UK Parliament / Open data

European Union Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Triesman (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 June 2011. It occurred during Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
My Lords, if I misunderstood the point, I of course apologise. I conclude my remarks by saying that this does not involve the same sort of transfer of powers as under Article 48(6). It is not intended to do so. We have all acknowledged that it has a different standing. My key point is this, and I address it to the government Front Bench to think about—even though they obviously cannot respond to it this evening in this particular debate. The G20 was as good an attempt as anybody could make in the circumstances to try to find some way of codifying the responses to the financial crisis across the world. Thinking of it professionally almost—as an economist—I think that it was a pretty poor outcome and the G20 did not do what it was supposed to do. The key players did not play the roles. It may be that a number of people, including eminent politicians from this country, talked up what the G20 was capable of doing and what its successes might be, but when we look at it in the cold light of day, we do not have in the international financial system the protections that some pretended there would be as a consequence of that meeting. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for that is that a number of coherent economies in Europe that were used to mature financial operation found themselves without the tools to respond together, and that had a profound effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 6 withdrawn. Amendment 7 Moved by

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

728 c351 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top