Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar (Belper)
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), with whom I have participated in many late night debates on European secondary legislation, will be surprised to learn that, in principle on this issue, I am in a measure of agreement with him.
My starting point is somewhat different from that of most hon. Members since I have long been a supporter of British participation in the European Community, but I have also been in favour of a referendum on the issue ever since it was first raised by the Macmillan Government in the early 1960s.
I have always favoured a referendum because I believe that the issue of entry into Europe is different in kind from the wide range of issues normally considered by Parliament. What is at stake is the issue of sovereignty, and the failure of Governments of both parties until 1974 to bring this out into the open has only harmed and not helped the cause of Europe.
All hon. Members will agree that Parliament is the supreme power in the land. Historically, its supremacy derives from its twin powers as the supreme judicial court and its right to authorise taxation. [column 367]
According to Sir Edward Coke,
“… the power and jurisdiction of Parliament is so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined either for causes or persons, within any bounds.”
In the words of a more modern author, Berriedale Keith,
“… the sovereignty or omnipotence of Parliament means that Parliament is the supreme power in the State, in the sense that it can make or unmake any law; that the courts will obey its legislation; nor is there any power in the State capable of overriding, curtailing or proscribing its authority.”
Let me isolate in the first of those three points the ability of Parliament to unmake any laws. It means that no Parliament can curtail the powers of subsequent Parliaments—an attribute of Parliament that was demonstrated at least as early as the sixteenth century.
This is one of the crucial issues of the whole debate on Britain's entry into Europe.
Already it is being argued—it was argued by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House today, correctly, in my opinion—that for Britain to withdraw from the Community would involve prohibitive economic costs. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), long noted for his opposition to British entry into the EEC, has now decided that Britain has no option but to stay in for that reason. If this is the case after only two years of membership, how much more will it be the case after a decade?
In theory, it may still be possible to withdraw. In practice, the process is virtually irreversible.
Mr. Marten
In defence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who has been a member of the European Assembly for one and a half or two years, the reason for his change of heart has nothing to do with the economy or with the alternatives. It is merely the constitutional matter which concerns him. He takes the view that we should not come out, because if we did we should break a treaty. It is the treaty argument and not the economic argument on which my right hon. and learned Friend sticks.
Mr. MacFarquhar
I accept that, but there are many reasons why people are [column 368]coming to the conclusion that we should not withdraw—constitutional, costs—and the longer we stay in the more cogent the arguments will be.
The action of going into the EEC, in practice, has bound and therefore limited the powers of future Parliaments, and the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) would have been more frank if he had admitted that.
Moreover, the likelihood is that this process wil take place in the future not merely in practice but also in law. The hon. Member for Banbury spoke about the prospective development of a European Parliament, which I personally support. It seems inevitable—it is only honest to ask hon. Members to face this—that the present European Assembly will be transformed into such a Parliament and that at that point it will take over the supreme powers of the British Parliament.
At the moment, it is still possible for the British Parliament to reject any of the myriad draft instruments which we discuss late at night. But at that stage, if there were a European Parliament, it is most unlikely that this House would be able to reject this most important legislation. Parliament, therefore, would no longer be the supreme body.
It is the central thesis of my argument that because Parliament is to be put into a position where it will no longer be able to unmake laws, where it will no longer be the supreme body controlling the destinies of the people of this nation, it is essential that the British people be consulted before this constitutional transformation becomes irreversible. While the people elect their representatives to exercise supreme powers on their behalf, they do not elect them to concede some of those powers in perpetuity to a superior outside body. Therefore, if those powers are to be diminished by entry into the Common Market, the British people must give their consent, and that consent can be given only in a referendum, because only through a referendum can the issue be isolated.
