UK Parliament / Open data

European Union Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Lea of Crondall (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bills on European Union Bill.
My Lords, I support the amendment. The main consideration is that if the Government do not relent on this question they will be in denial on issues to do with the workability of the scheme. I will give some examples. First, it is proposed that these referenda be mandatory on the Government. Secondly, it was said by the noble Lord in a previous session that it might be rather inconvenient if there were a whole string of different referendums and so they could be grouped together in some way for the purpose of having them on a certain date. The issue of EU energy taxation being extended or some other legal question on an industrial matter might be put together for the purpose of the referendum day. This taxes the imagination. I have tried to imagine that I am sitting listening to a conversation in a pub in Burton-on-Trent. After all, this is the demotic that we are all being asked to say is so much more important than parliamentary democracy. So, I am sitting in a pub in Burton-on-Trent, and after a discussion on what is running in the 2.30 at Newmarket, Fred says to his mate Alec, ““What are you doing on this thing that they want us to vote on tomorrow?””. ““No idea, Fred, it’s all Greek to me””, replies Alec. How do we know that the people want all these referendums? How much time would elapse in Brussels if we simply, as the awkward squad, sat for several months on a whole string of items until the famous day when they could be brought together? That looks so totally unreasonable that people in Europe—they are friends of ours, presumably; we are in a Community—might say, ““If you are a member of a club, you ought to be more co-operative than that. If you carry on as you are, you might as well get out””. If we held a referendum on staying in or getting out, I am pretty confident that the staying in vote would win. There might be consensus on that, but it is not the subject of this amendment. This is a vicious circle. If you want to be a member of a club, you have to co-operate. If I carried on like this in my tennis club, it might be suggested that I joined another club more suited to my temperament. The Government do not have the candour to say what they want to do because I do not think that some of their members would agree with that position. However, they want to go as near as they can to implying what they want to do. In practice, this amendment meets the test set by the Constitution Committee. I think that there is consensus in the House on it.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

729 c760-1 

Session

2010-12

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top