Is there a plot to block Bill Cash from chairing the European Scrutiny Committee?

Wednesday July 7th update:

BIll Cash has in the event been nominated unopposed to chair the European Scrutiny Committee. He said:

“I am utterly delighted at receiving such overwhelming support from so many colleagues. We now have to get down to the business of sifting through the massive logjam of European Directives and other European Commission proposals and setting up the membership of the Committee as soon as reasonably possible because European proposals and legislation have such a pervasive impact on the daily lives of the voters of the United Kingdom.”

Jonathan Isaby

--- 

Michael Connarty, the Labour Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee during the last Parliament, asked the following question in the Commons earlier today -

"May I press the Deputy Leader of the House to get his master, the Leader of the House, to come to the House and give the statement that he promised two weeks ago on progress on setting up the European Scrutiny Committee, and to scotch the rumour that is going about that Ministers intend to vote in the 1922 committee’s election of the Conservative chair of that committee? I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will say that even the gelded Liberals would not stand for the Government’s trying to elect a Back-Bench committee’s chairman." 

Since Commons Committee Chairmen are elected either on a cross-party basis by all backbench MPs, or by the members of the Committee concerned, the procedure that Connarty was referring to is obscure.  But the rumour to which he was alluding is that the whole Conservative Parliamentary Party - including its Ministers - will, in a unique arrangement, vote soon to nominate one of the Conservative committee members as its Chairman.

One of those members looks to be Bill Cash, who's sat on the Committee for 26 years.  It's no secret that he's not exactly the pin-up boy of the Whips' Office.  Labour sources confirm that Connarty was suggesting that this peculiar manoeuvre is an attempt to block him, and instead install Oliver Heald, a former Shadow Leader of the Commons.

Connarty didn't get much of an answer from David Heath, the Deputy Leader of the House.  As a Liberal Democrat, Heath was able to say that the workings of the '22 are nothing to do with him.  It's understood that Labour and other non-Conservative members of the new committee may be unwilling to have a Tory other than Cash foisted on them (as they're apparently likely to see it).

If Ministers vote in such a election, the gambit will obviously say much about Conservative tensions over the EU.  There are two other important issues at stake.  The first is the right of backbenchers of all parties to decide who chairs Commons committees.  The second is the right of the '22 to remain the property of Conservative backbenchers.  David Cameron's recent attempt to merge the '22 with the frontbench was both wrong and unsuccessful.  It shouldn't be repeated in any form - let alone in relation to so vital an issue.

Paul Goodman

Iceland must repay UK depositors if it wants to join EU, warns Cameron

Pasted below are highlights of David Cameron's statement to the Commons yesterday, reporting back from last week's EU leaders summit.

Early action to tackle state borrowing: "On deficits, the Conclusions could not be clearer. Delaying action would entail “major risks”. And the Council called on Member States to meet budgetary targets “without delay”. Since the last European Council the problems in Greece and the scale of the Sovereign debt crisis have become apparent to almost everyone. That’s why there’s such unanimity across the EU on early action."

Britain will not agree to the EU needing to see the Chancellor's Budget before the Commons: "Britain is not in the Euro; and let me be clear – we’re not going to join the Euro. But a strong and successful Eurozone is vital for the British national interest. Already about half of our exports go to the EU, fourth-fifths of this to the Eurozone. But as this House is aware, with the situation in Greece and the need for a support package from the other Eurozone members, there is no doubt that the Eurozone as a whole faces real challenges. So I was generally supportive of the Council’s efforts to strengthen the Eurozone governance arrangements. But I was equally determined to ensure our national interests are protected. So on budget surveillance let me be clear – the UK Budget will be shown to this House first – and not to the Commission. Of course we will share projections and forecasts just as we do with the IMF and other international bodies. Co-ordination and consultation – yes. Clearance – no. Never."

Sanctions against Iran: "On Iran we’ve argued that it’s time for actions not just words. So following the UN Security Council’s recent adoption of Resolution 1929, the Council agreed to step up the pressure, issuing an unequivocal leaders’ declaration. This refers to measures including restrictions on trade, banking, transport and the oil and gas industry."

