Proceeding contribution from Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 May 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on European Union Bill.
European Union Bill
I speak briefly against the amendment, pointing out two or three things. First, it is often overlooked that the founding treaty stated that any European country that fulfilled the criteria has the right to request membership. The supporters of the amendment appear to be moving it in order to be able to campaign against the accession of a European country which has been judged by all the members to be fulfilling the criteria. This will probably not worry them unduly as they want this country to leave the European Union, but they are going against a fundamental precept in the treaty. The second point is that everyone is meant to be concerned about public expenditure nowadays, but if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is correct—I think he is roughly correct—that there are about eight candidates, he has just happily thrown away about £640 million, which is what it would cost to organise the eight referendums in this country, judging by the cost of the AV referendum. That seems a trifle feckless, if I may say so. The third point, which is also relevant, is that if we were to have a referendum requirement for an accession, we would be saying that a British Government who had gone to whatever capital it was to sign the accession treaty which admitted country A would run the risk of being denied and having to go back to explain that country A could not become a member of the European Union because the referendum had come out negatively. That is an order of magnitude in damage to Britain's foreign policy rather greater than anything we have been discussing so far. Surely no one believes that our relationship with country A would ever be the same again after we had prevented it joining, following ourselves signing an accession treaty admitting them—that is the treaty in which all British interests, such as immigration, cost and so on would be taken into account, if the British Government of the day were worth their salt. That would be a really serious matter. I hope that the Government will not entertain the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 727 c344-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Climate change Competition EU law Energy supply Human trafficking EU accession Financial services EU internal trade Legislation European communities EU internal relations Powers Referendums Piracy Sovereignty Treaties Regulation Treaty on European Union UK membership of EU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 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 15:45:16 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738803
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738803
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738803