Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote Next 26 October 2017 10.40
am Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) (Urgent Question):
To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union if he
will make a statement on the Government’s policy of a
meaningful...Request free trial
26 October 2017
-
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union if he will make a
statement on the Government’s policy of a meaningful
vote in Parliament to agree the final withdrawal
agreement with the European Union.
-
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his
question. We have been very clear right from the
start of the process that there will be a vote in
both Houses of Parliament on the final deal that we
agree with the European Union. I reiterate the
commitment my Minister gave at the Dispatch Box
during the article 50 Bill, when he said:
“I can confirm that the Government will bring forward
a motion on the final agreement, to be approved by
both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We
expect and intend that this will happen before the
European Parliament debates and votes on the final
agreement.”
Furthermore, he said:
“we intend that the vote will cover not only the
withdrawal arrangements but also the future
relationship with the European Union.”—[Official
Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 264.]
These remain our commitments.
The terms of this vote were also clear. Again, as my
Minister said at the time:
“The choice will be meaningful: whether to accept
that deal or to move ahead without a deal.”—[Official
Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 275.]
Of course this vote cannot happen until there is a
deal to vote upon, but we are working to reach an
agreement on the final deal in good time before we
leave the European Union in March 2019. Clearly, we
cannot say for certain at this stage when this will
be agreed, but has said he
hopes to get a draft deal agreed by October 2018, and
that is our aim as well. So we fully expect there
will be a vote in the UK Parliament on this before
the vote in the European Parliament and before we
leave the EU. As we have said before, this vote will
be over and above the requirements of the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
We have also said many times that we want to move to
talking about our future relationship as soon as
possible. The EU has been clear that any future
relationship and partnership cannot legally conclude
until the UK becomes a third country, as the Prime
Minister said in her Florence speech. As I set out in
the Select Committee yesterday, our aim is to have
the terms of our future relationship agreed by the
time we leave in March 2019. However, we recognise
that the ratification of that agreement will take
time and could run into the implementation period
that we are seeking. There can be no doubt:
Parliament will be involved throughout this process.
-
What a mess! We get one thing one day and another
thing the next. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was
asked in the Brexit Committee, “Could the vote in our
Parliament be after March 2019?” The answer he gave
was, “Yes, it could be.” Later in the day the Prime
Minister had a go at correcting him, and then his own
spokesperson had to clarify his remarks. Today, he
says that the vote will be before the deal is
concluded. That is not good enough. May I remind him
that the commitment he has just referred to, made at
the Dispatch Box, that we would have a meaningful
vote was made when the Government were on the verge
of losing a vote on a Labour amendment to the article
50 Bill to give Parliament that vote? That commitment
cannot now casually be dispensed with.
The text of article 50 is clear: there can be no deal
until the European Parliament has approved it and
voted on it. The nonsense we heard yesterday about
“nanoseconds” has to be put in that proper context.
It would be wholly unacceptable if time was found for
the European Parliament to vote on the deal before it
is concluded but time was not found in this House.
Does the Secretary of State expect us to sit here
watching on our screens the European Parliament
proceedings while we are told that we do not have
time? I do not think so. We need a cast-iron
guarantee that that will not happen.
The Secretary of State has repeatedly asked us to
accept his word at the Dispatch Box. Given the events
of the past 24 hours, will he now accept the
amendments tabled to the withdrawal Bill that would
put into law a meaningful article 50 vote, so that we
all know where we stand and do not have to repeat
this exercise?
-
I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman
altered the quotation from yesterday slightly. What
the Chairman said, and I refer to exactly what he put
to me, was that “it is possible”—possible—“that
Parliament might not vote on the deal until after the
end of March 2019. Am I summarising correctly what
you said?” I said, “in the event we don’t do the deal
until then.” That is the point I was making.
I will take up the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s
point about the European Parliament, because I have
said at the Dispatch Box and we have said that it is
our intent and our expectation—those were the words
used; I crafted them—that we will vote on this in
this House before the European Parliament does. That
stands. If it goes to the timetable that Mr Barnier
expects, or wants to go to, which is October 2018, it
is likely that the European Parliament will vote in
December or January, under the normal processes that
apply to that Parliament; it has a committee stage to
go through first. We will vote on that and we will
have it put before the House before then. There is no
doubt about that. That undertaking is absolutely cast
iron.
