---

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. The letter that he, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and I wrote, against the advice of the Whips on both sides of the House, called for a free vote because a referendum was not available and we believed that the representatives of the people of this country should have as much free judgment as possible. I still take that view even if he does not. We have talked about the views of certain Conservatives on Estonia. It is strange that I am instructed that the views of people such as those whom he mentioned represent our party's policy. I could start suggesting that the views of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Iraq are suddenly the Labour party's policy. Members of the Conservative party are free to express their opinions and I am here to explain the Opposition's official line.

Mr. Foulkes rose—

Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) rose—

Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way because I want to make progress.

The criteria that the Government have set are cosmetic. We were told in June that there was no need for a referendum because, according to the right hon. Member for Neath, who has sadly left the Chamber, the treaty was largely a "tidying-up exercise" and according to the Foreign Secretary, it was a "streamlining process". They were trying to get across the message that the constitution was not important and that it did not really matter. How may the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights in the constitution or turning justice and home affairs into a supranational rather than an intergovernmental matter be described as mere tidying-up or streamlining? That defence was ludicrous, and as the details of the draft constitution became clearer the idiocy of the defence became clearer and even now it has been dropped.

Last Tuesday, the Foreign Secretary told the House that:

"the proposals in the current draft treaty do not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states".—[Official Report, 9 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 174.]

He said that there was therefore no justification for granting a referendum. The new test was a fundamental change to the relationship between the EU and its member states. However, at the same time, we learned from an interview published by the right hon. Member for Neath that behind the closed doors of the Cabinet room, the Prime Minister told his colleagues that:

"the outcome of the Convention is absolutely fundamental. It will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe, the prospects for the euro, and it would last for generations."

16 Sept 2003 : Column 781

If that is not a declaration that the constitution will fundamentally change relations between the European Union and its member states, I do not know what is.

I thought that the right hon. Member for Neath might have been mistaken or that his memory was at fault, but the Prime Minister did not deny saying that when he was challenged in the Chamber last Wednesday. He was not being helpful to the Foreign Secretary when he said:

"Of course the outcome of the convention is absolutely fundamental".—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 324.]

He used the word "fundamental" in the Chamber and when talking to his Cabinet colleagues. The last line of defence against the referendum has been washed away and the journey from "tidying-up"—the ludicrous first line of defence—to "fundamental" has been completed.

The proposed constitution is on any view a step change away from a Europe of nations to a European political entity or, to use the Prime Minister's word, a superpower. The EU will have a written constitution, a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, a single legal personality and a five-year presidency. There will be explicit primacy of EU law, an EU Foreign Minister who is allowed to represent member states at the United Nations, a currency, a flag, an anthem and, eventually, an army.

Mr. Straw: Of the many misconceptions that the right hon. Gentleman has uttered, one is completely and utterly untrue. A European Foreign Minister would not be allowed to represent the European Union member states at the United Nations, yet the right hon. Gentleman implied that France and the United Kingdom would lose their permanent seats as a result. That is simply not correct.

Mr. Ancram: If the right hon. Gentleman would listen, he would know that I did not say that: I said that the European Foreign Minister would be able to represent the European Union at the United Nations. That is what the words in the constitution say; all the Foreign Secretary's wriggling cannot disguise that fact. I say to him again: if all this does not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, what on earth does?

More important, the constitution is, on its own terms, irreversible. Once one is in it, one cannot change it back again—it can be amended only in an integrationist direction. Uniquely among constitutions, it can be fundamentally amended by the executive decision of the Council of Ministers without further approval from national Parliaments or any need for new treaties. It has none of the checks and balances or restraints that one would normally expect to find in a constitution. I ask once again: if this is not a fundamental change, what on earth is?

Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart): I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may have misrepresented the Prime Minister's views when he quoted from his speech in Cardiff last year. He said, more than once, that the Prime Minister described Europe as a superpower. In fact, the Prime Minister said:

"We fear—

he was talking about British fears—

16 Sept 2003 : Column 782

"that the driving ideology behind European integration is a move to a European superstate, in which power is sucked into an unaccountable centre."

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should also have quoted what the Prime Minister said a few minutes later—that

"we should understand that our opposition to Europe as some federal superstate is not a British obsession. It is in fact the reasonably settled view of most members of the EU".

Mr. Ancram: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the Prime Minister said later in that speech: "We are trying to create a European superpower, not a European superstate." He made that distinction. Yet every time that I have mentioned the word "superpower" over the past six months, Labour Members have shaken their heads and said, "Not true." It is about time they started studying the speeches of their Prime Minister a little more carefully; otherwise, their chances of promotion will be severely damaged.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ancram: I want to make progress, if I may. [Hon. Members: "Oh, go on."] I shall give way.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful. We must get this clear. Is my right hon. Friend saying that if the Government, as they seem to want to, intend to force through this new constitution against the wishes of the British people, and without seeking their support in a referendum, there is no way in which future elected Parliaments or Governments will be able to do anything about it? We should not play at party politics, but realise that we are discussing a very serious situation.

