07/12/2016 House of Commons

Electoral reform. Second reading. What they? Friday, the 13th of

January. Thank you. Order. We now come to the opposition motion in the

name of the Leader of the Opposition. On the Government's plan

for Brexit. I inform the house that I have selected amendment a in the

name of the Prime Minister. To move the nation in the name of the Leader

of the Opposition, I call the shadow secretary of state for exiting the

European union. Thank you. For months, Labour has been pressing the

Prime Minister and the governments to set out its plan for Brexit. For

months, the Prime Minister and a succession of ministers have refused

to do so, either in writing from this dispatch box. Facing defeat

wanted a's notion, the Government has now caved in. Last minute

amendments tell their own story and everybody knows it. A victory for

common sense. Can I thank those on the side of the house to have backed

the pressure for the Government to disclose its plan? Can a thank

honourable members opposite you have, quite rightly, wanted to see

far more detail about the approach? The approach their front bench is

willing to take. I will. I am grateful to him forgiving way but

would he acknowledge that, by excepting the governed's amendments

to his otherwise very good notion, he is falling into a Tory trap,

supporting invoking article 50 by March, which is unrealistic. Just

before the honourable gentleman response, can I politely say that

the intervention is legitimate but it is a good guide. If a member

hopes to speak and intervened more than once in accordance with very

long-standing practice, they will be relegated on the list. I think

that's only fair if I can to try to secure equal opportunities for all

members. I'm grateful for the intervention. I will come to that

point because it is important. I will come to it in due course. I've

seen the overnight briefings which will no doubt be repeated today from

the dispatch box navigable and almost intended to publish its plan

but, but an 11th hour concession is an 11th hour concession. I asked for

a plan on many occasions and it was refused on every occasion. No one

will fall for that. I will make progress if I may. The focus is now

where it ought to be, on the substance and not on the process.

The terms upon which we leave the EU will define us and our country for

many years and this house and the public are entitled to know the

approach that the Government is intending to take. Today's

victory... I will in just a moment. I will just make a bit of progress

and get to the amendment if you don't mind. Today's victory is

important and so is the timing. As we debate this notion, the

Government's appeal is being heard any screenful. We need to remind

ourselves that the Government is arguing this house should have no

say on the question of invoking article 50. That is the argue that

it is presenting. -- Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court. The prospect

of a vote granted by the High Court a few weeks ago, that is the court

of its argument and purpose of its appeal. To remove that road from us.

