William Hague won't commit on post-ratification strategy but says he favours some legislative action to affirm supremacy of Parliament

Click the graphic above to enlarge the screen capture of Tory MPs listening yesterday to the Shadow Foreign Secretary.  Earlier David Miliband paid tribute to William Hague: "He has prosecuted his case in an absolutely brilliant fashion and re-established his reputation as one of the outstanding debaters of our times."

Two Labour MPs questioned William Hague on whether the Conservatives would grant a post-ratification referendum:

Denis MacShane MP (Labour): "If I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s logic correctly, he is saying that the treaty that we are debating now is the same as the old constitution, and that a pledge was given to have a referendum on that constitution, which must be honoured. Is he therefore saying that if we pass into law tonight the treaty that he avers is the same as the old constitution, the position of his party will be to have a referendum on that? We need to know; the nation needs to know."

Mr. Hague: "The right hon. Gentleman says that the nation needs to know. I am saying that a referendum should be held on this treaty; that is the clear implication of everything I am saying. As I have frequently explained, quite a lot of water has to pass under the bridge before there will be any possibility of moving on to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I should also have paid tribute for his many interventions in these debates, including the most memorable one, when he said that the Prime Minister had been wrong about the weight of European regulation—which means that we look forward to his interventions from the Back Benches for many years to come; we have all that to look forward to."

Later in the debate:

Geraldine Smith MP (Labour): "Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the British people have a right to know what his party would do about the treaty if the Conservatives ever came to government? He will not answer that question. If the treaty is so bad for Britain—if it is so bleak—what will he do about it? I happen to think that the right hon. Gentleman and not their current leader may be the next Tory Prime Minister."

Mr. Hague: "I can certainly rule out the last part of the hon. Lady’s question, which was a most mischievous thing to come up with—she need never consider that possibility. The answer to the first part of her question is that people know from the vote on the referendum last week how the Conservative party approaches the matter: we are the only party leadership in the House who stayed true to what we stated in our last election manifesto. At the next general election, we will be true to what we state in our manifesto then."

Bill Cash and Ed Davey quiz William Hague on whether he supports legislative action to protect the supremacy of the UK Parliament:

Bill Cash: "I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for fumigating the Government’s speeches on the whole question of the treaty and the referendum. Does he accept the importance of stating, in line with my reasoned amendment, which was not selected, that we will defend and protect this Parliament’s supremacy to ensure that we are not overridden by the European Court of Justice, or by our own courts, and that we have a sound constitutional position for any further renegotiations?"

Mr. Hague: "Given the growth of the EU’s powers, British sovereignty and the ultimate supremacy of Parliament need a constitutional safeguard, but I also say to my hon. Friend that the legal implications of any such provision must be absolutely clear. More work would need to be done in the future on the context and formula by which it is achieved, but I have great sympathy with the constitutional safeguard of ultimate supremacy."

Later in the debate:

Ed Davey MP (Liberal Democrat): "The right hon. Gentleman seems to be extolling a new potential Conservative policy when, in response to the hon. Member for Stone, he talked about a new constitutional safeguard. Does he mean the possibility of using article 49A, which, as he knows, gives member states a right to secede from the Union, or does he have something else in mind—possibly something that he might wish to renegotiate with our colleagues if he were to pull out of this treaty?"

Mr. Hague: "I mean none of those things. Only the Liberal Democrats have gone on about the article that allows a withdrawal from the European Union. It is one of the least likely treaty articles to be employed, which is why our consideration in these debates must be on the many other articles that will be employed. I am simply saying what I said a few moments ago: given the steady growth in the EU’s powers, I can see the case for a constitutional safeguard. I would have thought that many Members across the House would also be able to see that."

Comments

[Christina Speight]

This is just about as unhelpful a contribution as can be imagined. He has told us absolutely nothing at all. The party will lose all momentum if it does not make its position clear well in advance of the next election manifesto. By then all eurosceptic Tories will have given up

[Malcolm Dunn]

Good for Hague. He answered the questions of unprincipled charlatans like Davey and Machane with great skill. We have the moral high ground here.

[James Maskell]

He can keep putting off answering the question if he wants but ultimately hes going to have to give an answer at some point. He might as well get it out of the way now rather than dithering.

As for the legislative safeguarding, it could be very tricky indeed to do that and if hes going to encourage discussion of it, he needs to seriously consider whether its actually plausible.

