The Committee did say that, and I quoted part of that report yesterday. The point is that the obligation ““can readily be inferred””, and there will no doubt be those who wish to infer it, but they are not in the House, in the Government or in future UK Governments. It will be inferred by others who are trying to interpret the words in that way. What Parliament, the people who listen to and read our debates and I want to hear from the Minister is what show of strength the Government will give, and whether they will fight that corner and win on every occasion. That is why I do not think that the amendments are necessary, although they are useful, as they allow the Government to explain their position.
European Union (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Michael Connarty
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 27 February 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c1176 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:26:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449604
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449604
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_449604