EU (Amendment) Bill

Lord Norton

475661.jpg The number of peers signed up to speak in Tuesday’s Second Reading debate on the European Union (Amendment) Bill has fluctuated over recent days between 70 and 80 but now stands at 75.   The Bill itself is a short eight-clause Bill, primarily (through Clause 2) incorporating the Treaty of Lisbon into the list of treaties contained in the European Communities Act 1972.  This will serve to give effect to the provisions of the treaty in UK law.

 For those wishing to see the text of the Bill, go to:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/048/08048.1-4.html

To see which peers have signed up to speak in the debate, go to:

http://www.lordswhips.org.uk/display/templatedisplay3.asp?sectionid=5

The debate on Tuesday is on the principle of the Bill.  It is only in subsequent stages, especially the committee stage, that detailed amendments will be considered and the individual clauses approved. 

NB. The names on the list for Tuesday’s debate will no longer appear after Monday evening.  The list of speakers, in the order in which they will speak, will then appear on Tuesday under Today’s Business on the same site.

12 comments for “EU (Amendment) Bill

  1. 29/03/2008 at 10:25 pm

    I would like to know to what extent the 75 peers are informed and knowledgeable about the Lisbon Treaty, on which their vote will determine the future of Britain, and possibily the end of democracy as we know it….and certainly the House of Lords.

    Will the 75 peers have read The Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty, and therefore be assured, prior to the speaking peers’ confirmations, that they are essentially the same?

    I do hope that the end of the line top bods, who have our futures in their hands, are best armed to make a good decision and not reliant on the honesty and integrity of a few speakers. This vote may be cast in the House of Lords but, if I were a peer, I would act like it was a court of law and study its merits with conviction. If any peers are feeling a bit out of their depth due to not having a clue what treaty is what and what each could mean for Britain as we know it, they could spend an evening reading the articles on this website…

    http://www.eutruth.org.uk

    Another point I wanted to raise was the possibility that the European Union, once all signed sealed and unescapable, is, in effect, communism and not democracy. Of course, given there is now a whole industry of employees working towards the eventual communist state, it’s no wonder we are constantly being told of the benefits of the EU, i.e. we can live where we want.

    Well, that’s what they are telling children in schools anyway. Hitler also used to indoctrinate children didn’t he? Hitler is a good example of how good things happen at the beginning, lulling people and whole countries into a sense of security and detachment, but also how terrible things can be slipped by undetected.

    While on the subject of children and indoctrination, have you heard of Common Purpose? You might be interested in watching this video…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBE_0-1v_34

    And finally…..did you know that the Federal Reserve Act slipped through US congress due to the vast majority of congressmen not even reading it? Now the US is indepted permanently to a commercial bank and will probably bankrupt itself soon all because a bunch of people were not very professional and trusted that their signature was not being put some something so profound and devastating.

    Please be sure of what it is you are voting on. Don’t assume it’s harmless. That is what the communism cogs are relying on.

  2. Reversepsychology
    30/03/2008 at 3:38 am

    Lord Norton;

    I’ve read, and attempted to understand the E.U. amendment bill, to the best of my ability, but as a rank novice to governmental bills and legislation, this particular reading to me, seems banal to the point of just going through the motions for the sake of constitutional and historic tradition
    .
    The Piers will no doubt speak most eloquently, and with no considerable feeling, but why would Gordon Brown listen to critics whose words have little binding, tie.

    If, as you elude too, in a previous comment: “You have little doubt that an amendment will be tabled on the issue of a referendum”, what can this possibly achieve in the cold light of day?

    In my own opinion, this government seem hell bent on forcing this issue through in as short a period a time as is reasonably possible, because lets face it, its anything but a vote winner.

    Therefore, even if the Lords do get around to, tabling, then passing, a motion for a public referendum on the Lisbon treaty: Firstly, why would the Labour party pay the motion anymore than passing lip service, and secondly, on what grounds could the Lords have in forcing Gordon Brown into taking any notice of their democratic wishes?

    If he went to our Country seeking a vote on the E.U. treaty, and even if he presented his case very well, he would still be well aware, its more than likely he’d lose.

  3. Reversepsychology
    31/03/2008 at 4:36 am

    These are the words of President Sarkozy on last weeks visit to the House of Parliament;

    …”It is an exceptional honour to address members of both Houses of the British Parliament”.
    “It is indeed here, within these walls, that modern political life was born. Without this Parliament, would parliamentary democracy have ever existed in the world? Hasn’t this parliamentary practice, begun in this place, become the best guarantee against tyranny?”

