Lord Hunt of Wirral
When Peter Mandelson joins the Lords, he will be one of only two Cabinet ministers to have a former Cabinet minister as his opposite number. Lord Hunt of Wirral has just been appointed Shadow Minister for Business, Enterprise and Regulation.
As David Hunt, Lord Hunt was a Cabinet minister from 1990 to 1995, serving as Secretary of States for Wales, Employment, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He has a legal background and is a very good debater. We should be in for some heavyweight debates.
I have just watched Lord Peter Mandelson swear his allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (The Crown). From the moment any one is born here, it is as if they had already sworn allegiance out loud for they have the protection of the Crown from birth.
I quote here below President Prodi because I cannot find any such speech given by President Barroso.
When Peter Mandelson became an EU Commissioner he also swore an allegiance as a Commissioner and President Prodi (Sept 17th 1999) said, “Gentlemen, we have just taken our Oath of Office before this Court and are fully aware of the solemnity of the occasion: the oath binds us legally but even more, perhaps, it is a commitment we have made before each other.
We are assuming our functions in complete independence, as you have just heard. But, on behalf of all my colleagues, let me assure you that we are also assuming our functions with a mixture of humility and determination – humility in the face of the tasks which await us, coupled with a firm resolve to carry them out.
The construction of Europe has always been and still is an evolutionary process, moving with the flow of social, political and economic change. Who would have foreseen, only 10 years ago, the radical changes now emerging in the fields of justice or home affairs?
This flow is not bypassing our institutions:
as we have all seen, the European Parliament is no longer an apprehensive assembly, but a genuine lower house on which are conferred the legislative powers associated with a democratic system;
the Council has moved into diplomatic and defence-related fields which are going to require substantial changes to its modus operandi; the recent, opportune appointment of a high representative for the common foreign and security policy is a significant manifestation of this;
the Commission must continue to provide inspiration, in innovative and audacious fashion, unaffected by purely national interests and concerned only with the common interest; it is clear that its function is also evolving as the structure of Europe becomes more stable and more complex.
Thus the ‘institutional triangle’, which is officially the centre of a permanent equilibrium, is in reality a living, open and, in a word, political triangle.
As you have just reminded us, Mr President, the Court is a fixed point in this universe, and it is good that this is so: the Court’s function is, untiringly, to interpret the law. And it is appropriate that we should base ourselves on its case law when, just as untiringly, we affirm that we live in a Community governed by law.
I note that, even on this point, vigilance is called for. It was surprising during the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Amsterdam to hear doubts expressed about some of the Court’s landmark judgments or their consequences. There were calls for a measure of political supervision for some of your decisions. Fortunately, this was very much a minority view. The Court, in fact, came out of the conference not diminished but enhanced with new powers of judicial control, in particular in the fields of justice and security.
This fact tells us that sometimes your judgments are uncomfortable, which is not the least of their qualities.
Ladies and gentlemen, next year will see the start of a new institutional debate. Our treaty, which you were the first to describe so accurately as a ‘constitutional charter’, will be the subject of further changes.
The fact is that enlargement is from now on part of the Union’s ‘genetic code’. We see enlargement as a historic development, a labour of peace and the occasion for fresh dynamism. It is an exciting opportunity. But we are also aware of its complexity and above all of the risk that our system, which was designed to operate with six Member States and is already showing signs of strain with 15, will grind to a halt when there are 20 or more.the rest on, http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/9909/p204001.htm
Where then does his true allegiance lie for at the start it was to the Crown and through the Crown to all the people in the UK, then to the EU’s Integration policy of the EU which is alien to the constitution of his own Country, and now back again here in the UK, so where does his true allegiance lie?
To me personally, I believe very strongly that one cannot give allegiance (total commitment) especially when one is totally opposite to the other. It is like a mercenary. No one can be true to two masters. No matter the great honour bestowed upon them to be allowed to sit in the Lords, the office should have been refused by those that have sat as an EU Commissioner.
I have tried to leave a comment but “IT” does not work.
Anne Palmer: Now that he is a member of the House of Lords, Peter Mandelson is in the same position as all other members and is bound by the oath he took yesterday. That applies just as much to other peers who have served previously as EU Commissioners.