Iceland must refund UK depositors as part of its application to join the EU: "This country should be a good friend to Iceland and a strong supporter of EU enlargement. But Iceland owes the UK £2.3bn in respect of compensation paid by the Government to UK investors following the collapse of its banking sector. We will use the application process to make sure that Iceland meets its obligations – because we want that money back."

The Prime Minister's full statement is on the Downing Street website.

Tim Montgomerie

William Hague sets out Coalition's EU policy in House of Commons

Key extracts from William Hague's speech to the Commons yesterday on the Coalition's EU policy. Hague identifies extravagant spending as main cause of Eurozone's problems and promises to support Turkish membership of EU.

The EU rebate will be protected: "We will not repeat their wretched handling of the negotiations on the current financial perspective, which saw them accept a cut of £7 billion in our rebate while obtaining nothing of substance in return."

Deregulation and freer trade is key to European prosperity: "We need to get Europe back to work, create jobs, attract investment and deal with the erosion of our long-term competitiveness. Those issues concern every member of the European Union, not just the eurozone. We will urgently make the case for the extension of the single market, better regulation that can lighten the burdens on businesses, and seizing opportunities to create freer and fairer trade between the European Union and third countries. In that context, we will particularly encourage greater economic engagement between the European Union and new, rising economic powers."

Extravagant spending is main Eurozone problem: "Deficits unaddressed or regulation that prices people out of work in some European nations are the real dangers to economic growth in the long term. When we consider the position of the countries in the eurozone that face the most severe fiscal difficulties, their problem is not insufficient state spending or insufficient regulation, but very much the opposite."

A 'referendum lock' will be introduced to ensure democratic oversign of Britain's relationship with the EU: "Both parties that form the coalition are determined to make the Government more accountable to the British people for how the EU develops, so that Bill will be introduced later this year. It will enlarge democratic and parliamentary scrutiny, accountability and control over the decisions that we make in the EU. As the House will know, it will include a referendum lock, so that no future treaty may pass areas of power or competences from the UK to the EU without the British people's consent in a referendum. The Government have already agreed that there will be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers in this Parliament in any case. The lock will also cover any proposal for Britain to join the euro. We regard that measure as essential in ensuring that the EU develops in a way that has the British people's consent."

Britain will not support gradualist expansion of EU powers: "At the spring European Council, five EU-level target areas were identified: employment; research and development; energy and climate change; education, and social inclusion. We are concerned that some, while not legally binding, may stray into the competences of member states. Some are inappropriate for the different systems and models that various member states use. That variety must be respected in creating a meaningful strategy that addresses the economic issues faced across Europe."

The EU must support more sanctions against Iran: "We remain extremely concerned about Iran's nuclear programme. Iran has failed to suspend its nuclear activities in line with UN Security Council resolutions, has shown no serious intent to discuss its programme with the international community and has failed to address the outstanding concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For those reasons, we are pursuing-as we speak-new sanctions, and a draft resolution is now being discussed at the UN Security Council. The EU has agreed to take measures to accompany this process and we will work hard with our EU partners to ensure that we take strong measures that have an impact on Iran's decision making."

Support for Turkish membership: "Widening of the European Union must go along with the rigorous application of the entry criteria. The Government will continue to champion the European Union's enlargement, including to the western Balkans and Turkey. We will be assiduous in working with Ankara and other member states to resolve outstanding issues."

In conclusion:

"The last Conservative Government left a considerable legacy in the European Union: the creation of the single market; the enlargement from nine to 15 members; and the setting in train of further eastwards enlargement. I will not take away from the last Government their achievement in helping to complete that enlargement, but in other respects their legacy is to be regretted: the alienation of the British public from the EU; the failure to stand up for Britain's interests on the budget, and so on. The new Government have started as we mean to continue-with activity and energy in European affairs. We will play our role with enthusiasm, while vigorously advancing our country's interests and never taking the British people for granted."

Read the full record in Hansard.

In a commentary the BBC's Europe Editor concludes: "Like others, the foreign secretary said the main issue facing the EU was the lack of growth, which he described as "anaemic." The basic message was that Britain would be co-operative, but it would not agree to further integration."

