Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Wayne David (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 24 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union Bill.


European Union Bill

With all due respect, I must point out that the hon. Gentleman has made exactly the same point that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has just made. I therefore give him the same answer: I was careful to say earlier that I did not agree with all of Professor Hix's comments, but the central thesis that he presented to the European Scrutiny Committee was that there should be referendums on major constitutional issues, not on the minutiae of legislation as is proposed in the Bill, and this Bill is what we are now debating. It is important for us to recognise that having a proper national debate on technical issues presents a real problem. If this were to happen, it might mean that debates focused on other issues and voters might not vote on the question on the ballot paper. That is perhaps a fundamental problem with all referendums, but it is certainly the case with referendums on issues that are highly technical and very specific. A second problem is that such referendums might attract only very low turnouts. For many people, a shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers on the issue of permanent structural co-operation might not be a huge motivator to come out and vote.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
522 c42 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Committees EU law EU accession European Parliament members Legislation European communities Powers Referendums Parliamentary scrutiny Sovereignty Treaties Reform UK membership of EU Turkey Treaty of Lisbon
Legislation
European Union Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk