---

European Union (Amendment) Bill

The message seems to be that we do not have much to worry about, but that is inconsistent with the way in which the Government have worried and worried about this charter for years and years. It was not long after the remarks about the charter being no different from The Beano that the Government began to say that the charter was very dangerous and had to be resisted, not least because of its far-reaching social and employment ramifications. Then the Government said that because the charter was so dangerous, they could not possibly agree to it. They then said that if they were to agree to it, there would have to be a protocol to make sure that the charter would not damage Britain in the way that they thought it would damage others. That is the history of the matter and that is why I am slightly sceptical when people get up to tell us that there is nothing whatever to worry about. The wording of the protocol was referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken. We have a protocol on Article 1 and the first paragraph contains very curious wording. It states: "““The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European union… to find [UK law] inconsistent””" with the charter. It states that it does not extend the ability of the ECJ to do that. It does not say that the ECJ has no power to rule that the UK is inconsistent with the charter. No wonder the legal adviser to the Commons Scrutiny Committee stated: "““I doubt if what appears to have been agreed secures this result””—" that is, the result that the Government apparently intended. I want to make this simple point: it seems to me, and it clearly seems to others, that the protocol ensures that British people get the worst of all worlds.