02/03/2016 House of Lords

The review is independently lead and evidence led as well. It will be

evidence put forward to consider, and the importance of its

considerations will be about the state pension the review will

consider changes in life expectancy as well as wider changes in society.

It is also useful at this point to remind the house why this kind of

review is necessary. In 1945, a man retiring at 65 had a life expectancy

of between 60 and 63. This rose to 27 years after retirement under

current timescales. Women went from 18 years in retirement to 29.5 years

in retirement. In future, generations their would rightly

expects that we should reflect those changes in how we set the pension.

It is right that pensions should reflect these changes in life

expectancy. Future generations will not thank us if we did nothing and

didn't have the courage to ensure pensions are sustainable to avoid

them picking up the Pelle. -- the bill. This review is not... It will

not cover the existing pension age timetable up to April 20 28. We have

already provided legislation for this and the review will not look to

change the state pension age up to this point. The Labour government

first legislated for state pension rises beyond 65. But without any

commitment to an independent review. When we brought forward the pensions

Bill in 2013, Labour seemed to have a change of heart. They agreed with

us for the need for a regular independent review of the state

pension age. The Shadow Secretary of State at the time, the honourable

member for Birmingham Hodge Hill said, the Secretary of State and I

have no difference of opinion on the need regularly to review the state

pension age. So that is what we are doing. Under that legislation, we

are required to appoint an independent reviewer who will make

recommendations to him on future state pension age arrangements. We

have appointed John Cridland to lead this work. Under the legislation we

are required to report in 2017 on this, and that is what we will do.

This review is part of the Government's reforms to pensions to

ensure that they are of audible from the long. But it is right to

recognise those who have reached their pensionable age and worked

hard and done the right thing and providing for their families, and we

are delivering for them. As a result of our triple lock, pensioners will

be receiving a basic state pension over ?1100 higher than they were at

the start of the last Parliament. We are providing greater security, more

choice, and dignity for people in retirement. Whilst also ensuring the

system is sustainable for the future. My Lords, I start by

thanking the noble lady for repeating the statement delivered in

the other place. One of the matters which is characterised this

Government's approach to pensions, both changes to the state and

private pensions, has been the lamentable approach to communicating

change. This has manifested itself in the frustrations of the group,

misunderstandings of over why a minority of those retiring after the

5th of April this year will receive the full rate of ?155 of the new

state pension. These issues arising from the so-called new

flexibilities. Can I ask what assurance will the Minister gave

about not repeating the mistakes of the past when the review, which is

being undertaken, brings forward its recommendations. The terms of

reference were cryo consideration of what is suitable state pension

require consideration of what a suitable state pension age is in the

future. This is what the noble Baroness states, the review will be

focused on the longer term and will not cover the existing timetable to

April 2028. Could the minister please reconcile these two

positions? It is a classic case of confused communication which fuels

like elation about the Government's true intent. -- which fuels

speculation. Do we take it that there is no intention of revisiting

the position of those women in their mid-50s who are adamant they

received inadequate notice of their state pension age rise? The review

has did take a view on how changes to state pension age rises supports

affordability. Can I ask therefore, is the triple lock within its scope?

We accepted the 2014 provision which required a periodic review of the

pension age. We know that life expectancy is generally increasing,

no more so that this does not always equate with healthy years of life.

We know also that health inequalities will remain stubbornly

persistent. How does the Minister consider these factors should be

reflected in a fair approach to the pension age? And can the review

cover an assessment of the adequacy of Social Security arrangements for

those who cannot sustain work before reaching an extension pension age.

We wish John Cridland well with his review, transparency consultation

and a clear recognition of the need for long-term notification of any

changes will be vital. I thank the noble lord for his

comments. I would like to request and invite all noble Lords to be in

touch with the review so that we can ensure on issues relevant to the

consideration of long-term changes in the state pension age and state

pension age policy. This is the opportunity to do that. It will be

an independent review which will consider all the relevant factors,

and it will be up to the reviewer who will welcome such evidence. The

review is about the state pension age. And it is also about the longer

term, so I repeat that it will not consider any changes to the state

pension age timetable that is already legislated for up to 2028.

Can we just clarify that point - I have got a copy here saying that

what a suitable pension age in in the immediate future and the longer

term. The government made it clear that

this is about the changes for the longer term and the appropriate

framework for state pension age policy. No changes will be

considered and the reviewer will not be looking at making or recommending

any changes to the timetable before 2028. Stephen Webb as pensions

minister, set up a system for gradual rising of the pensions age,

why is the government seeking so soon to unpick this consensus and is

it contemplating changes that will fall harshly on low income and

especially women who depend on the state pension and have no private

pot to enable them to retire earlier? I would like to assure the

noble lady that this is not about picking anything, it was legislated

for in the 2014 pensions act, we are mealy following the legislation was

introduced. I welcome the statement from the lady minister and the

setting up of an independent enquiry. I can only offer my

sympathy to the chairman because pension age, is as she knows, a hot

potato politically. There was a debate in the Commons last week

about the whole case of the baby boomer women, a motion only lost by

a few votes calling for action from the government about transitional

provision for these women. Would the minister, who in a previous in

Carnation, showed great sympathy for these baby boomer women experts

concerned that this is not within the remit of the new appointed

review? I stress to the noble lady and noble Lords that if there are

any issues they would like to raise with the independent reviewer,

lessons to be learned from the past by issued that should be considered

for the future, please do raise them with the review. It is an

independent review looking at all the relevant factors. Will the

Minister give the house and assurance today that if the

independent review ruled that that category of women, which I have do

declare an interest, I fall within that group of women and also served

as Shadow Minister for women's pensions for a year. That the

government will accept any regulations accept that the

government did not allow ten years for them to prepare for a changed

retirement age? They will consider long-term changes to the state

pension age, it will not be making any recommendations for changes

before that which is currently legislated up to 2028. Could we say

if the review would take into account the ability for people to

work beyond the age of 65, bearing in mind that some people have a very

physical job and may not be able to work after that time? My Lords, as

the terms of the reference made clear, the independent review will

consider changes in life expectancies as well as all other

relevant factors. If I could ask the Minister if the independent reviewer

will be provided by the government with an official terms of reference?

We have seen a press release but will there be a formal terms of

reference in terms of shaping the work he will do? Will it be possible

for him to consider some of these schemes that have been used

previously by Scandinavian countries which simply index the entries in

the basic state pension age to the increase in longevity as it goes

forward, both up and down. Indeed, my Lords, this will be an

independent review. All of these matters are a matter for the

reviewer and I would urge as many noble Lords are possible to make

representations to the review, it will consult widely across society

and a cross interest groups to ensure that all of these relevant

factors are considered. Does the Minister accept there is a deep

unfairness in having a single retirement age irrespective of

background? In my home city, two wards, one mile apart have a

difference in life expectancy of 11 years. So that those who are better

off, with more state pensions for longer and also enjoyed it

disability free years. Does the Minister accept that every time she

raises the state pension age, disadvantage people are more likely

to incur disabilities earlier so they enter retirement already unfit,

unwell and unable to enjoy retirement. She raises relevant

points and I would like once again to stress that this review is not

just about raising the state pension age but about considering what is

the appropriate way to run state pension age policy and I would

encourage her to raise those issues with the reviewer. Would be Minister

approved the wording of the press release that has been referred to

with the word immediacy in it? My Lords, the press release has been

compiled by the Department. And the wording of the release has of course

been approved. European Union referendum, data referendum etc

regulations, Baron sanely St John's. My Lords, before us today are two

motions, each of which goes to the heart of the United Kingdom 's place

in the European Union. The first is a statutory instrument which in

light of the UK's renegotiated arrangement with the European Union

would set the date for the referendum. The second refers to a

document published and laid before this house last week, on Monday 22nd

February, and this sets out the terms of the new relationship. My

lord, I will take each of those interned but perhaps I may be

forgiven if I start simply by referring to how much I am looking

forward to hearing today the maiden speech of my noble friend, Lord

Gilbert a planned ten. In returning to the statutory instrument, this is

required to set the date of the referendum. Given the deal achieved

by the Prime Minister, it is time to give the British people there say.

