Opposing a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

Speech by In the Assembly on Tue 20th Oct 2009

I support Alban Maginness's comments in large measure. It will come as no surprise that my colleagues and I will oppose the motion and the amendment.

In proposing the motion, Mr Campbell made much of saying that at its heart was the fundamental issue that the people should be consulted when changes are to be made to a constitution. Leaving aside the minor detail of whether the UK has a constitution - I would have thought that Mr Campbell, as a Member in another place, had views on the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament - the blunt reality is that that was the issue in October 2007, when we debated the matter. Whether we should have had a referendum prior to ratification was a valid debating point, and a point on which, at the time, I disagreed with Alban Maginness. That, however, is not the issue that we face today. The issue is that the UK and 25 other states have ratified the Lisbon Treaty, and it appears that the Czech Republic will do so fairly soon.

The focus of the motion and the amendment is on turning back the clock, but that is simply not recognising the reality of the situation. Where do Members of both unionist parties believe that the UK's relationship with the EU will be, if, having ratified the treaty, the UK Government, whether pre- or post-election next year, do anything to change what has been agreed as being a binding commitment to accept the new treaty? If anything were done, whether the Government were under the control of the current party, a different party or a coalition of parties, how could the Government have any credibility in future relationships with the EU?

Mr Weir: To be fair to colleagues on my right, that does not appear to be their position. Although the UUP has stated that it would "not let matters rest", it has not offered a concrete position on what it will do if the treaty is ratified. I suspect that, rather than not letting the matter rest, the UUP will be gripped by a degree of motionlessness or inertia.

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Weir for his intervention. He must have a spy in the Gallery looking over my shoulder, because he is a couple of lines ahead of me in my notes.

I agree: Mr Kennedy said on at least one occasion that Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force (UCUNF) was not anti-European; yet, in practice, it has called for the ratification to be rescinded without saying how that would be done. Perhaps it is not surprising, given some of the strange creatures with whom the UUP associates in the European Parliament, that the UCUNF coalition is not quite sure where it stands. If I were to take my lead from anybody who had anything to do with that particular grouping, I would rather listen to the views of someone such as Edward McMillan-Scott, the long-standing and rather more sensible Conservative MEP, who is prepared to stand up against the nonsense of those who claim to be a progressive, non-sectarian force in the United Kingdom and who somehow associate with a rather strange bunch of people from some of the recent accession countries, with some of the particular aspects that they have.

We have to look at what Mr Kennedy quoted from the UUP's 2009 European manifesto: he said that they "would not let matters rest", as Mr Weir highlighted. I am old enough to remember a day in August 1969, when the then Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, was reported as having said that the Irish army, in the event of difficulties in the North, would not stand idly by - for the sake of accuracy, he did not use the word "idly" - but it seems to me that it is more disingenuous for a party to say that it will do something but will not tell anyone what that "something" is, rather than say it will overturn something even though it is not actually possible to do so.

As someone who supported the concept of a referendum when it was meaningful, realistic and possible, the position now is that it is none of those: it would be a completely pointless exercise. The UUP says that it will have a real say in national affairs, yet it has chosen to line up in a European cul-de-sac with no realistic aim or objective and no way of saying how it will advance issues within the United Kingdom that will make any sense. The UUP has nothing to offer the House or the wider UK population that could be implemented and that would make a change. To suggest that the UUP will move things forward is nonsense.

Similarly, I listened to Mr McLaughlin with interest. He called the proposition a fundamental departure from democratic principles. I must admit - this point was made by Mr Maginness - that I do not understand how making the institutions of the EU more democratic is somehow a departure from democracy. Neither can I see how giving rights to national Parliaments to have greater consultation and say is anti-democratic or how putting powers into the hands of the European Parliament rather than the alleged Brussels bureaucracy is also anti-democratic.

I firmly believe that the Lisbon Treaty has advanced the ability of Europe to continue to build the peace that was its real meaning, aspiration and success so far and to advance the economy across Europe. I reject the motion and the amendment.