Proceeding contribution from Stephen Phillips (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8 March 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on European Union Bill.

European Union Bill

The right hon. Gentleman's argument seems to illustrate what is wrong with the new clause, which is that there is no definition of ““relevant””. It is therefore entirely unclear whether vast volumes of documentation would be produced were it to form part of the Bill. That is my real objection to the new clause. Does he agree, and is that an aspect of the Connarty conjecture, as I shall call it—or perhaps the Connarty-MacShane law, as it now turns out to be?

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 524 c792
Session: 2010-12
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Disclosure of information European Union EU budget Powers Referendums Parliamentary scrutiny Sovereignty Treaties Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union European Council Treaty of Lisbon
Legislation: European Union Bill 2010-12
Link: View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk

European Union Bill

Secondary information

Librarians' tools