Asked by: Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they reconcile printing and delivering their pamphlet <i>Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK</i> to every household in the UK, with the statement by the Minister of State for Europe, Mr David Lidington, on 7 September 2015 that "we have no intention of legislating to allow the Government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting" (HC Deb, col 89).
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
As the full excerpt below shows, the statement referred to by the Noble Lord relates to conduct and activity during the final 28 days of the referendum period, which are covered by the provisions of section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Government will comply fully with these provisions.
“Instead, new clause 10 provides a power to make regulations to exempt particular categories of publication from section 125. Any such regulation would need to be approved by an affirmative resolution in both Houses. We have also adopted the recommendation of the Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee that the Government should consult the Electoral Commission before any such regulation is made.
While I understand the constructive intention behind the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I think that at the end of the day the Government must be free to go to Parliament and ask whether it accepts or rejects a particular proposal. The safeguard here is that if Government new clause 10 is accepted tonight, both Houses will have the right to veto anything that the Government might bring forward under this new provision.
Let me explain the kind of things I have in mind. They include, for example, modernising the press notice exemption, which is already in section 125, to take account of digital media, by making it clear that it is permissible to link to a press notice from a website or a social media site; allowing the publication of a document on government.uk; or clarifying that material passed on to the print or broadcasting media would be acceptable. None of those things is clear at the moment. Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the Government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Asked by: Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, with reference to the statement in their pamphlet <i>Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK</i> that "the UK has secured a special status in a reformed EU", how the EU has been reformed beyond their claim that the UK has secured a "special status".
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The settlement reached in February, as set out in the 22 February 2016 White Paper “The Best of Both Worlds: the United Kingdom’s Special Status in a Reformed European Union,” secures the UK’s objectives for reform. The settlement covers four key areas: economic governance; competitiveness; sovereignty; and welfare and free movement. It gives the UK a special status within the EU, as well as setting the EU as a whole on a path of long-term reform.
Asked by: Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government which EU countries are required by their constitutions to hold a referendum before their governments can agree changes to the EU treaties; and which countries have done so in the past.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
No EU country has an absolute constitutional requirement to hold a referendum before their government can agree to any amendment to the EU Treaties. Indeed, no EU Member State held a referendum on the most recent change to the EU Treaties which came into effect in 2013.
The following countries have a constitutional requirement to hold a referendum in certain circumstances (e.g. if proposed changes require a revision of a Member State’s constitution or constitute a transfer of competence/sovereignty to the EU):
• Austria
• Croatia
• Denmark
• Ireland
• Lithuania
• Romania
• Slovakia
The following countries have previously held a referendum on changes to the EU Treaties:
• Denmark
• Ireland
• France
• Italy
• Luxembourg
• Netherlands
• Spain
Asked by: Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the UK can withdraw from EU treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, with 12 months notice or otherwise.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The Prime Minister, my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), made clear to the House of Commons that “if the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit". The rules for exit are set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. This is the only lawful route available to withdraw from the EU.
Asked by: Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 14 March (HL6444), (1) whether the European Commission, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice are all legally bound to adhere to the deal agreed at the February European Council before the Treaties are changed to reflect its decisions, and (2) when they expect that Treaty change to take place.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The International Law Decision contains legally binding and irreversible provisions specifying how certain articles in the EU Treaties should be interpreted. That interpretation will apply to all EU institutions, including the European Parliament and the European Commission. The Court of Justice of the European Union has confirmed that it is required to take such Decisions into account when interpreting the Treaties. The Committee of Representatives is composed of officials representing Member States, all of which are legally bound by the International Law Decision. The President of the European Commission and the President of the European Parliament have endorsed the Decision and committed themselves to facilitate the passage of the relevant EU secondary legislation for those aspects that require implementing legislation. The Decision includes a legally binding and irreversible commitment that the Member States will at the next opportunity, and subject to compliance with their respective constitutional requirements and the procedures in the EU Treaties, amend the EU Treaties to address key UK concerns.Asked by: Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 14 March (HL6444), whether future Governments of the other EU member states are bound by the deal agreed at the February European Council.
Answered by Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The Decision of the Heads of State of Government, meeting within the European Council, on 18 and 19 February 2016 was agreed to by all Member States and is a legally binding International Law Decision that has been registered with the UN as an international treaty.