My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove Article 346(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union from Schedule 1 to the Bill. The article has appeared verbatim in every European treaty since 1957, so it is not new on the scene. At present, unanimity is required for changes made to the list of military products for which single market provisions do not apply. Under the Bill, a proposal to move to QMV would require approval by Act and by referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others are correct that it does not immediately mean that the veto is removed. It merely means that the move would require approval by Act and by referendum. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would remove that requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke at length on this issue during day six in Committee, and he has spoken again now. Of course, he has considerable experience as Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, and in my view he has made the case extremely well that there could be some benefits to the UK from a move to QMV in this area. Having conceded that point, I hope that he and other noble Lords will excuse me if I now at least set out the other side of the argument, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has just said that there is no guarantee that his proposal would work. Why is that so? It is because a move to QMV would also come at considerable cost to the UK, which a responsible Government have to consider. We must remember that this article is sensitive, as it applies to national security and defence. It is one of the wires that feeds directly into the red lines that all parties in the United Kingdom and other member states have always maintained during treaty change negotiations. Obviously that applies to previous Governments as well as this one.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said with some passion that Article 346 of the TFEU is a protectionist measure and he portrayed the Government as, "““using a referendum to block the removal of a derogation from the single market legislation””.—[Official Report, 17/5/11; col. 1364.]"
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has spoken in the same vein just now. I have to point out that the UK’s veto could be used also to block any proposals to extend the protectionist measures with which the noble Lord understandably takes issue. A qualified majority could push through decisions which would favour greater national discretion and protection. The list, which has been unchanged—
European Union Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Howell of Guildford
(Conservative)
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 c626-7 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:38:15 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748459
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748459
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_748459