As I understand it, Amendment 5 would restore parliamentary democracy. I think that that is about right. I understand all those who are completely in favour of parliamentary democracy untrammelled, and it is difficult to argue against it. However, if you have agreed to a referendum and the people say one thing and then Parliament says another, you are back where you started. Quite frankly, I think that that would cause outrage and undermine the authority of Parliament. If Parliament has agreed that there should be a referendum of the people, the people should decide. After all, in the last analysis, one way or another, the people are the ultimate sovereign. So I cannot support Amendment 5.
Amendment 6 is different. As I understand it, it says, ““This is a great issue and you should expect people, citizens, to take an interest in it and come out and vote””. The figure of 40 per cent is pretty low. Of course there are precedents, and as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, mentioned, only a week or two ago this House voted for such an amendment. On AV, it would be very difficult for the House to go back on something on which it decided a few weeks ago. It could apply in this Bill. I well remember the 1977 referendum in Scotland when—
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
(Independent Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 April 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1696 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:46:08 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734463
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734463
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_734463