That is what it is seeking to achieve. But though -- vote. That

would be to avoid scrutiny and avoid accountability. If the Government

succeeds in that appeal, this notion will be very important because it

puts grit into a process which would otherwise have none. We would only

have they planned to discuss because they would not be getting a vote. We

would not be getting a vote. I will give way. However, if the Government

held at the Supreme Court, there will have to be a legislative

process. This is not a legislative process today, is it? I am grateful

for that intervention and I am coming to that point so I will press

on with it, if I may. What I'm going to do is get to the amendment so I

can make my position clear on the amendment and then I will take some

interventions. A plan will now have to be prepared, debated and

subjected to scrutiny as to whether I not we have a vote and that is a

good thing. For anyone who believes in parliamentary scrutiny. If, on

the other hand, the Government loses its appeal, label -- there will need

to be article 50 legislation in the New Year. A mission of this house

will not suffice. I pause here to deal with the amendment, which I

want to make clear to all members of the house. Today is not a vote to

trigger Article 50 or to give authority to the Prime Minister to

do so. It is most certainly not a vote for article 50. Unless the

Supreme Court over reels -- overrules the High Court, only

legislation can do that. Nor does today's notion preclude the Labour

Party or any other party putting down amendments to the article 50

legislation and having them voted upon. The amendment... I will just

complete this part and then of course I will. But it is the notion,

as amended, is an indication that the purpose of calling for the plan

is not to frustrate the process or delay the Prime Minister's

timetable. That is what has made clear by the motion and the

amendment taken together. Labour has repeatedly said it will not

frustrate the process and I stick by that. That is why the Government

should prepare its plan and publish it in time for this house to

consider it when it debate and vote on the article 50 legislation and

the timetable of the amendment is in fact to put treasure on the

Government because a late plan, a late plan would clearly frustrate

the purposes and intentions of this notion and I put the Government on

notice that I will not be slow to call them out if they do not produce

a tiny plan. I will give way. I'm very grateful for the Shadow

minister giving way. -- Supreme Court. What I did not want him to do

was inadvertently mislead the house. There is already legislation on this

house which has a first reading at it is the Withdrawal From An Article

50 Withdrawal From The European Union Bill. I am grateful for that

intervention and understand the point. We will have to see what

happens on the 16th of December but I think the Secretary of State has

made it clear, on a number of occasions, understandably, that in

addition to the main point of the appeal, survive the Government is

concerned, which is to take away any right to vote on year from the mac

invoking of article 50, there is a secondary intention and that is to

get greater clarity on the type of legislation may be needed in the New

Year and I anticipate it is that legislation that we will be will be

addressing before too long. I do acknowledge the private members

Bill. I thank the memo that forgiving way and I'm glad he has

made it clear that it's not down to us to invoke article 15 because the

Government and their supporters have been put around -- putting Iran that

we are trying to sabotage that. And because what we have seen is the

characterising of anyone who questions the Government's approach

as frustration. -- I am grateful for that intervention. That is the wrong

characterisation and to be avoided. Having accepted the amendment today,

I hope people will not continue to intervene on me saying it is an

attempt to frustrate. The plan is to be produced in good time with

sufficient detail for us to debate it, but the purpose is not to

frustrate the process of all ought to delay the timetable the Prime

Minister set out some time ago. I will give way.

I am grateful to him for giving way, but isn't the fact... If he accepts

the amendment of the Government, he is effectively giving unilateral

support to what ever planned they decide to bring foreign commerce of

the opposition will not be able to perform their parliamentary duties

to the executive. That is not the case and I will make

that point in a moment. I understand the concern but that is not the

case. I will give way. I'm grateful to the Shadow Minister.

Would you agree with me that the opposition support or at least do

not oppose the Government's amendment today, it would be

completely unacceptable and totally inconsistent, having accepted the

amendment, then, when we get into the New Year, to do anything to

delay the triggering of Article 50 beyond the 31st of March?

I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today's motion precludes

any party, including my own, putting down an amendment to legislation if

there is legislation, and it voted on. I am astonished that members of

the House are, in some cases, willing to pass up the opportunity

to have a vote in the first place, and to restrict the ability for

debate and amendment in the second place.

I do not want to break up his flow, but will he please answer the

question put to him - does he think it is reasonable, having supported

this amendment, that they should frustrate and slow down the process

of Article 50? I have made it absolutely clear and

they make it clear again. Know he has not!

The purpose of this motion, calling for a plan, is not to frustrate or

delay the process. That is not the purpose or why we are calling for a

plan. It does present a challenge for the Government. It now means the

Government has got to produce a plan in good time to allow the proper

formalities and processes. It is a challenge... The timetable is more

of a challenge for the Government than it is for the opposition on

this. I will make some progress...

I will make some progress if I may. I have taken a lot of interventions.

The Government must now prepare its plan and publish it. I put the

Government on notice. If it fails to produce a plan by the time we are

debating Article 50 legislation, if we are, assuming the Government does

it, amendments on this site and possibly from the other side of the

House that will be put forward, setting up the minimum requirements

of a plan, in other words, we are not going to have a situation where

the Government seeks a boat in a vacuum or produces a late, vague

plan. -- a vote in a vacuum. I will give way.

I'm grateful. I congratulate him because it is a difficult wicket to

play. In his motion, he says there will be no disclosure material that

could be reasonably judged to damage the UK. When he talks about a plan,

could he explain perhaps does he mean that should be series of Kents?

Is at an explanation of principles or is it specific priorities? -- a

series of? When he talks about a plan, it would be hobbled in what he

means. It is straightforward. I have said

number of times. -- it would be helpful to know what

he means. I have said the Government would

enter into confidential negotiations for a number of months. Producing a

plan should not undermine that process. I have said that... This is

not the first time I have said it, but repeat. I understand the point

made about not producing a plan on the basis that saying anything might

undermine the negotiations, I do not accept this. I accept there is a

level of detail for confidential issues and tactics which should not

be disclosed. I have never said otherwise. I just want to put the

contrary proposition forehead, to see how comfortable members are with

it, which is absent a plan, absence knowing the objectives, absent

knowing the starting position, the Government would then negotiate for

two years without telling us any of that detail. For two years... Are

any members of this has content not to know... Hands up who doesn't want

to know... Hands up if you don't want to know. Between now and March

2019, you are happy? "I don't need to know". Whatever you negotiating,

it's fine by me. Well, the honourable gentleman is an

experienced lawyer, and I am sure this is old hat to him. Can he then

tell me, since the alternative he thinks is telling the House nothing,

what he thinks of this? The comments made eight times by me to the house.

