Davey defends the Lib Dem In-Out Referendum Policy

12.34.13pm UTC (GMT +0000) Thu 6th Mar 2008

[Mar 05] . . Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): rose-

William Hague (Richmond (Yorks), Conservative): I give way to the author of the "mouse" argument

Hon. Members: Squeak, squeak!

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is as usual making an amusing speech. However, will he deal with the substance for a change? Will he give a proper answer about the difference between the provisions of the constitutional treaty and the Lisbon treaty on justice and home affairs, which are among the most significant changes proposed by the constitutional treaty? Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are now major opt-ins that make a complete difference to how the Lisbon treaty affects the United Kingdom? Will he agree with that on the record?

William Hague (Richmond (Yorks), Conservative): We had that discussion just 10 minutes ago. Of course there are changes between the Lisbon treaty and the constitution, and I have just listed some others. However, they do not equate to the difference between a man and a mouse, which is the argument here.

The Spanish Prime Minister has said: "We have not let a single substantial point of the constitutional treaty go."

The Finnish Europe Minister has said: "There's nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."

The German Chancellor has said: "The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."

. . .

. . Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): It is already clear from the debate that the key question is whether the Lisbon treaty is the same as the constitutional treaty. There is a strong case that Members who promised a treaty referendum at the general election and who agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that the treaties are the same should back the Conservative amendment, and that those who do not agree with him should not support it. However, Members who are in favour of a referendum on the principle, as the Liberal Democrats are, but not on one on Lisbon on the grounds that it is different from the old constitutional treaty, should abstain tonight, as we will.

The Conservatives have said throughout our proceedings that the old and new treaties are more or less the same. They are wrong. The truth is that the treaties are different in nature-different in the very essence of what they mean-and that for the UK especially there are key differences in substantive detail. The fact that the Conservatives try to ignore that does them absolutely no credit-and neither does their shabby complicity with the Government yesterday, when they conspired to restrict choice and curb free speech in this House. They have gagged open debate on Europe in this House, and we will make sure the voters know that.

Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford & Woodford Green, Conservative): I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I must ask him a very simple question. Alongside the Government, he has consistently made a strong case that the treaty is not the same as the constitution-that they are very different. That is the substance of his case. We think that the Government are reneging on their position, but they are voting against the amendments to hold a referendum. Why is it that, with his strong case, the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to vote either against the referendum or for it, but instead just sits on the fence?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Member of this House, is not listening to what I am saying, and what we have been saying day in, day out. We have strongly argued that our pledge at the last election would be best honoured by an in-out vote; that is the nearest we can get to honouring it now that the constitutional treaty is dead.

Let me return to the differences between the treaties.

Mark Harper (Forest of Dean, Conservative): Let me just ask the hon. Gentleman this: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, made it clear that not only have we tabled amendments today, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) has tabled one too, and it gives the option of having a referendum not only on the Lisbon treaty but on the in-out question that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asks for. Why then are the Liberal Democrats not going to support that amendment, which could, of course, be amended in the other place, and instead are just going to sit on their hands? Is that because they are going to adopt the principle of constructive abstention-a new concept in this House-or is it because they are too frightened of their constituents?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has actually read the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson). It is an amendment that does not pose a question. Its tabler-we are looking forward to hearing from him shortly-has said that if the amendment were agreed to, his Government would put the question that we Liberal Democrats have been asking for. Yesterday, however, his colleagues voted against that; they voted against even allowing us to debate it. So why on earth does he think that we are going to vote for an amendment that offers those on his Front Bench the possibility of posing a question that they have refused to debate? It is an absurdity; it is one of the most ludicrous amendments ever to come before the House.

Chris Bryant (PPS (Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC (Leader of the House of Commons)), Leader of the House of Commons, Rhondda, Labour): I have never read a Liberal Democrat manifesto, and I have no intention of doing so in the near future. For all I know, the hon. Gentleman might be right to say that the best representation of his party's case would be to have a referendum on whether Britain should be in or out of the European Union. However, there is a serious point to today's debate, which is this: surely the Liberal Democrats can make their mind up whether there should be a referendum on the treaty itself? I know what the hon. Gentleman really thinks; he thinks there should not be. He should therefore join us in the Lobby tonight.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): Let me try once again, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. We have made it absolutely clear that we are in favour of the principle of a referendum on the European question, because we want to honour our pledge at the last election. We are not going to vote against the principle of a referendum tonight, which is why we are abstaining. We wanted the chance to debate our referendum question, but the hon. Gentleman, working with the Conservative party, conspired to prevent that. He should be ashamed of that position.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I want to make some progress; I will give way again later.