Tim Montgomerie

David Curry predicts the Conservatives will be less reluctant Europeans, once in government

Yesterday we featured David Curry's striking warning about difficult years ahead for local government. In his valedictory speech to the House of Commons he also issued a warning to his party about Europe and Britain's place in the world.

Britain is still in search of its place in the world: "One of the reasons why I came into politics was a feeling that my generation had inherited a country that was in rapid transformation and, in many ways, had not come to terms with it. Britain was the sick man of Europe in my youth, when I was at university. When I was 18, in 1962, Dean Acheson, the American Secretary of State, made a speech in which he said:

"Great Britain has lost an Empire and not yet found a role."

I am leaving this House 48 years after Dean Acheson made that speech, and I believe that that dilemma for the United Kingdom remains unresolved."

Obama has further downgraded the UK-US relationship: "We cling to an increasingly asymmetric relationship with the United States. I would not want us not to have a particular relationship with the United States, but increasingly we cannot sustain it on the basis of that old idea that something very special is at its heart. The current President has less interest in that idea than some-perhaps less than any other-of his predecessors whose roots went back to Europe."

Tories need to be more positive about Europe: "Benches, given my party leadership's decision to have constructive engagement on Europe, and its extraordinarily elegant and, from my point of view, extremely welcome climbdown on the referendum pledge. We are perennially reluctant Europeans, yet no sane party has come up with a plan B on Europe. I look forward to seeing, from the perspective of my greenhouse, the changed reaction towards Europe of Conservative Back Benchers if they sit on the Government Benches, as opposed to the Opposition. I know that Europe has huge problems. In a sense, its bluff is being called: how can one create an economic union without the political union that goes with it? But the ability of the Europeans to cobble something together that works is absolutely astonishing. In a sense, there is something rather British about being able to put something together on an improvised basis that manages to carry on."

Britain needs to stop punching above its weight, but at its weight: "We talk about punching above our weight, but a person can only punch above their weight for a certain number of rounds, and then they get flattened. I do not want us to punch above our weight. I want us to work out what our weight is and punch at it. I do not want to go a gram above our weight. We send our young soldiers to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we do not have the means to sustain over a long term the total support that means that we can carry through those missions with complete success. If we are honest, we ended up in Iraq, in Basra, not in a glorious episode, but in a somewhat humiliating one. When it comes to the intervention in Afghanistan, I want to be able to say that we will see things through, so that I can say that those young people did not die in vain. If we cannot sustain those operations in the long term, we should not embark on them. I would say to an incoming Government: look hard at the UK. Look at us from the outside as well as from the inside. Turn the telescope around sometimes, and look through both ends. What can we really do? What is it reasonable to ask our citizens to sustain? What is the effective power or weight of the United Kingdom in the modern world, where we spend all our time talking about the impact of globalisation? In the end, of course things boil down to budgets and economic performance, but we need to look honestly in the mirror of our national identity and national capability. If we do that, the next Government will perhaps be able to answer the challenge that Dean Acheson set 48 years ago, which, in many ways, has governed my political life."

Source: TheyWorkForYou.

Mark Francois congratulates Labour on undermining Tony Blair's bid to become EU President

The Shadow Europe Minister was in fine form during yesterday's Europe debate in the Commons, suggesting that Labour put media management first when the priority should have been to win the EU's economic portfolio for Britain:

"It would also be churlish not to express our gratitude to the Foreign Secretary for his decision to champion Tony Blair in his campaign for the presidency. It was strongly our view that the former Prime Minister was exactly the wrong man for the job. Not only would his appointment dramatise the treaty's lack of democratic legitimacy, but to make so ambitious and limelight-hungry a politician the office's formative first occupant-he is even more so than the current Minister for Europe-would have shaped the post as an unconstructive centralising institution.

In the EU, the front-runner seldom gets the job. By doing everything that he could to make Tony Blair the front runner, the Foreign Secretary did a great deal to undermine his case. Characterising him as the man who could stop the traffic in Washington and Moscow helpfully crystallised everything that many countries did not want the President to be and implicitly put down the other candidates. The Prime Minister's people skills are obviously rubbing off on the Foreign Secretary.