I said several times in debates he has attended, I will make as much

information as possible available without prejudicing our

investigation. As much information as possible. I made that .8 times to

this House. -- eight times did I make this point.

I heard the point made and I understand and respect the Secretary

of State's position on this issue, and his history on issues of

scrutiny and accountability. I understand why he feels

uncomfortable not disclosing the information that can be disclosed.

What this motion does is to move the issue on and to make it clear that

there will be a plan, whilst of course preserving that which needs

to remain confidential. I acknowledge that this has been said,

and I also acknowledge that the Secretary of State has said on more

than one occasion that when the Government has reached a judgment on

the customs union, and I think he means when he has reached a judgment

on the single market, it will then make that position public. I

therefore anticipate that the Secretary of State has no

difficulties in a plan which sets out the position on the single

market, set at the position on customs union, said that the

position on transitional measures, and on the like. That is the

direction of travel I have understood him to be going in. This

plan commits him to it and put it within the framework of scrutiny and

accountability that will come with the Article 50 legislation. I

acknowledge what has been said. Let me pick up the issues he has

talked about. There are the circumstances under which the

criteria and aims are clear but the individual policy may not be.

They're only be several options and it might be in our negotiating

interest to keep more than one of them open. Surely that does not

necessarily require we specify in detail any individual...

Understand the point the Secretary of State is making and to some

extent we will probably return to this debate as and when the plan

materialises. But I... But it is important that it is not a

mischaracterisation of this. Asking for a plan to set out the objectives

is not to seek to undermine the UK's negotiating power, nor to seek a

running commentary. It is to have clarity, scrutiny and

accountability. I will make progress, if I may. I come to the

minimum requirements of a plan. They are fivefold. Firstly, and I have

really begun to touch on this, enough detail and clarity to end the

circus of uncertainty that has been going on in recent weeks on issues

such as the single market, paying in for access to the single market, the

customs union and transitional arrangement. The pattern and that of

these exchanges into the last few days and weeks is clear for all to

see. One member of the Cabinet says one thing one day, and another

member of the Cabinet says something else on a different day, and then a

spokesperson says no decision has been made. We have seen that pattern

over and over in the last few weeks. That uncertainty is causing anxiety

across the UK, in businesses and working people, and in our nation.

It has to end. That uncertainty is causing more damage to this process

than anything else just at the moment. This House, the public

businesses and working people, and the media and our communities are

entitled to know the basis on which the Government intend to negotiate

their future. I will give way. The honourable member giving way. He

said the alternative are having a plan was no information until 2019.

Does he accept that in the debate on the 12th of October, he predicted

the Secretary of State that he asked him, will we have the same

information that will go to the European Parliament, where there is

a mandatory obligation to inform the European Parliament of the

negotiations? He said clearly the answer was yes.

Good. We are working with our European colleagues on that issue

but that is after Article 50 has been triggered. This is what comes

before. Of course, there are stages to this process. The reason a plan

is important is because it is the start of the process. It sets the

scene and it is the direction of travel. Once Article 50 is

triggered, any people-mac will be involved in the process, because

they vote at the end of the exercise. -- MEPs will be involved.

Secretary of State has said in a number of cases that whatever

information they have... I should jolly well hope so. The idea that

MEPs would be provided with more information about the negotiations

than we would would be wrong in the eyes of everybody in this House. The

Secretary of State made the commitment early on for this, and it

is the right commitment. He will not be surprised to learn I intend to

hold him do it every step of the way. I am sure we will meet in the

dispatch box to discuss precisely that. I have not finished dealing

with this intervention if you do not mind. This is what happens before

the negotiations in the run-up to Article 50. There is then the

two-year tunnel of negotiations. There is then what happens at the

end. MEPs will have a vote and if they vote down the deal, there will

be no deal. I have no doubt that the secretary of state would concede

that we will have a vote in this house, because the idea of MEPs

voting and not this House voting on the final deal would be wrong in

principle. Maybe the Secretary of State can indicate that there will

be a vote at the end of the process on the deal, in the same way that

MEPs will have a vote. That would be horrible on our side of the House.