The Prime Minister has announced his intention to do so on the 23rd of

June. But it is for Parliament, in this house and the other place to

approve that date. The statutory arrangement gives this house the

chance to give its approval today. It does several other things which I

will come to but first, let me set out why the government believes the

23rd of June is the right day for the poll itself. My Lords, the 23rd

of June strikes the right balance between having a proper debate and a

timely vote. Any sooner and we risk curtailing the campaign and any

later, and we risk testing the patience of the British people. We

have to take account of what is real in human life outside the world of

politics. Shortly after the 23rd of June, schools start to break up for

the holidays and noble Lords will continue to be working after that, I

would assume so, we normally do but it would certainly be seen as

awkward if we held the referendum while people were on holiday for the

summer and that has not been a popular proposal in the past.

Delaying beyond June would mean delaying a referendum until

September or October. The British people would quite rightly expect to

have their say sooner than that. The opportunity yesterday and formally

asking her about the problems that might arise if the Queen 's speech

was to take place during the course of the referendum campaign. She

kindly dealt with that, there is a report this morning that the Queen

's speech will now be held in July, could she confirm if that is the

case? I am grateful to the noble Lord, he was indeed helpful

yesterday can one of the meetings I have held raising these matters. Can

I put it on the record that the answer I gave yesterday, but also

respond immediately to his question. I have seen reports in the press,

the Times, they made a report, my Lords, that has not been

substantiated to me, I am aware of the fact having been Chief Whip for

a period of years as well, it would be highly unusual for any

announcement of the Queens speech date to be made as early as this. So

there is clearly no decision on that matter but I refer to the important

fact he does raise about the Queen's speech and the interaction with the

referendum. There is, I am assured, no inhibition on having the Queen's

speech during a period of a referendum itself. That I think and

I hope underlines the initial answer I gave yesterday, I am sure there is

no letter or inhibition on that going ahead. My Lords, of course it

is important that people have enough time to properly inform themselves

of all the options and to understand the consequences of their votes.

Campaigners on both sides of the ard and must have time to set out their

cases and have a full and robust debate. We do believe that the 23rd

of June is just the right balance. It also meets the practical

requirements of the electoral commission. The assessment of

readiness published last week notes that the date, "Does not pose any

significant risks to a well-run referendum." As well as setting the

date, the statutory insurance also establishes the timing for three key

stages of the referendum. They are the designation process of the

regulated referendum period itself and the pre-poll reporting

requirements which this house will report on closely indeed when the

referendum act made its passage through this house. The electoral

commission's assessment of this endorses the government's approach

on each of these areas and notes that the arrangements for a well-run

referendum are well advanced. This has been echoed by the joint

committee on statutory instruments and by the lordships secondary

legislation scrutiny committee. Those have been the instrument,

giving it their usual rigorous scrutiny and I am grateful to the

members both of those select committees. Those were content with

approach being proposed. It is the means the electro- commission

appoints the lead campaigners on one or both sides. We have followed the

political parties, and referendums act in allowing a total of six

weeks, the application window for campaigners will be opened for four

weeks from the 4th of March, worthy house to agree later today the

statutory instrument to be approved. The commission would then have two

weeks, on the first to the 14th of April to decide which, if any,

applicants to designate. Noble Lords, many of here who took an

active part in the passage of the act, many will remember that

designated leader campaigners will receive a number of benefits.

Including, but higher spending limit of ?7 million. The free delivery of

mailings to every household or every elector. And assuming campaigners

are designated on both sides, access to a grant of ?600,000 and a

campaign broadcast. My Lords, the regulated referendum period allows,

follows the designation process thereafter with no overlap of dates.

It will then run for ten weeks from the 15th of April. During this

period, full financial and campaigning controls will apply, in

particular, spending limits for campaigners. I stress this point

because of course, this timetable specifically meets the requests made

by members of this house during the passage of the referendum act. Lord

Willoughby will speak on this point today. My Lords, finally, the

statutory instrument sets deadlines for registered campaigners to report

any donations all loans to the electoral commission. It is indeed

the first time in a UK wide referendum that sources of

significant campaign finance will be visible and public before the poll,

ensuring real transparency. This process was refined during the

passage through this house of the EU referendum act. I must thank in

particular the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for leading that debate with his

customary eloquence. At the end of this opening speech, I shall move

that the statutory instrument should be agreed to but of course, my

Lords, the formal view of the house on that matter will be taken at the

very end of proceedings tonight. My Lords, time and -- turning to the EU

negotiation. The British public made it clear that they were not content

with the UK's relationship with Europe. The Prime Minister sought to

address that. In November last year, the wrote to the president of the

European Council setting out in detail the four areas in which he

was seeking to change the EU. To seek change that would be brought

forward. These were economic governance, competitiveness,

sovereignty and welfare, which has been aligned with migration in the

press. The Prime Minister negotiated a deal covering each of these areas

and this deal gives the UK a special status within the EU that no

arrangement outside the EU could match. It is a good deal for Britain

as the Prime Minister has said, it is a deal that gives us the best of

both worlds. This agreement is legally binding

and reversible cause it can be amended or revoked if every single

member state of the EU, including ours in the UK, where to agree

unanimously to do so. It commits member states to future treaty

change. Last week, it was registered with the United Nations as an

international treaty. Taking each of the four issues that the Prime

Minister addressed in turn, let me set out briefly what the deal gives

us. My Lords, I do appreciate that the noble lord will have had the

opportunity to look at the White Paper last week and to have

considered other documents being published since then. On economic

governance, the re-negotiation secures UK's position inside of the

single market but outside of the single currency. It means we have

new commitments from the EU, to complete the single market and sign

you trade deals. The responsibility for the financial stability of the

UK remains in the hands of the Bank of England and other UK authorities.

-- new trade deals. We've made sure we will never join Europe, British

taxpayers will never be required to bail out the Eurozone. British

businesses cannot be discriminated against for not being in the

Eurozone. All discussions on matters that affect all EU member states

will involve all EU member states including the United Kingdom, not

just members. Of Eurozone. My Lords, on competitiveness, every

negotiation delivers a new commitment from the European

Commission, to review annually the third of regulation on business. If

there is too much red tape, with marketers cut. There is a specific

focus on relieving the burden on small businesses and for key

sectors. The agreement makes clear that the EU will pursue an active

and ambitious trade policy. And it must feast is international

competitiveness in key areas like energy as the digital single market.

My Lords, on sovereignty, we are out on ever closer union, we will never

be part of a European superstate, the text of the re-negotiation

includes a commitment to change the treaties to exclude the UK from ever

closer union at the time of their next

-- extradition. We have attained new powers to block unwanted European

laws, a legally binding agreement that our Parliament can, acting with

some others in Europe, 55% of national parliament's block unwanted

EU laws with a red card. A new mechanism will be created to review

existing EU laws to ensure compliance with the principles of

subsidiarity and proportionality. So that powers can be fought back to

member states wherever possible. National parliaments will be

involved in this mechanism. And the European Commission will also be

required to report every year to the Council on its compliance with these

principles. On welfare and migration, and emergency brake will

mean people coming to the UK from within the EU will have to wait four

years until they have full act as in work benefits. This would take

effect when the necessary legislation is passed. European

Commission has made clear that Britain already qualifies to deploy

that break. Migrants from the EU working in this country will not be

able to receive child benefit at UK rates, if their children live in

another EU country. My Lords, let's be clear that much has been said

elsewhere about the Eagles and is of the deal. -- legal status. This deal

is legally finding for EU member states. They all signed up to it in

a decision under international law, February European Council

conclusions and texts of the deal of grief at the council set this out

clearly. They are supported by legal opinions of both Council legal

service and Sir Alan- with the -- and Sir Alan Dashwood. It can

only be amended or revoked if every single member state including the UK

is to agree unanimously. The European Court of justice has held

up that decisions of this sort must be taken into consideration as being

an instrument for the interpretation of EU treaties.

