Sadly, despite the amount of time being given to the debate in the House of Commons, vital issues are being sidestepped.

Initially, the Government promised 20 days of debate to the Lisbon Treaty. Since that promise was made, this has dropped to roughly 12 days. For each of these days the Government has assigned a specific topic of debate. Each topic catering to a slightly rose-tinted view of the EU.

But a balanced picture of Europe requires both negative as well as positive aspects to be debated. None of the issues chosen for debate allow us to easily discuss the other side of the coin – the more negative aspects of the European Union.

For example, we needed a special debate on the way in which the labour market would be regulated, how public services could be affected or, in general, our response to the global economic forces which are now at play and appear to escape democracy's power to control them.

I am not an ideologue when it comes to the European Union. I am not in favour of, nor against, everything the EU does, but we cannot ignore the reality of globalisation.

With the increasing free movement of capital and trade, there must be supra-national institutions to defend those who will otherwise
be at the mercy of free markets run wild.

If we look at judgments that have been made by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), we can see the direction of travel of the EU – it is increasingly becoming an instrument to circumvent parliamentary democracy, advancing an agenda which many people do not support.

There is an increasing asymmetry that is becoming ingrained within Europe, and this asymmetry results in an inclination towards big business and multi-national corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens.

An example can be found in Sweden. Sweden has very good protections for workers. Yet these protections were threatened when a number of Latvian builders were employed in Latvia, but taken to Sweden to work.

The conditions in Latvia do not correspond to the high standards set by the Swedes, so the trade union that represents builders in Sweden was understandably concerned for its members' jobs and wages.

However, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Latvian workers, even though they were working in Sweden, would continue to be employed under the terms of their Latvian contracts.

This is but one example of the prevalence of corporation over individual. It is happening, too, here in Yorkshire. There are few people who would say that the court should interfere in such matters.

One of the more blatant acts that illustrates the ECJ's subservience to business has seen millions refunded to super-rich multi-nationals after the ECJ ruled that the UK had taxed them too much.

Throughout this, we must remember that the European Court of Justice is not an elected body, yet every ruling it makes has an impact in each member state.

If we turn an eye to public services, what we see provokes cause for concern. The EU has previously not held a competence over health – this power has always rested with the member state.

After being foiled once, Tories, Liberals and, admittedly some
Labour MEPs, have sought to bring around measures under the internal market that would have a catastrophic affect on our health service. They did this in the form of the EU Health Services Directive; this directive could be very damaging to the British NHS principle that patients should be treated "free at the point of need".

It would allow those who have enough money to pay up for up-front treatment in another EU country (even if that treatment is
not urgent or generally something you could have done on the
NHS). While that system may work for other states in Europe which already have a co-pay system or a system where you must buy health
insurance to cover treatment, it is antithetical to the idea of a publicly funded health service.

Europe does have the power to be a progressive force. Measures on temporary and agency workers would improve the working conditions of over a million people. The EU has the power to transform the conditions of those living in the poorest countries across the globe and it could significantly influence all issues around climate change. But that is not where we are heading.

For all these reasons, I have sought to persuade the Government that
the Treaty must be considered in more depth and in a more balanced way in the House of Commons. Failure to do so can only further intensify the already widespread call for a referendum on the whole issue.


Jon Trickett is the Labour MP for Hemsworth