Some forthcoming debates worthy of note:
Next Tuesday (1 April), the House will be debating the second reading – the debate on principle – of the European Union (Amendment) Bill to give effect to the Lisbon Treaty. So far, there are 71 peers signed up to speak. Unusually, in order to accommodate that number of speakers, the House will begin sitting at noon. The speakers will include some past and current MEPs as well as former Foreign Secretaries and European Commissioners.
On Thursday 3 April, Lord May of Oxford will lead a debate to call attention to the trend in the incidence of HIV/AIDS.
On Friday 25 April, the Archbishop of Canterbury will lead a debate to call attention to the impact on the family of economic inequality, credit and indebtedness.
Both Houses rise for the Easter recess next Thursday (3 April) and resume sitting on Monday 21 April.
Let’s hope it is a debate of ‘principal’ and results in the House of Lords voting to give the British public a say, as promised, in their country’s future.
The Lisbon Treaty is, in effect, the Constitution. It’s just been typed slightly differently and been given a new name. Even Angela Merkel admitted as such.
Don’t let us down. Do the right thing and give us our say. If the government is confident enough in the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty, they should be confident enough in the British people’s desire for it.
A number of questions here..
1/ Who decides whether the non-offering of a referendum on what is, to all intents and purposes, the ‘Constitutional Treaty’ is a breach of a referendum commitment, and therefore outside the ambit of the ‘Parliament Act’ ?
2/ You mention that the ‘House will begin sitting at noon’.. I thought that the new ‘family-friendly’ hours applied across the whole of the Palace Of Westminster, or does this just apply to the other place ?
If so, you’ve done well to keep that one quiet – are you sure that you are compliant with the EU Working Time Directive ?
3/ I am not aware of whether the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, sits in the Lords, or whether he participates in debates from time to time ? He might have some interesting views on these topics.
4/ I see no mention of the ‘Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill’ aka ‘Draft Constitutional Reform Bill which Lord Tyler referred to.
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2008/03/27/the-abolition-of-parliament-act-returns/
Is this something we should be worrying about ? Some say that it will give wide powers to ministers to over-ride the will of Parliament.
Others that it is just a bit of a red-herring. Do the Noble Lords have any thoughts about this ?
Under the Salisbury Convention, the House does not vote on the second reading of Government Bills promised in the Government’s manifesto and generally, by extension, does not vote against a Bill included in the Government’s programme. However, the House can amend such Bills. It could, for example, amend the European Union (Amendment) Bill to provide that its provisions shall not take effect unless approved in a referendum. It would then be for the House of Commons to decide whether to agree to the amendment.
The House sits at 2.30 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays and 3.00 p.m. on Wednesdays. (The later start on Wednesday is to allow party groups to meet.) The aim is to rise by about 10.00 p.m. on each day. It meets on Thursdays at 11.00 a.m. and aims to rise by 7.00 p.m. If the House sits on a Friday, it meets at 10.00 a.m. (until recently, it was 11.00 a.m.).
The Archbishop of York is indeed a member of the House. The Archbishops (Canterbury and York) and the Bishops of London, Winchester and Durham sit as members ex officio. They are joined by 21 other Bishops who sit by reason of seniority in the Anglican Church. It is possible that the Archbishop of York may speak in the debate. Unlike his predecessor, he has taken part in a number of debates.
The Lords Spiritual are unusual, incidentally, in that they are the only members of the House who cease to be members upon retirment.
There is no mention of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill because that was dealt with a year or so ago and substantially amended to meet the criticisms made of it. The Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill has just been published and is very different. It has some worthwhile provisions, though as I mentioned in the House on Tuesday it is essentially a pudding without a theme.
Sir
That you are willing to engage with the public over the internet is very much to your credit. And I for one thank you for it.
Earlier in the blog you responded to Britney that you had received very little mail about a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. It could be that the vast majority of the population see no point in engaging with the political process like that as it so very rarely produces results.
The population of every country across the European Union has been polled on this issue. It has been found that 73% of the British people wanted a referendum; 64% of Germans wanted a referendum; In excess of 80% of Dutch people. All told, across the whole of the European Union – every country – 75% wanted a referendum on this issue.
Politicians across the E.U. have, in their wisdom, decided that they know better. This may explain your lack of correspondence (In addition, social practices are changing: more and more people are using this medium for communication. This trial blog – “Beta” as it would be known to internet-savvy people – is not well known. I only know about it because Britney told me. I will do what I can to spread knowledge).
The only people getting a referendum are the Irish, and that only because Aherne couldn’t prevent it. We were promised a referendum in the 2005 Labour Prty manifesto, only to be recently told that ” … manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation.” Reneging on manifesto pledges is becoming a habit with the Labour party: the 1997 manifesto promised a referendum on electoral reform. We never got that either.
