Why I have tabled numerous amendments to the EU Referendum Bill

Pretty much a year ago this week, David Cameron announced his support for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. Effectively held captive by Tory Euro-sceptics (perhaps Sir John Major’s preferred phrase Euro-phobes is more appropriate here), the Prime Minister promised Britons a “simple choice” between staying in a reformed Europe or leaving altogether.

Mr Cameron had, of course, previously ruled out such move, vehemently opposing the idea because any resulting exit from the European Union would be “bad for Britain”.

The national interest, however, was quickly usurped by a combination of Nigel Farage and “swivel-eyed” backbenchers: both of which threatened not only David Cameron’s political survival, but the unity of the Conservative Party. The banging was getting ominously loud…

As a result of Cameron’s subsequent capitulations, today will see the Tory-backed European Union Referendum Bill enter committee stage in the House of Lords: a document argued for in lofty democratic terms, but that is in reality as much to do with the keeping the Tories temporarily united over Europe than it is the issue itself.

I personally believe a referendum on the terms and timescale being suggested by the Bill would be ill-advised for two reasons:

• Firstly, as for the first time ever the majority of those in poverty are in working families, I think energy would be much better spent concentrating on the economy and reforming Europe from the inside, instead of endlessly debating a topic only 8% of people think is the most important issue facing Britain today.
• Secondly, the actual details of a possible referendum put forward by the Bill are extraordinarily poorly devised.

This is a function of the Bill’s primary purpose: as an appeal to UKIP, and as intra-party therapy, meaning all proper debate over the timing, wording, and terms of a referendum have been notable only in their absence.

This is why I have tabled numerous amendments to the Bill which I hope to discuss on Friday; amendments that give a range of options as to a referendum’s date, conduct, what question is to be put to the electorate, and who is entitled to vote.

Most of these amendments will be probing amendments: in plainer terms, amendments that don’t necessarily represent my views, but draw out those of the House and encourage discussion and scrutiny.

I will, however, be arguing in favour of amendments to extend votes to 16 and 17 year olds, to  give the Electoral Commission a greater say over the timing of a referendum and the wording of the referendum question, as well as proposing a minimum level of turnout (40%) below which the result would be considered invalid and inconclusive.

A number of other amendments will also be considered, with the Lords tasked once again with clearing up another mess of the Prime Minister’s doing.

Unlike David Cameron’s policy positions, some things never change.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock is a Labour peer