I think that the Foreign Secretary will find that the clear answer to which he just referred is that the Government did not want the two posts to merge. Apart from the change of name, is there any difference in substance between what was envisaged in the original constitution—a Union Minister for foreign affairs—and the high representative envisaged in the Lisbon treaty? What is the substantive difference, apart from the name change?
Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5)
Proceeding contribution from
James Clappison
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 20 February 2008.
It occurred during Debates on treaty on Treaty of Lisbon (No. 5).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c376 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:02:20 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446456
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446456
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446456