Proceeding contribution from Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 April 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on European Union Bill.
European Union Bill
I apologise to the noble Lord and am grateful to him for giving way. He does not agree, clearly, that the way we handle a treaty amendment should depend on the nature of the treaty amendment, not the process in Brussels which started it. I do not understand that. I do not know why treaty amendments should not be treated as treaty amendments whether they come under the procedure that we are now dealing with under Clause 2 or the procedure which we think appropriate to Clause 3. This is nothing to do with the passerelle. That comes later in a different clause. We are not talking about Article 48(7); we are talking about Article 48(6) here. I accept that the passerelle, on which I will disagree with the Minister on the substance, is a separate issue. I do not see why treaty amendments should not be handled by a single clause setting out a single procedure. In fact, I still think it would be better.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 727 c44-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- EU law Legislation European communities Referendums Parliamentary scrutiny Sovereignty Treaties Treaty on European Union UK membership of EU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union European Court of Justice EU aid Treaty of Lisbon
- Legislation
- European Union Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:58:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735557
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735557
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735557