---

European Union (Amendment) Bill

I oppose this amendment. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I was reminded of the closing lines of act 3, scene iii of Hamlet where King Claudius rises and says: ““My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. Words without thoughts never to heaven go””. But the amendment gives us a chance to probe the meaning of ““subsidiarity””. As many noble Lords know, including the noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the problem is that this term arose in a completely different context to the one in which it is now used by the European Union. I know that it is said to date back to Aristotle and it has references in the works of Locke and John Stuart Mill but it really arises from the need of the Catholic Church to uphold its authority in a time of rising political tension, particularly in the late 19th century. The trouble is that we do not really know what it means. We have tried to define it many times—it means taking decisions at the lowest appropriate level. But even when definitions establish a presumption in favour of the national level of decision-making, they still leave scope for political and judicial argument about exactly where it fits. I hope that the Minister will assist us on this. As far as we are concerned, this yellow card, which sounds like a forceful sanction, has no referee to exercise it or to demonstrate it—as happened in tonight’s match of Liverpool versus Chelsea. When I last heard, Liverpool was winning 1-0. But even when you have a referee to flag it up it has little effect. We need a red card. I repeat what William Hague said in the other place. He reminded us that: "““The German constitutional court described the provision last week as ineffective and impractical””.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/08; col. 952.]" Will the Lord President prove that wrong and reassure us?