Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from James Clappison (Conservative) 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

For the same reason that placing something in a Bill is a stronger defence—it has stronger legislative authority—than leaving it to chance in the future. My amendment is a safeguard in addition to the Act of Parliament that will be required, and including in the Bill requirements on a referendum would make things legislatively stronger. We come back to the question outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), ““Why put any of these requirements in the Bill and why provide these 44 situations where a referendum is required, given that each time we have an Act of Parliament for a treaty change, as we would have to have, we could simply do the same thing then?”” That argument is being run in certain quarters, but it makes a mockery of the whole Bill. I do not want to be too unkind to those who promote that argument, but I merely say that it was fully ventilated during the European Scrutiny Committee's deliberations and it was dismissed, and not only in one report. We produced a majority and a minority report, which disagreed on almost everything but agreed that a change needed to be made on the significance test. When one understands the two spectrums of opinion in the European Scrutiny Committee, one can see the measure of achievement in uniting the two.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
522 c69 
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