You would think that those who support Britain's membership in the European Union and tell us that the benefits are great and self-evident, would be only too pleased to be given an opportunity to explain to us lesser mortals what these are. You would further think that if a noble lord helpfully introduced a Bill that required Her Majesty's Government to set up a balanced committee to examine what we are told on very good authority is not on the agenda: the costs and benefits of Britain's withdrawal from the EU, these people would be overjoyed. At last, they would say, here is an opportunity for us to prove all those nasty euro-sceptics wrong. Not so, but far from it. During the second reading of Lord Pearson's Bill that was introduced to set up just such a committee europhile after europhile stood up and denounced the very idea of withdrawing, first assuring everyone that this was not on the agenda, was a complete myth and existed as a possibility only in the overwrought imagination of the eurosceptics. But the question was not whether we should withdraw but whether we should have a committee of inquiry to look into the pros and cons. One can only surmise that all these people - and a good number appeared to be Liberal-Democrats - assumed that such a committee can come up with only one answer: that we should withdraw. But if they believe that, why do they keep telling us that staying in is such a wonderful idea? Perhaps, as the noble Lord Pearson said in his summing up:

If the noble Baroness [Scotland] does not want to support the Bill and if other noble Lords do not want to support it, then I think they are running away from an inquiry and what the result might be. I would just say to them 'Cowardy, cowardy, custard!'

One or two interesting things came out of the debate. There was the usual argument about trade figures, though the europhiles were, I thought, a little mealy-mouthed about it all. The only two businessmen whose opinions they could bring up in their support were Niall Fitzgerald, who heads an Anglo-Dutch conglomerate that for some reason keeps investing outside the EU and James Dyson, who, having made his pro-euro statement, took his money to the Far East. Not good, I'd say.

Then there was the usual palaver about what people voted for in 1975. (In parenthesis, I may declare my interest in that I cannot understand how anybody could have believed that the Common Market was just that or that the Prime Minister - any Prime Minister -was telling the truth. I can, however, understand how fear of the Soviet Union and of various internal forces may have inspired people to vote yes in 1975.)

In general we were treated to a great deal of well-meaning hot air from the europhiles. Apparently, the East European countries were motivated solely by a desire to join the EU when they overthrew the Communist system. This touching belief contradicts every statement even the staunchest supporters of accession in those countries make. They do keep insisting that they did not regain their sovereignty in order to give it up again. The problem is that, just like our own politicians, they seem to think that there is a choice in the matter.

Of the many fine speeches, Lord Monson's was of particular interest. He nailed two myths. Portugal, he said, overthrew its authoritarian government, because the people "were fed up with paying the massive costs of the wars in Angola and Mozambique". "Similarly," - he added, - "Spain did not get rid of Franco over a longer period of time specifically because it wanted to join the EU." He ought to have added that Spain did not get rid of Franco at all - he died and with him died his system. The EU had precious little to do with it just as it had precious little to do with the collapse of Communism. Where it did interfere, in the tottering Yugoslavia in the early nineties, its actions had the most baneful results.

One more point from Lord Monson, on the subject of the CAP:

France's hidden agenda was to prevent its millions of peasant farmers becoming impoverished and bankrupt, being driven off their small holdings and drifting, destitute and embittered, into the large cities, where they would have been easy recruits for the Communist Party, which at that time was extremely successful, attracting almost 40 per cent of the French vote. In that objective the CAP was extremely successful. About 83 per cent of French farmers have indeed left the land, but they have done so over a 40-year period, giving plenty of time for those dispossessed to find jobs elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Communist vote in France was successfully contained.

Indirectly that may be a benefit to this country as well, but for some reason, it was not claimed as such by the Liberal Democrats.