Let me return to the differences between the treaties, and in particular the different natures of the treaties. One treaty was of supreme constitutional significance; the other treaty simply makes modest reforms. One treaty replaced all the past EU treaties with one document; the other is merely an amending treaty. One treaty would, effectively, have given the people a chance to vote on the principle of Britain's membership of the EU, and the other would give the people a chance to vote on whether they wanted to cut the number of EU Commissioners by a third.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I will give way later.

The truth is that the Conservatives do not want to know the facts about the differences between the treaties. Why? Because they are embarrassed about their sorry legacy. The treaties that saw the most significant transfer of power, the Single European Act and Maastricht, were pushed through this House by Tory Governments, with not a word from the Tory Front Bench about a referendum. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, those on the Conservative Front Bench have only ever promised referendums when in opposition, and only on the minor treaties such as Amsterdam, Nice and now Lisbon. That shows how confused and opportunist their position is.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I shall give way to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Anne Main) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor).

Anne Main (St Albans, Conservative): If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this treaty is simply a bundling-up of a few amendments that he feels is necessary, why does he not support the Government tonight and ensure that we do not have a referendum, which they might well lose?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I refer the hon. Lady to the record, as I have answered that question at three separate stages.

Matthew Taylor (Truro & St Austell, Liberal Democrat): Did my hon. Friend notice that when the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), listed changes to the EU that had been set out in manifestos or passed through referendums, he omitted to mention the Single European Act-a surprising omission, given that that was the fundamental change that moved us from the Common Market to a single European Union? The truth is that the Conservative party has no record on this in government; it says a lot in opposition because it plays the field and seeks support from anti-Europeans, but in practice in government it votes entirely contrary to that. That does the Conservative party no credit at all.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The difference between the Lisbon treaty and the constitutional treaty is to do with that very point. The constitutional treaty would have allowed people a vote on the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, and Nice and Amsterdam. We should have had a referendum on that, because it was a genuinely constitutional treaty wrapping all up the other treaties in one document. The Lisbon treaty does not do that. A vote on Lisbon offers no vote on Rome, no vote on Maastricht and no vote on the Single European Act. It really is that simple.

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative): I am grateful to the Liberal spokesman for giving way. Does he not understand that people outside this place want a vote on what we are debating today, and think that that was promised to them by the Liberal Democrats? Now that he is so steeped in broken promises, and if he does not honour his words from the last election, why would they believe anything that the Liberal Democrats promise at the next election?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): The right hon. Gentleman would have done his case some good if he had voted with us yesterday. He would have enabled this House to vote tonight on a range of options, but his failure to do that means that when he makes such interventions today, he does not serve his own purpose.

Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat): May I take my hon. Friend back to a point that he made a few minutes ago? He made it very clear that the outcome of an in-out referendum and its implications would be very clear, but he also said that a referendum as proposed by the Conservative party would enable people to decide, for example, on whether to reduce the number of Commissioners. Could he confirm that, even if people voted as he has just described, it is not clear that that would lead to a reduction in the number of Commissioners? Indeed, it is not at all clear what the outcome of a no vote in a Conservative referendum would be.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks was challenged on this point, he could give no answer. In fact, there were many points today when he could give no answer.

I do not believe that we should judge the differences between the two treaties on a word-count, but the Committee might be interested to know that the constitutional treaty contained 157,000 words and the Lisbon treaty contains 44,000 words. That is the difference: one of the documents had all the treaties in it, and the other does not. Only the Conservatives could deny that significant difference.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I have given way already, and I promise that I will give way later, but first I want to make a little more progress.

I have been focusing on the difference in the nature of the treaties for a very good reason. We Liberal Democrats believe that referendums should be used not willy-nilly, but with care and sparingly, for issues of constitutional significance. Even for issues of constitutional significance, it is not always clear to me that we need a referendum. I do not think that anyone in any party argued for a referendum when this House passed the Human Rights Act-or, indeed, back in 1950, when the European convention on human rights was signed. We rarely, if at all, hear arguments that there should be a referendum on reform of the House of Lords or the Freedom of Information Act, so there are many constitutional issues on which people do not think there should be a referendum.

