It becomes a matter of hypothesis and judgment. This is an area where, somehow, one has to have solidarity and consensus. Given that it requires unanimity to go to QMV, it would be a pretty odd action by the country that did not want to go to QMV to act totally against its interest. It is an inconceivable situation. However, if a country did so, it would be a very bad basis for supporting the independence and overall quality of the EU judiciary and of the key figures like the advocates-general and judges. It remains the view of this Government that to move away from a consensus and concord of agreement and support for these kinds of appointments would be very unfortunate. I think this would be the view of future Governments, too. I do not regard this as binding; I simply regard it as common sense.
Neither under this amendment nor under Amendment 47—which I also want to speak to because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put his point so keenly and strongly—is there any question of not being able to operate or contribute to the election and appointment of advocates-general or anything else under any of these articles. The issue is simply whether it is right that we surrender the veto, so that in a future situation it might be possible that we would not be able to resist measures and proposals that were directly against our own national interest and judgment.
Let me turn to Amendment 47, which would remove key justice and home affairs provisions from Schedule 1 and therefore from the referendum lock. I know that the noble Lord is a keen expert in this area. As I said before, Schedule 1 does not prevent the use of these articles. This is a narrow exposition of a much broader point which I would urge many noble Lords who have spoken to comprehend. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talked about a meeting of minds, and I would love to see one, but it is difficult if it is not understood that the central point is about whether we abandon vetoes, not whether we use the articles and competences that are already there.
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Howell of Guildford
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 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 c1371-2 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:16:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_743535
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_743535
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_743535