---

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Government have changed their position on the matter. We were told for a long time that the issue was solely a matter of economics. However, in order to justify a referendum on the euro and not on the forthcoming treaty, we are suddenly told that the euro has constitutional significance. It would be helpful if the papers relating to that change of view were placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart) rose—

Alan Howarth (Newport, East) rose—

Mr. Ancram: I want to make progress, as the debate was severely delayed by the Government statement that preceded it. Many Opposition Members want to take part in this debate.

I am sure that we will also hear the usual attacks for not backing referendums in the past. The answer is straightforward. Ten or 12 years ago, we did not have referendums. Even Labour Members argued in many debates—and I can give the House examples, if necessary—against referendums. However, nowadays we do have referendums, and that is because this Government have made them readily available as a political and constitutional device for allowing people to decide. There has even been legislation on the systems of referendums.

The Government have used referendums with gusto. There have been 47 referendums since 1997, on matters ranging from the Belfast agreement and devolution for Scotland and Wales to the London Mayor and Assembly and the much-canvassed mayor of Hartlepool; many more are promised on regional assemblies. This Government love referendums, as they have shown over and over again—but not on this matter, the most important and far-reaching issue of the lot. It is their instant ruling-out of one on the European constitution that stands out.

Why this matter? What are the Government afraid of? If the people's consent to set up a mayor of Hartlepool is so important, why is it to be denied for the setting-up of a European president of a European political Union? The answer, we were told by the Prime Minister again in Warsaw, is that neither the Convention nor the IGC represents

"a fundamental change to the British Constitution and to our system of parliamentary democracy".

How does the Prime Minister know what an IGC that has not yet begun is going to represent? On that basis, how can he rule out a referendum now?

Angus Robertson (Moray): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: In a moment.

11 Jun 2003 : Column 709

Today's amendment changes the criteria. Out goes the phrase

"a fundamental change to the British Constitution",

and in comes the phrase

"do not involve a fundamental change in the relationship between the EU and its Member States".

Those are two very different sets of criteria. In a sense, it is perhaps all about words, but what matters is the reality.

Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman is making eminently logical points about a constitution being of constitutional significance, and that therefore citizens should be able to vote on the matter. The Government entered into the Convention process for two reasons, one of which was to reconnect with citizens of the EU. Surely the best way to reconnect with citizens is to give them a choice—in this case, whether they are for or against a constitution?

Mr. Ancram: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my later remarks, I shall produce some interesting quotations to underline that point.

I was saying that it is the reality that matters, not the words. We are at the moment part of an albeit imperfect Europe of nations. I believe that the European Union is in need of reform, but if the Convention proposals as they stand were ratified in a treaty we would be part of something fundamentally different.

I do not mind whether we call it a superstate, a federal power or—the Prime Minister's preferred option—a superpower. I do not care whether we call it a politically united Europe or even Romano Prodi's "advanced supranational democracy". All I know is that it will not be what we have now. It will be a step change away from that. I do not understand how can the Government can claim that that does not involve a fundamental change of the relationship between the EU and its member states, because it changes that relationship: member states would go from being partners to being subservient components.

If we look at the overall result of the Convention's proposals, we begin to see what is happening. The proposals will lead to a legal personality, a constitution, a president and a foreign secretary. It will involve fundamental rights, including the right to strike, legally enforceable at a European level. There will be a common foreign and security policy, and a European prosecutor. European law will have explicit primacy, and it will have an increasing role in criminal law, especially in procedure. There will be shared competence over immigration and asylum, with no veto, and Europe's powers will be expanded into vast areas, from transport to energy. There could even be—who knows?—a common currency.

Each of those elements diminishes our existing national sovereignty in one way or another. Together, they build a new and distinct political entity that has many of the attributes of a country. That is the truth, however hard the Government seek to disguise it. To call this a tidying-up exercise is laughable, and simply not true.