Council president Task has confirmed it, and I quote that the 28 heads of

state of government unanimously agreed and adopted a legally binding

and reversible settlement for the United Kingdom in the EU -- Tusk.

The decision concerning a new settlement is in conformity with the

treaties, and cannot be annulled by European court of justice.

This new settlement builds on a number of existing protections and

opt out which applies to the UK's membership of the EU. This means the

UK now has a special status within the EU. Inside those areas of

activity, where it is in the UK's interest, but outside those words is

not in their interest. I've already mentioned we are not under the

standard obligation for member states to join the euro. We will

always keep the pound. The UK has remained outside of the Schengen

border free area, meaning that we maintain control over our own

borders. The UK has opted out of many measures in the Justice and

home affairs field, while opting into those that are essential to

protect the security of this country. Noble lord is with the

aware that today, we laid before Parliament the latest document

intended to inform the public ahead of the referendum -- lords. This is

the most recent in a series of papers for filling the commitments I

make to this house during a passage of the referendum bill before it

became the act. There were calls across the house to ensure that

voters went into this debate with all of the information that they

needed. The government listened carefully and fought forward

amendments to the bill in response to all of the positions that forward

five years from every single French around the house. -- by peers.

It's the best of both worlds, the UK special status and a reformed EU. It

fulfils the obligation under section six of the referendum act, requiring

the Secretary of State to set out the results of the re-negotiation is

and the government's view. My second paper details the process of

withdrawing from the EU, but not specifically mandated in

legislation, this paper published on Monday, Article 50, meet the

commitments that I made to the house on 23rd of November. Today, a third

paper was published. It sets out the alternatives to membership of the EU

and sets out unequivocally the government's view, that none of the

alternative models of association with the EU offer anything like such

a good balance of advantages, obligations and influence as we get

from our current special status within the EU. My Lords, this paper

is the first part of the report that the government will publish to meet

the requirements of section seven subsection one of the European

referendum act 2015. The second part of the obligation, the second part

of the report, which would provide information about the rights and

obligations that would arise as a result of the UK's membership with

the EU will be made at a later date. My Lords, I hope not too much later.

Both parts of the report are available, eventually, on the

website, today's is on the website and a copy is in the printed paper

office as soon as the second part is available it will go on the website

and go to that office. My Lords, the Prime Minister set out last week

that the government's clear recommendation that the UK should

remain... I am most grateful to my honourable friend, we all appreciate

of the careful way in which she shepherded the referendum bill

through this house and indeed there was a request for information, does

she not recognise that there is a difference between information and

propaganda? My Lords and five, the government is leaving propaganda to

those who will be fully designate of the campaign. The filling its full

requirements under the act as it should do. This will be a once in a

generation moment to shape the future of our country and ultimately

it will be for the British public to decide, including members of this

house, as a result of the drafting of the act is now. The government

has made clear its view -- it fell. The government has come in with a

clear mandate to really go see it written's place in Europe and put

the changes to the people. The Prime Minister has successfully completed

the former, the instrument in front of the house today also at the date

for the latter. This is the last piece of legislation that will be

debated in this chamber to establish the referendum itself. As such, it

represents Parliament taking final steps towards a truly is a moment.

-- historic. Given the people of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar their

say on membership of the EU. The case for holding the poll on the

23rd of June is a simple one, it gives time for a proper debate,

without delaying and trying the electorate 's patience. My Lords,

there's little point in waiting forever. We have a deal. UK's

relationship the EU has been changed and improved by that, it is time for

the campaign is to make their case, and for the British people to then

decide. Settling the issue for generations. My Lords, at this

stage, I refer back to comment I made earlier, that I will now

formally move with regard to the statutory instrument before the

house, that decision will be made later, I make the formal

recommendation that launches us on a historic journey was a referendum in

which every single member of this house will be able to make their own

individual decision. My Lords, I effectively that the house to prove

the European Union referendum, data referendum act etc, regulations

2016, I effectively. Question is that this motion be agreed to? My

Lords, the starting gun has been fired, the noble lady, the minister,

has correctly pointed out that this is the beginning of a historic

journey for our country. This is about our country's place in the EU,

and in the wider world. It is comforting to hear after so many

years of sniping and quick as a full-blooded defence of the EU, from

many, if not all quarters, of government is not while we pretend

not to enjoy the sight of Cabinet members falling out with each other,

over this issue, it is worth underlining that the decision on

whether we've remain all the fee is too great a decision for us to fall

into party political squabbles -- on whether we've remain in the EU. We

now have to do all that we can to secure a remain focused, to put

country above party, and do what is in the best interests of this

nation. My Lords, as the Minister has stated, it sets out the date of

the referendum, the start of the reference period, and the date on

which designated organisations can apply for recognition. We have

debated many of these issues before and we have no objection to the SI.

Other documents before us today is the white paper which sets up the

agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated in Brussels in

mid-February, and a devastatingly factual document produced by the

government on the process for withdrawing from the EU. If you want

not sure about which way to vote in this EU referendum -- were not sure.

I would suggest that you read the document on the withdrawal process,

which makes extremely sobering reading on what would happen in the

interim period prior to any future relationship with the EU being

concluded. A period that could last for a decade, and could set us an

extremely difficult situations as a nation. In addition to this, it is

worth reading a document that has come

But the fact is there are many of us who would have supported the efforts

to remain part of the EU irrespective of the negotiation. We

believe our relationship with our nearest neighbours must be much more

than the four areas set out in that renegotiation. We think our

negotiation is fundamental for access to our largest export market,

yes is critical for us to ensure safety for our citizens, yes is

critical for protecting our workers, consumers and the environment, but

more than this it sets how we want this country to meet with the wider

world. Never before has our country and our word been so interconnected.

Never before have we seen international terrorist threats

which confront us all. Never before have we seen worldwide emigration on

the scale we have seen today and never before have we been quite so

aware that something on the other side of the constants will impact

our living here in the UK. Now is not the time just to be turning our

backs. Whilst the US is signing partnership deals with Pacific

nations is not the time to be retreating into splendid isolation

with no assurance of market access. And now when Russia is menacing in

the central Europe and the Middle East is an upheaval, now is not the

time to be reneging on solidarity and threatening our own national

security. Now is the time to show leadership in Europe. Safe in the

knowledge that we have strength in numbers. Had he promised a decade

supply of the finest Belgian beer, had he guaranteed a place in the

European cup final for every UK nation, had he guaranteed lovely

sunny days for the next three years, they would still have said no. They

believe we need to re-game serenity. But where was our serenity last week

-- regain, when the pound plummeted and the market decided this and

security was bad for our economy. Where was our serenity when we need

to ask Italy to send back one of the London bombers and there was our

surrender to and where would it be when we have to go back to our

continental colleagues in the events of a no vote and beg for access to

their market of 500 consumers and an economy of almost ?11 trillion. I

have heard the argument that the EU has a trade surplus with the UK said

they will want to trade with us. But this does not take account of the

fact that exports to the UK account for 3% of EU GDP whilst our exports

to the EU accounts for 14% of our GDP. Only in Cyprus and Ireland does

the UK represents more than 10% of total exports. Half of the EU trade

surplus with the UK is accounted for by just two member states, Germany

and the Netherlands. And yet every single one of the EU member states

would have a veto on what that agreement would look like. Can we

honestly be confident that they would all be willing to sign on the

dotted line in a generous trade deal. The leave campaign seems to

have a schizophrenic attitude towards EU member states. On the one

hand, they say that the E is constantly ganging up on the UK and

that they have no influence, where we to leave they say the member

states would rule over -- roll over, allow us to tickle tummies and would

accept a new... Serenity in an interconnected world is a fantasy

concept. What the outers are offering is a dream ticket. A ticket

promising a better life, they have no idea nor common belief in what

the dream looks like. Where it may lead, nor can they offer any

practical pathway zero route to get to their promised land. Does the

Honourable Lady agree that although we have 3 million jobs making things

and selling things to clients in the European Union, they have for a half

million jobs selling things to us. As she agreed that they need our

free trade much more than we need bears and that it will therefore

continue? -- bears. The noble Lord clearly wasn't listening, I have

just explained that there are other member states, every single one of

them, some of who do not have a trade surplus with as food may not

sign on the dotted line in terms of a future trade agreement. The fact

is 3% of our GDP is dependent on our relationship with the EU was 12%,

sorry 12% of our GDP is dependent on the relationship and 3% of bears.

They have the upper hand in the terms of negotiating strategy. My

lords in light of the that nobody knows which way the public vote, I

wonder if the Minister in his summing up could let us know as the

Government made any contingency plans in terms of what would happen

in the case of UK withdrawal if there were to be a run on the pound?

However there are many people in this country who have yet to decide.

It is these people we will have too convinced in the next few months in

the merit of our arguments. It is these people who I believe the Prime

Minister was trying to reach out to in his attempt at renegotiation,

they may be relieved that we are not on an inexorable route to close

integration. They will be consoled by the guarantee that we have a full

say on the rules of the single market whilst remaining outside the

euro zone and comforted by the knowledge that EU citizens will have

two paper for taking out of welfare system. The negotiations will be

legally binding and will take effect immediately after the British people

vote to remain. The information which will help our citizens rights

and issues, which was requested by noble Lords will be invaluable to

this group of people and we look forward to that. My lords the E is

far from perfect. Whilst we sit here in our guild clattered centuries-old

institution,... I should reassure I have been listening carefully, could

she explained what role the World Trade Organisation would have should

there be any form of embargo were we to leave? It is not

about restriction on trade, the fact is we would have two renegotiate a

completely new deal. We have no idea. We still have access to EU

markets, 50% of our trade is with the European Union and if we went

along with the BTO agreement then we would have to start paying tariffs

on our exports. It may be that the noble Lord things that would be a

good idea for producers in this country, I believe it would be fatal

for many in particular of our small businesses. Can she tell me what

does she think workers will lose at the Airbus factory, if their

government put a tariff on the engines made by Rolls-Royce, on the

wings made by British Aerospace and on the landing gear manufactured by

Doughty here, would they refuse to accept those and still expect buyers

from overseas to buy an aeroplane with no engine, wings or no landing

gear? I am glad he asked me about Airbus because it is a major

manufacturing industry in northern Wales. They have assured me that

they are very much in favour of retaining their membership of the

European Union. The period when of course they could not just reach

retrain that facility aboard and I can tell you the French and the

Germans would be very happy to receive their ability to build wings

on the continents rather than having those built in our country. This is

my lords a critical issue, in particular for the 7000 workers in

North Wales. My lords the EU is far from perfect, we are sitting here in

our guild clattered centuries-old institution, the determining

membership and quirky yet endearing expressions. Who are we to be

throwing stones at an institution which has had less than 60 years to

establish itself. Yes the EU needs reform, not this just one-off reform

but a constant reform to adapt to the needs of the requirements of our

age as indeed do our own institutions in the UK. We have as a

nation a moral and practical interest in preventing conflict. In

stopping terrorism and supporting the poorest in the world, stopping

climate change but to deal with these points we need our global

institutions to function well, to cope with the challenges. We either

do this together through bodies like the EU and the UN or we will find to

our cost, that our ability to influence these challenges

independently will be restricted. How many would hear Britain's voice

whispering in the world. The EU also needs the UK. It needs us to be at

the top of the table to help reduce the burden on business, to ensure

that we fight protectionism and trade dumping. We need the EU, the

EU has given us a clear water, clean air, safer food, anti-discrimination

laws, maternity and paternity leave, billions invested in our poorest

communities, 3 billion a year for our struggling farmers. 3.5 million

British jobs depending on our relationship with our nearest

neighbour. We have seen caps on bankers bonuses, capping credit and

debit card fees, health and safety laws which have saved countless

lives, paid holidays and protection for part-time workers. But, we

cannot and we should not duck the immigration argument. It is true

that immigration does bring pressures to some of our

communities, but let us not forget that EU citizens make a net fiscal

contribution to this country. They stuff our hospitals, process our

food and a central to the hospitality industry, let us remind

people that 2 million of our own citizens have taken advantage of the

E to make their homes on the continent. -- EU. In DJ some in our

chamber. A week and EU which is likely to happen will not be in the

interests of this country, lets not forget that whatever else the EU has

achieved or not achieved, there has been a peace dividend for over 60

years. In what was up until 94 - 95 the bloodiest continent in the

world. We should not take peaceful granted. My lords the decision

whether we remain or leave the European Union is probably the most

important political decision that my generation will ever make. The new

agreement has now been set out. Our party be at the forefront of the

campaign to ensure that we retain our membership and that we can

remain a strong and powerful voice in our challenging and changing

world. My lords the Liberal Democrat

benches welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has completed his

renegotiation with the settlement on the UK's membership of the European

Union that allows him to campaign passionately heart and soul, to keep

the UK in the European Union. We welcome the fact that this is the

position of Her Majesty 's government. Even if it is not the

position of all her ministers or indeed all of the former ministers

who are sitting in ranks directly opposite me. I should start by

thanking the noble lady for accepting amendments during the

process of the EU Referendum Bill which to bring forward the reports

to renegotiation such as the one today. The best of both worlds. I

believe that this came as an amendment by the Lord of John Lee, I

am very sorry that he feels it is propaganda and not a factual

document that he was looking for. But nevertheless we are grateful

that this document has come forward and indeed the other reports that

have come out and are promised on the consequences of withdrawal, the

process and alternatives to membership in the possible event

that the UK leads the European Union. My lords the present report

and the European Council conclusions of the 19th of February make clear

that the United Kingdom already has a unique position within the

European Union. We have a permanent opt out from the year and the

Schengen agreement were not part of the Schengen border controls and we

have flexibility in the aspects of freedom, security and justice and

police and judicial co-operation. We are not signed up to every aspect

of the EU, even in current circumstances.

The re-negotiation goes further, creating a special relationship for

the UK within the EU, which ensures the UK will not be bound by the

concept of ever closer union. Not something that, I believe, Liberal

Democrats were too hung up on. It's an issue that seems to have affected

many people concerned, that European integration would go to far.

It has now stopped. The renegotiation provides guarantees

for the City of London, banks to a commitment of non-discrimination for

non-Eurozone members of the EU. And an emergency brake. Those who wish

to leave the EU would do well to consider whether it is realistic to

imagine that the 27 would give us such a privileged position if they

were on the outside. Certainly, if they simply decided that we know --

no longer wanted to be part of the club and withdrew. The evidence

suggests that they would not. Her Majesty's government would seek to

re-negotiate in the event of a vote to leave on the 23rd of June.

Possibly running parallel with article 50, that mechanism, I went

say negotiation because we do not get to it -- I won't say negotiation

because we do not get to negotiate should we wish to leave.

