Told you so

So, the proposed new powers that might come in if Germany and France have their way (or some of their way or one of their ways) will not need a referendum because "it did not meet the test for a vote, which required a major transfer of powers to Brussels". Now, there's a surprise. Doubts about that were expressed on this blog here, here, here and here. Apparently, a lot of people are disappointed. Well, as Michelle Malkin would say, boo-freakin-hoo.

Fair enough

Lord Willoughby de Broke speaking in the House of Lords debate on the House of Commons rejecting their Amendments to the EU Bill.

My Lords, this is again a wrecking amendment, which is how the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, described the previous amendment. It goes to the very heart of the Bill and would neuter it completely if it produced a sort of son of a sunset clause. People outside this Chamber and outside Parliament will simply not understand what the House of Lords is doing if it votes for it. The Bill is intended to give British people a voice and protect them from further laws and further integration produced by Europe. They will not understand if the House of Lords supports this amendment, which goes against the whole tenor of the Bill.

On the earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made some great play about the lack of trust in politicians and Parliament in general. Although he would not interpret his remarks that way, I take them to support the use of referendums, precisely because of the lack of trust in Parliament and government in general in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, prayed in aid the people of Slovenia, who apparently trust their Parliament and say that they do not want referendums. But that simply is not the case in this country. The voters in this country do not have the same faith in their Government and Parliament as the people of Slovenia apparently do. If the amendment is carried, it will drag Parliament even further into the contempt that British people already have for it. It is extremely dangerous, and I hope that it will be voted down by this House.

As readers of this blog will know I am not a great fan of an EU referendum and I do not believe that famous referendum lock, as it is phrased, will make the slightest difference. But one cannot argue with the noble lord's comments.

The House of Commons has rejected the Lords' amendments and the Lords have agreed. So that's that.

Day 5

The pointless EU Bill is in its Committee stage at the Lords. Day 5 is today - debate is likely to begin around 4 o'clock. Some people might like to watch it. I shall try to write up the various Amendments and their discussion over the next few days.

UPDATE: I was wrong. At 5 o'clock they were still debating the Report stage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.

Second Reading

As promised, here is the link to the House of Lords Second Reading of the European Union Bill. The debate was very long, interrupted by a Royal Assent with large troops of what Lord Willoughby de Broke (who gave an excellent speech) called the EU pensionariat participating.

House of Lords

The Second Reading of the EU Bill is going on as I blog. For some inscrutable reason I cannot watch it on my computer but others might be able to. Here it is. A more detailed posting tomorrow with the permanent link.

A question of definitions

As the EU Bill is about to be debated in the House of Lords, it is worth remembering that a great deal of its main part - the referendum lock - depends on definitions. In that connection it is worth noting this exchange in the House of Commons on Wednesday when the adoption of draft European Council Decision EUCO 33/10 was debated.

In case you are wondering what that is about:

At the meeting of the European Council of 28 and 29 October 2010, the Heads of State or Government agreed on the need for Member States to establish a permanent crisis mechanism to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole and invited the President of the European Council to undertake consultations with the members of the European Council on a limited treaty change required to that effect.

It has to go through the member states' legislatures and it was, therefore, debated in the House of Commons though the vote has been postponed.

At the start of the debate Philip Hollobone, MP for Kettering asked:

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is the first time that the passerelle mechanism-in other words, a fast-track treaty amendment without an intergovernmental conference-is being used? Is this the first time that such a passerelle clause has been brought before the House?

This is an important point even though it sounds like a ridiculous little detail for a number of reasons. One of them is that the EU Bill ensures that there will be referendums when changes are made under a passerelle or "fast-track" clause. So, it is of some importance to know whether this interesting little legal trick is being invoked. But do we know the answer to that?

David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, seems to wave the problem away in a somewhat airy fashion:

We can debate whether or not it is a passerelle. It is certainly the first time that the provisions under the Lisbon treaty for a simplified revision procedure, rather than the full-scale procedure to which my hon. Friend alluded, has been employed.

Bernard Jenkin, MP for Harwich and North Essex, tried to clarify the issue that ought to have been under discussion:

Can we be absolutely clear what we are doing here? It used to take months, even years, to change a European treaty. Tonight, we are going to debate this motion for 90 minutes and then the Government will go to the European Council and agree to that change in the treaty. That is correct, is it not, because the next time this comes back for scrutiny it will be a fait accompli?

Mr Lidington continued to wave the problem away:

No, I do not share my hon. Friend's analysis of the procedures that lie ahead of us, and I think he underestimates the further opportunities there will be for the House to consider this proposed treaty amendment. I will come on to that in a little more detail later.

Well now, is this an important change in the Treaties or not? Once the EU Bill has been passed would some change of this sort require a referendum or not? Mr Lidington is not going to tell us but we do need to know.

The European Union Bill

The preposterous EU Bill (another example of displacement activity) has now gone to the Lords. Second Reading is on Tuesday, March 22. By tradition the House does not divide at Second Reading when general issues are discussed. Still, the speeches ought to be interesting and valuable for our own future arguments. And how we shall miss Lord Monson.