PARLIAMENTARY REPORT
continued membership of the European Union (the options being to remain in the EU, leave, or renegotiate the terms of memberships).
The debate had been initiated by the Conservative Member, Mr David Nuttall, MP, with the support of some 70 other Members from the Conservative, Labour and Democratic Unionist parties. The debate was granted by the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by Ms Natasha Engel, MP, (Lab) which allocates a number of days a session to debates initiated by backbench MPs. Opening the debate, Mr Nuttall referred to the last referendum on European Union
membership, held in 1975. He said:
“A staggering 84 per cent of
UNITED KINGDOM
He received support from, among others, the former Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Foreign Office, Mr Adam Holloway, MP, (Con), who said: “For me, the bottom line is really quite straightforward. For seven years I have been wandering around telling the good people of Gravesham that we should have a referendum, and that we should renegotiate our position. Let me end by saying this: “If you have done the same, you must support the motion.””
Rt Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP
the current voting age population have never voted in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the EEC, never mind the European Union. Furthermore, if I were a betting man, I would wager that some of those who voted yes back in 1975 may well have since changed their minds. The Common Market has
fundamentally changed in size and powers as it has been transformed into the European Union, and without the British people ever being consulted, of course.”
In his speech, the Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon. William Hague, MP, (Con), gave six reasons why he was urging his colleagues to oppose the motion. First among these was: “The eurozone is clearly in crisis, and to pile on that uncertainty the further uncertainty of a referendum on leaving the European Union, when half the foreign direct investment into Britain comes from the rest of the European Union, and half our exports go out to the rest of the European Union, would not be a responsible action for Her Majesty’s Government to take. It would not help anyone looking for a job. It would not help any business trying to expand. It would mean that for a time, we, the leading advocates of removing barriers to trade in Europe and the rest of the world, would lack the authority to do so.” Responding for the Opposition, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP, (Lab), also opposed the motion, telling the House:
“The way to address the present concerns is reform of Europe, not exit from Europe. Britain’s economy is flatlining and Europe’s economy is in crisis. Putting off investment and undermining confidence at such a critical time would be
358 | The Parliamentarian | 2011: Issue Four
the wrong choice for this House and the country. The right course for British growth, British jobs and British interests is to reject the motion before the House.”
Support for the motion came from a variety of Members. Mr Charles Walker, MP, (Con) made a speech of four words: “If not now, when?”; Ms Kate Hoey, MP, (Lab) said
union among its 17 members will have a direct and profound impact on the United Kingdom.”
Ms Kate Hoey, MP
that the government’s efforts to repatriate powers in future years would be aided by a referendum: “if the rest of the European Union knew that the British public were sick, sore and tired of the money being spent on Europe, of the bureaucracy, of the corruption and of all that, they would be much more likely to negotiate the repatriation of them.” Speaking for the Democratic Unionist Party, Mr Nigel Dodds, MP, dismissed the argument that a referendum would be a distraction from the Eurozone crisis: “It is nonsense to talk about a referendum being a distraction. The EU and all its works go to the heart of decision making on all aspects of policy in this House and in government. We must therefore have a chance to deliver our verdict on how the relationship between Europe and the United Kingdom should evolve. Moreover, the crisis in the eurozone and the consequent move to create a tighter fiscal
Opposing the motion, Mr Martin Horwood, MP, (Lib Dem) was one of several members who argued that the idea of renegotiation was not practical and that the agenda of those supporting the referendum was withdrawal. He went on: “One country is a beacon for the Eurosceptics. One country is a member of the European economic area but not of the European Union or Schengen. It is Liechtenstein. That is the level of influence that the Eurosceptics are demanding for this country. “They would give up our influence on the European market and our influence as a member of the EU on negotiations from climate change to world trade. They would condemn us to the sidelines of Europe and do profound damage to the interests of this country.” Mr Robert Walter, MP, (Con) made a similar observation, suggesting that Norway – although not a Member of the EU, had to implement most EU law to ensure its access to the single market. He spoke of the EU as a political project designed to secure peace in Europe, a theme later taken up by Mr Mark Lazarowicz, MP, (Lab) and concluded:
“Europe needs Britain and Britain needs Europe. My right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary struck the right note earlier. We are in Europe, our history is European and our destiny is European. As far as I am concerned, we are here to stay and I beg my colleagues to reject the motion.”
With the front benches of the three largest parties opposing the motion it was defeated by 483 votes to 111.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160