The issue that I raised yesterday, because I take it
as a responsibility always to be as forthright and
open as I can with the Select Committee, was to go
through what has happened in the past in European
Union treaty negotiations. This time, there is an
expectation by the Commission; there is an incentive
on the part of the various countries to get it done
as quickly as possible; and there is our expectation
and intention. None of the undertakings given at the
Dispatch Box have in any sense been undermined. The
issue here is one of practicality and what we
control. What we control, we will run to give
Parliament a proper and meaningful vote at the right
time.
-
I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern about
hypothetical situations that might arise at the end
of the negotiation, but is not the reality that if
the negotiation leads to an agreement, it will be
necessary for not only the European Parliament but
ourselves to act in accordance with our
constitutional principles in deciding to approve it?
The only way we can do that properly is by statute in
this House. In those circumstances, is not it rather
fanciful to imagine that, having reached a deal with
the European Union, it would hold us in some strange
way to ransom because we pointed out that we needed
the time to enact the necessary statute? That flies
in the face of reality. It would just tone down the
debate a little and introduce a bit of rationality if
we understood that our European Union partners would
expect us to reach our own conclusion in accordance
with our own constitutional requirements.
-
My right hon. and learned Friend has a point. As I
understand it, the reason why Mr Barnier wants to
conclude the negotiations, including that element of
article 50 that refers to the future arrangements, by
October is to enable that ratification process to
take place. In that respect, I agree with my right
hon. and learned Friend.
-
May I just ask the Secretary of State to face the
House, because some colleagues could not quite hear?
-
I was facing you, Mr Speaker.
-
I am always delighted to be faced by the right hon.
Gentleman, but I think that privilege should be
enjoyed by the House as a whole.
-
We have a withdrawal Bill that has not only been
delayed, but just has not come to the House in any of
the three or four weeks in which we expected it to,
and we do not know when it will. We have the former
UK ambassador to the European Union telling us that
the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiations is
in danger of leaving the UK “screwed”. The
negotiations are being led by somebody who thinks
that Czechoslovakia is one of the countries with
which we are negotiating, although unlike the
Cabinet, Czechoslovakia is split into only two parts
and they are still on amicable speaking terms. The
Government refuse to publish the truth about the
impact of Brexit, saying it is confidential, despite
the fact that between 2013 and 2014 they published 16
different analyses of the potential impact of a yes
vote in the Scottish independence referendum. The
Prime Minister is having to make emergency trips to
Europe to try to bail out her failing Secretary of
State for Exiting the European Union.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for any
vote to be meaningful, we must be in possession of
the full facts? Will he therefore agree that
Parliament will have sight of the Government’s
recently produced analysis before a vote takes place,
and will he confirm that the Administrations of the
three devolved nations will be treated as equals, as
the Government have promised, and that they will also
have a timeous and meaningful vote before we leave
the EU?
-
Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s substantive
question, may I just correct him? He talked about
Czechoslovakia. The Minister involved was correcting
somebody else; he was not asserting a belief that
that was who we were negotiating with. I would prefer
that to be on the record.
Yes, with the full facts, absolutely; that is why the
vote has to take place once the draft deal is
concluded. At that point, we will know precisely what
the withdrawal deal amounts to and what the framework
for the future arrangement is.
-
Given the way the EU has delayed and delayed, it is
not entirely unreasonable for my right hon. Friend
the Secretary of State to think it will carry on
delaying. Will he impress on Monsieur Barnier,
however, that it would be much more preferable to
conclude a deal as early as possible, because any
implementation period will be of far less value if
business cannot be certain it will be available to it
sooner rather than later?
-
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, that is one
of the things I said to the Select Committee
yesterday—that we intend or will try to get the
Commission to agree the implementation period as soon
as possible.