Perhaps a new Bill should be brought forward, so that those that have certain conflicting interests, such as still being paid by the EU or are entitled to EU pensions should not sit on any EU business?
Judges or Magistrates have to ‘stand down’ if a person before them is “known” to them or perhaps business matters conflict with those before them. It is I believe, time appointed Lords/Ladies should do the same, or at least take no part in EU matters. Particularly so now when trust in Government is at such a low ebb.
Anne Palmer: I take the point you make. Under existing rules, interests have to be declared in the Register of Peers’ Interests as well as being declared in any relevant proceedings in the House. There are problems in going further inasmuch a blanket provision may result in the House being denied the views of members who are actually highly expert in a particular field. Should I be barred, for example, from speaking on issues affecting higher education?
I do not think (though I do not know for sure) that you had to swear allegiance to your school, whereas those that sat in the EU Parliament or as EU Commissioners, did. An oath that they took very seriously. I think (but do no know) both get or will receieve a pension, and quite rightly so.
Perhaps you might clear up a small point here? If you might disagree with some point in education legislation in the House of Lords would it affect your pension? I would say a definate NO to that. If an ex-Commissioner voted against some point of legislation, or such as against a further EU Treaty, would that affect his/her pension or standing in the EU? I ask this because of an e-mail I have received today regarding the Irish referendum vote and the harsh words spoken and what appeared to be a threat if the Irish people do not vote again soon, and obviously ratify the Treaty which just as obviously, the people do not want to do.
Anne Palmer: MPs are prohibited from voting on matters in which they have a personal and direct pecuniary interest. However, this is not usually applied if it is a matter of public policy. As far as I am aware, it has no parallel in the Lords, possibly because financial privilege rests with the Commons. Voting on an EU Treaty would be regarded as a matter of public policy. At the risk of being technical, treaty ratification is a prerogative power. Unless a treaty affects the powers of the European Parliament, Parliament is not called on to ratify it: what Parliament is doing is giving the necessary effect in domestic law to enable it to be carried out.
You have said “Treaty ratification is a Prerogative power”. Ministers use the Prerogative Power on behalf of the Crown. For the first time in the history of this Country, through the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 47. The Union shall have legal personality)The Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers will be given, by our present Government to the Union as a whole. I am aware that the EEC/EC has signed Agreements/Treaties on our behalf already-but they were rather ‘low key’ and not known about to the general public. ( see agreement between USA and EU arrest warrant HL Debate 18 June 2004 Grand Committee)the use of the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers, a Constitutional Change without the voice of the people, without even a debate in Parliament, in fact without our elected representatives apparently having any knowledge of it.
Just supposing, after activation of “Lisbon” the EU decided as a whole, to enter into a Treaty with President Mugabe, what then? It is not, I would suggest, in the Government’s gift to give the Royal Prerogative of Treaty making powers to others, particularly to foreigners, and from what I have read of the bullying of our close neighbour by Members of the EU Commission over their rejection by the Irish people of the Treaty, they could soon be treated as an enemy, or at least, as not so close a friend by the EU, most certainly it kames us realise how quickly a ‘friend’ could become an enemy.
It is perhaps not even, I would suggest, in the gift of the Government to even allow Parliament as a whole, the use of this Royal Prerogative which has been entrusted into the (temporary) care of Government Ministers. It is on loan from the Crown., it is not a permanent gift, and I would suggest if the Government no longer want the responsibility of its use, it should be returned to the Crown.
Treaties will only be able to be negotiated in those areas where policy competence rests with the EU. It is not like legislation giving independence to other countries where, once given, sovereignty cannot in practice be reclaimed. The EU can only do what it does because Parliament passed the 1972 European Communities Act given effect in domestic law to the provisions necessary for membership. Repeal of the Act is the nuclear option but, under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament retains that option.
The constitutional treaty of Lisbon is a TREATY too far. Sadly, if it ever comes into being, i think you will find I have been right. I am praying that the Treaty never gets ratified by all 27 Once sovereign independent States.