Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Bernard Jenkin (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 11 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on European Union Bill.


European Union Bill

I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I had not intended to take part in this debate, as I took part extensively in the debate on clause 18 in Committee and I thought that we had covered all the issues then. I had become reconciled to accepting the clause as the Government had drafted it and I came to today's debate expecting my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to make a technical argument, but one that would not necessarily excite me—of course I was wrong. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) says that the clause does not take us back and it does not take us forward, but he has missed the fundamental point about the revised drafting of the clause. I am not a lawyer—I am an amateur lawyer—but ever since we started discussing this clause earlier this year, I have had the sinking feeling that we are in very deep water and that we are potentially creating completely unnecessary problems for this House and for Parliament. I say that because the sovereignty of Parliament is axiomatic; it is self-evident and it is a historical fact. We do not need to legislate in any way to maintain the sovereignty of Parliament. There would have been some virtue in a declaratory Act with the legal effect of returning powers to the United Kingdom from the European Union to redress our relationship so that we had the ability to negotiate, but this clause, which has erroneously been nicknamed the ““sovereignty”” clause but is no such thing, does not even attempt to do that. In fact, it does not even refer to the word ““sovereignty””. The clause puts in statute issues that are contested by the European Union legal structures in a context that means that the Supreme Court might have to interpret them. We know that some justices of our Supreme Court question the very notion of the sovereignty of Parliament as I have described it and think it is a matter of common law rather than of history and fact. I believe they are wrong and that Parliament will always be able to prove them wrong by legislating, as statute law always overrides common law.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
531 c99 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
EU countries EU law European Union Legislative competence European communities Gibraltar Economic and monetary union Free movement of people Referendums Parliament Migration Sovereignty Treaties Reform Treaty on European Union UK membership of EU Supreme Court Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union EU defence policy Treaty of Lisbon European financial stabilisation mechanism Sunset clauses
Legislation
European Union Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk