My Lords, essentially the amendments deal with the removal of a referendum provision in three areas which are in our vital national interest—something on which we all agree—namely, the single market, EU competition and state aid. Of course, these are areas where the EU should concentrate, particularly the single market, which is indeed in our national interest. However, this is all possible under the existing treaties and, if sensible actions are taken under the existing treaties, there can be no possible objection to this, and the Bill does not prevent this happening. That is the essential difference and I think that there is some misunderstanding. The Bill does not prevent EU action where the treaties allow it. It is only in areas where a judgment would impact on us seriously that a treaty change might be required, and in those circumstances we would come back to the issue of whether or not to have a referendum. In this House we all agree about the importance of the single market. If, for example, there was a proposal concerning the labour market that could have an impact on this country by undoing much of the trade union and employment law reform, that would have an enormous impact not only on this country but on the entire European Union. In those circumstances, it would be absolutely legitimate to consider the possibility of a referendum.
Finally, in a very interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—and I am sorry that he is not here—made the point that so far as he could make out the coalition Government were being entirely pragmatic. All the discussions that I have had with others have indicated that our member state friends—officials and politicians—would agree with that. Quite frankly, it is in the context of trying to defuse the difficulty in this country towards the European Union that this proposal is made. In that context, it is important in very specific circumstances affecting our national interest, including the single market, that an option is available for a referendum, although it does not necessarily have to be used because it is covered under the existing treaties.
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Risby
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 26 April 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
727 c99-100 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:48:00 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735615
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735615
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_735615