Mr Brown tells us that the Lisbon Treaty is not the Constitutional Treaty therefore the manifesto pledge doesn’t apply. He lies (so sue me, Mr Brown). The author of the Constitutional Treaty, Valerie Giscard-DeStaing, claims it is 98% the same, and that everything that could be done with the Constitution can still be done with the Lisbon Treaty – you just have to rummage around a bit to find the clauses you need. The only difference being that fluff like an anthem and flag are left out. Referendum-deniers tell us it must be different as it is 62 pages shorter. Yet, strangely enough, it is more than 6000 words longer. The difference? The printers were instructed to alter the font: the spaces between the lines are smaller (yes, there are actually people on the internet who have counted the words and measured the spaces; which is why it’s not wise to engage in such fraud in the modern day). Would honest people need to resort to such subterfuge?
This film is well worth watching. It is long (1hr 22mins) and dreary, but you being an active participant in what is called the democratic process should be accustomed to dealing with things that are long and dreary. I recommend you take the trouble to watch it and think about what’s said. Just click the start arrow.
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=173
The politicians of Europe are heading directly for some serious civil strife in the coming few years. I would suggest that the way the military has been treated these past few years, you wont be able to depend on which side of that strife the enlisted men will be on. I don’t want that … but it’s coming.
Henry Morgan has a point. Mr Sarkozy’s reference to an ‘entente amicale’ is touching, and we should be more friendly and co-operative to the French.
But what is on offer is for Mr Blair to become President of Europe, and I’m sure the Lords remember him trying to railroad ’90 day detention’ through the Lords.
Parliament, including yourselves, has much to lose if the EU takes over its role as the pre-eminent source of legislation in the United Kingdom and perversely the fact that you are not elected gives us a better chance of preserving democracy in this country than our MPs with their so-called ‘democratic mandate’ has yet given us.
I don’t want to see the House of Lords being captured by single issue groups and lobbies with a vested interest. But this is a cause with over-arching implications for the life of the nation, and you have the power to ask some searching questions about the impact of this treaty.
Let us hope you exercise your power wisely.
If this gvt had provided a referendum in the style of ‘Yes Minister’ I would have expected a narrow thumbs up. That they have not has simply made them appear tricksy – even David Blaine would not attempted this chicanery.
Now, there is no point in a referendum, thanks to the adverse publicity they have created. Murdoch would ensure it gets voted down.
Now that the EU (Amendment) Bill has reached the Lords, I have no doubt that the volume of correspondence on the issue will rise substantially. Indeed, the letters and e-mails (especially the latter) are now starting to arrive. For those keen to influence members of the House, the impact is likely to be greatest where one can relate comments especially to the terms of the Bill. The Second Reading debate on Tuesday will permit those taking part to raise issues of principle – to comment generally on the Bill and any benefits or deficiencies – but thereafter debate will focus on the specific provisions. General expressions of view (e.g. for or against the Treaty, or for or against a referendum) will tend to reinforce what is known about public opinion (and the strength of feeling) but will not necessarily aid members of the House in pursuing particular amendments to the Bill. The more specific and evidence-based the comments, the greater the likelihood of having an impact.
The Bill itself can be read online. All Bills before Parliament are available on the Parliament website (wwww.parliament.uk) as are the Explanatory Notes prepared by Government that accompany each Government Bill. These help explain the provisions of a Bill.
My Noble Lord;
The E.U. amendment bill (Sixth report), Part 4, states that;
“Whilst the principles and practices governing the use of referendums are clearly of constitutional importance, an inquiry into this subject would require us to range well beyond EU matters. It is a subject which the Committee may choose to return to at a later date”.
The Committee “may” choose to inquire into the subject of a referendum at a later date?
How could the term: “may choose to inquire”, be amended to read: “will inquire at a latter date”?
Would the Lords be required to take a vote on Tuesday to forward this single process, or would that be the requirement of a separate sub-commission or committee at a later date?
The debate on Tuesday – to which I see 80 peers will now be contributing – is on the principle of the Bill, so the only motion before the House is that the Bill be read a second time. Amendments come later, at committee and report stage. It will be here that a member can table an amendment to provide that the provisions of the Bill do not take effect unless approved by the electorate in a referendum. It is only once second reading is complete that amendments can be tabled and there is a gap of at least two weekends before the committee stage can be scheduled. I have little doubt, though, that an amendment will be tabled on the issue of a referendum.
The committee report to which you refer is designed to inform the House. It has no binding effect. It is the contents of the Bill that form the basis of debate on the Bill.
Anyone interested in the provisions of the Bill can find these, along with the Explanatory Notes, on the Parliament website (www.parliament.uk): go the page on ‘Bills and legislation’ and click on the European Union (Amendment) Bill.