My Lords, it is very tempting to support the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, made some good points about expenses. The forced holding of second referenda has been shameful and has involved quite improper practices. However, I should like to make two points on why the amendment may not be appropriate for this country. The first is that any second referendum would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I trust that this House, unless it is dangerously interfered with, would act properly in that situation. Secondly, in the event of a referendum on ““in or out”” in which people voted to stay in but certain developments in Europe within the five-year period made the situation dramatically different, it would be unwise to be limited by a five-year rule that the UK could not reconsider the issue again in the light of future developments. Many Members of this House are sympathetic to the amendment on the improper use of forced second referenda, but such a measure would not be appropriate in this country.
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Flight
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 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 c1619 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:12:21 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_745337
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_745337
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_745337