I was using the language of our Act, the Act in force in this country now. I am talking the 1993 Act language, which is replicated precisely in my amendment. I am very glad to hear the Minister agree that we must avoid a second referendum and that we must avoid the crisis weekend drama, but in a plain reading the Bill says that what should be put to Parliament and the people is the draft of the decision under Article 140(3), which sets out the rate. That is the decision that we are going to take over a weekend, and it is going to be a busy weekend if ECOFIN starts on Friday, Parliament sits on Saturday and the referendum is on Sunday. It is not going to be fun.
I agree that under my language the Government could do exactly as they want. Under their language, I believe that the country would think it very odd if they did not see the draft decision including the rate, because that is what Article 140(3) of the consolidated treaty says. It uses the rate; the rate is there in the treaty. So although I regret that I have taxed your Lordships’ patience long enough, I think that I really have to test the views of the House.
Division on Amendment 22
Contents 187; Not-Contents 188.
Amendment 22 disagreed.
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 13 June 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
728 c609 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:37:16 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748447
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748447
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748447