I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to end and to add instead thereof:
"notes that the Government demanded the deletion of a new article on energy when it was first proposed as part of the EU Constitution;
further notes that the Government's explanation was that 'this provision is unnecessary as all aspects of energy policy are effectively covered elsewhere in the Treaty e.g. single market, environment';
believes that the Government's position then was right and remains valid;
and accordingly rejects the Government's current policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning energy."
Unlike the Secretary of State, I can start by saying, "Here's one I prepared earlier." However, once he got his script, I—and, I suspect, others in the House—sensed that his heart was not quite in what he was saying and that he had not really understood the implications of the treaty that he attempts to defend today.
The treaty represents failure—a massive failure of political will, a total failure of negotiating wit and a complete failure to keep the promises that the Government made to the British people in what, morally, was a binding manifesto commitment to submit the treaty to a referendum. The treaty is a duplicitous document, as has readily been admitted in the media by the author of the constitution, Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former Italian Prime Minister and the Belgian Foreign Minister. They have all claimed that the treaty is designed to be "illisible", "illeggibile" and whatever the Flemish is for deliberately unintelligible gobbledygook.