Proceeding contribution from James Clappison (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. It occurred during Debate on treaty on Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5).

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5)

I think that the Foreign Secretary will find that the clear answer to which he just referred is that the Government did not want the two posts to merge. Apart from the change of name, is there any difference in substance between what was envisaged in the original constitution—a Union Minister for foreign affairs—and the high representative envisaged in the Lisbon treaty? What is the substantive difference, apart from the name change?

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 472 c376
Session: 2007-08
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Armed forces European Union EU common foreign and security policy Treaties NATO Kosovo EU defence policy Treaty of Lisbon
Link: View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5)

Secondary information

Librarians' tools