Seeking to exit is an unknown direction. Nobody has tried it to

date. It is hard to see how any changes would benefit the UK. I do

not wish to engage in project fear, but it is unclear, for example, what

would happen to EU nationals resident in the UK. Or, UK nationals

such as noble lord Lord Lawson, who we understand lives in France.

Should we vote to leave the EU. I don't imagine there would be an

immediate move to repatriate UK nationals resident abroad but maybe

we don't want to take that risk? More seriously, there are a huge

number of unknown surrounding the kind of access that British citizens

would have to engage in under the event of a vote to leave. It may be

possible to negotiate rights to those already resident or working

elsewhere in the EU or have retired elsewhere in the EU. Such access, if

it is to be similar to the rights we enjoy today, would undoubtably come

with reciprocal rights. We would not simply be able to say that British

nationals resident in other EU states could remain, but if we

decided that we did not want EU nationals to be resident in the UK,

we could somehow send them home. We need to think about that. Those who

wish to leave, they are almost certainly correct that our EU

partners would not want to sever all ties. I don't believe for a moment

that a vote to leave would simply mean that we are on the outside

completely separated. That is in the bronze of fancy on the negative

side. It would be extraordinarily arrogant to assume that the UK is so

important to the EU that we would be accorded all of the rights of full

members once we decide to leave but without any responsibilities, to

suggest otherwise would be in the realms of deluded fantasy. After

all, those states with full access to the market fired the European

economic area are required to contribute to the EU budget, abide

by the rules, yet they do not have a seat at the table. Pay, oboe, no

say, as it was put Brussels recently. -- oh -- obay.

We would be expected to contribute financially, and still be bound by

the full freedoms. Including the freedoms we seem to like for the

movement of goods and capital and services -- obey. The free movement

were ambivalent about the free movement of people. The Prime

Minister's we negotiation has secured some limits on free movement

which would be triggered on the vote remain. It would surely be unwilling

to make new alternative special arrangements for the UK after any

votes to walk away. I staying in the EU, we can exert influence, without,

by leaving, we lose it. Some members of this house would say that this is

undemocratic, that somehow the new parliament is lacking. I find this

somewhat a strange argument put forward in your Lordships house,

where most members, with the exception of hereditary peers, 90 of

them, not here on a Democratic mandate. As a member, the UK has a

seat at the table. We have many seats at the table, within the

European Parliament, the Council of ministers, and the European Council,

not to mention a European Commissioner currently drawn as was

his predecessor from your Lordships house. We play a full part in

decision-making, as a member of the union. There is no conceivable

alternative arrangements to membership that would give such

influence. The Norwegians would tell you that. Yes, by leaving, we could

formally regain sovereignty but at the expense of power and influence,

an illusion of sovereignty, as the Prime Minister put it. The idea of

regaining control of our borders is nothing but a siren call, the UK is

not yet part of the Schengen border regime, we still monitor our own

borders. A vote to leave wouldn't alter that, but it would make us

less secure as we would be walking away from an effective cross-border

corporation on policing, their EU arrest warrant, and the Schengen

information system. Errors of co-operation which, at present, show

how far the UK has the best of both worlds, access to EU structures

where we want them, exemptions where we don't. In conclusion, my lords,

it is the view of these Liberal Democrat benches that the UK is

better off and more secure remaining in the EU. It is good for the United

Kingdom and good for peace and security in the EU. We look forward

to campaigning with the Prime Minister for a vote to remain.

On the issue of influence in the EU, I know that she is very expert on

European matters, could she confirm that in the last 20 years, UK has

sought an amendment in the Council of ministers on 72 occasions and

been defeated on 72 occasions? My Lords, there are all sorts of

statistics one can use, my understanding is yes, there have

been formal votes and the UK has been defeated. There are many cases

where there is a process of negotiation and votes have not been

held, where the UK is able to have influence. We are able to stop

legislation that we do not want working with our partners, on the

outside, as a country like Norway, we simply accept that anything is

brought, or you walk away from that part of the market, we have the

opportunity to influence from the inside, but on the outside we lose

even that. My Lords, answering the first

question in today's order paper, the fixing of the 23rd of June for a

referendum, will not, I suspect, troubled the house for long. It

really has to be the government's call. Now that this period of

negotiation is over, a case for moving to a vote without

unnecessarily extending a period of uncertainty and instability, and

volatility, which we are already seeing around us, is surely a

convincing one. When the Prime Minister's statement was reported in

the house last week, I said that I thought the outcome of reforms that

he had achieved were substantive and valuable. Having read the

government's detailed account of negotiations in his paper, Best of

both Worlds, I'm confirmed in that view. That paper, I found clear and

compelling. But I am puzzled that some members of the government, the

Lord Chancellor in particular, are challenging some of the content of

that paper, which was issued in their name. I'm also puzzled that

the critics take so little account of the EU's track record in ordering

such post stated commitments to treaty change. In both the Danish

and Irish cases, the post dated commitments were wrong in the letter

and spirit when the treaties were next amended. Nor, where they ever

challenged in the interim by the EU Court of Justice. -- were they. I

would recall that "Sticking to your deals" is an absolute rule in

Brussels. It is sometimes suggested that if the electorate in June votes

to leave the EU, we can then return to Brussels and re-negotiate the

re-negotiation. Getting better terms for remaining in the EU. Up to last

weekend, it seemed to be the view that Pied Piper of Hamlin in our

days, the Mayor of London, he seems to have changed his mind, something

he does often, and admits the choice in June is a binary one. In or out.

That is wise, because that is what it is. The agreement clearly regards

a vote to leave, as requiring asked to trigger the provisions of article

50, to establish the terms of our withdrawal. There is not evidence

that any of the 27 other member states or the commission or the

parliament would be prepared to enter negotiations on any other

basis. Indeed, the separate agreement specifically says these

reforms would be taken off the table if we vote to leave. We are told by

leading Eurosceptics that the EU is rushing headlong towards political

union, and despite all that has been said in the agreement about ever

closer union, we will be dragged along behind them. Again, that is...

There is no real evidence for that assertion at all. Quoting Jacques

Delors, not held any office, European or otherwise, for 20 years,

that is not evidence. The negative reactions to the Brussels deal are

those outside of government to hold those views in other member states.

It indicates that year and belief that the EU is not now going to be

heading into political union -- their view. These fantasies should

surely not be part of the serious national debate that we need to

engage in. The issue of sovereignty, mentioned this afternoon, whether

pulling it or holding it, is in the country's best interests and will be

part of their debate. It is not always well addressed. It is not

enough to mention the word sovereignty, and expect the traffic

to stop. Since the Second World War, successive governments and

parliaments have chosen to exercise our sovereignty collectively with

others on matters every bit as weighty as the EU. Article five of

the Brussels Treaty, which set up Nato, which commits us to respond

militarily, conceivably even in a nuclear exchange to any act of

aggression against one of its members, is one such commitment.

Memberships with the United Nations and international monetary fund, we

accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of

Justice, or the International criminal Court, and of the tribunal

of the law of the sea. None of this polling of sovereignty is being

contested in the current debate, when it is contested in the EU

context, it is reasonable to take account of those other instances and

recognise that what we are really discussing is the case for a rules

-based international community, in contrast to shifting back into a new

world disorder. One thing that makes no sense is any suggestion that the

decision in June is not that important. That the outcome does not

really matter that much and everything will be much the same the

day afterwards as the day before. We are, in all probability, talking

about the survival of, or the failure to survive, of two unions,

not one. And about an irreversible shift in Britain's role in the world

which it would be too late to regret, should the electorate

decides to leave the EU. My Lords, I welcome the statuary in

Schmidt which clears the way nicely to the referendum. -- instrument. I

dislike the way the whole debate has become somewhat personalised.

