My Lords, it seems to me that the three areas where the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is suggesting the lock-in of the referendum should be removed are fundamental to the argument about needing to have the requirement for referenda to lock in the position as it now is. They are about our common law system, our criminal justice system and our social security provisions. These are crucial areas and, as others have pointed out, because of their importance we negotiated, and were satisfied to get, the emergency brakes at Lisbon.
Some may not agree or be comfortable with the use of required referenda to act as a lock-in to the position that we are in; that is their view. But the whole point of the Bill is to protect citizens against UK Governments, as they have done over the past 20 years, gradually ceding more and more powers without any form of consent from the electorate or from changes in Europe to which the Government are not necessarily a party having the same effect. It would be completely illogical for the Government, having decided to embark upon this Bill, suddenly to say, ““We are quite happy after all not to have the lock-in on the crucial area where we have emergency brakes””. The amendment is rather, dare I say, a waste of time, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is about.
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Flight
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 May 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
727 c379 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:44:39 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738857
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738857
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738857