-
The Secretary of State told the Committee yesterday
that the Government’s aim was to conclude one
agreement covering the divorce, the transitional
arrangements and the new deep and special partnership
with the EU, but he has also accepted that the last
of these has to be agreed by a different process
because that deal could not be finally concluded
until we had left the EU. Given that it is likely to
be a mixed agreement, only one Parliament objecting
would mean it could not be concluded. In those
circumstances, would that bring down the whole deal,
and if so, is it not sensible to separate out the
divorce and the transition, which would not require
the consent of every Parliament of the 27, and the
new deep and special partnership, which ought to be
negotiated during the transition period?
-
As I think I said to the right hon. Gentleman’s
Committee yesterday, negotiating that during the
transition would put us at a negotiating
disadvantage. The House was promised, in respect of
the approval of the negotiations, that all three
elements—the divorce, as he terms it, the transition
and the long-term arrangement—would be put to the
House together. That is the best way to assess this
whole thing. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter
Grant) said that the decision should be made on the
whole facts—all the decisions, all the facts.
-
There is a way for the Government to put this matter
completely beyond doubt and that is to accept
amendment 7 to the withdrawal Bill tabled by my right
hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield
(Mr Grieve). Reports have reached Government Back
Benchers that the Secretary of State does not think
that those Conservative Members who have signed the
amendment are serious about supporting it if we need
to. My I tell him that we are deadly serious? It
would be better for all concerned if the Government
were to adopt a concession strategy and have the
withdrawal agreement secured by statute sooner rather
than later.
-
I will not pre-empt the discussions on the Bill, but
those reports are not true.
-
With the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr
Walker), saying one thing from the Dispatch Box on 7
February and the Secretary of State saying not one
but two things in the space of 24 hours yesterday, it
is clear that ministerial assurances on this matter
are not enough. Does the Secretary of State not agree
that after the shambles of the last 24 hours, when he
had to be rebutted by his own departmental spokesman,
the only way to guarantee Parliament a meaningful say
on and input into these most vital negotiations is to
amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
accordingly?
-
No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on
that. His description of events is also wrong. It is
one thing to give an undertaking, which is binding,
and another to say that these are the probabilities
and the difficulties that we face together, which is
what I said yesterday. I treated the Exiting the EU
Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Leeds
Central (Hilary Benn) with absolute respect in
outlining what had happened previously—not what we
expect, not what we intend, not what the Union
intends, but what had happened previously and the
risks that we have to take on board. We intend to
meet all our undertakings, and I do not take it very
well that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton
South East (Mr McFadden) suggests that we will not.
-
How can we approve an agreement before we have an
agreement?
-
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point; we
cannot. That is why the House will be given the
agreement to approve as soon as possible at the draft
stage, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd
West (Mr Jones) has previously made clear at this
Dispatch Box.
-
Hardly a day goes by without another example of the
Government’s muddle about Brexit. Yesterday, the
Secretary of State confirmed to me three times during
the Select Committee proceedings that the vote could
come after March 2019. This is not about leave or
remain, but about the nation coming together for the
big change ahead. Will he confirm what he understands
by the term “meaningful”? Does it still mean a choice
between leaving the European Union with a negotiated
deal or not? If Parliament votes against a deal, what
happens next? In the case of no deal, would the
Government expect to leave the European Union without
a vote of the UK Parliament, or would the Prime
Minister seek further negotiating time? Is the vote
meaningful if there is nothing that it can change?
Has he taken into account the fact that, next year,
the European Parliament will dissolve for elections?
If we are delayed beyond October, will our deal not
be left in limbo?
-
I am afraid that I have lost count of the questions.
As the hon. Lady is challenging the status of
statements from this Dispatch Box, I will repeat this
to her. The choice will be meaningful: whether to
accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal.
Full stop. That was the promise that was made.
-
I listened to the Chair of the Select Committee, and
I want the House to know that he was expressing his
view, and not the view of everyone on the Committee.
-
Of course it was my view.
-
Well, in the past, Sir, Select Committee Chairmen
have come to this House to represent the Committee,
not their own personal views. [Interruption.] I am
diverging and wasting the House’s time.
[Interruption.] Sorry, let me get to the point. I
would like the Secretary of State to agree with
Labour Members that, if we do not have agreement by
October 2018, it will be impossible to do a deal.
Will he go back to Brussels and say, “If we do not
have a deal by 26 October 2018, there will not be a
deal and we will be coming out without one”?
-
My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me. No, it is my
job to get the best deal possible, and if that means
keeping going until November, then so be it; that is
what we will do.
-
-
Order. There was a little hubbub a moment ago
following the observations of the hon. Member for
Wellingborough (Mr Bone). Just to put the matter to
rest, let me say this: conventionally, if the Chair
of a Select Committee comes to the House under our
procedures to make a statement—a relatively recent
innovation in our procedures—they are doing so on
behalf of the Committee. However, it is perfectly
commonplace for Select Committee Chairs to come to
the Chamber to ask questions, and it is understood
that they are doing so on their own account and
taking responsibility for their own words, a
proposition to which—to name but two at random—the
hon. Members for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and for
Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) can readily and
with enthusiasm sign up.
-
The Foreign Secretary went around this country in a
big red bus, saying that £350 million extra per week
would go to the NHS if we voted to leave. That will
not happen. The Environment Secretary said that the 3
million EU citizens in this country would be
automatically granted the right to remain. That has
not happened. This Secretary of State said that this
House would get a vote on our withdrawal arrangements
before we leave, and that does not look like it is
guaranteed to happen either. Why should we believe
anything that is said at this Dispatch Box? Clearly,
we have to take what they say with a lorry load of
salt.
-
As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman’s first two
comments referred to the leave campaign. Those
remarks were not made at this Dispatch Box or by
Government Ministers in this context, so I afraid
that he is not correct. The undertaking that I gave
will stand and does stand.
-
No deal would be a very bad deal indeed for this
country. What if the House votes on the final deal
and rejects it? Is the Secretary of State implying
that those who voted against it would be saying that
they would like to leave with no deal at all?
-
All I was doing was repeating exactly the statement
that was made at this Dispatch Box by the Minister
during the debate on the relevant Bill.
-
Sorry, but the answer is not good enough. This is a
critical question. The Secretary of State says that
if the House votes against the deal, which could be a
bad one, the Government will move ahead without a
deal. Does that mean that the only choice is to crash
out on to World Trade Organisation terms, which would
be an absolute disaster for our country, or does it
leave open the option of the Government continuing to
negotiate, seeking more time or even staying in on
current terms?
-
What I was saying was exactly in answer to the
question; it was what was given as an undertaking by
the Minister in the article 50 debate.
-
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains his
intention and that of the Prime Minister to make
regular reports to this House on the progress of the
negotiations with the European Union? Does he agree
that it is always open to this House to subject those
negotiations to the minutest possible scrutiny, as
this urgent question amply demonstrates?
-
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right. He knows
this subject rather better than most, given that I
have been quoting him throughout my contributions
today. During the course of the article 50 Bill, I
made the point a number of times to the House that
there will be many votes on many aspects of the
deal—on the Bills before the House now such as the
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Nuclear
Safeguards Bill, and on a number of other pieces of
primary legislation. In addition, the undertakings to
this Chamber were given over and above the
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I
remind the House that that means that any
treaty—there may well be a number, as the Chair of
the Select Committee said—is subject to being denied
ratification by a vote of this House. That point
should not be forgotten.
-
Does the Secretary of State accept that a meaningful
vote will be a vote that allows Parliament to send
the Government back to the negotiating table, rather
than the false choice between a deal and no deal? If
Parliament is offered a meaningful vote, the public
should also be offered one—a vote on the facts.
-
The right hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy is for a
second referendum, and I do not think that any other
party in the House believes in that.
-
There was a meaningful vote. It was in June 2016. On
a 78% turnout, 61% of voters in Kettering voted to
leave. People in Kettering are honest,
straightforward and plain-speaking. Will the
Secretary of State reassure them that we are leaving
the European Union in March 2019?
-
Yes. My task is to respect that vote because, as my
hon. Friend said, it is the biggest mandate given to
a modern Government. It is also my task to deliver
the best deal possible—which means a deal, not no
deal—respecting that vote.
-
The wording of amendment 7 to the European Union
(Withdrawal) Bill is clear. It would require
“the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament
approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United
Kingdom from the European Union.”
Surely that should be of concern to us all across the
House, whatever form of Brexit we want and whatever
size of divorce bill we think is acceptable. It is a
simple matter about Parliament having the right to
have its say, and guaranteeing that on the face of
the Bill. Will the Secretary of State agree to accept
amendment 7 or table a very similar Government
amendment—yes or no?
-
I am not here to preview the Committee stage of the
Bill, but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman. I
take very seriously the views of the House in this
matter, and I expect that there will be any number of
votes—I have just referred to the Constitutional
Reform and Governance Act as one element of that, but
it will not be the only one—which will give the House
very strong influence on the outcome of this
negotiation.
-
In his answer to the shadow Secretary of State, my
right hon. Friend said that there would be a vote at
the right time. Will he confirm that the right time
is prior to a deal being signed and before we leave
the European Union in March 2019?
-
The right time has to be, first, when we have a draft
treaty in front of us—not an actual treaty, because
it will be prior to ratification by the European
ratification process, starting with the European
Parliament, and we have made that undertaking. It has
to be after that is done, in order for the House to
be informed. Otherwise, it will be as soon as
possible, and as I have said, our intent and our
expectation is that it will be before the European
Parliament has its opportunity and, therefore, before
the process goes ahead.
-
Surely the point is that a fait accompli is not a
British concept in law. What the Government are
trying to do, effectively, is present this House,
Parliament and the country with a fait accompli—take
it or leave it. If the Secretary of State were not a
Government Minister now, I am sure he would be
signing the amendment of the right hon. and learned
Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Just in case the
Secretary of State loses his job between now and
Committee stage, would it not be a good idea for him
to declare now that he is going to sign up to that
amendment?
-
Will I be signing somebody else’s amendment? I am not
sure—I think not. The processes we are going through
are designed to give the House a great deal of input
into this process. That includes, as was said
earlier, the sequences of statements, appearances
before Select Committees, urgent questions and the
like. In addition to that, as I said—it was ignored,
of course—the Constitutional Reform and Governance
Act 2010 gives the House the outright ability to
reject out of hand, if it chooses.
-
The truth is that we run a £70 billion trade deficit
with the European Union. Does my right hon. Friend
believe that that will help to focus minds and keep
these discussions and deliberations on timetable?
-
My hon. Friend is right, in that it drives the views
of the member states in terms of what they want out
of this negotiation. One of the things that is
happening between now and December is that the
Council will lay down its guidelines for this
process, and particularly about future trade
arrangement. In those guidelines, it may well be that
the Council actually says something about the
timetable, which will relate to the issues in front
of the House.
-
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the Exiting
the EU Committee that he is seeking meetings with the
leaders of various European Union regional
Parliaments. Of course, he knows that they will have
a vote on the final deal if, as he envisages, it is a
mixed agreement. He said he particularly wanted to
discuss trade issues with them. Will he confirm that
he will involve the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh
Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly in relation
to trade matters? Will he confirm that the Scottish
Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish
Assembly will get a vote on the final deal, just as
other regional and national EU Parliaments will?
-
What I think I told the hon. and learned Lady
yesterday was that, at the last Joint Ministerial
Committee on European Negotiations—JMCEN—I talked
about the economic impacts within each of the
devolved Administrations, and I talked about
information exchanges to influence the process.
-
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the 18 Labour
MEPs who recently voted to hold up these key EU
negotiations, showing, frankly, a distinct lack of
ambition about moving forward on the key issue—our
trading agreements. We should be pulling together in
the national interest to secure the best possible
deal and outcome. That is what all our constituents
want.
-
My hon. Friend is right: this House should be pulling
together in the national interest, but let me say
this. I have never, ever accused my opposite number
of being anything other than interested in the
national interest—of course, he has a political
interest. While I am at it, by the way, I should also
say to the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union
Committee that I took his views as his views, not
those of the Select Committee as well. It is very
important in this exercise that we keep things on a
proper, stable, rational and patriotic level, and I
think everybody does.
-
Will the Secretary of State ignore the voices of
manic optimism that seem to be compulsory among
Conservative Members and agree that the choice that
will be made on the final deal will be very, very
different from the choice made on 23 June 2016? Does
he not believe that well-informed second thoughts are
always superior to ill-informed first thoughts?
-
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I respect the views of
17.5 million people, and I intend to uphold them.
-
Does the Secretary of State agree that since the
Florence speech there has been a change of tone in EU
capitals, and that M Barnier is far from alone in
wanting to see progress towards a good deal as soon
as possible?
-
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Florence speech
had a massive impact, frankly, on the attitudes in
the capitals of the European Union and, indeed,
within the Commission. Certainly, Mr Barnier, Mr
Juncker and Mr Tusk have all said as much.
-
The Secretary of State can hardly be surprised that
many people in this House think that the promises—the
undertakings—he is giving on a meaningful vote are
merely empty words, given the debacle of yesterday.
May I therefore encourage him to put his money where
his mouth is and put this into the Bill, so that we
can move on to other issues? Can he give the House
and the country one good reason why he would not put
it into the Bill?
-
They are not empty words; they are the exact words
that were said to the House when the undertaking was
given. That is what is important in this. The
undertaking was given in those terms.
-
I thank the Secretary of State for the tremendous
amount of work that he and his team are doing to
achieve the best possible outcome for the United
Kingdom. I know that he, as a true parliamentarian,
would expect us to vote on this matter before we
leave the EU and not after. As the right hon. Member
for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, there are three
issues: withdrawal; the transition, or
implementation; and the final agreement. It should be
quite possible to achieve the first two by sometime
in the middle of next year, or hopefully earlier. On
the third, a heads of agreement could perhaps be
agreed on the European system of qualified majority
voting so that it can come to this House and we know
exactly what we are talking about even if all the
details are not sorted out.
-
As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, there
are three components to this, but they are not
unrelated, with article 50 itself taking into account
the framework of the future relationship. We intend
that they are broadly agreed at the same time and
that they are conditional upon one another. That is
because it would have a material impact on the
negotiation to separate them completely. That is why
we will bring the whole thing to the House. That was
the undertaking given. Indeed, that was what was
asked for during the passage of the article 50 Bill.
With regard to the future relationship, of course, as
the Prime Minister said in Florence, article 218 says
that that agreement cannot be signed until we are a
third country, in effect. It is also the case that
there could well be more than one treaty, for reasons
of interest and benefit to ourselves. The House will
therefore have multiple occasions to look at that
separately from the overall decision. That, I think,
is in the interests of democracy.
-
The issue that we are debating today goes to the
heart of the trust and confidence that the British
people should have in our parliamentary democracy.
The sad reality is that ministerial assurances are no
longer good enough. The Secretary of State has said
that he will not sign somebody else’s amendment, so
why does he not table his own amendment to the
withdrawal Bill to give this House and the British
people the clarity and coherence that is so
desperately needed?
-
I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. He was in the
Committee yesterday and he saw that I was answering
questions as straightforwardly and factually as is
possible. What I was describing were items of fact,
not promises. His own Front-Bench colleague, my
opposite number, the right hon. and learned Member
for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said
yesterday: “I don’t doubt assurances which are given
at the Dispatch Box.” I think that is the proper
approach to this.
-
I wish the Secretary of State well in his
negotiations with Mr Barnier, and I pledge that I
will do nothing that could ever be interpreted as
trying to undermine those negotiations. We have had
11 referendums in this country since 1975. Can my
right hon. Friend think of one in which we have gone
against the wishes of the British people? Will he
accept that, as a democrat, I am deadly serious that,
at the end of this process, we will be leaving the
European Union?
-
There have been a few references by Opposition
Members to my commitment to Parliament, but my
commitment to Parliament is an indirect commitment to
the democracy of the British people, and that is what
matters here. Seventeen and a half million of them
voted for this—a majority of more than 1 million. We
have to take it seriously; we have to deliver the
best outcome on that decision.
-
-
Order. May I gently say to the House that we must
not, either calculatedly or inadvertently, allow this
exchange to elide into a general discussion of the
merits of EU membership or withdrawal? That is not
the subject matter. The subject matter, as I have
just been helpfully reminded by our procedural king,
is the question whether there is a meaningful vote on
a deal. That is the narrow question, and questions
should focus on that matter.
-
In the Bill, the Secretary of State is taking the
power to set the exit date. Will he now acknowledge
that he can allow Parliament as much time as it needs
to take the primary legislation to approve the new
arrangements?
-
What we are doing is taking that power, but the power
does not give us the right to overrule article 50,
which takes us out of the European Union in March
2019.
-
Under the terms of withdrawal from the European
Union, the Government have announced a series of
measures—a series of eight Bills that will be brought
before Parliament and go through the parliamentary
procedures. One of those Bills, dealing with an
important aspect, is the immigration Bill. Do the
Government intend to take that Bill through its
parliamentary stages before we vote on the final
deal, or will that Bill be brought before Parliament
after we have agreed a deal? That could affect our
negotiation strategy.
-
It will be before the deal—that is what I would
expect anyway, unless it goes much faster than I
expect. That is true not just of that Bill but of
most of the other Bills my hon. Friend refers to.
-
I think the general public will be bemused at the
contrived controversy that has developed here today,
because even the most uninformed observer will know
we cannot have a vote on an agreement until an
agreement has been reached. Does the Secretary of
State share my concern that a stand-alone unspecified
transitional arrangement, plus the mixed message
coming from this House on its willingness to respect
the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom, are
likely to encourage EU negotiators to delay any
agreement, with the consequence that we continue
paying money into the EU when we do not need to?
-
I agree that there is a degree of contrivance in the
fuss and noise coming from the Opposition—there is no
doubt about that, but that is not new, I guess. As
for the ongoing transition or implementation period,
the hon. Gentleman is right. That is why I said that
if we let the negotiation go into that period, we
will be at a disadvantage, because the EU will
presumably be receiving money, if that is the
arrangement, and will want to spin out the time it
does so as much as possible. We have to be practical
and sensible if we intend to respect the will of the
British people and deliver the best outcome for them.
-
The Secretary of State will know that proportionately
more people in my constituency than in any other in
the country voted to get us out of the European
Union. Does he agree that far more damaging than not
having a meaningful vote in this House is the idea
that we should have a second referendum, or indeed
that we should talking about not leaving at all?
-
My hon. Friend is right. I think he has taken a moral
and outstanding stance, given his views and those of
his constituents. He is exactly right: we have to
respect that vote and not undermine it by other
contrivances.
-
It is not just Members of this House who want to be
absolutely assured that parliamentarians will have a
meaningful vote. My constituents have understood all
along that I would come here to vote to represent
their best interests, and that that would make a
difference. Although I am sure that the Secretary of
State means what he is saying to this House today,
any assurance for the future is meaningful only if it
is on the face of the Bill, so I ask him either to
accept amendment 7 or to table his own amendment to
achieve the same outcome.
-
I hear what the hon. Lady says and take it as it is
meant. The Government’s intention is to create
circumstances whereby this House has appropriate
influence without undermining the negotiation. That
is what we will try to do.
-
I am sure that the Secretary of State will have
reflected on the fact that, unlike in many other
trade negotiations, our starting point is that our
regulatory position and much of our law are the same
as those of the EU. Does he therefore agree that
there is plenty of time not only for a full and frank
negotiation resulting in a good and deep deal, but
for a vote on it in this Parliament?
-
Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right: this is a
unique trade negotiation, about which I will say two
things. First, we already have open trade and,
secondly, a vast amount of trade is already going
on—it is worth something like €600 billion—so there
is a strong vested interest in protecting that.
-
May I say to the Secretary of State, in the
friendliest of terms, that he should stop fudging?
This vote is a complex matter and our constituents
and the people of this country deserve clarity. We
understand and sympathise with why he fudged
yesterday, and that is why he is here today—because
the nest of vipers behind him and in the Cabinet make
him a fudger. Stop fudging and be honest with the
British people! [Interruption.]
-
I have known the hon. Gentleman a very long time and
I always get nervous when he starts a question with,
“May I say in the friendliest of terms?” We are
having this discussion today precisely because I did
not fudge yesterday. I told the Committee what I saw
that the facts were, and that in no way changed our
intent or, indeed, our commitment to the House.