Obviously, with the eager hope of the media. I sure your Lordships I

have good friends on both sides of the ultimate and I intend to keep it

that way. I hope we can stick as the late Tony Benn used to say, to the

issues. First I believe Britain enjoyed the

leave at the wrong time or at least leave at the wrong time or at least

talking about it. We are discussing getting out on the whole EU is

evolving in entirely new direction is driven by major new world forces.

A change which seems to have escaped the notice of many of the levers and

indeed on both sides of the remain inside as well. Secondly, I greatly

admire the tenacity and energy shown by my right honourable friend the

Prime Minister over the deal which we are debating. But I do have to

say I don't think it will be entirely a major central influence

on how people vote in the referendum although it has certainly opened up

all sorts of reform ambitions in other member states all around

Europe as anyone can see by reading the Continental newspapers. I

believe the way people will be influenced and vote will be by one

overriding a much deeper issue and that is whether they think that the

EU is heading inevitably for an integrated super stated political

union centralised and all-powerful Eurocurrency and dragging us into

the mangle against our interests in which case we should certainly leave

and stand clear whether Europe is in reality evolving by necessity into a

new model under outside and global impact both good and bad as we can

see in the daily papers which prepare us to become far more

flexible and will prepare the EU to become more flexible and much less

centralised in which case it would be very unwise not to stay and to

help steer the new model into being. My lords my own judgment goes to the

latter case and staying on for three main reasons. First the peoples of

Europe clearly do not once more integration and uniformity that they

have already, whatever their leaders may say. The best of both worlds

which we are debating asserts that some countries have chosen the path

of deeper integration and I wonder if that is right, which are these

other countries except perhaps Luxembourg. Some countries may not

want to go back beyond the existing cooperation and I see no popular

support whatever throughout Europe for a lots more pushing together,

integration, centralisation and more intrusion. Over the last decade or

so, new supply chains and new modes of production have been utterly

transforming the old European Union model. Even the single market is not

what it seemed in the last century. Certainly for services the spy

services being 80% of our GDP and at least 40% of earnings as the

Government papers remind us. When that is depicted as a dominant and

fearsome force ganging up against us, from which we must be sheltered,

it is in fact deeply and chronically sick. I see nothing the crisis and

division ahead and I am glad the noble Lord, now agrees with me on

that. Third my lords, hugely market outside the EU are opening up which

are not alternatives to the EU but ones which we must succeed in Asia,

Africa and Latin America, that is where the big prizes are. In short

my lords, we have two ride both horses. The immediate priority is

reform, deep reform. To me the digital age to meet new conditions

and not the total transformation of world energy which is now going on.

As the paper says repeatedly that work is not over. Indeed it is just

beginning. My lords in that work, all our history tells us we can and

must play a central part. My lords I want to support what the Prime

Minister negotiated in Brussels and I hope that others on both sides of

this house would do so. However we got to this point, we have two

realise that it is a national fight that we have our fights now and for

the country sake we have all of us got to ensure that they have wings.

They cannot allow British business and their employees to take such a

hit for the sake of political aims and whims of those who simply cannot

understand the difference between taking control of our country of

exercising... Those who simply cannot understand how yes you can

diminish your sovereignty as you enter a transnational treaty or

institution but then you get back in return a real increase in your power

to affect public policy, big events that all of us face. Be under no

illusion my lords the coming referendum presents a profound

moments and once the die is cast, a lot of -- there will be no turning

back. I cannot believe the European Union for economic and trade

purposes can be treated as we are still in it. That is the inescapable

fact. Let's be clear what that means. Let's become a bigger version

than Norway accepting all the laws and rules, by the way paying quite a

healthy sum into the budget with the privilege of doing so, or if we

wanted to become some variation of Switzerland which has no power

sporting rights for its financial services. Leaving would mean no more

unhindered or unfettered to the single market in Europe. Our

business and other exporters, it would mean continuing to expect

European norms and standards as a condition for the market access that

we are granted. It means once the divorce is promulgated after the

two-year article 50 process, facing a return to EU tariffs before it is

finally negotiated and struck between us. That means we would be

paying EU tariffs on our exports and imports which means higher prices in

our shops. If the noble Lord wouldn't mind. It would mean losing

the preferential trading benefits in foreign

until such time and it would be a long time for we were able to

renegotiate them. It would potentially mean havoc to raise our

own tariffs, it would no longer be covered by WTO compliant agreements

is. I am not going to... Is this my time or the local zero is time that

he's eating into? I'm most grateful. Could I ask him he has talked about

access to the market and the cost as he sees it but if this is so

catastrophic we explain how invisible trade in goods, the United

States without being part of the single market has managed to sell

considerably more than we have two the market and even in terms of

services, the United States sells over 200 early in dollars worth the

year. I'm not just talking about invisible services but British

exports and British jobs and what we would be paying in addition to get

our goods and all that we contribute to supply, I'm not going to dwell on

the implications of leaving. Anyone freed from the so-called

protectionist shackles of Brussels that we could somehow be around

bagging major new free-trade agreements. Like a low hanging fruit

really does need a reality check. This is not the 1970s which was when

Britain last attempted an international free trade agreement.

We have no people and no negotiating capacity left in Whitehall, we have

to rebuild from scratch and more to the point there are not the

countries queueing up to negotiate like us. We are a mid-sized, mature

and ready open at advanced Western economy, what others are seeking

trade agreements with, they arrive at large blocks of countries or the

larger younger faster growing, relatively closed economy with a lot

more to bargain into an negotiate than we have to offer and that is

the reality of international trade and we have to grasp it. Let me

finish if I make my lords. By going to my original point. About what the

Prime Minister 's has said in Brussels. This package is not

everything but nor is it nothing. In particular the renegotiation, the

package missing members of the public with doubts, people are

genuinely sceptical minds, that they can support UK membership again. The

EU's talk with an ever closer union is not a provision driving

continuous integration of EU nationals to unconditional and

immediate and appropriate as an single currency in Europe which we

should neither join nor should our businesses suffer any discrimination

from as a result of being outside it. My lords this is not the end of

reform in Europe, it is a start, reform is a process and it is not an

event. This package is in effect a bridge, which is a bridge that

people with genuine doubts can walk back across to support the European

Union in good faith. And I hope they would do so on June the 23rd. My

lords it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and may I say

in particular when he said Europe is at last changing and as a last

feeling the impetus of external events which cause the reform. It is

at such a bad time, especially when we have friends like Germany who can

help is reform and change Europe in the direction he spoke about and

that I would strongly support. Where is I don't think my memory is false

were I to hearing Mr Michael Gove hearing in the context of the

Scottish referendum saying to the people of Scotland, we accept of

course you are a nation, we accept you have sovereignty but we believe

your sovereignty is best exercised when pulled with that of the United

Kingdom in Scotland's interest. There you have it, that is the

argument quite so. It strikes me as that having articulated that and

realise that fact that he then makes the conclusion that what is good for

Scotland is not good for the United Kingdom within the European Union.

The case for getting out seems to me to rest on a strangely old-fashioned

view of sovereignty, almost Victorian, the days of the budget

and dicey when all power rested in the nation state. This is no longer

true, I suspect there is more power resting on the global stage today

that affects the lives of ordinary citizens than is rested and vested

in the institutions of the nation states like ourselves. The question

is how do you deal with that? The truth of it is that there was a day

when you could avoid politics from -- policies from domestic and

foreign, you can no longer do that. There is no domestic issue which has

a foreign quotation, not jobs, not the environment and not terrorism,

crime, not indeed the creation of systems of security when we pool our

sovereignty. We pool our sovereignty from the days of Nato, there is no

sovereignty estate has which is more important than this top 20 to defend

itself. You will find it entirely in the national interest to pull it

with others, to give ourselves protection.

