UK Parliament / Open data

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4)

Proceeding contribution from Adam Price (Plaid Cymru) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 February 2008. It occurred during Debates on treaty on Treaty of Lisbon (No. 4).
I said that some progress had been made, in the addition of the protocol as a result of political pressure—not least from the Dutch Government—following the Altmark decision in the European Court of Justice, which gave rise to the Commission's letter. Nevertheless, the Party of European Socialists group in the European Parliament is very worried about the draft Kyprianou directive. The central point that I am making, which has been made by public services trade unions and other stakeholders, is that we have no legal certainty because there is no definition in the protocol. Unfortunately, when there has been tension between the rights of subsidiarity and the Commission's right to remove what it sees as impediments to the four freedoms and to free competition, free competition has always won. That has always been the default position of the Commission and the Court. We need certainty. The Commission and the Court should not be allowed to override the health, education and housing policies of directly elected Governments, whether they are member states' Governments, devolved Administrations or local authorities. This is a constitutional issue, which is why we cannot support the Government's motion, and why we uphold the right of the people of this country to a referendum on the treaty.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
471 c1023-4 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top