minister--but he had forgotten, as I had, that the common agricultural policy was then the subject of majority voting. If there had been a referendum that asked, "Are you prepared to enter the European Community, where the laws relating to agriculture, food prices and the whole of the relationship between the soil and the natural environment of the United Kingdom is to be decided by people not of our nationality beyond our shores?" I am confident that the answer would have been no.

Of course, it did not happen like that ; the referendum did not ask that question. Therefore, I say to the hon.

Column 610

Member for Chichester and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that there cannot be proper democracy without proper debate and representative democracy as we have always had it--that is, a mandate from the people. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that a centralised, lawmaking machine, such as we have at the moment by treaty-- and without Maastricht--means that the European Community can have democracy entrenched only if it is dealt with by central, not national, institutions.

Mr. Cash : What makes the hon. Gentleman believe that the average person in this country is not capable of making up his or her mind on such a matter? What might make the hon. Gentleman think that Members of Parliament, many of whom have not even seen the documents, let alone read them, would be in a better position to form a judgment on this question?

Mr. Spearing : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. For reasons that most of us understand, but which I do not have time to enunciate, the matter has not yet been debated in the House.

That brings me neatly to the next point mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester and also by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on a radio programme this morning. I listened to him with some incredulity because usually I have some sympathy with his views on these matters. Surely we all agree that the debate, if that is what it is, on Maastricht has been about three matters--the desirability of economic and monetary union ; the question of a British opt-out ; and the social chapter. That debate was intra-party as much as it was wider.

There was no real understanding of the fundamentals that we were being asked to accept. Indeed, we may be asked to agree to the fundamentals shortly after the next election and perhaps before July is out--because any Government, and there could be four varieties within a few months, will surely want to have achieved some agreement on the treaty of Maastricht if only because they, whoever they might be, will hold the presidency. I question what proper debate there will be in Parliament before then. That is not to say that there should not be a passable longstop as well. The referendum is a safety longstop, although I have doubts about its efficacy.

I come now to a point that I hope will be dealt with soon by the Minister. In an exchange a few minutes ago, he claimed that the debate is about real intergovernmental co-operation and nothing to do with any deterministic stuff where the Commission will be influential and tell us what to do, with Mr. Delors riding high and so on--this is a new sort of treaty. I was about to say that that was the impression that he gave and I note that he is nodding his head. He has agreed to what I hope was not an exaggeration.

Who has really had a look at the yellow pages of the treaty? Beattie has not, has she? If there is to be a referendum, Beattie will be voting just as much as anybody else. The Government's presentation of the document is quite undemocratic. Inside this bundle of papers that I have with me, which arrived in the Vote Office only on Tuesday and is signed by the Foreign Secretary as the Queen's plenipotentiary, we find an extraordinary collection of legal jargon. We find a completely new treaty of union with lettered articles from A to S. Article G incorporates the whole of the treaty of Rome within the

Column 611

new union treaty. Article J deals with the whole of our common foreign and security policy. Article K deals with justice and home affairs.

Mr. Garel-Jones indicated assent .

Mr. Spearing : I see the Minister nodding his head. We have an overarching treaty.

Mr. Garel-Jones indicated assent .

Mr. Spearing : I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman nods. In the past in conversations and in the press there has been talk of trunk and pillars. The Prime Minister told us that there was a great victory in ensuring that, instead of having everything under the treaty of Rome with the Commission playing a major part, we had some pillars outside the treaty. It looks as though the pillars have got mixed up in the trunk. I cannot see very much that is outside the scope of the union treaty--I should be interested to hear from the Minister what parts are. I may be wrong. This is an extremely difficult group of documents to get through.

We start with articles A to F of the common, overarching treaty of union. We then have a vast number, about 150, new articles to the treaty of Rome. Then we go on to the consequential amendments, which are probably not very important, to the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Then we get no fewer than 89 paragraphs of protocols to the treaty of Maastricht, which hang somewhere between the union treaty and the treaty of Rome. I should be obliged if the Minister would tell us which they are. We then have no fewer than 33 declarations. Altogether, that adds up to 300-odd new articles to the written constitution of the European Community. We must remember that some articles remain in its constitution, so the total is about 700 altogether. That is what we in this Chamber face over the coming months, yet we have not gone about revealing or discussing what is there at all well.