The reality is, how do you deal with global forces? Alone, singularly,

unilaterally, or in the concert of your friends with who you share

interests? It is the latter of the two. There are those who argue that

we can set up trade deals with other people taking a long time, ten

years, it has not got there yet. It would take a long time to set a

trader with say, China. How does that help tackle crime on our

streets when it is a European problem, best tackled with the

European arrest warrant, on a European basis? How do we create a

clean environment for the people in this country, when pollution is no

respect of borders, it is the deals with our partners that a liberal

what we want for our citizens. I'm a passionate European, I find

something attractive to the idea that puts the end to a war of 1000

years with the slaughter of countless millions of our young by

bringing us together. I'm a passionate European because I

remembered in Bosnia when I was trying to build peace after war, it

was the institutions of the European Union that gave me more assistance

in creating those institutions of the state, a legal institution, with

intelligence services, the EU was a massive soft power that helps to

build, acting together, helping create peace after conflict. There

is no better but I'm much more passionate European for another

reason, there is nothing I want to see delivered for the people of

Britain that cannot bear to be delivered by acting in partnership

with our European Union partners than by acting alone. Nothing. We

can tackle crime better through the European arrest warrant,

environmental cleanliness that we need, we can do it on a European

basis, we create better security and can tackle refugees better too.

People look at this and say it is the refugee issue that is persuading

us not to vote for Europe, this is madness, it's not a new problem but

an old problem that goes back over 1000 years. The vast patronage of

peoples, better dealt with on a regional basis than on a singular

one -- passage. If you think it is a new problem, it isn't, but it won't

stop at this. This is now going to be one of the great strategic issues

of our times, pestilence played by the bubble of global warming, the

mass passage of people. Only by working together can we do that, if

we were to withdraw, the primary stays right, the probability is that

sank that would turn up at Dover. I recognise the European Union is not

dealing with it very well but it is hypocritical of us. We've not taken

a single one of those miserable, desperate people, travelling across

the muddy roads of the Balkans to get to us. We've not provided

assistance to one of them. For us to do nothing to solve this problem,

and criticise Europe that it cannot deal with a million in a short time,

it won't be easy or elegant, but they will get there in time.

One we have this as a major strategic issue for us in future, it

is working regionally, together, that we can solve that. I went not

long ago to Kuala Lumpur, the nations are coming together to sort

out the problems of massive movement of people out of the flooding Ganges

delta. My Lords, this is the thing I genuinely don't understand, do we

not understand how much the terms of trade of our existence have old

these last ten or 15 or 20 years? We no longer have a United States

looking east across the Atlantic, it looks west across the Pacific. The

US won't act as our friend in all circumstances, our defender, they

have new interests and they don't necessarily coincide with ours. On

our eastern borders, we have a Russian president of aggressively

trying to destabilise and divide Europe. Vladimir Putin would be

voting for us to leave, that is what he wants us to happen -- wants to

see happen. It's been a Russian policy for ages, we will essentially

be assisting him. On the south-east, we have the Arab world in flames. To

the south, in turbulence reaching right down into Africa. All around,

new economic powers growing up, individually more powerful than any

individuality of EU nations, we believe that this is the time for us

to abandon our solidarity with European neighbours in such a

turbulent and dangerous world. This is the time for us to adopt the

elusive sovereignty of a cork bobbing around behind other people's

ocean liners. That is the way to serve the worst interests of the

country. We will diminish our influence, our protection and

capacity for success. My Lords, I have to confess that I

was rather surprised when I came in to find that I was in such an

exalted position, on the speakers lists. Now, I have to follow that

impassioned speech. I'm in some difficulty. But, I'll try my best.

The first thing I would like to say, I would say this to voters, when the

political parties are agreeing... Beware. Beware, beware, beware. I

would also say to the government, that referring to the title of this

debate, that those who always wish to get the best of both worlds very

often get the worst of both worlds. Because, they've been too greedy. I

would like to turn to the statutory instrument arranging the referendum

for the 23rd of June. I would have thought that the government, bearing

in mind that the referendum need not take place until the end of next

year, that they would have taken more time in the negotiations to get

a better deal than what they have got. And of course they would have

had the advantage of asking the Tory party at their conference in October

whether they agreed with what they had brought back from the

negotiation. I have to declare myself straightaway, I always do. I

was against joining the EU see, or common market, in 1973. -- EEC, and

I continue to believe that the now EU, which has gained so much

additional power in policy fields, other than trade, I'm even more

convinced that we should leave it and leave it as soon as possible.

And have the power in this country to decide our fate and future. I

would like to say to those people who say that the direction of the

year is not towards integration and remind them that the beginning of

this month, the six original members of what was then the EEC are, in

fact, proposing that the Eurozone should become a fiscal power, and

have power in military matters as well. So, the direction in actual

fact is not backwards but forwards, as they say, to a more integrated

Europe. I cannot help feeling that the Prime Minister made a demeaning

spectacle when he went to Europe, he did not demand but plead with them

to get some concessions which would enable him to recommend that Britain

should remain in the EU. I am afraid that he has not come back with

anything at all, of that sort. Indeed, the concessions are pitiful.

In fact, they are virtually as pitiful as the concessions brought

back in 1972 - 73, or was it 74? By Harold Wilson when in actual fact

the concessions turned out to be no concessions at all. He also promised

that there would be no economic monetary union. He gave that

assurance. We know what happened to that assurance. Now, the Prime

Minister is assuring the country that we would never join the euro.

He cannot make that promise. The Parliamentary situation and Rangers

that, no Parliament, as he knows, can combine its successor --

arranges that. There is no agreement, national or otherwise,

that can hold the constitutional position so that he is promising

something that he cannot properly deliver. I frankly and sick and

tired of being told by politicians, self-serving multinationals that

Britain must remain in the EU, not only for Britain's sake, but their

sakes. Now, we have two arrange our affairs to suit the rest of the

world, not our own country. I would remind the government that they are

here to serve the British interests, not the interests of those people.

Britain has survived and thrived for 1000 years. As an independent

country. Even in the face of hostility, from European counties,

it could do so free of the into this -- into those of the EU. What we

need is a country governed for itself, Britain governing for

itself, by its own institutions which have been with us for the last

1000 years, and been with us successfully.

My Lords, it is easy to be swayed in 1's opinions by powerful speeches in

their Lordships house. When I listened to the noble Lord of

Swindon, I feel a burning desire to stay within the EU. To be fair on

him, when I listened to Lord Mandelson halfway through his

speech, I felt an immediate urge to leave. My Lords, it's a while since

I last spoke on the EU debate in 1975, I thought it was about time

that I tried again! A lot has happened since then, we had the

single European act, one must not forget the one political party who

campaigned to leave the EU by 1993 led by Michael foot, the Labour

Party. I'm slightly Eurosceptic, it's difficult not to be. The euro

is a failed concept, Schengen is collapsing, the machine is neither

representative or responsive to those it represents. We know the

commission 's accounts have not been signed off by auditors for many

years. Despite that, we have benefited by being a member of the

EU. However, we must not exaggerate its successors. It is not the that

has prevented European laws but Nato who kept us safe. Of course my

Lords, we can survive easily outside the EU will secure borders and new

trade agreements, however long it may take to accomplish. Having said

that, following recent success for negotiations, I believe we can also

have a better continued future within the EU, within a reformed EU.

