The points are not vague. I invite the hon. Gentleman to have another look at clause 4 and schedule 1, both of which define in clear terms the various ways in which competences could, within the terms set out in the treaties, be enlarged, transferred or expanded, while schedule 1 sets out in detail a list of national vetoes, the removal of which would automatically trigger a referendum. I gently suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies the Bill a little bit harder.
The second condition is that Parliament's approval has to be gained for the treaty change in all cases, no matter how minor or uncontroversial, by Act of Parliament. That legislation would provide for the approval of the treaty change and, where a referendum is required, provide the necessary enabling measures to allow it to be held. The need for an Act of Parliament is central to our role in holding Ministers to account for the decisions they take on behalf of the UK in the EU. If Parliament were of the view that a referendum should be required for a future treaty change, despite that proposal coming in one of the exempt categories, it could amend the approval legislation to provide for a referendum if it so wished.
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Lidington
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 24 January 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
522 c119 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:29:14 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704739
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704739
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704739