We believe that such analysis is directly relevant when one comes to make the judgment about whether a European treaty deserves a referendum. Treaties that make modest institutional reforms to make the European Union more efficient for enlargement, such as Lisbon, simply do not have the constitutional impact that some Members wish to ascribe to them.

Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe, Conservative): Does not the history of our European debates demonstrate that people demand referendums only when they think that they are going to win them, and that the Liberal Democrats vote for a referendum only when they are confident that they are going to lose the vote, so that no referendum will actually happen?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been a real ally during the debates on the Lisbon treaty, but I think that today he is not being one. He will not be surprised to know that I disagree with what he says.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall, Labour): The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who has a very principled position on referendums, has said today-unless I have got him wrong-that the treaty and the constitution are the same. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is misleading the House?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I would not say that about the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I would like to quote him on this treaty. He said just last year: "What we have now"- in the Lisbon treaty- "is far less important than Maastricht. I think the idea we have a referendum"- on the treaty- "is frankly absurd. Some of the Eurosceptics will have demanded a referendum just about the date on the top of the piece of paper." The right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he has suffered under them, knows exactly how bizarre the positions of the Eurosceptics are.

Julian Lewis (New Forest East, Conservative): Of course, the consistency of my right hon. and learned Friend's position is that because he believes that a referendum is inappropriate in this case, he is going to vote with the Government. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's position is that he should be voting with the Government, too, because he does not believe that a referendum is appropriate. Is not the real reason why he does not have enough of the courage of his convictions to vote with the Government the knowledge that some of his own Liberal Democrat colleagues are reluctant not to vote for a referendum, because they know that they would be breaking their promises at the last general election?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): That was not a very good try from the hon. Gentleman. He said that we were afraid of a referendum. We are absolutely not afraid of a referendum. His party could have supported us yesterday, and we could have had another question on a referendum debated today.

Jeremy Browne (Taunton, Liberal Democrat): Has not the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) perfectly summarised the Conservatives' position? In the 18 years for which they had a majority of MPs in this House and could have had a referendum at any point they wanted, they chose not to-but just at this point, when they do not have enough MPs to win a referendum vote, they have suddenly become in favour of one.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): Absolutely; my hon. Friend describes the Conservatives' position completely.

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat): The Conservatives have consistently failed to acknowledge that if they were to win the vote tonight, they would be in deep trouble. They have in no way explained how, if they won a referendum on a no vote, they would take the matter forward, how the British people would have voted and why they would not in fact plunge Britain and the United Kingdom into a state of paralysis in terms of our continuing relations with the European Union. The Conservatives can only vote as they intend to vote tonight knowing that they will lose.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I have to say that the position for the Conservatives is even worse. The only other parties in Europe that would support their position are Sinn Fein, a rag-bag of fascist and communist parties and the Dutch animal party. Those are the European parties with which they would be left to negotiate. The truth is that the Tories are isolated with extremists in Europe.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I want to make some progress, but I will take interventions later.

Angela Browning (Tiverton & Honiton, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): No, I want to make some progress. [ Interruption. ]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he wants to make some progress but will take interventions later.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): The Minister has informed me from a sedentary position that the new Government of Cyprus, who are communist, are actually supporting the treaty. I did not intend to do a disservice to them, so I am grateful to the Minister for that.

In examining the difference in the constitutional nature of the two treaties, I have been taking advice from the speeches of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. Back in 2006, he made a very interesting comment on the nature of European treaties. He said of the defunct constitutional treaty that "the fact that it was a Constitution, not simply a treaty, would have revolutionised the EU."

There we have it-a revolutionary document, or a simple treaty? Referendums are the democratic way- [ Interruption.] Revolutions are important in our government, and I would suggest that referendums are the democratic way to judge constitutional revolutions, but they are absolutely not the way to referee institutional reforms. That is why we Liberal Democrats believe that the only way to honour the pledge on Europe that most Members of this House gave at the last election is an in-out referendum.