We congratulate Baroness Ashton on her appointment. It is interesting that she was the Government's third or even fourth choice for the job-I will return to that in a minute-but we appreciate the appointment of someone able to work across the political divide. Some have criticised her for a lack of experience in foreign policy, but we know that she possesses a keen intelligence, and we are prepared to work with her in the British national interest.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) warned the Government before the summit, however, they should have sought for Britain not the position of President of the Council or High Representative, but a major economic portfolio in the European Commission. Recent events have borne out the wisdom of that warning, as the noble Lord Mandelson belatedly grasped. The whole saga of the appointments to the European Commission and other positions demonstrates this Government's lack of influence in the EU, lack of strategy and disunity.

The Government received no support for Tony Blair's candidacy from their socialist allies. They were talked into seeking the High Representative position. It is reported that the Prime Minister agreed not because he thought that Britain's interests would thus be best served but because he thought that it might secure better headlines. According to one key figure, there were two groups in the Government: those who made the real-world argument that the UK's interests would be best served by securing a strong economic portfolio to protect the City, and the media managers. It is, sadly, no surprise that this Prime Minister preferred to listen to the media managers. Once again, his preference for short-term personal political calculation has trumped the national interest.

Many will also find it extraordinary that the Prime Minister of this country was reduced to accepting his third choice of High Representative before he could find someone acceptable to the Party of European Socialists. They will find it even more extraordinary that the First Secretary of State, it is said, conducted his own campaign for the job and that even with his skills he was unsuccessful. As No. 10 was trying to push one set of candidates for the job, it appears that the First Secretary was trying to press another, namely himself."

Mr Francois' performance gets top marks from Quentin Letts in The Daily Mail: "If the Tories somehow manage to win the election, let's hope he is made Europe Minister and is allowed to do it for a decent spell."

Labour MP Peter Kilfoyle starts EDM against Blair becoming EU President

This is the text:

"That this House believes that, on his record in international affairs, Tony Blair is wholly unsuitable to be President of the European Union; that the Foreign Secretary is both wrong and unwise to promote his candidature for the post; and believes that there should be a full public debate before the Government contemplates embarking on such a recommendation."

These are the signatories so far:

1. Kilfoyle, Peter
2. Hancock, Mike
3. Spink, Bob
4. Cook, Frank
5. Drew, David
6. Holmes, Paul
7. McDonnell, John
8. Corbyn, Jeremy
9. Davies, Dai

Conservative MEPs illustrate the increasing burden of Brussels red tape under Labour

Timothy Kirkhope and a number of the Conservative MEPs have posed for this photo in order to highlight the increase in regulations emanating from Brussels, drawing on recent research by Open Europe (available here and here).

The think-tank found that 100,000 extra pages have been added to the EU's "Acquis Communautaire" since 1997 - so Mr Kirkhope and his colleagues sought to show just what that much paper looks like.

Mr Kirkhope said:

Jonathan Isaby

Michael Howard highlights National Audit Office warning on banking - from 2004

Michael Howard made another useful intervention in the Commons yesterday.

The Prime Minister had made his statement on the European Council held in Brussels on Thursday and Friday. (We carried David Cameron's response yesterday.)

Mr Howard had a humdinger for Mr Brown:

"In discussing the financial crisis with his colleagues at the Council, did the Prime Minister draw to their attention the important report of the National Audit Office on the nationalisation of Northern Rock? Did he consider with them the lessons that can be learned from the report’s finding that in 2004 the Treasury over which he presided was specifically warned that we were ill-equipped to deal with a systemic banking crisis, but decided that the issue was not a high priority? Does he now regret his failure to take that warning seriously?

The Prime Minister: Long after 2004, we did a number of exercises with the American authorities about what we would do in situations in which individual banks collapsed and about whether there was a systemic crisis as a result. Far from not taking action, we did take action and looked at what the global repercussions of individual bank failures would be. We talked to the United States Treasury and Federal Reserve and the regulators. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must recognise that Northern Rock, among other companies in the United Kingdom, was buying assets, from the United States of America, which were at that time labelled triple A but which turned out to be absolutely worthless. So there is also a failure in international regulation, which must be dealt with. I hope that he will agree that the measures that we are taking at the G20 are the right ones to take."

