With a tip of the hat to Mr Eugenides, this exchange in the House of Lords, just before their bought-and-paid-for Lordships passed the Lisbon Treaty for ratification.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I cannot disguise my disappointment that noble Lords in receipt of an EU pension did not, with the notable and honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, see fit to declare that interest in all our debates. I refer your Lordships to our debate on 19 July 2007 when we debated why they should have done so.

In summary, the reason why I and my Eurosceptic friends believe that noble EU pensioners should declare that interest in our debates is that EU pensions are perhaps unique in that holders can lose them if they fail to uphold the EU’s interests or bring the EU into disrepute.

Our case was unanimously supported by your Lordships’ Sub-Committee on Lords’ Interests, chaired by no less a personage than the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.

Then, again I think uniquely, that sub-committee was overruled by our Privileges Committee consisting of party leaders and various prefects of your Lordships’ House for largely spurious reasons.

It is against that background that no fewer than 12 noble EU pensioners have between them played a leading role in our proceedings. [...]

If we look at former members of the European Parliament, we have the noble Lords, Lord Dykes, Lord Inglewood, Lord Harrison and Lord Teverson, the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord who asked the question, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson....

[then] we come to the ex-Commissioners and ex-Commission employees: the noble Lords, Lord Brittan, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Kinnock, Lord Patten of Barnes, Lord Richard and Lord Tugendhat.

As I say, I would not have named those people, but I think it will help students who read Hansard in future to know that our debates have been influenced to that extent. There can be no doubt that this unseen hand has distorted the quality of our deliberations. I very much regret that.

I conclude with a word of advice to my erstwhile political friends in the Conservative Party.

Lord Kinnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord does so, perhaps I may ask him as a point of honour, since I have been listening to him from beyond the Bar, that when he expresses a desire to ensure that future students have an accurate understanding of what is going on, it is necessary to record, first, that I thought that he was a man of honour and would not give himself to sentiments such as those he has just expressed; and, secondly, that there is nothing that I have ever taken from anyone that would begin to influence the judgement that I exercise as a parliamentarian.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord would say that, wouldn’t he?

Noble Lords: Shame!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, he may well believe it.

Noble Lords: Withdraw!

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: No, my Lords; I do not withdraw the fact that if one is in receipt of a pension that one can lose, it must influence the way in which one thinks and speaks.

Like all matters surrounding corruption and self interest, one should always follow the money.

Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, how much have the people of the UK been sold for, I hope our noble lords believe its worth it, and can live with themselves for doing so.

So it is, as we always suspected, that those who make decisions in this country, who would sell our very souls for 30 pieces of silver are  in the pay of foreign usurpers.

Indeed, Treason by any other name.