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely essential point. This is a one-way street. When one signs up to such a constitution, there is no way back. That is why it is such a fundamental question that must be put to the British people.

The best way of assessing fundamental change in the relationship between the member states of the Union is to examine the effects that it would have in practice. First, it is worth considering what we would not be able to decide for ourselves any more. We would no longer be able to decide on our own immigration and asylum policy; and we are to have our economic and employment policies co-ordinated—whatever that may mean. Secondly, we need to consider what we will, or can, be made to do against our will. Thirty-two vetoes are being given up, including those on judicial co-operation in criminal matters, establishing offences and penalties for serious crime, crime prevention, civil protection, intellectual property, and rules covering the self-employed. Those are all areas in which we are giving away and ceding our responsibility in the House to the European Union. The Government had better face up to that, as it is the reality of the situation.

Thirdly, we need to look at rights that we have retained but which can be eroded without further reference to treaties or the consent of national Parliaments in future. Under article I-17, the European Union may endow itself with the necessary powers to deal with any area touched by EU power, from defence

16 Sept 2003 : Column 783

policy to border controls. We could have the imposition of a common foreign and security policy, the creation of a European army, economic co-ordination leading to fiscal harmonisation, all without the agreement of Parliaments or peoples or even the usual treaty-making process.

All of those, whatever gloss is put on them by the Government, fundamentally change the relationship between the EU and its member states. We might have hoped that that would change during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference negotiations, but that is a false hope. Last week's White Paper clearly indicated that the Government have effectively swallowed the draft constitution hook, line and sinker, and that its reservations are cosmetic. There is no real threat of a British veto—the one negotiating weapon with which the Government should have gone into the IGC—either explicit or implicit if the so-called red lines are not met. We see that in the Government's new-found ambivalence about the legal enforcement of the charter of fundamental rights. Previously, we were told that that was a red line that they would not concede, but now we are told, "We will see what happens in the IGC and make our mind up at the end."

One of the major lines of defence of British interests—the Government amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath at the Convention—have simply disappeared off the table. There was a Government amendment dealing with asylum, which the right hon. Member for Neath described as fundamentally important, but it has been dropped. The Government said that they "did not accept" the title of "EU foreign Minister" because it was misleading, but that objection too has been dropped, along with the bulk of the 200 amendments that were tabled at the time.

When the right hon. Member for Neath said that there was no constitutional significance in the draft constitution, he was talking a language quite different from that of his colleagues in Europe. The German Minister of Foreign Affairs said:

"We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word historic."

He went on to say:

"It is the most important treaty since the formation of the European economic community."

The Danish Prime Minister put it crisply:

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

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, when asked about the question of a referendum on "Breakfast with Frost" on 25 May, said:

"For France, we normally have a referendum when we change the constitution."

When asked about a British referendum, he said that

"we are not demanding a referendum, but we will be very pleased if there is."

He obviously regarded the draft as a change in the constitution.

Given all the evidence that there is a significant change in our fundamental relationship with Europe, will we get our referendum? All the qualifications set by

16 Sept 2003 : Column 784

the Government in their own words been met, but a last desperate defence has been concocted. According to the Prime Minister last Wednesday, those

"who call for a referendum want it as the first step in a two-step process to get us out of Europe".—[Official Report, 10 September 2003; Vol. 410, c. 327.]

I remind Labour Members that that is simply untrue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in Prague on 10 July,

"The Conservative Party does not want Britain to leave the European Union. We want to make it work."

Indeed, the logic of the Prime Minister's attack is mind-boggling—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary would do well to listen because he will have to explain this to his colleagues abroad. The logic of the Prime Minister's attack is mind-boggling, and suggests that withdrawal is the agenda of all those who seek referendums on the draft constitution. Does he really believe that that is the reason why more than 80 per cent. of the British people want a referendum? Does he really think that 87 per cent. of his own constituents who want a referendum are part of some anti-European conspiracy? Is he saying that the Spanish Government, who are voluntarily to hold a referendum, are suddenly motivated by anti-Europeanism? Or that the Netherlands and Italy, in considering referendums, are somehow involved in a two-step process to get themselves out of Europe? Was President Chirac seeking to take France out of Europe when he said,

"I am logically in favour of a referendum. It would be the only legitimate way".

Those Governments know what the constitution is about, and they are facing up to the need to consult their own people about it.

---