One major point--the vexed matter of subsidiarity--has caused a great deal of discussion. The Prime Minister and Conservative Members have raised subsidiarity up as a great safeguard. It is about time that we had it absolutely straight. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the exegesis that I will now attempt on article 3b of the amended treaty of Rome.

After referring to the Community, article 3b refers to

"areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence." what commercial, monetary, economic, external commercial matters and so on do not fall within the exclusive competence of the EEC? We should have a list. Only those matters that are not within the Community's exclusive competence can be dealt with by subsidiarity. Article 3b continues that the Community shall act in those areas "only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States."

What is sufficient? What is can or cannot, might be or might not? It is a matter of judgment. The article continues that in those areas the Community shall take action in accordance with subsidiarity only if the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved and can therefore, "by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."

All those are matters of subjective judgment. One can go on for hours on this sort of mobile pattern. It is rather like

Column 612

those toys that we had years ago that hang from the ceiling. A balance of judgment is involved and we could argue for years. In the end, it will be for the European Court to decide whether subsidiarity applies.

I close on the matter of citizenship. All of us here are proud of being citizens of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has returned for these closing remarks. He will agree that we are also citizens of the world. We can be good citizens of the world community only if we are good citizens of our local and national community--

Mr. Alex Carlile : And the international community.

Mr. Spearing : --and the international community. The hon. and learned Gentleman struck the right tone in his remarks. There is such a thing as wholesome nationalism, which might be called community spirit, and there is unwholesome nationalism, of which he spoke and of which we have various experiences. Unless we can entrench some form of democracy in our national citizenship, we are likely to engender the forces of nasty nationalism that both he and I abhor and which we are all seeing in parts of Europe today. The only alternative is a form of centralised democracy that destroys the nation as we know it and, with it, the citizenship of the United Kingdom, the power of this House and the power of our people to govern themselves.

11.56 am

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : This has been a fascinating debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) opened the debate with a remarkable speech which was a tour de force and gave us a good profile of the history of referendums, what they meant and when they might be applicable. I hope that he will accept my apologies if, because of constituency business, I am not here for the final stages of the debate.

There are two questions before the House this morning. First, is it desirable that a referendum should be a more regular part of the British way of running our political affairs? Secondly, would the treaties that arose from Maastricht be suitable subjects for a referendum if that were to be a practical means of carrying on our affairs?

I must voice doubts about whether referendums are a suitable part of British political life. I have always been reluctant to accede to the arguments for referendums because they undermine the principle of democracy that we have adopted at Westminster, of which we are justifiably proud. Despite the excellent historical insights of my hon. Friend, the whole purpose of a referendum so far has been largely to get a Government out of a problem rather than necessarily for some overreaching constitutional motivation. That was certainly the case in the 1970s when there was a referendum on our membership of the European Community.

The problem with a referendum is that often it is only practicable if the question can be reduced to its simplest form. That is not because the electorate cannot understand. Of course the electorate can understand many things about our political system and the policies put before it. That is why we usually get a sensible result at general elections and the Conservative party usually wins. Unless the question can be made simple, a referendum is not the right way to proceed.

Column 613

Mr. Cash : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Taylor : No, I should like to get into my speech.

Our Westminster system of democracy allows issues that are often complex affairs such as this to be debated in the Chamber and various aspects to be pulled together. It is then for the Government of the day to carry through the decision, whatever that decision may be. The supremacy of Westminster is an important facet of the way that we run our affairs. It is an important reason for the stability of this country where we are not subjected to wild upheavals. Issues that can be reduced to a simple question are not the way to conduct our affairs. I prefer to have the complex debates that we can have, even though there are such things as Whips, although they are not supposed to be mentioned in polite company. There are other ways, however, of conducting our discussions in the House and of informing ourselves. Those who are interested in a particular subject are more than capable of informing themselves about Maastricht. As I look around the Chamber, I see many hon. Members who have participated in the European debates that we have held in recent years.

