The point is that the case is put in such a way as to suggest that the European Scrutiny Committee said something but did not expect the Government to respond. What we said—I am quoting from under the heading ““the Constitutional Treaty and the Reform Treaty compared””—was that"““we are not convinced that the same conclusion does not apply to…the Reform Treaty.””"
However, we continued:"““We look to the Government to make it clear where the changes they have sought and gained at the IGC alter this conclusion in relation to the UK.””"
The Government came back and argued their case. We took a different view at different times, but let me put it on record that 48 amendments were tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and his colleagues, and that all of them were defeated. Nine of those amendments proposed a referendum. The question of a referendum was defeated nine times in the process of preparing the European Scrutiny Committee’s report so, regardless of the—[Interruption.]
European Union (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Michael Connarty
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 5 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
472 c1862;472 c1860 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 02:15:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_452435
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_452435
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_452435