European Union Bill

I thank the noble Lord warmly for his reply, particularly for what he said about looking again at the wording ““or otherwise support””. Whatever its origins, I am sure the Government can do better and that the change would solve a lot of problems not just in Brussels but here. How would the Government advance the case for the Act of Parliament that would be necessary if the law prevented them supporting it? We are slightly in Alice in Wonderland here, and plenty of adjustments to the wording would solve our problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, asked me a question that I do not quite understand. My objection to Clause 7(3) is based purely on its wording ““or otherwise support””. My objection to Clause 7 as a whole applies in addition to the list in Clause 7(4), which, as the Minister understands, I think is a little too long. I have no objection to Clause 7(2), but I am puzzled by Clause 7(4)(c), (e) and (f). I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on Clause 7(3). I echo the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in talking about the locus classicus for ““or otherwise support””. The phrase is most likely to cause us major problems at the start of Clause 6, which deals with bigger issues than those that we are looking at in Clause 7. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on the matter and that he will write to me about Clause 7(4)(e) and (f). I hope that he might also write to me about Clause 7(4)(c), if only to explain to someone ignorant like me exactly what the relevant passage of the treaty is all about, and why the Government would object to a move back to unanimity, which seems to me to be slightly inconsistent with their overall stance on decisions. I do not wish for the moment to protract the discussion on whether Clause 7 should stand part. Clause 7 agreed. Clause 8 : Decisions under Article 352 of TFEU Clause 8 : Decisions under Article 352 of TFEU Debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.