Mr. Cash : Will my hon. Friend note that under the protocol on the transition to the third stage of economic and monetary union the fact is that, irrespective of the other protocol that enables us to opt out of it for the time being, we should be precluded from exercising any veto over our entry, as a Community, into economic and monetary union in the third stage? Does not my hon. Friend therefore perceive that what he is saying is absolutely at the heart of the question whether the British people will have the freedom of choice to determine their economic and social priorities because of the nature of the institution of the central bank? Does he not think that that could easily be reduced through, say, Mr. Speaker's Conference or an independent commission to a question that would be evenly balanced and would put the British people in the position of being able to make a free choice about a free democracy?

Mr. Taylor : My hon. Friend is a great expert on constitutional matters and I bow to his wisdom, but he will know that the principle negotiated at Maastricht by the British Government is that this House of Commons will make the decision prior to the transition. I have read all the yellow pages, just as my hon. Friend has. He knows that the House will have that right. It is a very important point. What the Government have done is, in effect, to enshrine what I am saying : that Westminster should make the decision. That is the basis of my argument for being reluctant to agree to a referendum as a way of conducting our affairs.

Mr. Gill rose--

Mr. Favell rose--

Mr. Taylor : I believe in the supremacy of Westminster and that that principle should be enshrined. I see that my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell) are trying to intervene. I know that Madam Deputy Speaker is anxious that I should not give way on too many occasions, but I shall give way to one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Gill : My intervention will be brief. Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the essential point in the case

Column 614

that has been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is that, in the unique circumstances where a majority of Opposition Members take the view that is shared by the majority of my hon. Friends, when it comes to a general election the electorate will not be given the right to make a choice about these important and fundamental constitutional issues? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is that only by having a referendum will they be given that choice and that it would be wrong to deny them that choice.

Mr. Taylor : I regard that argument as slightly dangerous. The reality is that, when one votes in a general election, one votes for the party that one believes can best look after a whole series of complex issues on behalf of the nation, not one particular issue. That is another reason why I think that the country as a whole should vote for a Government who can deal with all the issues, including issues as complex as this. When it comes to the general election, regardless of the fact that the parties may appear to agree about the main thrust of the issue, they will approach the issue in very different ways. There are already distinct differences of approach between the two Front Benches. There is a particularly distinct difference when it comes to the views of the Liberals, who start with the principle that they would prefer to have a European federal, centralist state rather than Westminster itself. Many of the Liberals, in debates that I have had with them outside the Chamber, have openly said that.

Mr. Alex Carlile rose--

Mr. Taylor : I shall willingly give way to a constitution-monger.

Mr. Carlile : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when he uses the term central federal state it shows that he does not understand what he is talking about? The whole concept of federalism is that one does not have centralisation. One has government that is devolved to parts of the federation. He has no authority to talk about Liberal or Liberal Democrat policy--I am not sure whether he is being particular or general--unless he understands the concepts.

Mr. Taylor : The hon. Gentleman does not know about the debates that I have had with other members of his party. Many Liberals take many different views, depending on the circumstances, on these issues. Of course I understand the difference. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will see that I intend to turn to the federal issue. The word "federal" is a false friend and a false enemy. It means different things to different people.

Mr. Favell : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Taylor : No ; I must make progress.

Mr. Favell : My intervention would help my hon. Friend's argument.

Mr. Taylor : My hon. Friend makes an absolutely wonderful offer, which I must accept.

Mr. Favell : My hon. Friend and I have crossed swords on this subject on many occasions. A moment ago he said that at the general election the people of this country will vote for who is to govern the country and who should form the Government. What concerns people like me, however,

Column 615

is whether the government of this country is to pass elsewhere. People will not be asked that fundamental question at the election. Why should they not be asked that fundamental question?

Mr. Taylor : I shall cover the point made by my hon. Friend, but first I must make progress with my speech.

