---

Column 468

historic decision. This issue is said to be an extremely complicated one, but I wonder whether that is really true. Perhaps all great issues are essentially very simple. Perhaps we make them complicated when we do not want to face them. The very simple question that I want the British people to be asked is : "Do you want to be governed by the House of Commons or Brussels?"

This is about our country's independence, integrity and individuality. It is about all those things which, as has already been mentioned in the debate today, pilots in the battle of Britain fought and died for. In its own way, the treaty is a battle for Britain, the big difference being that we, as Members of Parliament, do not have to sacrifice our lives but only to cast our votes. I hope that when hon. Members cast their votes, they will allow the people of this country to say what they want our votes to mean and to stand for in the years to come.

Mr. Austin Mitchell : It is an unusual pleasure to be able to follow speeches by members of the two main Front Benches because in Maastricht debates we have usually heard no senior but junior members of the Front Benches--senior members of the Front Benches have wanted to stay away and not commit themselves to anything in the dead of night. It is interesting that two senior Front Benchers feel so guilty about what is being said in opposing a referendum that they have come to justify it at such length and in such arcane ways. 1.15 am

The Foreign Secretary's speech was interesting. I have always regarded him as an other-worldly figure, possibly a foreigner, in his Loden overcoat about which I heard someone remark, "The last time I saw someone wearing an overcoat like that, I shot him." His speech revealed that he is so other- wordly that he has spent the past six months on another planet. He feels that the people of this country are in favour of the Maastricht treaty and that the overwhelming majority of the Conservative party is in favour of it and opposed to a referendum.

If he feels that, why not put it to the test? Why not put the issue to the people if they think as he believes they do? Instead, he says that we should not have a referendum because we did not have one on the Single European Act which, to people like me, simply means that one should not trust politicans again. They said that the Act changed nothing but subsequently admit that it changed everything so much that we should have had a referendum. The Foreign Secretary even says that the 1975 referendum produced a final verdict. Yet we were positively assured that it had stopped progress towards monetary union and all the things that we are being offered now.

My party's Front Bench spokesman gave a brilliant performance in whipping up support for a referendum. For that reason, I did not want to interrupt him. However, he did not deal with the central argument of those of us who want a referendum. It has nothing to do with the intricate politics of Scottish nationalism or an internal argument in Scotland. I hesitated to intrude on the domestic row. The central point is our belief that, on a matter of basic constitutional change, the people should be consulted. That is what it is about, not a desire to bring down the Government or to do anything else. The people have a right to be consulted.

I thought that the Liberal Front Bench spokesman made the most effective speech of the three Front Bench

---

Column 469

spokesmen. He made the basic point that the only way to get the treaty settled in and accepted and to get popular consent is to let the people speak. If not, there will be the long whingeing embittering rear-guard action about which the critics of a referendum have complained all along. Refusal will guarantee that the bitter feeling of frustration will be amplified.

If we now refuse the people a referendum, they will justly feel cheated because they will have been cheated. When the consequences of the treaty, in terms of economic deflation and the other problems that we have foreseen, become apparent, their resentment will take the form of a long, whimpering, whingeing bitterness, which will guarantee that neither the treaty nor European union will be acceptable to them and that both will be bitterly resisted. One cannot make people enthusiastic about Europe by putting them out of a job or, especially, by not telling them that that will be the consequence of the treaty or by not giving them the opportunity to say whether they want to accept it in the first place. A referendum is the only way to get democratic acceptance of the treaty.

I cannot see what the critics of a referendum fear. They have the support of the Front-Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House, and the Foreign Secretary tells us that they have the support of the Conservative party. They have the support of the majority of the Labour party, and the support of the Liberals, the Scottish nationalists, the CBI, the TUC--so they tell us--and of the press and all the rest of the media. They have the support of The Independent and of The Guardian, which believes in "My Europe, right or wrong, "--or, as The Guardian would put it, "My Europe right or wrong." Yet with all that support they still fear that there will not be a majority in favour of Maastricht. That is inconceivable. Their case must be absolutely pathetic if even with all that support they fear that Maastricht will be rejected.

At this stage in the argument I must make a confession. When I used to teach political science--when I was concerned with the theory, before coming here to fail the practicals--I opposed referendums, for two basic reasons. First, I thought that the system as it was worked well and that party government gave us the power to change. I thought that a majority, a mandate, would give a Labour party the power to change the system in this country and make it a fairer society. Secondly, I believed that a referendum, as a conservative device that was opposed to change, would deny us that power. We have to face the fact that a referendum is a conservative device.

Those two reasons for opposing referendums were confirmed by my first experience of a referendum in 1967. In New Zealand I voted in favour of ending the 6 o'clock swill. That was a basic mistake in my life, because the result changed New Zealand society and ruined social habits there. It meant that people were drinking all night instead of going totally berserk and being out of their brains by 7 o'clock, with the rest of the evening to sober up. So my first referendum vote was a basic mistake.

Since then I have changed my view, because the social base on which parties and politics in this country rests is now out of adjustment with the polity in the country. Because the social base has changed we now get, not alternation of parties, not the power to change things, but a prolonged period of dictatorship by the minority. That is the consequence of the change in the system.

---

Column 470

There is now a growing gulf between politics, politicians and parties on the one hand, and the people on the other. There is now a class of professional career politicians who want to get on, and one way to get on is to testify one's loyalty to Europe, the source of all blessing, jobs, sinecures and cashflow. Ours becomes a system in which people climb by conforming, and as they do so they get more and more out of touch with the people. That gulf is compounded by the economic difficulties of a country in decline, which mean that politicians cannot deliver the well-being that people ask for. For all those reasons, there is a gulf between politicians and people, and the people feel resentful. They feel that they are not consulted or listened to. We make that worse if we do not allow them to be consulted on a basic constitutional issue. They should be consulted on constitutional issues, and the Labour party has led the way in doing that. We gave the people the referendum on entry, although it came belatedly in 1975, and we gave the people a referendum on devolution in Scotland and Wales. It went against us, and it was not adequate, but it was Labour party policy to consult the people.

