Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 26 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on A Citizens’ Agenda.


A Citizens’ Agenda

I do not support the treaty, I oppose it. I wish that we had had the opportunity to hold a referendum on it, as I and my party would have opposed it very vigorously. I am sure that we would have secured a very large majority against it, and it is a shame that we had to leave it to the French and the Dutch to do that job for us. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was asked by the European Scrutiny Committee whether the Government supported the use of the so-called passerelle to extend EU powers over justice and home affairs. According to the uncorrected transcript, which I think is accurate, she said:"““Can I just say on your first comment, the fact that I have not ruled it out does not mean that I am ruling it in. It means that I have not done either. I would like to be clear with the Committee on that point.””" This lack of clear leadership was further shown by the Minister’s summary:"““I think the situation we are in now is that it is up to the Finns, who hold the presidency, to handle the proposal to decide where we go next.””" So here we have an area of policy in which just three years ago the Government said that they were opposed to the extension of qualified majority voting whereas now Ministers are happy to drift along with proposals from the Finns without even telling the British people where they stand. Especially bizarrely, the Home Office says that its concerns are the same as those that arose in relation to the EU constitution, passing over the fact that the same Government signed that constitution and have yet to withdraw their support from it. Why can we not have the same honesty, clarity and leadership that has been shown by the Irish Justice Minister Michael McDowell, who said:"““My vision for Europe is that instead of constantly seeking to enlarge the competence of the union that the justice and home affairs ministers concentrate on practical measures of co-operation between states to enhance security and combat terrorism.””" He is also quoted in the Irish Examiner, arguing that giving up the veto in this area"““would seriously affect the operation of Irish criminal law and give the commission the exclusive right to propose matters in this area which is now shared with member states””." The Irish Justice Minister has been clear about where the Irish Government stand on this issue while the vagueness and lack of direction of the UK Government’s European policy has been a constant theme of all the papers before the House.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1718 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accountability Democracy EU enlargement European Union EU action Parliamentary scrutiny Subsidiarity Common agricultural policy EU energy policy Trade competitiveness
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk