25/02/2016 House of Commons

progress. I think as far as rural committees that do not have access

to high-speed broadband and modern communications, we continue to have

a job to do. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House was unable to

answer if legislation to ratify the convention citing the Queen's

Speech. Would he be able to tell us if the Government would still be

able to ratify this convention that aids the protection of women or are

there plans to suspend that also? I have no doubt that of the people of

this country vote to leave the European Union, we will continue to

play a very active role in the international bodies of which we are

part, very active role in the international community as a whole.

Whatever happens in the future of this country, we will always be

internationalist and always will do right thing by this country on the

international stage. The incompetent Tory Labour administration the

coalition of Stirling Council will present its budget this evening.

That will include savage cuts to social care across the Stirling

area. Government pressure has been put on local Government financed by

the austerity agenda of his Government and welfare reforms.

Could we have a debate on this urgent matter? Well, of course, the

overall framework for economic success and for funding in Scotland

rests with the SNP. The interesting thing about this week with the

fiscal framework is they are now going to have to take decisions in

the future about the right balance between lower taxes, public spending

and they will find it a whole lot more difficult than they think.

Farmers in my constituency tell me that the basic payment scheme, as

delivered late, is somewhat chaotic. Can we have a statement from the

relevant Secretary of State about the performance of the ruble

payments agency? -- rural payments agency? I am happy to draw his

concerns to the Secretary of State and if you would like to write with

some more specific examples, it makes it easier for ministers to

look at what is going wrong. Could we have a debate or a statement on

EDM 1138 regarding the anti-lobbying or gagging Clause, which was

announced that the Cabinet office just before recess with little or no

scrutiny or consultation. It threatens the ability of

organisations and charities in receipt of Government grants from

speaking out campaigning either for or against Government policy and it

be scrapped immediately. Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman has do

understand that in Government, we find on a number of occasions bodies

that are being funded by us are using the money that we are

providing from the taxpayer to lobby us. That makes no sense at all. The

Cabinet Office is trying to deliver sensible regime and when it comes

before this House, he will be able to debated the way he wishes. --

debate it. Point of order, Joanna Cherry. On a point of order, I would

like to seek your assistance in relation to a matter of some concern

to me. It has been brought to my attention that on Monday the 22nd,

out with my presence and without notifying me in advance, the

honourable member for South Leicestershire raised what he

described as a point of order during which he said I had misled the

House. I should make it clear that notwithstanding his conduct, I have

afforded him the courtesy of notifying him I would be raising

this point of order today. On Monday afternoon, I asked the Prime

Minister what provision he would make it a British sovereignty bill

to recognise the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament

is a distinctive English principle that has no counterpart in Scottish

constitutional law. In the last part of that question I was directly

quoting the words of a distinguished and no discrete that late deceased

Scottish judge in a very well known case from 1953 -- and now deceased.

The judge was my comments were an expression of opinion, not essential

to the decision and therefore not legally binding as a precedent, but

they were an expression of his loan at opinion and had been given way to

in the years that followed. Many other distinguished Scottish jurists

hold this view and as recently in 2005 in Jackson against the Attorney

General, Lord Hope of Craighead said in the Lords that Parliamentary is

of intrigue is an English principle -- sovereignty is an English

principle derived from Coke and Blackstone. Is perfectly okayed for

the honourable member of South Leicestershire to disagree with me,

particularly if he can about his position but what is not in order is

for him to say I have misled the House when I had taken trouble to

use my words carefully and am quoting a very well-known diktats

from Scots law. Mr Speaker will be aware it is a matter of particular

concern to the given my professional background that I should not be

represented have having misled the House and I would be very keen if

the Speaker could give me assistance in putting the record straight. I am

extremely grateful for the honourable and learning lady for

notice of her point of order for which she has informed the House,

she has notified the honourable gentleman, the Member for South

Leicestershire. By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, I have do decide

what is and isn't in order, that is simply the constitutional position.

I confirm that members should indeed in former colleague of an intention

to refer to him or her. The point of order raised on Monday by the

honourable gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire was, I think I

can so describe it, moderately orderly in form. Although as I

noted, it was not orderly in content, for one quite simple and

straightforward reason. It was not a point of order. As a mere politics

graduate, I do not myself intend to adjudicate between two learned

members of the House. And I know that the honourable and learned Lady

is a distinguished QC, on over to addict by senior judicial figures,

and I will not give a view from the Chair. The honourable and learned

lady has made her point with her characteristic force and eloquence.

Might I suggest that we leave it there? Point of order, Mr Chris law.

The point of order regarding rules of behaviour and courtesies in this

House. During prime ministers questions yesterday, when junior

doctors are looking at yet another strike in England and Scotland may

be dragged out of unwillingly or unfairly based on the polls with

regards to the Brexit, we had this spat between the Prime Minister and

the Leader of the Opposition regarding mothers opinions and

behaviour and dress code but we have been told off for clapping in this

House. The reason is we have had not only a number of complaints from

constituents is through e-mail and phone calls and I wanted to ask your

advice on what the rules of behaviour should be and how they

should be conducted and whether the Prime Minister should be giving a

full and proper apology to this House for his conduct. I am grateful

to the honourable gentleman for his point of order. There is an

important distinction here between the content of what is said and the

way in which, more widely, honourable and right Honourable

members behave. In respect of the first, might I suggest to the

honourable gentleman that it would not be right or in any way favoured

by the House, if the Chair, as a matter of regular course, were to

try and intervene to prevent members expressing their own views with such

examples or references to people outside of the House or members of

their families, as they think fit. I shouldn't get involved in that and

the House wouldn't want me to do so. However, in respect of the second

part of the honourable gentleman's point of order, that is to say the

overall notion of good behaviour, perhaps I can just repeat what I

have many times said - the public expect us all would want us at any

rate to conduct our arguments robustly and doubtless with passion,

but with respect for the fact that different opinions exist. Loud

heckling and organised barracking are widely deprecated outside of

this House. The notion that there is something clever about it and that

it is all very good fun seems to me to be completely perverse and I

would very politely say, with no reference to any particular

honourable member, perhaps all honourable members, before indulging

in noisy heckling, barracking or ad hominem abuse would ask themselves

this - would I be content for my behaviour to be seen and heard by my

constituents? It is our constituents that we are here to serve. The point

is so blindingly obvious that only a very clever and sophisticated person

could fail to see it. Perhaps we can leave a matter therefore today but

I'm genuinely grateful to the honourable gentleman and I rather

suspect the flurry of e-mails that he might have received about conduct

will not be an isolated case. I get quite a lot in my own office.

Perhaps we can now come to the general debate on European fears, I

call the Foreign Secretary, Mr Philip Hammond -- European affairs.

In just under four months' time, the British people will face a choice,

one that has been denied to them for many years, that we pledges to give

them in our election manifesto and we are now delivering -- pledged. A

choice that will have profound consequences to this country for a

generation or more, whether to remain in the European Union on the

basis of the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister or to leave. The last

time the British people were consulted on this question 40 years

ago, the answer was a clear yes, but much has changed in the 40 years and

the fact that we are holding this referendum there is recognition of a

growing unease at the direction in which the EU has evolved, a growing

sense that Europe was pursuing a goal that Britain did not share, and

that we risked being dragged into a level of political integration for

which few in Britain have any appetite. Mr Speaker, for 25 years,

I have shared that sense of unease. I have always considered myself a

sceptic and I consider myself a sceptic today. Like most people in

Britain, I don't feel any warmth or affection for the EU or its

institutions. I am irritated by the tone of much of what I hear coming

from Brussels and instinctively suspicious of anything that sounds

like a grand project. But we do not live in some ideal world, we live in

the real world and the EU is part of that real world and the question

that we have to answer is not do we like it, the question we have to

answer is whether we are stronger, safer and better off in the EU

rather than out of it. Stronger because our global influence is

enhanced by being a leading member of the world's largest trading

block. Safer because working together with EU partners

strengthens our defences against organised crime and terrorism.

Better off because Britain benefits from having a domestic market of 500

million consumers and the clout that a quarter of the will's GDP gives

the EU in negotiating trade deals. I am grateful. The Prime Minister

said in recent days that his view of the European Union's impact on our

collective security had changed over the years because of his experience

as Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary would probably be thought

of by many people as having a Eurosceptic background. Has his

experience as Foreign Secretary also changed the balance of his view on

the European Union's impact on our collective security? Yes, it has. I

have seen in practice how working together with EU partners is an

important tool in our armoury. The EU will never replace the security

benefit that we get from Nato. It does a different thing. We have seen

in the conflict over Ukraine that economic sanctions, which is the

only practical weapon available to us, in responding to a challenge

from Russia, that weapon properly honed and properly used will prove

to be a very important weapon in our armoury against Russian aggression.

This government has quite rightly been critical of previous

governments for not having an independent audit of the national

finances. A very discordant noise, nothing

like as mellifluous as the voice of the honourable member, to whom I

know he will be apologising. We have set up the Office for Budget

Responsibility, and the Foreign Secretary is doing a cost benefit

analysis of this issue. Why doesn't the government institute an

independent study with a genuinely independent body, and go into some

detail about what would be the effect of a Brexit on GDP. I think

the problem with the challenge that he presents is that we simply do not

know what the counter fact Joe Willis. We do not know what --

counterfactual is. We do not know whether a deal could be made, we do

not know what free trade agreements could be negotiated with other

parties and we do not know on what timescale bulls could be achieved.

We do not know what damage would even to our economy in the meantime.

I fear that the kind of objective analysis that my honourable friend

is seeking might be difficult to achieve. I will give way. I am very

grateful to the Foreign Secretary. He is advancing the case of the

benefit of Britain's membership of the European Union. He may like to

hear the verdict from Britain's manufacturing industry. From

yesterday the employers Federation, I took part in a debate of the

senior member of the call to Leave campaign, and at the end of which

800 of the UK's companies voted 83% to stay in the European Union. I am

not surprised by the figure that my honourable friend quoted because in

the world of manufacturing, where manufacturing supply chains at

increasingly complex and internationalised, the operation of

the customers union will be increasingly important to the

competitiveness of British businesses, and there are

substantive reasons that business can see for remaining in the

European Union. But there is another reason over and above. Business

hates uncertainty, and the one thing which is becoming crystal clear is

that whatever the end state, if there was a British X it, whatever

the end state might be, for a period of years, maybe many years, there

would be very significant uncertainty which would act as a

chilling effect on investment, job creation and business confidence in

the United Kingdom. I will take one more intervention then I must move

on. I am very grateful. I appreciate your just a couple of minutes into

the speech, but in the opening minute we heard a series of negative

words used to describe our relationship with the European

Union, suspicious, sceptical, and I do wonder what our friends in France

and Germany might be thinking watching this debate, that someone

who is apparently in favour is using such language. Is this the type of

debate we can expect? I think it is important that our friends and

partners in Europe understand, and I say this to my colleagues regularly,

that for the great majority of people in this country, there is no

passion about European vision. We find in some European countries

genuine passion for the idea of Europe. That is not the British way.

There are lots of people in this country that believes we should

remain in the European Union because it is good for Britain and the

economy, because we are stronger, safer and better. That is not the

same as being passionately attached to some vision of a European future.

I am going to make a little progress if my friends will allow me. The

Prime Minister's pledge was to engage in a series of reforms with

our partners in Europe to get the EU back contract and change the terms

of membership to protect our interests, then to put the question

to the British people. He has delivered on that. I will give way

in a moment. So the question is whether to stick with what we know,

bank the games that the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels,

and fight from the inside for reform, or take a leap into the

dark. For me the answer is clear. I am a sceptic who will vote with my

head to remain, because I know in my heart it is what is right, best for

Britain. I will give way. I am grateful. I share his view that what

the Prime Minister has returned with is better than what we had before.

But can he say something about the legal status of that agreement, and

in particular the assertion by the Lord Chancellor that it is not

legally binding? I respect the fact that the Lord Chancellor has a

different view from the Prime Minister, but how can his vision be

tenable as a senior legal Minister for the government, arguing that the

deal is not legally binding when the Downing Street position is the

precise opposite. That position is untenable, and Cabinet

responsibility has been stretched too far. Big principle of collective

responsibility has been suspended to allow ministers to express a

different opinion from that of the government. At our position is

clear. This is a legally binding agreement, deposited yesterday,

registered yesterday at the United Nations as a treaty. The

overwhelming majority of qualified legal opinion recognises that this

is a legally binding international law decision. I will give way to my

honourable friend then I must make progress. I am most grateful. Could

he explain to us what effect actually registering the document

the UN has, what effect does it have, and on what basis does he say

that it is legally binding? I am not a lawyer, so it is not about what

basis I say it is legally binding but there has been a plethora of

qualified legal opinion supporting the view that this is a legally

binding decision. Registering it at the United Nations records it as a

treaty status international law obligation, and that document will

be taken into account by the European Court of Justice. Its own

decisions in a case have established it must have regard to interpreted

as decisions by heads of state and government, and the government

itself makes clear that it is legally binding. I am going to make

a little progress. I want to recall just what we set out to achieve and

what has been delivered. First, we set out to protect British jobs and

ensure a level playing field in Europe for British business because

the creation of the Eurozone and the greater level of coordination needed

between Eurozone countries created a real risk that non-Eurozone

countries would either be dragged into integration that we do not need

or want, or that businesses with Discover discrimination because of

our decision to retain our own currency. So alongside the crucial

exemption of steps further integration, we needed to negotiate

clear safeguards for the pound, exemption of British taxpayers from

eurozone pay-outs, protection against discrimination from

Britain's world leading financial services industry, a clear role from

the Bank of England and a clear commitment that we will continue to

have a fool said in the single market while not being part of the

single currency. -- full. This delivers all these demands in a

legal and binding agreement, underpinned by all EU member states

to enshrine the safeguards in treaty change. I thought my honourable

friend would take his cue from the use of the words legally binding

again! I am grateful, but what he is not doing is using the other words

which are also part of this package, legally binding and irreversible. As

he knows, that is a highly contentious question on which it is

clear from the evidence that has been received and indeed from the

European scrutiny committee's own report, that this is not

irreversible. I have to disagree with my honourable friend. The

document, the decision is irreversible, unless Britain chooses

it to be reversed, because it could only be reversed by all 28 member

states agreeing. I can assure him, certainly as long as this government

is in office, Britain will never readily to that happening. Does he

agree with me that the interview this morning on the BBC, with the

former prime minister was very useful indeed, because he believes

that the number of opt outs with Denmark are based on the same type

of legal basis and they have not been reversed in the years that they

have been in place? She is right. The Danish agreement has been in

place for 23 years, and continues to serve Denmark well. The second area,

I am going to make progress, the second area we set out to address is

Europe's impact on competitiveness. What we have achieved is a

commitment to completing the European single market in services,

a key area for Britain, given the importance of this sector, in

digital, and energy to ensure greater competition and lower energy

bills, and in capital, ensuring greater access to sources of finance

for entrepreneurs. We have also delivered a clear commitment to

prioritising international trade agreements with the largest and

fastest-growing economies across the globe, with the potential to boost

our economy by billions of pounds a year. Agreement to cut the burden of

EU regulation on business, with specific targets to be set for key

sectors. This builds on a programme of work which the current commission

is already undertaking, which has already slashed by 80% regulatory

proposals, and bakes the approach into the DNA of the European Union.

The third area in which this deal delivers is in ending the abuse of

the principal of free movement to work, in order to access the

benefits of our welfare system, paid for by a hard-working British

taxpayers. We have already ended access to unemployment benefits and

social housing for new arrivals, and limited their time in -- to six

months. It stops EU nationals from dodging British immigration rules to

bring family members from outside the EU to live in Britain. Under

this agreement we can apply our rules, including the minimum income

rules and the English language competence rules. Attends the

unfairness of child benefits at British rates being sent to children

in other countries with lower living costs. And it gives us a seven-year

emergency brake to ensure that EU migrants will not have full access

to in work benefits until they have been in the UK for four years. And

selling the perfectly reasonable question, why should people take out

when they have not paid in? Under this arrangement, they cannot. No

more something for nothing. Taken together this is a package that will

address the concerns of the British people around the abuse of the

benefit system and erosion of our immigration and controls. On child

benefit, will he confirm that it does not meet the promise set out in

the Conservative Party manifesto which says, if an EU migrant's child

is living abroad, they should receive no child benefit or tax

credit, the matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter

how much tax they have paid. That has not been achieved.

Mr speak I think what any reasonable person would do is look at the

package that has been delivered. From the outset we have been clear

that tackling the abuse in the welfare system is about reducing the

pull factor that makes Britain a target for inward migrants coming to

the UK, because they can get their wages topped up with a variety of

benefits. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and although

my honourable friend can pick on a specific part of the package, I

think most reasonable people will want to look at the package in the

round. I would just like to make edible progress, the fourth area in

which this deal delivers concrete change is in protecting us from

political integration under the mantra of ever closer union. The

British people have never believed in political union and have never

wanted it. Now there is a clear and binding legal commitment to a treaty

change to ensure that the United Kingdom will never be part of it.

That is a crucial change that alters fundamentally the UK's relationship

with EU setting out clearly in black and white that the UK destination

will be different from the rest the European Union. I'm extremely

grateful but to the point on child benefit, it was actually a promise

in our manifesto. So how are people going to look at the 2020

Conservative manifesto when we promise things when we cannot

deliver them? Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister gave a commitment to go to

Brussels, to negotiate hard and bring back the very best deal that

he could achieve. That is what he has done, I think people will look

in the round at the commitments that were made and what has been

delivered. And in the end it will be the British people that give their

verdict on the package. I give way. He's talking about the opinions of

the British people, does he not accept that there is a divergent is

across United Kingdom with clear majorities in Scotland in favour of

the United -- of being in Europe. I grew up in the Highlands and

Islands, and there are roads and bridges that simply would not be

built, if it was not for the European Union. There is a lot more

sympathy especially among the people in Scotland. Mr Speaker this is a UK

wide question and referendum, and I sincerely hope that when the dust is

settled and the counting is done, he will discover that a significant

majority of people across the United Kingdom believe that Britain is

better off stronger and safer inside the United Kingdom. But I had to say

to him that I hope that when the debate plays out he has got a

stronger Hardiman than they bunged us if you quit to build a road.

Because frankly, that is not a sustainable argument across the

European Union as a whole. Madam Deputy Speaker I'm going to make

some progress if I may, I'm going to make some interventions and if

finding so I know I am conscious and heating into the time for the

debate. Madam Deputy Speaker we have also set out to strengthen the

powers of this Parliament, and of the British people. In the last

Parliament, through the 2011 European Union act, we legislate to

ensure that no more powers could be handed to Brussels without the

explicit consent of the British people in the national referendum.

That act introduced a vital check on the one-way ratchet of the trough of

flowers, licensed to in Brussels. Shatov transfer of powers. Breaking

the ratchet once and for all. To return powers from Brussels back to

the national parliaments. The new parliament working together with

other national parliaments will be able to block permanently proposed

EU legislation that George of them do not want through a red card

system. -- that the majority of them. What we signed at The European

Council last Friday as I have said is legally holding his button and

all and had already been registered as a treaty at the United Nations.

Authoritative legal opinion is clear on this point, it cannot be undone

without the consent of every single member state without Britain and the

agreement commits all member states to changes in due course to the EU

treaties to enshrine the protections for Britain has a nonmember of the

Eurozone hand to confirm explicitly, that ever closer union does not

apply to the UK. I will give way one more time. I thank you to my right

honourable friend for giving way comedy phrases and self incredibly

carefully. He says quite carefully that the agreement is binding

international law, which is not justice your ball, it is not binding

in European law where it only has two hard by the Appeal Court of

Justice. And it is not irreversible otherwise it could not say in

section eight, "The substance of this section will be incorporated

into the treaties at the time of the next revision in accordance with the

relevant provisions of the treaties and the respective constitutional

requirements of the member states". If it requires the respective

constitutional treaties of member states, that means that if they are

not followed they are not implemented. Mr Speaker, in a

decision, the ECJ itself made clear that it had to take account of a

decision of this nature. I say to my honourable friend and to others who

repeatedly make points about illegally binding nature of these

agreements, that we are having a substantive debate about the future

of Britain in or out of the European Union. What we have got is a package

that has been agreed by all 28 countries, endorsed by the heads of

states of governments of all 28 countries. It is not only legally

binding, it is a very solemn political commitment and I would

advise them to address themselves to the substantive issues that we are

debating here today. The substantive issues about Britain's place in the

European Union and what the world would look like, from the

perspective of a Britain outside of the European Union. I'm very

grateful indeed to the Foreign Secretary, for making way. I want to

talk about a substantive point he made at the outset, the Prime

Minister are claiming that somehow this deal in France is the security

of Europe and the I suggest to my right honourable friend that by

asserting that the EU has a role in the defence matters of Europe, they

are going down and extremely dangerous line, by playing into the

hands of those like Mr Junker, who want an EU army, supported also by

Chancellor Merkel. And that we face a real risk that Nato is going to be

undermined and that the fronds secretary and the Prime Minister

should address this issue rather than having a junior spin doctor in

number ten twist the arms of senior former military officers to sign a

letter to the Daily Telegraph, written by a junior official in

number ten to which two of the senior signatories have already

resile. My honourable friend who served with me in the Ministry of

Defence will know that no one is as alert as I am to the risks of

undermining Nato's crucial role in underpinning the defence of Western

Europe. We have always been very clear, that any role of the European

Union in relation to our defence must be complimentary to hand in no

way undermining Nato. But I would remind mile rubble friend, --

undermine Nato. That when we took action, to protest British citizens

from pirates off Somalia, it was a British Admiral in northwards but it

was a European Union mission that carried out the task. We too look to

roles where the European Union can augment our security and we have

seen that across the piece in organised crime, terrorism,

counterterrorism and we see it today. We have seen it over past

years. I am going to make a little progressive might honourable friend

will allow me. These changes with our existing opt out from the euro,

Schengen and other measures give Britain a special status within the

EU. Indeed a unique status, one that gives us the best of both worlds. A

seat at the table to protect our interests, but a permanent opt out

from those areas of the EU which we reject. Out of ever closer union and

political integration, out of Schengen, out of the euro, and out

of Eurozone bailouts. So this is a significant package, delivering the

substantial legally binding and irreversible changes that we

promised. But let me be clear, no one is suggesting that it solves all

of the problems of the EU. This deal is not the end of the reform of the

EU, but it is an important step. On the road. Madam Deputy Speaker in a

matter which side of the week run, he will be able at least to agree

across the as that this decision will be one of profound significance

for the country, it will be eight choice that will determine how

trajectory for one decade or more. The government will respect the

outcome and there will be no second referendum. The propositions on the

ballot paper are clear and I want to be equally clear today, leave means

leave. And a vote to leave, will trigger a notice under Article 50,

to do otherwise in the event of a vote to leave would represent taken

the disregard of the will of the people because no individual, has

the right or the power to redefine unilaterally the meaning of the

question on the ballot paper. I will give way to the honourable member. I

am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary and I think he is right to

make it clear that this is a one-time referendum, and the

decision is in or out. And if it is out, I think that the British people

need to know what it is out to, and doesn't he agree with me that it is

about time that the Vote Leave set out precisely what their vision has

side of the European Union would be. And -- outside of the Peter Uihlein.

I agree with the honourable gentleman. I hope that my remarks

would provoke some of my colleagues to put some flesh on the bone to

what leaving would mean. I do want to say what the consequences would

be to leave the EU and remain. Less than my point first of all and then

I will give way. A vote to leave is a vote for an uncertain future. That

is a simple fact. That uncertainty would generate immediate negative

reaction on financial markets, all market commentators would agree.

Indeed the mere possibility of a leave vote will have a chilling

effect on business confidence before the referendum and as the honourable

gentleman has already suggested we have already had a foretaste of

that. A vote to leave would have a fixed two-year time, to negotiate

the exit from an future relationship with the EU. We would of course seek

to reach agreement with the other 27 member states during that two year

period. But in the meantime, we will be able to offer British businesses

wanting to invest, no assurance at all about the future access to the

EU, and indeed to other markets. We will have nothing to say to Japanese

or American or Chinese companies, who come here looking for a bad from

which to produce an EU markets. This will truly be a leap in the dark,

and the effect would be to put the economy on hold, until the

negotiations are complete. And at the end of that two years, there is

no guarantee that agreement would have been reached, but our exit

would be automatic unless every single one of our member states were

to agree to an extension. Of the negotiating period. I give way to my

honourable friend. I am grateful to my honourable friend for giving way,

is he is rightly drawing attention to the potential impact on our

economy, may I just taken back to the issue of security. It was

earlier suggested that there would be no adverse consequences on

security from us leaving the European Union because we would

remain members of Nato. Did my right honourable friend here the remarks

of the former Nato Secretary General, who said "If the UK were to

leave the European Union, the voice of the UK would be weakened." "I

strongly would regret if the UK was to leave the EU, it would have an

impact on In the case of Mr Rasmussen, not

just a former Secretary General of Nato but also a former prime

ministers of Denmark, who can say something about the binding nature

of protocols that are made in the Unigate and is. It is important that

we acknowledge that security comes in different parts. There is

military security and issues about defence but there are also security

against organised crime. Security against terrorism. It is very much

in the latter two that Nato makes its most important contribution to

our overall security. The Foreign Secretary has just invoked Article

50, before that happened, would there be a vote in Parliament? And

would there be a vote in the Scottish parliament given the impact

under the convention? The government's position is that the

referendum is an advisory referendum but by making this statement, very

clearly now, that the government would regard itself as bound by the

decision of the referendum. The government will proceed with serving

and Article 15 notice. I understand that is a matter for the government

of the United Kingdom. If there are any consequential considerations,

they will be considered with the proper constitutional methods. I

rather concur with the Right honourable gentleman that before the

government can move to any action as a consequence of the referendum, it

would be essential for Parliament to debate the matter and for the

government receive consent from Parliament on that matter. There is

no obligation to go for article 50, second, we would be taking back

control over our borders, laws, the ?10 billion EU net we give to the

European Union and it would buy us plenty of options which the

government presentation seems determined to present us discussing

in the way he is presenting this. My honourable friend raises again the

suggestion that there is no need to treat an exit vote as triggering a

notice under article 15. He seems to suggest there is some other way of

doing this. He raised this question on Monday and I have looked into it.

He caught my imagination. But I have to tell him, that is not the view

and opinion of the experts inside government and the legal experts I

have talked to. That we are bound by the treaty until such time as we

have left the European Union. And ministers, the treaty is a document

of international law and ministers are obliged under the terms of the

ministerial code to comply with international law at all times.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the UK's current access to the single market

would cease if we left. Our trading agreements with 53 countries around

the world would lapse. It is impossible to predict with any

certainty what the market response would be. It is inconceivable that

the disruption would not have an immediate and negative effect on

jobs, business investment, economic growth and on the pound. Those who

advocate exit from the EU will need to address these issues in the weeks

and months to come, the substantive consequences of the kind that

British people will be most focused upon. I want to say something about

the environment in which these negotiations would be conducted. It

is crucially important to understand what a difficult discussion this

would be. Over the last 18 months, I have got to know pretty well my EU

counterparts and in many cases, their senior officials and

opposition figures in most of their countries and key figures in the

commission and the European Parliament. There is perhaps

surprisingly, and over one in consensus among them about the

importance of Britain remaining a member of the European Union. They

also are politicians. They have constituents to whom they are having

to explain even now why Britain adds so much value to the EU that it has

to be allowed a unique and privileged set of arrangements not

available to any other member state. They have collectively already

invested a lot of political capital in delivering on Britain's agenda.

If we reject the best of both worlds package that has been negotiated by

the Prime Minister, we reject the unique and privileged position in

the European Union on offer to Britain. The mood of goodwill

towards Britain will evaporate in an instant. That Madam Deputy Speaker

will be our negotiating backdrop. To those who say they will have to

negotiate. This is important, people are talking about a negotiation that

we might be having to have with 27 other member states. It is important

to think about the mindset of those other states as they go into that

negotiation. To those who say they will have to negotiate a sweetheart

trade deal with Britain outside the EU, there will be no desire at all

among the political elite of the remaining 27 member states to help

and exiting Britain to show it can prosper outside the EU. They will

interpret a leave decision as to fingers from the UK and we can

expect Kasai slid the same in return. The idea that they will go

the extra mile to ensure Britain can remain a destination for foreign

direct investment to serve the EU market or that the financial

services industry can compete in the European market on a level laying

field is fantasy. I give way to my honourable friend. Is it not the

case, I am showing respect, I think you have a weak argument. If I may,

Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Foreign Secretary, is it not the

case that on foreign policy, the United Kingdom has a veto over

foreign policy in Europe? If we were to leave the European Union, the

United Kingdom would have less influence by definition an European

Union foreign policy and it is more likely that European foreign policy

would be dominated by France and Germany? My honourable friend is

right, these are the complexities. If we were outside the European

Union, we would not be bound by any foreign policy the European Union

had that we would not have any influence, in this case a decisive

influence, because of our veto over that. It is a judgment. People have

two way up the pros and cons. I will give way to my honourable friend. I

am grateful to him. He used the term political elite, he slipped into it

naturally. It is the politically elite that are main problem. They

ignore the voter. If it goes on, it will happen more and more. Rather to

my surprise, I rather agree with my honourable friend. I will use the

phrase political elite again in my speech because he is right. There is

a gap between what the political elite in some countries and what

their voters are thinking. The reality is, on this subject, the

negotiation on Britain's future relationship with the European

Union, it would be with the political elite that our negotiators

would have to engage. I want to make a little more progress. Another

point I want to make, any market access we agree with our former EU

partners will come at a high price. We know that because we know what

the basic models are for access to the single market for non-EU member

states. We look at Norway, pay up as if you are a member state, accept

all the rules as if you are a member state, allow full free movement

across your borders but have no say, no influence and no seat at the

table. Switzerland spent eight years negotiating... The honourable

gentleman can say it is silly but it is a fact. That is a fact of where

Norway is today. It is the fact it took Switzerland eight years to

negotiate piecemeal access on a sector by sector basis to the single

market. And that Switzerland has had to accept three times as many EU

migrants per capita than the UK has. Surely that cannot be the future for

Britain. That the leave campaign seeks, literally the worst of both

worlds. I am interested in his judgment as to the character of our

fellow EU countries. Is he really saying that Germany would be so

vindictive and spiteful but they would cut their own noses off to

spite their face? A White Paper says we export Williams in goods and

services to them but they export ?70.6 billion worth of goods and

services to us. A deficit of ?27.3 billion. Does he really think they

are sobering to the -- vindictive and spiteful, they would close the

door on that? I would make two points. He is right, Britain has a

substantial devastate in trade in goods with the European Union. If

all he was seeking was a free trade in goods, that would be relatively

simple to negotiate. But Britain will need much more than that to get

a fair deal for written's businesses and to protect the Tisch jobs. I

want to make another point. He is right that there will be economic

voices across Europe for a free-trade deal with the UK but

there will also be political elites looking over their shoulder at the

effect of a British exit. Looking over their shoulder at their

political opponents in their own countries are fearful that the

contagion, as they would see it, would spread. They would not wish to

do anything that will help us to demonstrate that Britain can succeed

outside the European Union. That is a simple political fact. Everyone in

this chamber is a politician, we know how that situation works, when

the chips are down, they will protect their political interests.

Would he agree with me that those advocating that we leave express a

big inconsistency. Saying that when we are in the European Union, we

cannot get anything we want but if we come out of the European Union,

we would get precisely what we want? Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the

honourable lady has put her finger on it. This is where the debate will

hinge. Those proposing we should remain are proposing that we stick

with the proposition that we know and understand and layer over it the

additional benefits the Prime Minister has gained for us in this

negotiation. Those proposing that we should leave don't know what they

are proposing to the British people because they can't know. They can

tell us what they would like to achieve and what they could hope to

negotiate but by definition they cannot know until afterwards. The

British people cannot know until afterwards what the proposition is

they would be voting for. I want to move on and set out how I see the

consequences of Britain voting to remain in the EU. I want it to be

with the mindset of a leader. Having renegotiated the terms of our

membership and ensuring protections we needed, we need to be a louder

voice in the EU. Exercising our influence as written -- Europe's

second leading economy and leader of the reform movement. We need to stop

seeing ourselves as passive victims of the EU and see Britain for what

it is. One of the most powerful and influential member states to whom

others look for leadership to keep the European Union as a free-market

union, competitive and engaged with the challenges of the globalised

economy. We can take that role because Europe is changing. There

was a time where Britain really was in a minority approach but the

political balance across the EU is shifting away from an unquestioned

acceptance of the inevitability of more Europe to and engaged

scepticism and a desire for the EU to focus on where it can add value

and leave the member states to get on with their own business where it

cannot. A recognition of the benefits of membership with an

increasing focus on costs and a healthy pragmatism about the limits

of what BT you can deliver. In Denmark, Finland, Poland, Hungary,

other Baltic and Scandinavian states, we find ourselves in

like-minded company with partners who share our vision of the future

of Europe. Even in the Netherlands, one of the founder member states,

the mood has shifted sharply. In that country they have a slogan

which rather neatly sums up what most people in Britain think about

the EU. "National Where possible, Europe where necessary." Across the

continent as a whole, the population as opposed to the political elite

has become more sceptical about the EU and focused on the need for

reform and accountability. and I am deeply grateful, has in

notice that an increasing number of EU states, are looking, attic

enviously and seeing that this is a rich that they want to quality take

advantage of because there is a Jew and serve in does the political

elite? The honourable gentleman is right and that is the case, that

Britain can lead that reformist tendency within the European Union

that is subscribe to buy more and more member states and even more of

the populations, where the political elites have not yet woken up to the

new reality. Their task is clear Madam Deputy Speaker with our

neighbours, the package agreed in Brussels last week is a big enough

step forward to allow us to recommend to the British people

staying in the EU on the special terms. But do not for a moment

imagine that a UK recommitted to EU membership will rest on its laurels.

Expect to deal with the UK fighting continuously at the head of a

growing phalanx of like-minded member states, to keep the EU on the

track of reform and competitiveness. Expect us to police vigorously the

delivery of the promises that have been made on deregulation,

repatriation of powers, Eurozone fairness, single market fairness and

on trade agreements. The choice for Britain is simple, a leading role in

a reformed EU or a leap in the dark to negotiate from a position of

weakness with a 27 member states we would just have snubbed. Driving the

expansion of the single market and you trade agreements within, or

watching outside as the rules of the market are shaped by the interests

of others. Madam Deputy Speaker the special status that Britain now has

on offer, means that we can have the best of both worlds. Being given the

parts of Europe that work for us, and permanently out of those that

don't. Influencing the decisions that affect us, shaping the world's

largest market, cooperating to keep Britain safe, strong and better off

with the status of our pound and the Bank of England guaranteed, her

exclusion from Eurozone bailouts confirmed, out of the passport free

Schengen Area, permanently protected from further steps of integration

towards the European superstate and with new commitments Meydan

mechanisms established Djourou juice burdens on business and return

powers to member states. Of course there is more to do but as we move

towards the referendum, this government has no doubt that on

these terms, the United Kingdom is safer, stronger and better off

inside a reformed European Union. Order, the house has tested the

Foreign Secretary with a great many interventions this afternoon and he

has been most patient and courteous in fully answering those

interventions but it has taken quite considerable time. I warn honourable

members who have in their heads or in their hands long speeches which

they intend to deliver, that I will have two impose a time limit on

backbench speeches of some nine minutes later in the day. The

question is that this house has considered European affairs. Mr

Hilary Benn. Thank you very much indeed Madam Deputy Speaker, almost

41 years ago this has to pay to the terms of a renegotiation about our

place in Europe prior to a referendum of the British people. On

the 7th of April 1975, this is what the opening speaker in that debate

said. "For Many honourable members as for millions outside the house,

the issue is not limited to an assessment of the outcome of the

negotiations. Many have already made up their minds, there will be a

statue body of opinion who already believe that Britain should be in

the community to the great economic good Britain in a changing world.

Equally, there is a substantial body of opinion which is fundamentally

opposed to British membership, and which holds that no possible

renegotiation could have changed the nature of the community

significantly to enable it to support the British participation.

Those were the words of the then Labour Prime Minister Howells Wilson

who incidentally gave the British people a decision about their place

in Europe -- Howard Wilson. What that reminds us is that some things

never change. Although then it was the Labour Party, our party that

will spit over our place in Europe and the Conservatives were united.

Whereas now there has been a complete reversal of roles. History

is repeating itself in mirror image. I almost felt sorry for the Prime

Minister on Monday as members opposite listened, I will give way

of course. As we are talking about history can we at least agree on

this, that the right honourable gentleman's late lamented and great

father, and Enoch Powell were at least writing this during dosage

storage abates in the early 1970s, this was a unique endeavour what we

were signing up to was quite unlike any other treaty because it

establishes supremacy of the European Court of Justice over this

house. Can we at least agree on this, there is no halfway house, we

are either under EU law and it all we are not. This is why the Labour

Party decided, that people should have their say, because a transfer

of that kind of sovereignty is not a decision for the House of Commons

but for the British people, and the British people made their choice and

decided by a significant margin to remain in the European Community.

The point I was making about the Prime Minister's reception on

Monday, is that my right honourable friend, the member for Wolverhampton

South East is fond of describing some honourable members as the

desperate to be disappointed. I think it is fair to say that they

were indeed disappointed because they would never be satisfied. I

will give way. I am grateful to the right honourable gentleman for

giving way but just before he continues, he seems to give the

impression that the Labour Party is completely united on this position,

where is that really excludes public statements made by some of his

colleagues that they are in favour of leaving the European Union and

there are many labour organisations around the country already

campaigning to pull out. I'm not sure that I would bow to the

honourable gentleman's alleged great knowledge of Labour organisations.

But they have come overwhelmingly in support of remaining in the European

Union. If you look at the trade union movement, strong support for

Britain remaining for reasons that I shall come onto a little bit later

on. The truth is that we have changed our view, and actually it

strengthens the argument for us remaining in the European Union, the

point I was also going to make about the Prime Minister is that he never

was I think going to come back with a deal that he didn't feel able to

recommend because we know that he didn't want the referendum in the

to concede it by the turmoil and to concede it by the turmoil and

disagreement on the benches opposite. I will say about the deal,

that it does contain some useful and important changes. Some of which we

called for. As the Leader of the Opposition, there was a commitment

in the manifesto. Detection in the pound because we are not in the euro

and it was the last Labour government that took the decision

that we would not join the euro, how wise a decision was that? Reforming

of the sending of child benefit back to children and the establishment of

the principle of fair contributions. Namely that those coming to work in

this country should pay in before they receive in work benefits. Madam

Deputy Speaker, the choice that the British people now face, will not

rest, on the terms of this renegotiation. I would argue that it

will rest on something much bigger and more important than that, and it

is this question. How would our economy and trading relationships

and the prospect for investment be affected by taking a step into the

unknown and how do we see ourselves, if the honourable gentleman will

bear with me. How do we see ourselves as a country, our place in

the world and in Europe, now and in the years ahead? What is the Labour

Party position on whether or not it would be appropriate for Scotland to

be taken out of the European Union? It is to respect the decision that

the Scottish people took in the referendum when they rejected

independence, we won the United Kingdom, and the decision will be

taken by the people of the United Kingdom. And on this side of the

house Madam Deputy Speaker, we are clear, we support Britain remaining

a member of the European Union. We held that due before the

renegotiation, we hold that view today, because it has brought us

jobs and growth and investment and security, and I would argue it gives

us influence in the world. The four exploit each of those benefits in

turn I want to address briefly the two essential arguments of those

opposite to think that we should leave. Namely sovereignty and taking

back control, of course I will give way. The right honourable gentleman

has just said that the EU has brought so much in a way prosperity

and jobs, of course that doesn't apply to some countries like Spain,

Portugal and Greece. They are also members of the EU, how is it that

they are suffering so much unemployment and low growth, and the

United Kingdom is prospering? Is not the difference that we as well as

being members of the EU are led by a Conservative government? I am afraid

that the right honourable gentleman is not going to tempt me to agree

with him on that particular observation at all, but I will make

the argument about the precise way in which those benefits that I have

just described have been brought to pass. Because of the opportunities

that membership of the European Union has given us. The original

decision to join the European Union was taken by this sovereign House of

Commons, it was a decision confirmed by the sovereign Jewish people, all

of the British treaty changes followed, including those including

qualified majority voting were included by Conservative and Labour

government and were approved by this sovereign parliament. What that

tells us is that we have chosen has a sovereign parliament, to work in

Europe for a purpose, to achieve things that we think benefit us and

our neighbours. The second argument is about taking back control, which

I have to say I think is a belief or some that somehow Britain standing

alone would have a voice that it possessed 50 is a go. Here I think

Madam Deputy Speaker we have two be honest with each other, we live in a

different world now, to the one that gave birth to the European coal and

steel community after the end of the Second World War. We have witnessed

the end of Empire, the creation of the United Nations, indeed of the

European Union. The formation of Nato, the end of the Cold War, the

collapse of the Berlin Wall. We have lived through an era that has seen

the rise of new world powers, alliances, conflicts, threats, and

the blistering pace of technological change that is revolutionising our

economies and is shrinking the way in which we perceive our world. We

cannot turn the clock back. And to argue that we can is to mislead

ourselves and others. But what we can do is to use the qualities that

we hand the nation are blessed with, to make the most of the

opportunities that this new world presents to us. That is exactly what

this membership of the European Union helps us to do. Look at the

strength of London has a financial centre, look at the openness and

diversity of our society. The talent for creativity. The UK computer

games industry, he didn't even exist 40 years ago, it is now generates ?2

billion a year in global sales. And supports nearly 30,000 jobs. The

worldwide reach of being this language, all of these things help

to make us the fifth biggest economy in the world. I will give way. When

we think about the City of London, we think about bankers, bad bankers,

and unfortunately, some of the disproportionately high banking

bonuses but banking is a necessary part of the economy but also the

pensions of this country are often found in the City of London which

affect every single person up and down the land. Does the right

honourable gentleman agree with me that an exit from the European Union

would make it more likely that banks and institutions and pension funds

would go to Frankfurt rather than London?

There are real risks, and the Foreign Secretary made the point in

his beach. It is legitimate to point out those risks. Which even the

honourable member for Uxbridge acknowledged in the article he wrote

in the Daily Telegraph. It is consideration we should take into

account. Half our exports go to Europe because we are part of the

single market. You have to think about the supply change and the

services, we also export around the world because of the deals were

European Union has negotiated with other countries. Incidentally, the

EU either has or negotiated trade agreements with 90% of Commonwealth

countries. I have argued with those who say that the EU has prevented us

better having better trade arrangements with Commonwealth

countries, that is not the case. Why on earth would we want to exchange

the certainty of the deals we currently have for the uncertainty

of the deals we might not secure? As we have heard and I thought the

Foreign Secretary made the point very forcefully. We have good trade

deals already. The only examples we have got of the alter and give and

he made reference to Norway. If you look at the arrangement Norway has,

Norwegians would say "I would not do that if I were you." It looks like a

pretty bad deal to us. It is one of the reasons the British trade union

movement changed its view in the late 1980s when Mrs Thatcher was

busy taking away trade union rights in this country and saw an

opportunity for workers rights across Europe. The EU has helped us

deal with some of the consequences of global change by protecting

workers in every European country. Paid holidays, the right to spend

more time with your newborn child from improved maternity and

paternity leave. Limits on working time, better protection for agency

and temporary workers. That is a striking sample of how working

together across Europe can protect workers. He has campaigned for many

years on behalf of Africa and trade with Africa and supporting

prosperity in Africa. What would he say to the protectionist policies of

the European Union which prohibited and make trade with Africa more

difficult? I argued precisely that Europe should be changing its

policies in relation to the common agricultural policy. I would say

something about development later in my speech because it seems that as

well is a strong argument as to why we should remain part of the

European Union. I will give way of course. I am grateful, before he

moves on from the list of employment rights guaranteed at EU level that

he has set out, does he agree with me that it is important to point out

that when those people who would take us out of the European Union

attack EU red tape and bureaucracy, it is precisely those rights they

are usually talking about West Chamakh right to equal treatment as

a part-time worker, these are examples of justice in the

workplace, not needless bureaucracy. I agree with him completely. I heard

one of those ministers advocating Britain's exit from the European

Union, when asked on television this weekend, he made reference to health

and safety. I would say health and safety is not red tape, not a

burden, it is about protecting British workers, German workers,

Spanish workers, when they go to work to make sure they can do their

job safely and securely. I would say if we did vote to leave, we could

end up with a double nightmare, there would still be a Conservative

government in this country and given past records, I am not sure I would

suffer that government to ensure we keep those rights that we currently

have. Madam Deputy Speaker, a more important reason why we should

remain members of the EU. It is the argument that Britain's influence in

the world is strengthened by membership of that union. It

promotes interdependence through trade. It advances our economic

security because it tackles conflict and other global challenges and

protects us from crime and terrorism. I would say there is

nothing patriotically about diminishing the United Kingdom's

ability to make its voice heard by other nations by stumbling out of

Europe and pulling up the drawbridge. That would serve, I

would argue, to harm our position in the world. Take the example of the

global economic crash in 2007-8. It shook the government -- it shook the

public confidence in government regulation, we needed more

cooperation between countries, if we are going to deal with the problems

of big companies that show an aversion to paying tax, Europe is a

good place to start. We should also acknowledge that the growth in the

number of member states in the European Union has been a very

powerful force for change for the better on our continent. The

prospect of membership offered to those former communist states of

Eastern and Central Europe, a powerful incentive to meet the

conditions for joining because they were creating an alliance ilk on the

values of democracy, respect for human rights, free media, the rule

of law and individual freedom. As the Foreign Secretary made clear, it

has helped us stronger in the face of aggression and problems around

the world. There are is no doubt that the sanctions agreed against

Russia have had an impact and they are biting. Although the Minsk

agreement has not been fully implement it, the conflict is

frozen. It is precisely because Europe was united that there was an

impact. Russia would see Britain leaving the European Union as a sign

of We have seen democratic change in

Burma. Saying that what the previous regime did was not acceptable with a

powerful force for good in the world. What these collective

displays of solidarity remind us of is that the power of working with

our European allies of doing good but the ongoing problems in Syria

remind us of our failure in that the titular continent. I am grateful to

him for giving way. In the event of a leave vote, there are two

possibilities, we remain part of the single market and are subject to the

same rules we have now, so what is the point of the referendum? Or we

seek to realign our trading approach but also British foreign policy,

away from the democracies of western Europe and the north Atlantic to the

dictatorships of the East. That would not be in our interest or in

the interests of Western liberal democracy. I cannot understand why

so many members opposite, who expect us to bat for Britain at European

Council summit is expected the other European states to do anything

otherwise? I would agree, I have just tried to demonstrate to the

house the benefit of working with our European allies to try and be a

force for good in the world. I was in the process of saying that Syria

is a terrible example of our collective failure as a world. I

would like the Foreign Secretary's commentary in his comments on

Tuesday that the ceasefire will be implemented and upheld but that

depends on Russia. Hence the point I was making earlier. Every single one

of these examples teach us that we need stronger international

cooperation, not weaker. I would say at this moment and in this century,

it would be extraordinary folly of our country to turn its back on this

vitally important international alliance if we are going to shape

world events. That is why, the Secretary General of Nato said

"Britain is a global player and a strong EU will also make sure Nato

has a strong partner in the European Union when we are facing the same

security threat." I will give way one more time but then I am going to

make progress because other members want to speak. On the foreign policy

question regarding Russia and all that, would the Shadow Foreign

Secretary like to comment on whether he thinks the Budapest agreement of

the 1990s was a good idea? To be perfectly honest, if I could say to

him, I am less interested in what happened in the 1990s, I am more

worried about what will happen in 2016, the big decision the British

people will have to take. I would argue that our national security is

served both by our membership of the EU and Nato, that cooperation across

Europe is essential to deal with terrorist threats. The European

arrest warrant is a good example of that and the case of the 21 July

2005, who was returned here from Rome where he had gone to escape

British justice demonstrates us working with our allies. It is why

the director of Europe poll, Rob Wainwright, said a British exit

would "Make Britain's job harder to fight crime and terrorism because it

would not have the same access to very well organised European

mechanisms in place today." I am going to try and bring my remarks to

a close, it is the greatest challenge that peoples and countries

of the world face at the beginning of the 21st century which is how we

deal with the interdependence of human beings. I will give way and

then I will continue. Incredibly kind of him, I wonder if he would

also agree about the importance of the EU when it comes to the

environment? It has not been mentioned yet this morning, but it

is my boredom than ever due to clean air, clean Seas and so on. I agree

absolutely with the honourable lady. The blue flag beaches are a good

example. We are not going to have clean beaches in brilliant -- in

Britain if we are not going to deal with sewage from other countries and

vice versa. I will later address climate change where Europe is

vital. The house is only too aware that with 11 billion people at the

end of this century, if we look at what is happening on our continent

in the last few months, the flow of refugees testing European solidarity

to the limit. What would the situation be like if the European

Union did not exist? The truth is it doesn't matter if people are moving

across the globe, fleeing persecution for a better life,

fleeing climate change. We are going to have to deal with the

consequences. We have not just a moral interest in tackling climate

change in tackling poverty, dealing with conflict, we have a practical

interest in doing so. I can say from my experience when I was a Cabinet

minister, the fact that European countries came together in the

run-up to Gleneagles saying this is what they were prepared to commit to

help to unlock commitments on more aid and help for the developing

world. The fact Europe went to climate change summit after climate

change summit with a commitment it was prepared to put on the table

helped to unlock the deal we saw in Paris. I would say the final

argument and it was the founding argument of the European project was

that it has brought peace to a continent that for hundreds of years

was scarred by war. And anyone who has been to walk along the graves

from the first and second world was, the flower of two generations of

Europeans, some bearing names, and how young they were, some, no names

at all, it really will -- merely reads "Soldier of the Great War,

known unto God." Because nobody knows who lies beneath those graves.

The one disagreement I have with the Foreign Secretary in that where he

says he feels no passion for Europe am I feel we should be passionate

about that greatest achievement of the European project. Which was, by

bringing nations together, through coal and steel, to make in the words

of the Schuman declaration "Future war not merely unthinkable but

materially impossible." Madam Deputy Speaker, the British people have to

make a choice between the fear that we have somehow lost our identity in

the world because we are part of the European Union and our experience

that in Europe we have amplified and extended and increased Britain's

voice in the world and that the British people have benefited

economically. I have changed my view since 1975, I am proud to be a party

of -- member of this party and that has also been on a journey.

The story of Britain is one that has been at the heart of global affairs,

at its best when we have been outlawed looking and confident. In

the 20th century we helped to build institutions that had given us the

chance to make progress, the UN, Nato and the EU. In the 21st-century

I don't think that we can reduce our influence, we cannot shut the

curtains and close the door and hope that the others will go away. This

choices about whether we face the future with optimism or not and I

believe that Britain's national interest is best served by remaining

part of the European Union, I hope that the British people will come to

that decision to. It is now their choice. Saint Nicholas Soames. Thank

you, may I first of all congratulate the honourable gentleman and the

Foreign Secretary, and I start my speech by saying that I warmly

congratulate the courage and tenacity of the Prime Minister and

his negotiating team including especially my right honourable

friend the member for Europe. Who has borne much of the heat of the

day, in a remarkable achievement and to say that I wish it well and I

wish has the right honourable gentleman would say, I wish that the

British people would have their say. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the

70th anniversary year, of Churchill's speech on the cause of

the United Europe in Zurich on the 19th of September 19 46. It has

always struck me as being ironic that this speech has been claimed by

both sides of the European argument as being some sort of holy Grail.

But as I am daily on the receiving end of some vile e-mails from people

telling me that I'm a traitor to my grandfather 's memory, I thought I

would if I may. I'm most grateful to my honourable friend, though I

profoundly disagree with him on this issue, I hold in with the utmost

respect, and that these people disgrace themselves by their

insults. I am very, very grateful to my honourable friend. Of course the

speech was a speech of great precedents, and great vision. It was

also a speech of the most profound analysis. I will if I may, unlike

most of my honourable friend is, in this house, reflect into a little

more distance from Britain's experience on the European Union.

And in particular, my party's long-standing commitment to the

European cause. Madam Deputy Speaker reflect for a moment on the site of

what Europe must have looked like, the tragedy of what Europe must have

looked at in 1945. -- looks like. It is worth a house reflecting on it,

it is only in the winking of an high, it was only 71 years ago, that

the Germans signed instrument of surrender. It was only 70 years ago,

that the Russians drew down the Iron Curtain on a broken and software

used in your. And behind that line, in the wicked grip of a ruthless

regime, lay all the great capitals and states of Eastern Europe.

Warsaw, Prague, Berlin, Bucharest, Sophia. Most of the rest of

continental Europe lay shattered and broken. After six years of war. For

the second time in 25 years. There remained a vast mass of bewildered

human beings, who gazed at the wreckage of their homes, their

nations, their lives, their families, their possessions.

Everything. But from that awful scene of desolation, of sadness, of

ruin and despair, little over 70 years ago, something truly

remarkable has been achieved. Which has brought freedom, security and

prosperity. Way beyond the dreams, that anyone of that time would ever

have contemplated. For not only have the sovereign states of Europe

risen, Phoenix like from the ashes of two world wars, but they have

created of their own free will, a European Union of 28 members.

Comprising the biggest and most powerful single market in the world

of 500 million people. In which we travel with our fellow Europeans, in

prosperity, in peace, and in a constantly expanding era of

cooperation, prosperity, security, safety and freedom. And when the

Cold War ended, and the Berlin Wall came down on that glorious cold 9th

of November 1989, the Warsaw Pact collapsed into dust without ever a

shot being fired. Most of the Eastern European countries joined

the European Union. And most of them also joined it. Indeed there are

only six countries who are members of the European Union who are not

members of Nato. And why did they join? Because Madam Deputy Speaker,

the Europe and the Nato that they joined, were and are prosperous,

secure and free. And they wanted just as soon as they could, to find

shelter in those institutions who had benefited from a period of peace

stability, freedom and security, unprecedented in a thousand years in

European history. And which would protect them from a still predatory

Russia. There is no argument Madam Deputy Speaker that the European

Union was absolutely central to these developments. It is a very

great credit to our country, that we should have played such a leading

role in seeing all of this through. The European Union has achieved a

very great deal. But it cannot and it must not allow itself any

self-congratulation in these very difficult times. For although we can

see that the ice has melted on the landscape of the second half of the

its forms has shifted hand is its forms has shifted hand is

shifting rapidly and unpredictably, how inadequately most of the

institutions of the European Union have coped. This must be remedied.

