No, indeed; just learned, not right. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well how the comment was intended. However, the point is serious: it would be the courts, not Parliament, that decided whether there was a referendum; Parliament would have ceded its right to decide. By contrast, I believe that what constitutes enough of a treaty to require a referendum is a political decision for Parliament, so the amendments are unnecessary and wrong.
If the proposal became law under a Tory Government, that Government would be wholly in hock to their anaphylactically Eurosceptic tendency, with internal rows about what did or did not require a referendum. I can just hear the hon. Members for Stone and for Shipley (Philip Davies) condemning their Government for not holding a referendum on the slightest treaty that comes around.
The amendments are not just impracticable, but wrong. It is the job of Parliament to scrutinise Government, and that includes the treaties that they sign. That is why, for future EU treaties, we have strengthened Parliament's power, putting in place a statutory obligation that the Government will be able to ratify a future EU amending treaty, regardless of its effect, only if the treaty has been approved by an Act of Parliament, as set out in section 5 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. It is also why, for other treaties, the Bill puts on a formal footing the 1924 Ponsonby rule.
I believe it is right that the power remains with Parliament, and that also happens to be the view of Parliament. On 5 March 2008, during the passage of legislation on the Lisbon treaty, the House voted on an amendment proposing a referendum. That amendment was defeated by 311 votes to 248, a majority of 63. It was not just the House of Commons that defeated it, however: on 11 June 2008, the House of Lords also voted against a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, by 280 votes to 218, a majority of 62.
Even if I did support the use of referendums for the ratification of treaties, I would not want to cede to the courts the powers to decide when a referendum should be held and what circumstances should apply, but that is what the amendments would do.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Bryant
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c256-7 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:56:56 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617647
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617647
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_617647