I cannot answer yes or no because I want to explain exactly what I mean. The noble Lord asks the question in a very particular way and I am going to answer it in my own particular way. The long-standing tradition is that treaties that have been signed are respected by incoming Governments. That does not mean—the noble Lord will know this—that Governments do not on occasion go back to renegotiate their position. The noble Lord will know that when coming to power in 1997 this Government signed up to the Social Chapter, to which the previous Government had not signed up. So there are changes that are made. The tradition is that we come into treaties that we have signed up to. In the main, most of the treaties that this country is a part of are well respected on all sides and have often been negotiated through such long time periods that Governments have come and gone. The argument I am making is that that would be the position now. It is not a case that noble Lords would expect to come into a Government of a particular kind, who took a different view, and expect that that treaty was null and void. It would be required that a Government would have to renegotiate. I think that that is the position—
European Union (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 May 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on European Union (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
701 c495 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:43:11 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_469414
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_469414
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_469414