11 Jun 2003 : Column 710

One of the Convention's leading members, the former Italian Prime Minister Lamberto Dini, said in The Sunday Telegraph of 1 June:

"The Constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives . . . and eventually will become an institution and organisation in its own right."

That may not suit the Government's agenda, but Lamberto Dini is on the Convention, and that is what he believes will happen. That is the reality.

Alan Howarth: That is the point of view of that politician, but the right hon. Gentleman anticipates the result of the IGC. Does he not accept that Europe already has a constitution in terms of its working arrangements? If our Government handle our national interests in the IGC as I expect them to, the document that will emerge will not involve a surrender of crucial national powers to a federal structure in Europe, or whatever the right hon. Gentleman cares to call it. Would it not be wiser for us all not to be dogmatic at this stage? If a question arises of a fundamental transfer of power, there should be a referendum. However, should we not refrain from taking dogmatic positions on the point until we are presented with that question?

Mr. Ancram: I was trying to suggest to the House that we look at the totality of what is being done. I used to practise in the courts, and one could take little bits of evidence and say that none of them amounted to much on its own. What matters is the eventual result of putting them all together. I am suggesting to the House that what is being created, whether one wants it or not, is very different from what we have now. If that is the case, it is of constitutional significance, and it should be the subject of a referendum.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Has my right hon. Friend seen the proposals for a European foreign minister? Will he try to tell us what that is all about? What would that minister do, and to whom would he be answerable?

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I missed the foreign minister out, but I meant to include him in the list of components that will be available at the end of the process. I believe that those components will change the nature of the EU. My hon. Friend makes the point that an EU foreign secretary and a common foreign and security policy would mean that the circumstances of the EU would be very different from what they are at the moment. We must consider that point as we determine whether a referendum is necessary or not.

The Government know that the proposals are far reaching. The Treasury's own single currency assessments published on Monday state:

"Many of the issues being considered by the European Convention could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro area or not."

That means us, and it does not sound to me like tidying up. It sounds much more like the Prime Minister's criteria of economic significance as well as constitutional significance, about which he spoke in Warsaw, where he said that they make a referendum sensible and right. His words also apply to what we see coming from the Convention.

11 Jun 2003 : Column 711

My party opposes the constitution, but that is not the point of the motion. The point is to give the British people the right to decide whom they believe and what choice they want to make about how this country goes forward in Europe. That is why we are pressing for a referendum. Parliament is sovereign, but, in my view, that sovereignty is granted to it in trust by the people. Parliament should not be able to alienate sovereignty permanently and irreversibly without the express consent, democratically given, of the electorate. In the absence of a general election, such authority can be given to Parliament only by a referendum.

Authority has not been given, nor have the Government sought it. There was no mention of a European constitution in their manifesto. That is another reason why a referendum is necessary. That is not just the view of the Conservative party or our country: the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) reminded us of the origins of the Convention, and I shall quote what Valéry Giscard d'Estaing said on 28 February 2002 when he launched it:

"Treaties are made by states and agreed by Parliaments, but constitutions are created by citizens and adopted by them in referendums."

That was his view then; I believe it remains his view today. The Danish Prime Minister, Mr. Rasmussen, was reported as saying on 28 May:

"What is at stake is so new and so big that it is right to hold a referendum".

From all corners of the debate in Europe, people are telling us that the constitution is a significant move forward and that it is a subject fitting for a referendum. The case for a referendum is compelling.

The motion refers carefully and deliberately to

"a treaty providing a constitution for the European Union".

That makes it even more difficult for me to understand how, without their knowing the eventual shape and contents of the treaty, the Government are able instantly to rule out a referendum. If they do not know what they will be looking at in the long term, how can they say that there will be no referendum? Why are the Government so frightened? Are they frightened that their smokescreen will be blown away, and is that why they dare not let the British people decide? Other countries will let their peoples decide. Denmark and Ireland will let the people decide. France, Portugal, Sweden, Finland and Austria may, in various ways, let their people decide. The Netherlands has just decided on a non-binding referendum. Only Britain, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Greece refuse point blank to let the people decide.

---