As we look across Europe, with all of the achievements that it has two

its name, the pervasive mood is one of insecurity, of lack of confidence

and optimism. These are characteristics not only found in

Europe. And the troubles of government everywhere speak to the

anxieties of their electorates and sadly to the mistrust of their

politicians, there is tuitions and their leaders. The public across

Europe know only too well, that the world of easy answers instant

solutions and declaratory statements, RA constructed -- RA

constructed of politicians and media. And as power shifts so

rapidly, you might almost believe that we are today at the start of a

new history. Nowhere are these difficulties and insecurities and

lack of understanding more obvious than in this country of ours. I am

always wary of trying to work out what Churchill might have thought

today because I think it is an impertinence to do so. But one thing

I absolutely know, that has the world has grown bigger for Britain,

the opportunity is greater, the chances mortgage ring for our

commerce and our people, so the people who practice politics and

government in this country and especially those who write about it,

have a sadly cramped and limited view of Europe and the rest of the

world. So in this campaign, one of our most important tasks, all of us,

whatever side we are on. He is to remind our fellow citizens, that we

share a region, a climate, Marshall via history, tomography, our

economic space and our culture, with other countries of the European

Union. Something that Churchill pointed out very strongly in the

Zurich speech. Our intellectual and cultural life are all intertwined

with Europe, we face shared problems in endless comparable ways, as the

the environment questions in which the environment questions in which

Europe has been extremely effective. But how shallow media engages with

none of this, or the interests vital to us or our European partners,

allies and friends as our friend suggests now. That was the position

until very recently, now that the media has finally woken up like the

great Slack monster that it is to the awesome prospect of combat,

newspaper cells in competition as each side of the argument tries to

persuade fellow citizens of the right way. Madam Speaker I rejoice

at the Strawberry achievement of the Prime Minister had what he has

achieved in Brussels and I commit achieved in Brussels and I commit

myself to make the case to the best of my ability whenever I have the

opportunity. And I'm struck by the scale of support for the European

Union, from British commerce and business both large and small, and

most especially, in the important letter in the Daily Telegraph

yesterday, from four former chiefs of the defence staff and other

service chiefs on the great importance of the European Union in

the security sphere. I believe that the case to remain is overwhelming

on all fronts, but there is no point in pretending that the European

Union doesn't face many major challenges where it has to find a

better and more effective way of resolving. The refugee crisis for

example has made the European Union look deeply ineffective, surely

reactive and it is clear that Schengen can survive without the

most dramatic reform, and that the external borders of Europe. None of

us can feel happy that the European Union which has brought such great

stability to so much of the European continent, now appears to be weak

and uncertain, its unpopularity matters and it is damaging. So my

our government will seize the our government will seize the

moment, and having discovered and rediscovered the great value of

extremely energetic and skilled diplomacy, the Prime Minister, the

Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe and others will really

push ahead to the EU to drive with like-minded colleagues the big

reforms that Europe must follow. They will find willing friends who

also want to do the same. There is an enormous agenda that Britain can

play to hand will play a leading role in, in economic reform, energy,

defence, foreign policy. There are practical and radical steps that can

be taken. Madam Deputy Speaker may I finally indulge myself by recalling

the end of Churchill's great speech to the Congress of Europe in the

Hague in 1948. And remember that the founding fathers of Europe, with a

noble vision, built this astonishing edifice on firm and very lasting

foundations. This is what Churchill said at the Hague conference. "A

High have sole responsibility rests upon us here this afternoon in this

Congress of Europe striving be reborn. If we allow ourselves to be

rent and disordered, by pettiness and small disputes, if we fail in

clarity of you will courage in action, a priceless occasion may be

cast away forever. But if we all pull together, and we pull the luck

and the comradeship, and we shall need all of the comradeship and all

of the luck, and firmly grasp, the larger hopes of humanity, then it

may be, that we shall move into a happier, sunlit age. When all the

little children who are now growing up in his tormented world, may find

themselves not the victors, nor the vanquished in the fleeting trials,

in the bloody turmoil of war. But the cares of all the treasures of

the past and the masters of all the science, the abundance and the

glories of the future. Those of us who fight the good fight

to remain do so with confidence and humility and profound respect for

those who hold very different and long-standing views to us. But in

the sure knowledge that this issue is about Britain's fundamental place

in the world for a generation to come, for a confident and open

engaged pro-European Great Britain. Could I call the honourable member

for Gordon who is not on a time limit. Can I warn members that

backbench contributions will be limited to nine minutes. Madam

Speaker, I am delighted to follow the Right Honourable member for Mid

Sussex. I have not always found myself in such agreement with the

Right Honourable member over the years we have been members of this

place. If I remember correctly, we were elected back on the same day in

1987. I am delighted to follow him today, not just because we will be

on the same side during this buffer Rendon campaign, which might be a

first as well but the nature of the argument that he pursued in his

speech. I am absolutely convinced that from the remaining point of

view, the argument has to be presented at that kind of level.

About the big issues, things that really matter if we want to get

people to polling stations to vote to continue membership of the

European Union. I should not tempt my luck but I hope the honourable

members homage to his grandfather's achievements may spread to one of

the other is to Jewish and is where he had substantial influence on the

Council of Europe, the European Convention and the Strasbourg Court

of Human Rights. 47 countries brought together in respect of human

rights, an achievement for Winston Churchill and Scottish lawyer David

Maxwell Fyfe. We will count on that support when that battle is to be

waged in the not too distant future. Saying about the level of his

contribution today, I would make this appeal to the Foreign Secretary

and to the Prime Minister. I was trying to make the point earlier

this week, if you look at the politics of this, by

inevitabilities, numerically, arithmetically, if the case for

Europe is going to be one, then the bulk of votes to win it will have to

come from the Labour Party, SNP, Green party and Clyde Comrie. I

would say the Liberals as well but as the most pro-European party, they

seem to have deserted because, hopefully momentarily. The

Conservative Party achieved 37% of the vote in the general election and

even if the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are successful in

carrying a majority of that vote into the remain camped as I hope

they do in the coming referendum, that would be roughly 20% of the

electorate. To win a referendum, as I know too well, you cannot achieve

37%, 45%, but more than 50%. Arithmetically, the bulk of that

winning vote, as I hope it will be, will be from those who voted for

Labour, SNP, the Green party and played Comrie and the progressive

side of the ticks. That affects how arguments need to be presented. With

great respect to the Foreign Secretary and I can understand why

because the Tory ministers arguing a pro-European cores are like a wagon

train surrounded by hostiles. They have to hitch themselves on a

certain type of the argument. He started his speech by saying he was

still a Eurosceptic despite his conversion to the end cause. It is

an argument that may be useful in fending off be hostiles but is not

necessarily an argument that will grip the attention of the bulk of

voters who need to be convinced by the European argument. For the

Labour Party and ourselves, the achievements of social Europe are

important. Achievements that have come and things that could still be.

For the Green party, environmental issues are a huge moment, these are

things that have to be even more decided on that continental scale.

The arguments on refugees, for those of us on the progressive side of

politics, we want to see the country do more in terms of solidarity with

the refugee crisis that has this set Europe. In addition to being

positive and confident about Europe's achievements, which the

Right Honourable gentleman spoke about. The prosperity of the single

market and the achievement of workers rights that converted so

many on the progressive side of politics in the 80s and 90s to the

European cores. This argument cannot be presented as if it was just about

the largest faction in the Conservative Party. It has to be to

command majority support across the country. Secondly... Can I ask, he

is making an eloquent point as ever, can I ask him a simple question,

does he think the left of centre vote across the United Kingdom and

Scotland will support a political construct that has inflicted pain

Yury on many people in southern Europe in pursuit of the discredited

money policy driven essentially by Germany, is he proud of that, is it

socially progressive? It is exactly the sort of area we want to debate

because we want to see a Europe that builds a covenant, not as he puts

it, enforces that, that is exactly the argument why we want to change

the focus of Europe in terms of how it does and achieves things. I will

give way to him slightly later on, but I want to reflect on one point

where I have particular experience. A bit of honesty is called for, as a

First Minister who lost a referendum and then resigned the next day, I

did that because I did think it is edible for a First Minister or a

Prime Minister to continue in office in the circumstances. I do not

believe the Prime Minister and I do think the majority of his party or

the country believe it when he says he would sail off from this if he

had to negotiate an out of the European Union after telling people

it was essential to the security and prosperity to the country, as he put

it last week, for us to be in it. There is evidence to suggest the

Prime Minister has form on these matters. On the 17th of September

2014, he said that the question on the Scottish referendum was not

about his future but the future of Scotland. He would continue

regardless of the result. By the 28th of September, 11 days later, he

confided to a Scotland Sunday newspaper "If the vote had been for

Scotland to leave the UK, I genuinely would have been

heartbroken, I would have winded and wounded. Emotionally one would have

thought I am so saddened by this that I find it difficult to go on."

I saying that, I think he meant in office as opposed to anything more

substantial. That attitude has been confirmed by a number of people

since. I suspect that the idea Prime Minister could continue in office

having lost such a vote is to calling a phrase "For the birds."

Which is why the Honourable member for Uxbridge is right in one bit of

his apparent calculations, I am hoping that would allow Opera

Minister as he puts it, to negotiate our way back into some sort of

European construct on better terms. The second half of that probably is

for the birds but on the first half, a vacancy being available, I think

that Honourable member has a point. I think the prime ministers should

own up on that point because I think his current position lacks some

degree of credibility. I think the nature of this debate is already

having a big impact on politics. Earlier this week, while people were

fixed on this place for the contest between the Honourable member for

Uxbridge and the Prime Minister on the European debate, there was the

settlement of the Scottish financial has ocean. Tribute should be paid to

the First Minister of Scotland and the Deputy First Minister and all

sides at the negotiating table in bringing about that settlement. When

I wondered about the change in position, the rapid change in

position that was taking place, only a couple of weeks ago more the

Treasury position was to arrange a ?7 billion deduction from Scottish

finances which last week became 3.5 billion, 2 billion last week and

ended up at zero by Tuesday afternoon. I am perfectly prepared

to suggest that one reason why that change of heart may well have come

about is that if it hadn't come about, the Foreign Secretary says

there was no change, believe me, the dogs in the street in Scotland no

there was a substantial change over the last few weeks. One reason why

that change may have come about, I suspect, is that if the Prime

Minister were in a position of not being able to deliver his

pre-referendum promises more powers to Scotland, he would find it

difficult apse to sustain the argument that 27 other European

leaders might be delivering the pre-referendum vows to him. I think

we are already seeing the aspects of this the bait having a very

substantial influence in politics. I ask the Foreign Secretary earlier on

about the circumstances that would arise if the vote went for out and

when article 50 would be invoked. I have come across, reading, the paper

in preparation on exactly that issue. It suggests that the likely

formulation would be that there would have to be a vote in this

chamber before the government invoked the as ocean. The government

could say it is an executive decision and go ahead anyway. It

then goes on to argue the following, which is of great important so I am

going to quote it. Just to clarify because I answered this point

earlier, I have taken advice since that, it is the government position

that if the electorate gives a clear decision in this referendum to

leave, the government will proceed to serve and Article 50 notice,