PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

699 Debate on the Address
15 MAY 2013
Debate on the Address
700
[Hazel Blears]
a tax relief for social investment; I think that that is a
very good idea. It could release an extra half a billion
pounds into the market.
Difficult economic times demand creativity, innovation
and boldness. We must get behind that, and make it happen.
4.8 pm
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): It is a great
pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford
and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who made a passionate and
knowledgeable speech about social value.
Amendment (b) has been signed by 92 right hon. and
hon. Members, drawn from the Conservative, Labour,
Liberal Democrat, and Democratic Unionist parties.
The amendment respectfully regrets
“that an EU referendum Bill was not included in the Gracious
Speech.”
Members may wonder why I am speaking about the
European Union on a day that was allocated to a debate
on economic growth. The one thing that is certain is
that there is absolutely no connection between economic
growth and membership of the EU—quite the reverse.
However, it is the Labour Opposition who choose the
subject for each day of debate on the Queen’s Speech.
On no day did they choose to debate foreign affairs,
which indicates how little regard they have for international
relations in general and Europe in particular. I suspect
they did not want to let the House know of their
divisions over Europe.
The Prime Minister would have liked to put an EU
referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but was blocked
by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrats.
However, yesterday the Conservative party published a
draft EU referendum Bill. If this Bill can be debated in
Parliament, I believe it can become law.
Mr Hood: The hon. Gentleman has just imparted
some very interesting information to the House. Is he
saying that the Prime Minister has told the Conservative
party that he wanted a referendum Bill in this Queen’s
Speech but he was stopped by the Liberals?
Mr Bone: That is exactly what I am saying.
The published Bill is short and to the point. The
question is clear—
Stephen Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bone: May I make a little progress, as I am about
to quote the question?
The question is clear:
“Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a
member of the European Union?”
If the Bill is passed, the Prime Minister could try to
negotiate a European free trade area or, in other words,
a common market, without all the regulations, red tape,
and cost, without the EU laws, the European Court, the
European Parliament, the Commission and the bureaucracy,
without the £19 billion a year it costs just to be a
member of the EU, and without the £30 billion-plus
trade deficit with the EU each year. However, ultimately
I do not believe that these negotiations will succeed, not
because of the efforts of the Prime Minister, but because
of the attitude of the EU elite.
Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for
giving way. I sometimes think there are three parties in
the coalition: my party, the Liberal Democrats; the
sensible wing of the Conservative party, whose Members
serve on the Government Front Bench; and the hon.
Gentleman’s wing of the Conservative party. However,
my information is that the Conservative party did not
ask for this referendum to be in the Queen’s Speech, so I
think he ought to have a word with his colleagues.
Mr Bone: It is very good news that the Liberal
Democrats have had a change of heart and will now
allow the European referendum Bill to come forward in
Government time. I appreciate that useful intervention.
In any case, once these negotiations have finished,
there will, for the first time in 30 years, be a vote by the
people of this country on whether we should remain in
the European Union. That will happen no later than the
end of 2017, but of course it may be much earlier.
Anyone who votes against the amendment in the
name of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and
Billericay (Mr Baron) is clearly opposed to a referendum
on our relationship with the EU. However, if Members
vote for the amendment, they are clearly supporting the
prospect of an in/out referendum. If the amendment is
carried, the House will, in effect, have said that the
Government should bring in an EU referendum Bill. It
will say to the Prime Minister that the House of Commons
supports his position. It will say to the Liberal Democrats,
“How dare you block the will of this House and the will
of the nation?”
The Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 general
election claiming that they would offer an in/out referendum
on Europe. On page 67 of their extraordinary manifesto
“Change that Works for You”, the Liberal Democrats
said:
“The European Union has evolved significantly since the last
public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats
therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum”.
That works for me. This change of heart is, even by
Liberal Democrats standards, totally absurd.
Now I shall turn to the position of the Labour party.
The Labour Opposition promised a referendum on the
EU constitution before they were elected, yet as soon as
they came to power, they dropped the referendum. On
Europe, they are the poodles of Brussels—they roll over
and do everything the EU wants, including giving away
Mrs Thatcher’s hard-won rebate. They simply cannot
be trusted on Europe.
The shadow Chancellor sort of indicated that Labour
Members would vote against the amendment today—it
was impossible to know what he thought about an EU
referendum—but every Member will have to make their
mind up. Members who vote against the amendment
are voting against an EU referendum—[Interruption.]
Colleagues from the Scottish National party will do so,
and their position is clear. Labour Members who do so
will also make their position clear—they are against
giving the people the chance of a say on the relationship
with Europe.
A vote for the amendment today would give the
Prime Minister the moral authority to bring in his EU
referendum Bill as a Government measure. Members of
the House should vote for the amendment because it is
in the national interest. It is right that after 30 years the