-
There was a certain amount of harrumphing from a
sedentary position from the right hon. Member for New
Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), in response to
which I simply observe, without fear of
contradiction, that none of my parliamentary
colleagues is a viper. However, I think it would be
fair to say that that is a matter of taste rather
than of order.
-
Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to
have a meaningful vote on the final deal, it would be
better if all Members engage constructively with the
proceedings rather than seek to frustrate the will of
the British people?
-
I could not have put it better myself.
-
Given the confusion yesterday, will the Secretary of
State publish a written timetable of what he expects
the sequence of decision making will be, both here in
the UK and in the European Parliament? And just in
case he is inclined to say no, why not?
-
If I controlled the timetable, I would happily do so;
but it is a negotiation, so I do not.
-
There is a dangerous and sinister
anti-intellectualism running through the Brexit
ranks—we have seen more evidence of that this week.
There is no substitute for facts, so if we are to
have a meaningful vote, will the Secretary of State
undertake to publish, before that vote takes place,
his own Government’s impact assessments on the effect
of Brexit?
-
I do not think it is anti-intellectual at all. I will
abide by the instruction of this House, which it
passed by a very large majority in December last
year, to provide as much information as possible
without undermining the interests of the country.
-
The UK Government have got themselves into an
unnecessary muddle. As has been said, if there is a
final deal, it will have to be ratified by the EU27,
including national and regional Parliaments within EU
states, and six months has been allocated to that
process. In order to ensure that the future
relationship works for every part of the British
state, does the Secretary of State agree that the
formal endorsement of the National Assembly for
Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern
Ireland Assembly should be sought before any final
deal is reached—or is it going to be a case of
“Westminster knows best”?
-
To answer the first half of the hon. Gentleman’s
question, one of the reasons we said that we would
put a draft deal to the House is that we wanted to
give the House the first say, before the European
Parliament and other European institutions came to
it. This is a treaty for the United Kingdom.
-
In the Secretary of State’s discussions with
, what is
the last date that this Parliament can have a
meaningful vote before the European Parliament has
its ratification vote?
-
As I said earlier, what Mr Barnier is aiming for is
October next year as the outcome for the draft
agreement. If we hit that, the likely timetable, as I
think I said to the right hon. and learned Member for
Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), would be for
the European Parliament to address that in December,
January or even later, and the undertaking I gave was
that we will come to this House before then.
-
The Secretary of State’s pledge is that a meaningful
vote will be taken and that we will have full
knowledge of all the facts. When will he issue the UK
Government’s impact analysis showing the possible
detriment to Scotland, so that I can explain to my
constituents the reasons for casting the vote that I
am going to cast?
-
As I said in the Committee yesterday, at the last
Joint Ministerial Committee we did actually discuss
some of these matters with the devolved
Administrations—at an official level—before we go
into the negotiation, so that they can influence the
negotiation, taking into account the impact by
sector, by country.
-
I think we have learned that the Government will not
accept amendment 7, in the name of the right hon. and
learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and that
they will not table their own amendment, but can the
Secretary of State at least guarantee that we will
have a vote on a no deal strategy?
-
The hon. Lady starts by attributing to me a lot of
things I have not said. I have quite deliberately not
got into the questions of what will be before the
House in Committee; it will be appropriate at that
point for the Minister dealing with it to respond at
that stage. The meaningful vote will be as laid out
in the undertaking to this House by my right hon.
Friend the Minister of State at the time.
-
The Secretary of State can keep parroting the words
“the undertaking given to this House”, but that is
meaningless unless we know what happens after a
supposedly meaningful vote. When will he explain to
us what he means by, “We move ahead without a deal”?
-
I would have thought that would have been
self-evident. What we intend, however, is that the
House will have put to it by the Government the deal
that we negotiate, which will be the best deal we can
obtain for this country, respecting the decision of
17.5 million people. In other words, it will bring
back control to this House; it will being back
control to this country; it will deal with the
borders issue; it will deal with money; it will deal
with the future relationship. All that will be put to
the House and the House will decide whether it
approves of that or not.
|