We heard yesterday, and we have heard today, accusations that people think that this is some sort of ruse-that somehow, we have made it up, that we imagined it all of a sudden. Let me take the House back to the history of the pledge that we made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, explained before the general election what we considered our pledge to mean. When arguing the case for a referendum on the constitutional treaty, he said:

"It's time for this debate-time for us to decide what we actually want from Europe. I believe, once the argument has been joined, the consensus will be that it's better to be in than out."

He was right; that was the significance of our referendum pledge on the constitutional treaty.

Peter Lilley (Hitchin & Harpenden, Conservative): May I help the hon. Gentleman explain why his party cannot decide whether to vote in favour of keeping its promises or to vote against doing so? The explanation was spelt out by the leader of his party, who said that it would all depend on the electoral arithmetic in the House. The Liberal Democrats would vote for a referendum proposal that would be defeated, but because their joining us would mean that a referendum would take place, they have decided to abstain.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): That is absolutely not the case.

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative): I have listened to many of the Committee proceedings, during which the hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for the Lisbon treaty. He made exactly the same point in The Scotsman . He cited the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, saying that a vote on the Lisbon treaty would effectively be an in-out referendum. If that is effectively an in-out referendum, why on earth do they not vote for it?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): My point was that a vote on the constitutional treaty was the relevant in-out referendum. The hon. Gentleman has been honourable in his approach. He is from the "Better Off Out" group and he voted with us on 14 November, when we were grateful for his support.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I shall make some progress.

I have dealt at length with the difference in nature between the treaties, so let me deal with the differences of substantive detail. When one looks at the really big changes proposed in the old treaty, one finds that, as has emerged from the debate, by far the biggest one was on justice and home affairs. To be specific-as this debate so far has not been-the proposal that the EU would have competence over cross-border police co-operation and cross-border aspects of criminal justice represents, to any fair-minded person, a big shift. It is arguable whether it is of major constitutional significance, but it was the biggest proposed transfer of power in the original treaty.

What happened to that transfer provision in the time between the old and new treaties? It remained for other member states, but the United Kingdom negotiated new opt-ins. That is a massive change. When pressed, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks had to acknowledge that, in a way that Conservatives had not done during the rest of our proceedings. What is even more interesting about the UK opt-ins negotiated at Lisbon, which were not in the old treaty, is that they went much further; indeed, they took power back from the EU. Britain gained new opt-ins on aspects of JHA in areas that the Conservatives had signed away at Maastricht. That is one of the greatest ironies of this debate. The Conservatives not only want a referendum on a document that is significantly different, but in opposing the Lisbon treaty, they oppose powers being brought back to this country.

George Howarth (Knowsley North & Sefton East, Labour): Is not comparing the Lisbon treaty with the former constitution rather like comparing the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)? The similarities are superficial but the differences are profound.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): The right hon. Gentleman has it in one, and I congratulate him.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour): I return to the reference to Maastricht. This is our 11th day of debate on the Lisbon treaty. Has a member of the official Opposition explained at any point during those 11 days, which have involved many hours of debate each day, how the Lisbon treaty contains an issue of greater constitutional significance than was contained in the Maastricht treaty?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): Absolutely not; there has been a deafening silence. Interestingly, up to this point the Conservatives could not wait to intervene on me, but when I made the point about substantive difference and JHA they would not comment or intervene. They have been found out.

William Cash (Stone, Conservative): rose-

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will be able to say what the differences are.

William Cash (Stone, Conservative): I would rather deal initially with the reference to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and me. It is perfectly apparent from our proceedings that he, like me, has been honest in his convictions on this issue. Our approaches have been based on our assessments of the way in which Europe should go, and that is why we have so much in common and why, despite our differences, we can maintain a parliamentary friendship.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I doubt whether a love-in is emerging in the Conservative party. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to be a therapist, but I do not deny the veracity of what he says.

When one examines both treaties, one finds some similarities. I have never sought to deny that, but the similarities are on the modest measures-on the less significant, non-constitutional issues. People have tried to quantify the similarities by number-the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks talked about that-but, interestingly, not by importance. They have also quantified them by saying how much of the Lisbon treaty was in the constitutional treaty, but not by saying how much of the constitutional treaty is in the Lisbon treaty; those are two different things.