I think young Mr Howard (MP for Folkestone and Hythe) could have a future in politics ...

Timothy Kirkhope condemns European Court for upholding compulsory retirement age

Timothy Kirkhope, who leads the Conservatives in the European Parliament, has put out a press release in light of the failure of Heyday, a membership organisation of Age Concern. Heyday had brought a case to the European Court of Justice to challenge the legality of the compulsory retirement age.

Employers are allowed to fire staff - without redundancy pay - when they reach 65 or the mandatory retirement age set by the company. Heyday unsuccessfully challenged on the grounds that the law contravened EU equal treatment laws.

"This is a sad setback for age equality in Britain. It is wrong to force people who want to make a contribution to the economy to hang up their boots, particularly during a recession.

Too many companies undervalue the expertise and experience older people can bring to the table. We need a sea change in our attitude to older people in the workplace.

The problem of age discrimination is a cultural one that would not be changed by the European Court, but a ruling in favour of fairer employment practices would have been a good place to start.

Fortunately the High Court has pre-eminence in this matter. It must exercise its own authority by rejecting the ECJ's opinion and supporting an end to compulsory retirement age in the UK.”

This is a tough one. On the one hand, I agree with Mr Kirkhope that we treat older people very shabbily. I can think of some very sprightly pensioners - and Ronald Reagan was older than 65 when he became one of America's greatest ever Presidents. On the other hand, I don't like supra-national law, especially in the area of employment, and I do think businesses need some legal scope to be able to say that someone is no longer capable of doing their job. Back to the first hand again though, should they not have that scope regardless of someone's age - even if age is sometimes a factor?

Tom Greeves

Lord Malloch-Brown says Irish should not stop Lisbon Treaty

Lord Malloch-Brown, a Foreign Office Minister, takes a rather different attitude to democracy to Daniel Hannan.

On Tuesday the House of Lords debated the Lisbon Treaty. Independent peer Lord Stoddart of Swindon put a question to the minister, and received a breathtaking reponse:

"Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why those who prate on about democracy and the will of the people will never accept no as an answer when it suits them? Do the Government understand that the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution and then the Irish rejected the Lisbon treaty? Is that not “No” enough for the Government, or are they prepared to accept the will of the people?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the constitution that was rejected by the Dutch and the French led to very big changes, which led to a treaty that was no longer a constitution. With 24 countries having approved the treaty, I am not sure whether the voters of Ireland should have a right of veto over the aspirations of all the other people of Europe. I am not sure whether that is or is not democracy."

Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "Labour denied the British people any say over the renamed EU Constitution and now they claim the Irish don't matter either."

Lord Malloch-Brown is also on record as wishing and believing that the European Commission will one day represent the EU on the UN Security Council. 

The EU answers Chris Heaton-Harris' dead parrot question

We wondered if it was the best parliamentary question ever.  Chris Heaton-Harris played Monty Python and asked: "Would the Commission agree with noted British philosophers, Messrs Palin and Cleese, that [the treaty] has passed on! This treaty is no more! It has ceased to be!"

He has received this dull-as-dishwater reply:

"The Lisbon Treaty was signed by the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States of the European Union on 13 December 2007. Under international law, therefore, it exists and, indeed, each signatory State, by virtue of having signed it, is bound to make every effort to ensure that it is ratified. Ratification does not affect the treaty’s existence as such but does affect its entry into force. It was agreed at the European Council of 19-20 June 2008 that the repercussions of the Irish “No” would be discussed at the European Summit of 15 October 2008."

In case you missed it, Chris recently wrote a guide to the EU budget.  It's one of the best pieces we have ever had the fortune to host.  Read it here.

William Hague responds to David Miliband's statement on the Lisbon Treaty

"The Irish referendum was an inspiring example of democracy in action. People say that there is a disconnection between the EU and its peoples. Thursday’s vote was proof that when you give people a real say on the EU they respond in vast numbers. Turn out was higher than in any European election held in this country.

