BACKGROUND
1.
The Third Reading of the Maastricht Bill was completed on 20 May with a majority of 180 in favour of the Bill. The Labour Party abstained, to protest against the UK opt-out from the Social Chapter. The Liberal Democrats voted with the Government:
2.
41 Conservative and 66 Labour MPs voted against.
The Bill was introduced into the House in May 1992, but was held up following the 'no' vote in the first Danish referendum last June. Since then a small group of 'Eurosceptics' (on both sides of the House) have tried to delay the Bill for as long as possible, at times aided by the Labour Party.
3. 210 hours have been spent debating the Bill so far. This compares with 195 hours spent (in both Houses) debating Britain's accession to the European Community in 1972, and 52 hours spent debating the Single European Act in 1986. The Committee Stage alone - the longest since the war took 163 hours (representing over 23 days of Parliamentary time). Over 600 amendments were tabled, and over 350 selected for debate.
4.
The Maastricht Bill is designed to give effect to those parts of the Treaty which require changes in our domestic law. Amendments to the Bill cannot alter the Maastricht Treaty. Were an amendment to be passed which prevented us from giving effect to a particular Treaty article in our domestic law, we would be unable to ratify the Treaty. According to the government's legal advice, none of the six amendments made to the Maastricht Bill in the Commons will prevent ratification.
5.
Much of the debate in Parliament has been about the Social Protocol which contains the UK's opt-out from the Agreement of Eleven annexed to it. Amendment 2, which the Government conceded during the Report Stage, excludes the Social Protocol from those parts of the Treaty which are being given effect in UK law by the Bill. The Law Officers have advised that this will not prevent ratification or implementation of the Treaty as it stands, including the Protocol. This is because the Protocol does not give rise to rights and obligations which need to be given effect in UK law.
6.
The Conservative 'Euro-sceptics' have indicated that they will mount a legal challenge to the Government's intention to ratify despite passage of the amendment. It is not yet clear whether such a challenge can be mounted, what form it might take, or when it might happen. The 'Eurosceptics' have concentrated on the argument that without the Protocol in UK law the Government cannot legally meet an obligation, contained in the Protocol, to pay administrative costs relating to the Social Agreement of eleven which is annexed to it. The Government is confident of its legal position on this point. Our best guess is that even if the Court agreed to hear the challenge and even if it was appealed to the House of Lords, the legal process might be completed
PWILgopher
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.