Federalism can mean all things to all people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said, to the Germans "federal" means decentralisation of power. Therefore, it is a false friend. What we must look at is where the negotiations are taking us in the Community. The European Community was founded in the 1950s on political grounds. We used to refer to it as an economic Community. It was an economic Community because economics was the way to deliver political objectives. They ran side by side, but they were also closely interlinked. The point made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is valid today in terms of the relationship between the French and the Germans. It was certainly valid in the 1950s. Times have not changed.

The reason that the French were keen to develop the Community in the 1950s was that they realised that they must not repeat the mistakes that were made after the first world war when the policy towards Germany was almost to force it into some form of isolation and to enforce reparations. The French understood that the way to bring Germany back to a strong position within the landmass of Europe was to make political concessions and to enter joint structures that would enable both nations to grow together, although at the outset that might have appeared to reduce French sovereignty over many decisions that otherwise they would have taken independently. That was the motivation for the Community.

It is interesting to note that that political aspect of the Community, which caused many of the countries that joined the European Free Trade Association to stay outside, has become the greatest catalyst for change in the wider Europe and has meant that the Community has been a successful institution both internally and for change in Europe as a whole. The members of EFTA are now knocking at the door not only of an economic agreement with the Community but of a political arrangement, since that would be implied if they entered full membership.

The strength of the Community is something that we should have accepted all the way through. When we joined the Community in the 1970s we left EFTA to join not an economic bloc but a political organisation where there was a clear framework, provided in the treaty of Rome, that implied certain concessions by Britain as a nation--not least that ultimately there would be supremacy of law through the European Court of Justice. Those decisions were taken in the 1970s.

The act of joining the Community committed us to changing our way of political life to embrace aspects of the constitution of the European Community. That was debated and agreed in the House. Subsequently, and rightly--I played an active part in the campaign--it was confirmed in the referendum. The question was straightforward and was, in effect, "Do you want in or out?"

Sir Teddy Taylor : Rubbish. It was, "Do you want to withdraw?"

Column 616

Mr. Taylor : The British people clearly decided that they wanted to stay in the Community.

Mr. Spearing : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor : No. I will not be distracted from my point. I was involved in the campaign, so I understand. That was the effective question.

Since that time, Britain has been acting in accordance with the treaties of Rome and has embraced their implications. We have often had difficult debates in the House because we have not fully appreciated the implications of what was agreed.

I was not a Member when the Single European Act was passed, but several of its chapter headings were clear. However, we tended to think that they would never happen, partly because they were not subject to qualified voting.

Sir Teddy Taylor : We did not.

Mr. Cash : We did not.

Mr. Taylor : My hon. Friends were far sighted, and no doubt they contributed to the debate. The reality is that those headings were included.

Under the Maastricht treaties, we have taken further steps forward within the confines of the treaties of Rome, such as new agreements on voting patterns. That is not a new principle but merely development of an existing principle.

Mr. Spearing : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor : I will give way at the end of this section so that the hon. Gentleman can see it in the round.

There is a new factor-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for cross-talk.

Mr. Taylor : I am grateful for your protective intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.

A new factor has emerged from the treaty of Maastricht. The object of the Community has always been to achieve ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe. Interestingly, under the Maastricht agreement, the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe can be furthered outside the confines of the rule of law of the European Court of Justice. That is the pillar approach that my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned this morning, to which I am sure he will return later. There is, therefore, a new dimension in the treaties of Maastricht, but it is less worrying to those who are concerned about the overall nature of the Community than it would have been if the separate pillars of foreign policy and justice had been brought within the institutions of the Community.

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but perhaps we could have prevented the contretemps if he had done so earlier. May I take him back to what he alleged was the question in the referendum? I agree that that may have been the effective question in some people's minds, but surely he will agree that the actual question was something like this : "Do you agree with remaining a member of the European Economic Community on the terms recently renegotiated by Her Majesty's Government? Yes or no?" Since the Government distributed half the "Yes" literature, it was

Column 617

not surprising that the vote was two to one in favour. The hon. Gentleman may think that that was an endorsement of our entry, but it was nothing of the sort.

Next Section

Home Page