I am well aware that it is historically true that in a few cases Parliaments have, on their own say-so, given up their supreme powers. The Bare Bones Parliament in the seventeenth century conceded powers to Cromwell. However, [column 369]that is not an example which is likely to commend itself to hon. Members. Moreover, all the examples are prior to the modern period when the struggle between the Sovereign, the Lords and the House of Commons had not been settled in favour of the House of Commons. It is my contention that, once that struggle was settled in favour of a House of Commons which owed its mandate to the people, it was not legally possible for the House of Commons to give away any of its powers without consulting the people.
I am also aware of the other counter-argument, that hon. Members are elected a representatives to exercise the supreme power of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. In putting forward the case of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred to the speech of Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, in the debates of 1910 and 1911. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not quote him in full when he put forward the classic argument and rejected the argument for a referendum on 22nd February 1911. He said then that the people
“… should choose their representatives and then trust them and give them a fair chance within the limits of their commission for a period which should not be unreasonably prolonged.” —[Official Report, 22nd February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 2035.]
It is precisely my case that the limits of our commission as Members of Parliament is that we can exercise the supreme powers of Parliament but not concede them irreversibly to any other body without prior and specific consultation. A referendum is the unique, final instrument of modern democracy for achieving such consultation. This was clearly recognised by a noble Lord who participated in those debates on the referendum in 1910 and 1911, and it is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to shut up all the skeletons in the cupboard.
Whatever the motives of the speakers who proposed referenda in those early days, there is no question but that they were aware of the constitutional implications and dealt with them fully. The noble Lord stated that the referendum is
“essentially democratic in its character. Its basis is the belief, to which we all, on both sides of the House, give expression in our public utterances, that in the last resort we accept the will of the people, and I am at a loss [column 370]to understand why, when it is put forward in this proposal, it should be greeted with so much doubt and, apparently, with so much dismay by those who profess to be the real representatives of the democracy in this country.” —[Official Report, House of Lords; 24th November 1910; Vol. VI, c. 946–7.]
That was not a Labour life peer—they did not exist then—nor a Liberal peer, but a member of the Pantheon of the main opposition party today, Lord Curzon.
Why do not hon. Members opposite heed him now? Perhaps he is too flamboyant for this day and age. In that case, I quote a more sober statesman, Mr. Balfour, an ex-leader and Prime Minister of the Conservative Party. He said, in the same debates:
“The referendum, at all events, has this enormous advantage that it does isolate one problem from the complex questions connected with keeping a Government in office, and with other measures which it wants to carry out and with other questions of foreign and domestic policy. It asks” ——
and this is the important part—
“the country not ‘do you say that this or that body of men should hold the reins of office?’ but, ‘do you approve of this or that way of dealing with a great question in which you are interested?’.” —[Official Report, 21st February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1758.]
I should particularly like to draw the attention of the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley to that final section of the quotation, because she attacked the Government on that point.
Mrs. Thatcher
I read all these speeches in all the debates. As I said, there are arguments on both sides. The fact is that until now we have never had a referendum throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and after this things will never be the same again.
Mr. MacFarquhar
I was not doubting that the right hon. Lady did her own research, but I think that when she does it she ought to bring the important fruits of it to the attention of the House.
Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex)
rose——
Mr. MacFarquhar
No.
I want to draw the attention of the House to Mr. Balfour 's correct prescription that whatever the result of a referendum it should not be taken as a vote of confidence. That is why I interjected “No” when my hon. Friend the Member [column 371]for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) suggested that the Government might resign on this issue.
I should like to suggest further to the right hon. Lady that even the leading speakers against the referendum 65 years ago were not consistent. I raised the example of Churchill earlier. Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the day, indicated that he was against regular referenda, but not against a referendum to solve a major constitutional problem. He said:
“I say quite distinctly that I reserve the question of the appropriateness and the practicability of what is called the referendum as possibly the least objectionable means of untying the knot in some extreme and exceptional constitutional entanglement.” —[Official Report, 29th March 1910; Vol. 15, c. 1173.]
Entry into Europe is precisely an “extreme and exceptional constitutional entanglement” , and that is why it demands a referendum. Those who argue that the people are not competent to decide on this issue are arguing not against referenda, but against democracy itself.