    I wonder if he realised quite what he was saying. If we contemplate two facts: (1) that 70-80% of the laws which now enter into force in the United Kingdom every year emanate not from the elected representatives of the British people but from an unelected and wholly unrepresentative coterie of foreign civil servants; and (2) that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon Britain shall yield up almost all that remains of its sovereignty to that same group who will thus acquire almost unlimited power to impose the Brussels Diktat upon British laws, is it not then right to assert that the ‘best guarantee against tyranny’ of which he spoke has been recklessly and casually thrown away? And has not thus Parliamentary Democracy, so long in the evolution, been in a few short years ruthlessly stifled?

    For we should be under no illusion but that what we understand by Parliamentary Democracy, which is indeed a formidable (though not impervious) bulwark against tyranny and which we have now effectively abandoned, has been replaced by a formidable Euro-theocracy. And from them tyranny we shall have, the tyranny of laws to which neither Her Majesty’s Government nor the British Parliament has assented as more and more ‘competences’ are given up to the thrall of Qualified Majority Voting.

    Of Parliament and the other institutions which have hitherto been the very fabric of the British nation Sarkozy observed:

    “The history of this institution today influences most contemporary political regimes. This Parliament has become what it is through the fight for the protection of essential individual freedoms and the principle of the consent to taxation”.
    “These two fundamental conquests, which this Parliament was the first in the world to achieve, are still today the cornerstones of all our democracies. It is here that parliamentarians have gradually developed what is a party, an electoral programme and finally a majority”.
    “It is through these institutions that the United Kingdom’s greatness has emerged. And I am so honoured to address you precisely because the political heart of the United Kingdom is beating under this roof”.
    “I profoundly believe in the strength of politics. I profoundly believe in the ability of politics to improve the fate of the peoples. This is the whole purpose of politics.
    Institutions, however much you upgrade them, exist only to serve the people. The strength of the British people has always been that of a free people who take their own decisions and are ready for the greatest sacrifices to defend their freedom”.

    It is precisely because, we the British have always been a free people, able to take their own decisions, that they have become what they are. Now that very institution is, for all legal and practical purposes, subordinated to another sovereign power: how then are the British to defend the freedoms so hard won and at such price? How then are the British to preserve their way of life when others who are not of their kind shall have the whip hand over them? And how ironic that a foreign President should come to praise Britian at the very moment of its eclipse.

    Nicolas Sarkozy has, in some places, been lauded as a skillful politician. If so, his praise of Gordon Brown for railroading the Treaty of Lisbon through without a referendum in these terms:

    “I am not the only one in Europe who appreciates what he has done. What he has done was necessary for Europe”.

    was surely a grave mistake, bearing as it does the clear and unambiguous implication that this has all been done not for the benefit of the British people but for the benefit of others. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

  4. Reversepsychology
    31/03/2008 at 5:45 am

    My Lord;

    This is a very interesting perspective from a learned writer, who once lived under the Soviet version of the E.U. superstate. Its just over 4 minutes long, and its worth watching from his own objective point of view. I know that personally, you are unable to change this bill, but immersing yourself in a wide ranging knowledge of both views and standpoints is what in the end, we all seek to do.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU&feature=related

  5. 31/03/2008 at 9:49 am

    Hello again,

    Firstly, I’d like to say how refreshing it is to be able to communicate with the British government. I’ve sent hundreds of emails to both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and never received a response. Just knowing you actually read messages from me and others is reasuring.

    Anyway, I thought you and your readers should see this video which explains, from a Russian’s point of view, how the EU is so incredibly similar to the SU…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Ql3wOGcU&feature=related

    Can you let me know what you think about it?

  6. Stuart
    31/03/2008 at 10:36 am

    May I ask in what order the peers speak? They are listed alphabetically, but I cannot imagine that that is the order – if it is then if I am ever ennobled then I will choose to be called Lord Aardvark. Is it on the basis, perhaps, of seniority, or party, or is it totally self-regulated with no established pattern? Thanks in advance.

  7. ladytizzy
    31/03/2008 at 2:19 pm

    REG:
    All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
    XERXES:
    Brought peace.

    (The Life of Brian.)