[Andrew Lilico]

He doesn't need to say anything definitive yet. The time for that will come after Royal Assent.

[James]

"we are the only party leadership in the House who stayed true to what we stated in our last election manifesto. At the next general election, we will be true to what we state in our manifesto then"

That is the key bit.

To start talking now, in the middle of the debate in the House over the Treaty, about what the Conservative MIGHT do in the future IF x and y happen would play right into Labour's hands. It would distract attention from the current fight for a referendum now, and distract attention from Labour and the Lib Dem's broken manfiesto commitment.

If we fail to secure a referendum and this Bill is passed, only THEN is it right for the Conservatives to lay out (not necessarily immediately, this is a long game, but ahead of the next GE) what we would do next.

[cjcjc]

"He doesn't need to say anything definitive yet."

No, he doesn't *need* to.

But it might look a little less shifty if he actually did!

[Gospel of Enoch]

"Only the Liberal Democrats have gone on about the article that allows a withdrawal from the European Union. It is one of the least likely treaty articles to be employed"

Since that is the only threat that would produce meaningful renogation of our treaty terms, he is showing their poker hand to be a busted flush. Well done: You're really motivating the Tory/UKIP waverers out there to stay on the Tory side...

[TFA Tory]

William Hague fobbed William Cash off with a non-commital response. He had good reason to dodge the question. After the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, the EU law will have supremacy over UK law. For Parliament to regain its supremacy, Britain would have to renegotiate its relationship with the EU. The renegotiation would have reclaim the supremacy ceded in previous treaties too.

The EU would not enter into such a renegotiation and other countries would seek to renegotiate. It would result in "EU a la carte", i.e. thwart the federalist "Project" completely. The only way for Westminster to regain its supremacy is for Britain to leave the EU. That is why the Whips instructed Tory MPs to vote against Bill Cash's amendment at Second Reading. It was a clever time bomb that would have exploded in Cameron's and Hague's faces.

Hague's problem is that he must deliver a new policy on the EU for next year's European Parliamentary elections. He has to choose between pleasing the Europhile MEPs or the Eurosceptic and Eurorealist MPs. A compromise or fudge will lack credibility and only benefit UKIP.

[Mr Disgusted]

To the average man in the street who sees nothing of any worth to come from Europe from the main three Parties, the choice will only be UKIP or BNP.
Tossing crumbs of vagueness will not get you votes, just reinforce the idea that you may not act when it comes to it because your crumbs were not a referendum but a treaty instead.

[Ass Scratcher]

This is a quote that comes to mind not only when Hague spouts this rubbish, but the comments of political anoraks as well.
"A person has only so much time allotted to him, and I hate to waste it reading tripe. I suppose that's why I rarely listen to politicians' speeches - why waste time that could be better spent scratching my ass?"

[Christina Speight]

There are is an army of Tory eurosceptics who will give up in disgust at this shilly-shallying.

Why can't the Leader of the party speak out. He appears to be leaving everything about the EU to Hague who is far from a convinced sceptic. Indeed some blame him for the broken promise over the failure to get the party in Brussels out of the EPP group.

And by the Party's failure to back Bill Cash they have ensured that supremacy of EU law becomes an enormous matter of principle in any renegotiations.

This will end up causing a haemorrhage of Tory sceptics a Labour victory and the FINAL absorption of Britain into the US of Europe. Thanks a million Hague and Cameron

[David Parker]

TFA Tory. I agree.Tory talk about treaty renegotiation is just a red herring to avoid confronting the real issue. This not fool anyone, and it damages the Conservative party by reducing them to the level of the Labour, Lib-Dem deceit over the nature of the Con/Treaty.

If the Treaty is ratified the Conservatives have only two honest choices. Either accept the treaty in its entirety, and tell the electorate this, or promise an IN/OUT referendum and make it a manifesto committment that they will support a vote for withdrawal.

Talk about reforming the EU from within is a dishonest deception worthy only of MEPs. We have been trying to do that ever since we joined, but the entire concept was desinged, from the outset, to be a one way ratchet.

There is, however, a very real chance that a strong Conservative government might be able to negotiate a withdrawal,incorporating a totally different new relationship with the EU, in a manner which could have benefits and attractions to them as well as Britain.
From the EU viewpoint, a powerful independent ally might well be preferable to a reluctant and potentially disruptive member. This, however, would only be achievable if they were convinced that the only alternative was a unilateral and possibly acrimonious withdrawal.