Mr. Salmond : The referendum did not go against you. The people supported it.

Mr. Mitchell : The figure was slightly over 50 per cent., but we did not get the 40 per cent. that we required ; it was 32.8 per cent. or something like that. I forget the exact figure. All that I am saying is that we gave the people the referendum ; it was Labour party policy, which we all voted for and supported. Why now change our minds? It is clear that there should be a referendum on a constitutional issue.

Mr. Graham : My hon. Friend will know that the Labour party's policy in Scotland is to have a multi-referendum. We are still keen to have one, so we would give the people in Scotland the right to make a decision on a highly complex issue. I say, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees, that we shall be insulting the intelligence of the people of Britain if we do not give them a referendum. I do not know which way the people of Britain would vote. However, that is not important. The point is that democracy is important. If it is good for Boris Yeltsin, it is good for other folk.

Mr. Mitchell : I am not sure whether everything that is good for Boris Yeltsin is good for me. I do not take as much of it, if I can put it that way.

The people should be consulted on constitutional issues. Labour has consulted them in the past and there will be a change in their powers over our system of government in respect of their constitutional role. In respect of Maastricht, we cannot make people citizens of a union, with the rights and duties of citizens of a union, without consulting them. We cannot impose on the people the kind of economic framework that we are imposing on them without consulting them. This basic change is being made by the back door. There is a surge and drive to unity in Europe. However, popular consent cannot be achieved in referendums and there is no intergovernmental agreement. If we had been able to achieve intergovernmental agreement, the CAP would not have survived for as long as it has, still absorbing more than 60 per cent. of Europe's spending. As popular consent and intergovernmental agreement cannot

---

Column 471

be achieved, the idea is to impose unity from the top down through monetary union which is the core of the Maastricht treaty. As a result, we will be committed to re-enter the ERM and to monetary union. As part of the treaty we are committed to hand over the powers that a Labour Government, or any sensible Government, would need to revive the declining economy of this country and to widen our industrial base. That includes power over interest rates, over the exchange rate, over borrowing and over the money supply. All those tools will have been handed over. We do not have the ability or the right to hand over to another entity those powers which rightly belong to the people and the Government whom they elect, without consulting the people. However, that is what we are being asked to do. It is a mistake to create a Europe in which central bankers rule OK and untrammelled without any control over their decisions without consulting the people. We should not hand over those weapons.

At one stage in the debate, we asked what a Labour Government would do, when they took office in 1996 with a mandate to rebuild the economy, to fight rising unemployment and to widen the industrial base, if all those powers had been handed over. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman said, "Oh well, we'll go to Brussels and negotiate." We will not actually do anything because we cannot do anything, so we end up with the spectacle of a Labour Government--a Labour Government--hiring taxis to scuttle around Brussels to ask permission to stop making their own people redundant as consequence of the treaty.

It has been said that this is not irrevocable, but it is. It is absolutely irrevocable. Once the powers are gone, they are gone and that is it. It has also been said that we do not need to consult the people in a referendum because they have already been consulted in the election. That is totally bogus. All the parties presented the same policies on Maastricht. There was no choice for people in most constituencies who were against the treaty. What were they to do? Were they to abdicate the hope of change or were they to concentrate simply on the issue of Maastricht? It is totally unrealistic to claim that the election decided the issue.

It is also unrealistic to say that Parliament should decide the issue because there is effectively a conspiracy between the parties.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell : Yes, of course. I am sorry, I did not see the hon. Gentleman rising.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Will the hon. Gentleman avoid misleading his Front Bench about the powers after the Maastricht treaty has been passed? Does he accept that the power available to a possible future Labour Government to go to Brussels and plead for certain changes in policy will be removed totally when the central bank takes over? Will the hon. Gentleman consider page 91 of the treaty where he will see that, after the central bank takes over, no Labour Government, Conservative Government or even a Liberal Democrat Government will be allowed to make representations or a telephone call to the bank, or even send it a letter? Does he appreciate that it is not simply the

---

Column 472

abolition of freedom, democracy, socialism or conservatism? Basically, it means that there is not much point in voting for anyone at the next election.

1.30 pm

Mr. Mitchell : The hon. Gentleman is correct. Our only power will be not to send letters to the bank but to receive letters from it. Presumably, we will be charged 30 million ecu for each letter telling us that we are in overdraft. The hon. Gentleman reinforces my point. Government Front Bench and Labour Front Bench spokesmen are saying the same thing : the treaty is not perfect ; it will not work well ; time has passed it by ; it is probably dead and it is unable to be implemented but we must still pass it as a testimony to our commitment to the Community. Our electors--the people --do not share that commitment, but we must testify to it to Europe. For the first time, the Liberals have tasted power--

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

The Committee divided : Ayes 299, Noes 110.

Division No. 245] [1.30 am

AYES

Adley, Robert

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Alton, David

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Bellingham, Henry

Beresford, Sir Paul

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Booth, Hartley

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Bowden, Andrew

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Peter

Butterfill, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Churchill, Mr

Clappison, James

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Colvin, Michael

Congdon, David

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Cormack, Patrick

Couchman, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Dafis, Cynog

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Devlin, Tim

Dickens, Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Dunn, Bob

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Eggar, Tim

Elletson, Harold

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Evennett, David

Faber, David

Fabricant, Michael

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fishburn, Dudley

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Foster, Don (Bath)

---