  8. lordnorton
    31/03/2008 at 8:18 pm

    On Stuart’s query, he is quite right to assume that we do not speak in alphabetical order. If we did, Lords Acton and Adebowale might be very happy, but Baroness Young of Old Scone might not be! The speakers’ list is agreed on the day by the ‘usual channels’ (essentially the whips) who seek to ensure that there is some balance – for example, ensuring that the speakers generally alternate between the different parts of the House. It is not determined by seniority – some very senior people may come in the middle or end of the list. Maiden speakers will generally be scheduled to speak fairly early. Some speakers (as you may have seen from the list) ask to speak early and others later in the debate. All the usual channels can do is agree the order – they cannot change who is to speak. There is no pattern to one’s place in the list: one might be early in one debate but way down the list in another. Though some speakers may ask to speak earlier or later in debate, it is a convention that all those who speak in debate should be present for the opening and the closing speeches, as well as for the speech preceding and following one’s own. If I am speaking, I try to stay for most, and usually all, of the debate in order to hear what is said.

  9. lordnorton
    31/03/2008 at 8:46 pm

    On questions about the EU (Amendment) Bill, I suspect most if not all speakers will have read the Lisbon Treaty. As Reversepsychology touches upon, the Bill itself does not contain much by way of detail. The detail is in the Treaty. Some of the speakers are members of the European Union Committee or one of its seven sub-committees which have been busy examining the treaty and producing a substantial report on its likely impact. Some are members of the Constitution Committee, which has examined and reported on the implications of the Treaty for the British Constitution.

    The EU Committee report can be found at:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/6202.htm

    The Constitution Committee report can be found at:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldconst/84/8402.htm

    On the question of what difference the Lords can make, I suspect the truthful answer is probably not a great deal in this particular case. Each Member State has to ratify the treaty or decline to ratify it. It is a straightforward choice. The House can subject the Government to detailed questioning and probing and may raise some problems with the Treaty and gain assurances from Government as to future behaviour. It is always possible that it may amend the Bill to provide that the treaty shall not be ratified unless approved in a referendum. However, any such amendment will then need to be agreed by the Commons when its considers Lords Amendments. Having already rejected, by a clear majority on 5 March, an amendment to provide for a referendum, it is unlikely that MPs will change their minds. A Lords amendment may add to the pressure for a referendum but by itself is unlikely to be sufficient to force one.

  10. 31/03/2008 at 11:50 pm

    Lord Norton,

    I appreciate the time you take to answer our questions and I accept that, with the best will in the world, the House of Lords may not be capable of affecting a change.

    However, I would very much like to know what your views are on the EU. Are the fears I have admitted to anything which has crossed your mind or the minds of fellow peers? Can you be open enough to respond to the video posted here? What are your thoughts on the fact our lives are far less determined by democratically voted upon policies, and that they we, as voting individuals, will become less powerful as time goes on thanks to the ever increasing grip of the EU?

    I’m just hoping for a very frank discussion but accept it is not easy and maybe not possible.

  11. lordnorton
    04/04/2008 at 4:29 pm

    The best description of my approach is that I am a Euro-icononclast. I am rather prone to question the received wisdom from whichever camp it comes. I did not speak on the Second Reading of the Bill – though I have read the Lisbon Treaty – but may come in on the subsequent stages.

  12. Robert El-Cid.
    07/04/2008 at 8:04 pm

    When the Treaty of Nice was under consideration there appeared a train of thought that any interference in our constituational affairs might, in the final analysis, be appealed by way of a Petition to Her Majesty the Queen. This was on the basis that Her Majesty because of the ramifications of the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, and even more importantly the Coronation Oath she took, is the absolute font of all democracy in this realm. One could take the prima facie view the linkage between our Sovreign’s Common Law duty and Her Prime Minister is much more than a tenuous and casual arrangement. It is a firm duty so it could well be argued that when P.M. Blair and the other party leaders promised the British electorate a Referendum as to their acceptance or not of the Euro Constitution, then he and the other party leaders were in fact acknowledging and saluting their legal responsibilities to both the Queen’s Oath that she would uphold the laws and customs (democracy) of the land. Then of course, there is the Parliamentary Oath taken by MP’s to be taken into consideration.

    I fail see under our Constitutional arrangements how a promise of such magnitude to the British public and on such a nation trembling topic can be reneged upon or allowed to expire without a Judicial Enquiry, or petition to H. M. The Queen.

    Finally the constitutonal arrangements of Switzerland where there is Direct Democracy through referenda is well worth some consideration – they of course, because of their unique position in Europe, preferred to remain outside the EEC.

Comments are closed.