It isn't an easy process, I found when recently touring European

capitals and speaking to their politicians but they all wanted us

to stay in the EU. They claim that without us it might collapse, and

other countries might leave. Yet those same politicians fought tooth

and nail against every change, and centres, when the promised tried to

adjust the terms. The European civil servants, the Eurocrats, they seemed

accommodating and reasonable in the process. Lined up against the Prime

Minister we are formidable opponents. The Prime Minister

succeeded way beyond expectations in his negotiations, I've nothing but

admiration for how he achieved the outcome. As someone who has known

the Prime Minister probably longer and better than anyone else in this

chamber, I've never doubted his ability, toughness and

determination, and the intellectual rigour that he to these

negotiations. The agreements are a substantial change to our

relationship with the EU. I think it is fair that we should, I should

anyway, ask the minister a couple of questions. Should there be a

successful stay in referendum, what would happen if the European

Parliament rejected some important elements of the deal, as we know

European MEPs cannot be forced to vote one way or the other. The

Attorney General has said the European Court has to take the

treaty changes into account, and the agreement is legally binding. I'm no

lawyer, I look forward to my noble friend explaining to me the European

Court has been expansionist in its remit in the past, what happens if

it hurt a part or portion of the agreement and rejected it?

The other issue the noble Baroness did not mention is that the

Government at one point floated the idea of the European Supreme Court

to act as a constitutional long stop. I wonder whether this is still

a proposal and if my noble friend could tell me how it would work.

That is something that can adapt in the ever-changing world. We cannot

allow this agreement to be the end of the process of reform. There is

no right or wrong in these decisions. There are compelling

arguments to both sides but weighing all of the argument is, I will be

voting in the referendum to stay. I believe our Prime Minister has made

considerable progress and is the best person to lead forward in the

reform. This has been a pretty gripping debate so far, and it has

only just started. So gripping that I have made all of these scrolls on

my notes and have completely ruined them even though I have taken the

trouble to type out my speech. I am too a passionate pro-European, but

I'm an academic and I would put it in a rather more muted way than Lord

Ashdown. As my Lord said this is the most interdependent world by far in

which anyone has ever lived. That interdependence might have expanded

the global market and an emerging system of global law. It is fuelled

development in some of the poorest parts of the world. At the same time

large-scale tensions and conflicts have been generated to. Some of them

are dangerous and are concentrated in the neighbourhood. Wide range and

collaboration to separate benefits from risks. The EU has an essential

role to play here as is emphasised. I only wish the opportunity had been

taken to question some of the nostrums of those who would have

Britain quit. They routinely asserts, the only flexibility and

progress as though this were some sort of unquestioned truths. Yet it

is obvious it is reducing bureaucracy than the reverse. About

the protocols that have to be stuck to, imagine what would happen if 28

states had to agree individual trade deals with one another and in a

rolling fashion. As the report makes clear, effective European security

depends upon cross-border collaboration, the problem with the

refugee crisis today is that such effective collaboration between

states rather than an excess of it. In this case the knock-on

consequences could be very serious indeed. To me it is a terrifying

example in fact. When consensus breaks down, ... Primarily through

self-interest. A favourite adage of many Eurosceptics at the end of the

day is small is beautiful. I enjoyed my honourable friend speech which

was a very most one and I think he has been a very eloquent interpreter

of this position. Freed from the shackles of the EU, the UK as it

were can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. Gaily picking up

trade deals. Try telling that to negotiators to putting TT IP in

place. The biggest free deal and trade deal ever implemented should

it be finalised. The US has made it clear that Britain acting in

isolation would have no chance. Size my Lord still council stop the EU

hold 60% of global trade compared with 14% for China and 10% for the

US. The US, China and India have all made it clear that they want the UK

to stay in the European Union. Britain exerts much influence in the

world given it is a country of 60 million in a world of 7 billion. But

it does so in large part through collaboration and an attempt to

force common rules within the EU itself in Nato and in the UN. The

wood magically allowed the UK to store tight control over

immigration, Switzerland is not a member of the union and has

negotiated a deal which allows access to a single market as Britain

would also have to do. To do so the country had to negotiate new ones

with the European Union. Yet Switzerland has a far higher ratio

of influence than the UK does. Over twice the proportion in fact. My

Lords since I messed up my speech I cut it short, the natural impulse is

to revert to traditional battle lines. There are many aspects of the

approach taken which could be questioned. Keeping Britain a full

and influential member is key to the country's future, I hope all of us

who share such ideas will work together on a cross-party basis

setting aside political differences to achieve this end. My Lords in

well over 40 years as a member of one house or another, I have never

before known search a blatant campaign leaked document not a least

one which is so economic with the truth masqueraded as a government

white paper. The title itself I have to say is a lie. The best of both

worlds, the United Kingdom's special status in a reformed European Union.

My Lords the European Union has manifestly not been reformed. And

such is the nature of the beast is certainly an reformed. Britain's

so-called special status may well should we remain in the European

Union proved to be not the best but the worst of both worlds. Those of

us who wish to leave I have to say, is... Lands that question. The

alternative is not being a member. It may come to a great shock as the

Europeans in our midst that most of the world including the

fastest-growing trees growing in the world are not in the European Union.

-- growing countries. Responsibility for the conduct of economics in this

country, I have little doubt that we would prosper more if we were not a

member of the European Union. As for the content of the white paper,

there is one significant omission, it fails to mention the single most

important feature of the agreement of the 19th of February, namely the

declaration that, I quote, member states not participating in the

deepening of the economic monetary union will not create obstacles to

but facilitate such further deepening. And quote. Thus at a

stroke we have given our ability to veto further transfers of powers

from the United Kingdom to the European Union should we remain,

that they believe are necessary for further economic integration. Not so

much white paper as white flag. Moreover it undermines the claim on

the paper that more powers cannot be transferred from the United Kingdom

to the European Union without the United Kingdom agreeing. What then

of the exit mechanism in the welcome event of the referendum being one

with levers. There is much talk of having to invoke article 50 of the

Lisbon Treaty and the process taking up to ten years or more. This is

bolder-. -- this is balderdash. The 1975 referendum would have been a

fraud since the Lisbon Treaty dates back to 2007. Article 50 refers to

the EU putt recommended procedure for negotiating the relationship of

a member that has left with its surviving European Union. The Prime

Minister is frequently pointed out that Parliament is sovereign and we

can at any time leave the European Union by repealing the 1972 European

communities act. Which makes UK law subordinate. Indeed article 50 of

the Lisbon Treaty itself state that and I quote, any member state

deciding the withdrawal in accordance with its own

constitutional requirements". And in the case of the United Kingdom, our

only one is the repeal of the 1972 act. My Lords, among the many

grossly misleading scare -- misleading scare stories peddled by

the Government whose only argument is project fear, nothing positive at

all, is that we'll have two renegotiate all of our trade

agreements with countries outside of the European Union. The plain truth

is that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. The great bulk of our

trade with the rest of the world have been regulated by the WTO and

would remain wholly unchanged. As for the Aga and that you need to be

a member that 60% of British exports, 60% are covered by the free

trade agreement. Ashman as for the agreement. 60% are on our behalf.

The great majority of the agreements we are part two with the WTO were

concluded before 95 when at that time when the European union was not

even a member of the WTO all gats. As for the argument that you need to

be a member of the so-called single market to trade is nonsense. Indeed

exports into the single market from countries outside have for many

years not been growing faster than UK exports. After all, the weighted

average of the European Union's growth is any 3.6%. The prospect of

not being able to secure a far better trade agreement the little

Switzerland is Switzerland. That is its nature. The uncertainty

surrounding Britain's future, should roost site to stay -- should we

decide to stay is far more important than getting freedom. The route to

belittle freedom is what it is all about, that is the purpose. That

will continue. Even though we have secured lockdown for political

union, we remain shackled to it, a sort of colonial status. This

referendum is not primarily about economic. It is about whether we in

this country decide to take control of our affairs whether we decide to

be a self-governing democracy and one with a global European

perspective. Could I press him to spell out what the alternative is,

he is the chairman of one of the leading organisations and always

raises the laugh, we have heard the privilege of hearing it but what

does that freedom or out consist of? What deal would he conclude?

Contrary to the protestations, Britain has benefited from lower

prices.