More euro-fun in prospect at Westminster as sceptical Tory backbenchers cast a cynical eye on the government's new bill to enact its promised "referendum lock" on transfers of sovereignty to the EU. The bill will require any new EU treaties or major changes to existing treaties to be approved by the people - if the changes are "significant".
Spookily enough that very issue of significance was behind the latest backbench Conservative rebellion, last night - of which more in a moment. I'm not sure, as yet, how this bill will be processed through the Commons - but since it is arguably constitutional legislation, it may well be debated in detail in a committee of the whole house open to all MPs. In which case, parliamentarians can expect to devote many happy hours discussing the precise meaning of that slippery word "significant".
And probably some very elaborate amendments attempting to apply a very tight definition to it. If the committee stage discussion is delegated to a committee, then there may well be a row over membership if the Conservative contingent fails to include a suitable number of eurosceptic luminaries. It will be well worth watching that particular space.
So how does the bill test what is and isn't significant? It would not require a referendum in cases where EU bodies were given the power to impose new requirements, obligations or sanctions on the UK. The argument is that that exemption is required to ensure the government was not constantly holding referendums on relatively minor changes.
On the other hand, big decisions like joining the euro or to signing up to the Schengen agreement on border controls would automatically trigger a referendum. So what about the impending treaty to toughen up the financial framework which underpins the euro? Because - the government says, and the eurosceptics dispute - it only affects other EU member states and not Britain, the bill would not require a UK referendum. There could be some very serious arguments about this, depending on the final wording of the Treaty.
And there will even be a set-piece occasion on which these rows could be had, because the bill would require a minister to explain any decision not to put a treaty change to a referendum in a statement to MPs. Then the lawyers could get involved - the decision would be open to challenge in a judicial review, and any treaty change would still have to be approved by an act of Parliament.
The bill also includes the promised "sovereignty clause", confirming that Parliament has the final say on which laws take effect in the UK, although the Foreign Office acknowledged that this was a "declaratory provision" and would not affect the relationship between EU and UK law. This could be another rich source of euro-discontent - because at some point someone is bound to put the clause to the test.
Which brings us to the latest substantial euro-rebellion, last night, when 25 Conservative backbenchers voted against a motion to approve a fistful of EU documents on European Economic Governance.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
In the end neither Bill Cash's amendment (see post below) against any European Treaty changes that could affect UK sovereignty, nor Douglas Carswell's proposal to summon the UK's permanent representative at the EU to explain his negotiating strategy at the bar of the House were accepted for debate. So the issue boiled down to a straight yes-no vote on the documents themselves - with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mark Hoban, batting for the government.
He insisted - significance again - that nothing in the documents would impinge on British economic decision-making and the plans for a new policy framework for euro-zone members would help prevent turbulence among some of Britain's most important trading partners.
He concluded:
"Fiscal frameworks should be stronger, but should not be dictated by Europe. It is the history of this House to defend fiercely our fiscal sovereignty. Through the agreement reached, the government have achieved that. No sanctions will be imposed on Britain, and we will be free to set the right fiscal policies for our country's needs."
Mr Cash, who chairs the Commons European Scrutiny Select Committee warned that "...if the proposal is accepted by the government, they will effectively cross the Rubicon and similarly, by acquiescing in ever-greater European governance over our economy, they will significantly undermine our ability to govern ourselves. We need less Europe, not more."
Mr Carswell continued to argue that the proposals did extend increasing EU power over the UK budget. His key quote:
"No-one was more heartened than I to hear the prime minister tell the House back in June that any new deal with the EU 'should not interfere with national competencies'. He also said: 'On budget surveillance, let me be clear: the UK Budget will be shown to this House first and not to the Commission...co-ordination and consultation, yes; clearance, no, never.' Such assurances were welcome, yet within a couple of weeks we heard Olli Rehn, the Economic and Monetary Policy Commissioner, spell out the details. He said: 'All member states would submit their fiscal programmes at the same time in April to allow the Council to issue country specific policy guidelines.' Is it any wonder that when the Chancellor appeared before the Treasury Select Committee he was able to reveal the date of the next Budget? It is now part of a timetable set in Brussels. Ministers have claimed that the level of disclosure is nothing new, and that it is no more than what a think-tank might find out about UK fiscal policy via Google. Indeed, but think-tanks do not have the power to issue guidelines, and they cannot pass legislation on the basis of the analysis that they then make."
All this was very entertaining for the Labour benches, from where Chris Leslie had a bit of fun chiding the government on its reluctance to put the documents to the vote. His side abstained, except for 10 MPs, who voted against the documents.
For this level of rebellion to matter, Labour has to line up against the Conservatives, rather than sit on its collective hands. That would require an unlikely, but not impossible, conjunction of issues. So watch the EU Bill, and the vote on the final EU Budget deal, if an increase greater than the current 2.9% is accepted. And of course someone's bound to try to require a referendum on that forthcoming EU Treaty.
I'm Mark D'Arcy and I'll be writing about what goes on in the chambers and committee rooms at Westminster.