It was also a courageous vote. Threats were made that Ireland would suffer if they voted ‘no’ but that did not deter the Irish from making their own decision on the Treaty.

And I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary did not find it in him to congratulate Irish voters on either of those points.

Following as it does the French and Dutch rejections of the original Constitution, a Treaty that was, in the then Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern’s words, ‘ninety per cent’ the same as the Lisbon Treaty, is it not now clear beyond doubt that there is profound opposition among the peoples of Europe to the substance of this Treaty?

Given that no one would ever call the peoples of France, the Netherlands and Ireland anti-European is it not now clearer than ever that it is absurd to describe as anti-European disagreement with a Treaty that further centralises power away from Europe’s nation states towards remote institutions?

Continue reading "William Hague responds to David Miliband's statement on the Lisbon Treaty" »

Peter Lilley proposes link between MPs' pay and the transfer of UK powers to the EU

On yesterday's ToryDiary we highlighted Peter Lilley MP's idea to link his and his colleagues' remuneration to their failure or success at transferring powers to the EU.  Posted below are some highlights from Mr Lilley's speech in the House of Commons yesterday.

MPs' pay should reflect their responsibilities: "In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay. The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs’ remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities. If, on the other hand, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has promised, Parliament regains some powers, such as those over social and employment policies that were conceded in the Amsterdam treaty, that should be reflected positively when MPs’ pay is assessed."

So many UK powers have already been transferred to the EU: "The German Government estimate that more than 80 per cent. of German laws are now decided at a European level. Our own Trade Minister has admitted that “around half of all UK legislation with an impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector stems from legislation agreed by Ministers in Brussels.”... The total scale of EU legislation is enormous. Last year, the EU passed 177 directives, which are more or less equivalent to our Acts of Parliament, and 2,033 regulations, which become directly enforceable in this place, not to mention 1,045 decisions. Even that huge tally ignores the extent to which our powers are diminished by our inability to do things that we would like to do because they would conflict with European law. When I was a Minister, officials would frequently say, “No, Minister, you can’t do that”, because something was within the exclusive competence of the European Union."

This Bill may concentrate a few Euro-enthusiasts' minds: "My Bill is designed to provide a wake-up call whenever we risk going further down that route, although I accept that it has little chance of becoming law in this Parliament. Those who support the transfer of power from here to supranational institutions should logically accept that our pay should reflect the diminution of our responsibilities. But, strangely, all the Euro-enthusiasts whom I asked to sponsor the Bill declined to do so without explaining why. Too many Members are happy to avert their eyes from what is happening, so long as they retain the prestige and emoluments that were appropriate to a fully sovereign Parliament. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas."

MORE HERE.

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."

Forty Conservative MPs defy party whip and vote for supremacy of UK Parliament

‘Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.’

The forty MPs who voted for Bill Cash's Supremacy of Parliament amendment - all in defiance of the Tory whip:

1. Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
2. Bacon, Mr. Richard
3. Binley, Mr. Brian
4. Bone, Peter
5. Butterfill, Sir John
6. Carswell, Mr. Douglas
7. Cash, Mr. William
8. Chope, Mr. Christopher
9. Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
10. Davies, Philip
11. Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
12. Dunne, Mr. Philip
13. Evans, Mr. Nigel
14. Fraser, Christopher
15. Gale, Mr. Roger
16. Gray, Mr. James
17. Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
18. Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
19. Hollobone, Philip
20. Holloway, Mr. Adam
21. Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
22. Knight, rh Mr. Greg
23. Leigh, Mr. Edward
24. Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
25. Main, Anne
26. Malins, Mr. Humfrey
27. Pritchard, Mark
28. Redwood, rh Mr. John
29. Scott, Mr. Lee
30. Shepherd, Mr. Richard
31. Spink, Bob
32. Stuart, Mr. Graham
33. Tapsell, Sir Peter
34. Turner, Mr. Andrew
35. Walker, Mr. Charles
36. Whittingdale, Mr. John
37. Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
38. Wilshire, Mr. David
39. Winterton, Ann
40. Winterton, Sir Nicholas