The Lisbon treaty is good for Britain and Europe and will mark the end of regular institutional changes, David Miliband promised the House of Commons yesterday.

Opening the first of 20 days of debate on the Bill ratifying the treaty, the Foreign Secretary repeatedly rebuffed calls for a referendum by insisting that it was different in structure, content and consequence from a constitution. This did not prevent Conservative accusations that the Government had reneged on a manifesto commitment. William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, suggested that the move had undermined public trust.

An amendment that was supported by 18 rebel Labour MPs to kill the Bill was rejected by the Speaker, and last night the second reading was backed by 362 votes to 224, a majority of 138; 19 Labour MPs voted against it.

Little will be left to chance over the next five weeks. Labour whips are installing a text-messaging system to ensure that MPs can be summoned quickly to the chamber. It replaces the pager system that long dictated when and how MPs voted.

Outlining some of the arguments that will be heard regularly, Mr Miliband suggested that the treaty had widespread support outside the chamber, including in organisations such as the NSPCC, Oxfam and Fifa. To laughter, he suggested that even the Commission of Bishops had indicated its support.

“This is a coalition not of ideology but integrity; not of federalism in Europe but of realism about the modern world,” he said. “Only in Britain does one of the two main parties place itself outside this coalition and oppose the treaty root and branch.”

Mr Miliband sought in his opening arguments to portray the Tories in the minority, saying that 27 left-of-centre parties, 27 liberal parties and 26 conservative parties supported the treaty. Fellow opponents included Sinn Fein, the French National Front, the Portuguese Communists and the Dutch Animals Party.

Mr Hague, flanked by David Cameron and George Osborne, told the Commons that the treaty would damage British interests and the economy. “This treaty will weaken one of the greatest strengths of the European Union for the last half-century: its commitment to undistorted competition in the single market, an outcome that can only have resulted from the supine ineffectiveness of Britain’s negotiators.”

He highlighted comments by Jack Straw, who said in 2005, when he was Foreign Secretary, that the constitu- tional aspects of the treaty that meant it required a referendum were the creation of a permanent president of the Council of Ministers and a European foreign minister. “Both of these provisions remain today,” Mr Hague said. “The case for a referendum rests above all on the need for this House and this Government to honour commitments solemnly given. How many times have each of us in this House toured schools and colleges saying to young people that they should take an interest in politics, that their vote makes a difference, that what is said in election time really counts?”

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, disclosed that he had written to the Conservatives demanding clarification of their stance and suggested that they had retreated to “old-style Euroscepticism”. In comments before the debate, he said: “David Cameron appears to have become confused over the differences that do exist between this treaty and the previous draft constitution. Until he explains what the Conservatives would propose to do if this treaty were rejected, his position makes no logical sense.”

Mr Miliband faced angry interventions from critics last night. John Redwood, the former Tory minister, was first to demand a referendum. “Why won’t you give us a referendum when your party promised us one and when all the powers we were worried about transferring in the constitution are being given away needlessly and recklessly in this document?” he asked.

Mr Miliband replied: “For the same reason you voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty in 1992, which is that this is a parliamentary democracy and this is an amending treaty.”

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Foreign Secretary, disputed the Government’s assertion that the people have their say though Parliament. He pointed out that Tony Blair had proposed that the constitution be given both parliamentary scrutiny and a referendum.

Gisela Stuart, a former Labour minister, who signed the “wrecking” amendment, questioned Mr Miliband’s assertion that this would mark the end of constitutional change, arguing that the self-amending mechanism gave the EU unforeseeable future powers.

The senior Labour backbencher Gwyneth Dunwoody said of Mr Miliband’s insistence that the consitution and the treaty were the same: “I think you may find yourself alone in that point of view.”

Sir Patrick Cormack, the Tory procedural veteran asked on a point of order for the sitting to be suspended because of the “appalling speech” being given by Mr Miliband, suggesting it showed contempt for the House.

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth