Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Lidington (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union Bill.


European Union Bill

What is different about clause 18 compared with the current legal position is that for the first time it provides a clear statutory point of reference, to which the courts would have to have regard in considering any cases in future that were comparable to that brought before Lord Justice Laws. The second source of the concern that has been expressed are the various obiter remarks, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and others have referred, made by senior judges such as Lord Hope and Lord Steyn, albeit in cases that did not deal directly with European Union law. My hon. Friend starkly expressed his concern that at least some members of the senior judiciary had an agenda that deliberately set out to challenge the historic privileges and authority of Parliament. The third source of concern arises from various academic commentators on EU law, ranging from Professor J. D. B Mitchell back in 1980 to Martin Howe QC in 2009.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
521 c245 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Common law Constitutional and administrative law Judiciary EU law European communities Referendums Parliamentary scrutiny Sovereignty Treaties Reform UK membership of EU Supreme Court Rule of law
Legislation
European Communities Act 1972
European Union Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk