Proceeding contribution from Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 27 January 2009. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreements concluded under Article XXI GATS) Order 2009.
European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreements concluded under Article XXI GATS) Order 2009
I, too, thank the Minister for his excellent description of this document, which I have struggled with for more than two hours to understand its implications. What surprises me is that, given the urgency sometimes associated with orders, this one has taken 14 years to get right in that the accession of Finland, Austria and some of the other countries mentioned took place in 1995. However, we have only just managed to sort out all the illegal or incorrect ways in which compliance with EU legislation was evaded but which this order now allows. One is tempted to ask, ““What happened in the mean time?””. We are now up to EU25 in 2009, but the European Union has already moved on to 27. Can we expect to finally get around to considering Romania and Bulgaria in 2023? I would be interested to know where those negotiations have got to. As the Minister said, this is a mixed competence area, and perhaps he could confirm that everything that needs to be done on the other side of the channel in Brussels has now been completed, so that when this is, I presume, agreed by all member states—all 25 or 27—it will go through. I would be interested to know when all the ratifications are expected to take place by, to give some idea of the pace of this. When I first saw this, I thought that it was good to have a document that represents increasing international trade and globalisation at a time when we potentially have history moving back in the other direction. In a way, I was concerned that we seem to be withdrawing rights under the WTO to those 17 nations. Perhaps I should say 17 WTO members, because the order includes, as is described so well: "““The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu””," which we treat as being part of China. It seems to me that there is a move backwards to some degree here. I would like to understand what is meant in the Explanatory Memorandum by, "““the withdrawal of some commitments on the part of the new Member States””." I would be interested to know the nature of one or two of those. The Minister gave a description of the areas that had been used in compensation, but not the other side, of what had been withdrawn. I assume that the only nature of the compensation is those agreements and there is no financial compensation in this. Perhaps the Minister could also confirm that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 707 c72-3GC
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Bulgaria Australia China Canada EU countries EU law Hong Kong EU external trade India Japan New Zealand Treaties Trade Romania Trade agreements USA GATT Switzerland World Trade Organization Colombia Cuba Argentina Brazil Taiwan South Korea Ecuador Philippines
- Legislation
- European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreements concluded under Article XXI GATS) Order 2009
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-05-15 23:08:56 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523138
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523138
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523138