Bob Spink (Castle Point, Conservative): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): No. Let us examine some of the many similarities. Both treaties sought to change "ecu" to "euro" and "economic community" to "European Union" in all the past treaties. Both treaties contain a hatful of useful reforms, from energy liberalisation to information sharing about sex offenders, from cutting the bureaucracy to strengthening accountability. Are those the reasons why any of us promised a referendum? Absolutely not. Is it contentious to co-operate on tackling terrorism more effectively? Do we need a referendum on that? Why are the Conservatives so worried about Britain being more able to influence countries in eastern Europe? Is it to clamp down on the trafficking of guns, of drugs or of people? As has been said, when the facts change and the treaties change, people should have the courage to admit that.

Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston, Labour): I would like to challenge the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "modest". I think it is good that the size of the Commission will be reduced, because I want an effective Commission, but we must consider the institutional structures. There is a basic principle that at any one time every country should be represented in the Commission. Once the Commission's size is reduced that will no longer happen. That is significant, so the treaty contains big changes. Some may be good, others not so good, but the word "modest" does not apply.

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady. The idea that that is a constitutional issue deserving of a referendum is wrong. She will have to talk about the transfers of powers; that is the issue. The transfers of competence in the treaty concern things such as space policy. I do not know whether other hon. Members think that we should have a referendum about space policy, but I do not believe we should.

Andrew Murrison (Westbury, Conservative): rose-

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): No, I will not give way, because I want to make some progress. As the House knows, the Liberal Democrats believe that there should be a referendum on Britain's membership, because as pro-Europeans, we want to argue that case. We believe that such a referendum would enable us to get on to the front foot for the first time in a generation to argue the case for Europe. More importantly, it would enable us to set to rest people's concerns about Europe and rebuild the deep coalition for Europe. Whether on climate change or on globalisation, on beating terrorism or on tackling international crime, the arguments for the future role of Europe are as strong as the past arguments for a Europe that has helped to bring peace and prosperity, democracy and human rights to our once battered and divided continent.

With so much at stake, there is a price to be paid for a strategy of Eurosceptic appeasement, which some pro-Europeans have adopted. That appeasement process means that deliberate misrepresentations of Europe go unchallenged, policies that are in the interest of Britain are not adopted, and the power of Britain's voice and influence at the European table is diminished and reduced. How long can we go on appeasing the people who hold such views? They are damaging Britain's national interest. The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues must address that point, because they are in danger of becoming the arch-appeasers.

The Prime Minister will jump when Mr. Murdoch calls, but arrived deliberately late for a European summit with 26 other countries. Rather than running away from their pledge on a referendum, Labour should have joined us yesterday. After all, it was Tony Blair who said about the referendum in 2004: "It is time to resolve once and for all whether this country, Britain, wants to be at the centre and heart of European decision making or not." For once, he knew the historic significance of what he had signed.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman include in the Liberal Democrats' next election manifesto a pledge to have an in-out referendum? If so, will the electorate believe them, given that their last manifesto said that they wanted a referendum on the treaty?

Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): The hon. Lady still has not got it, and I am slightly worried for her. I will argue for the inclusion of an in-out referendum in our manifesto, but we shall decide that in the proper way. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary or the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks are writing their manifestos tonight either.

It is time that we took the Europhobes on and called their bluff. I am sceptical about Eurosceptics. On the whole, they are really anti-Europeans and Europhobes, seeking to adopt a veneer of respectability and unwilling to see that to reform Europe is to be in Europe, at the table, arguing for your views. With a referendum on membership, the weakness of that position would be exposed, and with the yes vote winning through, as I believe it would, Britain could be unshackled from the chains of appeasement and ensure that European policy was based once again on a clear calculation of the national interest, and not on the interests of a weak Government avoiding screaming anti-European headlines. We know from the polls that it is the referendum on membership that the British people really want. The MORI poll last weekend was the only poll of the British people that has asked the relevant question-whether "if there were to be a referendum on Britain's relationship with Europe, would you prefer it to be a referendum only on the Lisbon Treaty, or a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU." In that poll, more than two to one backed the in-out option.

Unfortunately, that option is not before the House because Labour and the Conservatives ganged up to gag the proposal the British people want. It has been rejected by the Conservatives because it would split them from top to bottom. By gagging debate and by opposing the vote that the British people really want, the Conservatives have once again lost the plot on Europe. They deserve to lose the vote tonight.