[John F Aberdeen]

Assuming (and I hope the Lords vote for a referendum) the lisbon treaty passes into law we have to deal with its consequences (good or bad) between now and a general election.
On the Consevative side I,ve noticed a much larger number of euro sceptic MPs than previous years. The referendum vote showed only around 4 Tories voting with the government so I see us more untied on Europe than for many years.
Yes I want the Tory leaders to promise a referendum not just on the lisbon treaty but our whole EU membership.
William Hague is right to pledge that the next Tory government will introduce a bill to Affirm the UK parliamentary supremacy. I agree with this to a point but can,t help thinking that there will be lots of battles in our courts and the european courts about this if the new law is enacted.
It becomes more and more apparent to me that we need to clear the air.
William Cash put things very clearly yesterday in parliament,, he said that all MPs are in the house to carry out the wishes of the people who elected them. Since joing Europe we increasingly have laws forced upon us from unelected people, laws which nobody in this country voted for.
There are countless examples of the consequences of this lawmaking ending up in chaos and uneccessary expense,, followed by government ministers shrugging their shoulders and say its nothing to do with me, it was europe.
This is unacceptable and is one of the main reasons for public apathy and cynisism. After all why vote for MPs (of any party) when they have and, in the case of Labour and Lib Dem MPs, continue to give away the sovreignty of the British people to Europe.
Some people have argued that, as the treaty takes hold, the UK will be permanently linked to europe (no way back), I disagree.
Lets take the example of Scotland and Wales, we were all part of the UK parliamentary system,, after a referendum and the majority voted for devolution then it was granted,, I guess if either of the UK countries wanted complete indpendance from the UK that would also be granted.
This being the case, assuming a future government reccommended independance from the EU and a majority of people voted yes in a referendum,, nobody in Europe could stop us,, and seeing as the Dutch, German armies don,t fight after 6 pm and like weekends off I don,t see them or other forces trying to stop us.
So William I agree with UK law being supreme, however the only way to truly achieve this will be to get out of the EU altogether and to re-join the freetrade area with Norway, Switzerland etc.

[Mr Disgusted]

Problem with the EU and all its bureacracy is that its just too rich a seam for the ex MPs to mine and this is why they will be loathe to give it up. Look at Kinnoccio and family for example, a wealthy failure and a disgraceful example of who benefits.

[Partridge]

Milliband's praise for Hague was fully justified. Listen to Hague's speeches podcast on Tory Radio.

Mr Disgusted 13.38 - you are correct. They used to say that all political careers end in failure. Now they get a bigger slice of the pie in Brussels.

[michael mcgough]

Tick,tock,that bomb is still ticking.

[Geoff]

Brilliant. Hague is DITHERING.

[Tapestry]

A constitutional safeguard after Lisbon is like offering free condoms to a prostitute. How can Hague be sure the partners will agree to wear it next time they want to suck power from Parliament? The only safe approach is to avoid contact completely.

I'm with the Liberal Democrats on this one, there's only one simple choice for the parties to take - in or out? Either they penetrate us and expect full satisfaction, or they don't. European Democratic Deficiency Virus will inevitably transfer to Britain's population, if they do. Constitutional condoms are a waste of time.

[Anne Palmer]

Will you PLEASE reel forward and THINK what you would do if you had waited and played a "slowly, slowly" game for fifty years to get almost most of what you wanted (Power over all soon to be 27+ Nation States) obviously to continue to take their own people's votes and money, yet run eagerly to give their leaders in Brussels their very own job of Governing.

Would YOU not have it all planned out? Have everything ready and waiting for 2nd Jan 2009. All legislation ready and waiting for that clock to strike?

All three major Parties are being reckless, casual with the people of this Country and ALL the people in it and that includes The Queen.

The Conservatives lost my vote when they did not support Bill Cash's special amendment. Did you really think we would not notice?
It really does not matter WHO gets in IF there is ever another General Election, because you ALL want to be governed by the European union FOREVER. Ah yes, they ARE planning for the next 50 Years.

This is YOUR Country too but it will not be if you all run eagerly to give the European Union all the power they want.

[Geoff]

It's rather confusing to have two people posting as "Geoff". I can't give my full name because of my job but for (I think) the first time I agree with my namesake (12th 16:53).

Decisive action is required by Mr Hague.