I apologise to intervening a third time, but we have said already the

Constitutional reform act procedures will apply. That is straightforward.

I have said that at least three times to this House. The point I

want to raise to him here is that he is asserting that there is no vote

between whatever happens as a result of the court case and the

ratification process. Of course, the European... The great repeal act

will be presented to this house during that two-year period. After

that, there will be a series of consequential legislation, some

primary and some secondary, on every piece of which this House will have

its vote. I acknowledge that. But my response

is exactly the same as the previous response, and that is that the

timetable for the great repeal act is after Article 50 has been

invoked, so it does not help us with the plan and the starting position.

That is why this article process has to be gripped now, because what

happens between now and March 31 really matters in terms of the

starting position. I accept that after that Great Repeal Act bill

will be introduced and debated and no doubt there will be votes on

different provisions within it, but it is essentially a bill that

indicates what will happen at the end of the process. That is rather

than a bill which deals either with a plan at the starting position or

the process in itself. But I do accept...

Shadow Minister, I understand impressing the Government for its

plans and setting down the red lines but I cannot understand him wanting

to set down the legislation. It is only so the Labour Party and set

down the Government to pursue it later... It is wrecking tactics by

any other name. The answer to the question... Mr

Speaker, of the contrary, no, I will make some progress. I have taken ill

at of interventions. Mr Speaker, the second requirement of a plan is that

it must have enough details to allow the relevant parliamentary bodies

and committees, including the Brexit select committee, chaired by Mike

right honourable friend, to scrutinise the plan effectively. One

of the terms of reference of the Brexit select committee, for

example, is in examining the objectives of the Government. So it

has got to have sufficient detail to allow the parliamentary bodies to do

their scrutiny effectively. I'm going to press on. The, the plan

must provide enough detail to enable enough budget responds ability to do

their job to the best of their ability. As members across this

house will know, the budget responsibility in national order act

2011 set out the role of the ODI, -- OBR and it is their role to have a

say over public finances. Public forecast should be based over all

decisions that have an material impact on fiscal output. That means

it is respond to foreign policy decisions and costings. It is for

OBR to decide on costing. It states that it agrees disagrees with the

costings, whether it has been given insufficient time information to

reach a decision. It is a very important check and balance in the

system when it comes to the spending of public money and costings. In its

response in the Autumn Statement, this year, the OBR made the

following comment on the assumptions based on the cost of Brexit. It

said, as set out in the foreword, we asked the Government for a formal

statement of dominant policy as required its trade regime and

citizen control on the basis of Jacksons, this was about Brexit,

then said the Government directed us to two public statements by the

Prime Minister that it stated were relevant to our request. This is the

OBR trying to do its job, insufficient information to carry

out its statuary function -- statutory function. It is directed

to two public statements by the Prime Minister. The response left

them the money wiser, as they replied. That is in response to the

trade be governed by make during the period of negotiation. It is perhaps

understandable in the early stages why that might be the case. I

concede that and this is not intended just to be a cheap shot

based on the OBR report but it is important that the OBR can do its

job properly over the next two years or more. Unless it has sufficiently

clear objectives, it will not be able to do so. It's wrong,

invincible, for the OBR to be disabled from doing its functions

properly. It needs enough detail for that scrutiny to be carried out.

Fourth, the plan must have enough detail to enable the relevant

authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be assured that

the particular specific concerns they have are being addressed.

Others will speak about those concerns far more authoritatively

than I can. They can include, of course their concerns about the

single market and in Northern Ireland, the border related issue.

The detail must be enough to enable them to be assured that those

concerns are understood and being addressed. Over the last... I will

just carry on, if I may. I visited all three devolved governments in

all three countries recently. I can assure the house that "Brexit means

Brexit" does not come close to answering the concerns that I had or

one covering the concerns across the UK. Fifth, the plan must have enough

detail to build a genuine consensus. This is a very important point

because the future of this country is bound up with these negotiations.

It is wrong, in visible, for the Government to act solely for the

52%, to base its approach on the 52% or a group within the 52%. The vote

on the 23rd of June was not a vote to write those who voted to remain

out of their own history. They have a right out and interest in the

negotiations. They have a right to have a Government that gives weight

to their interests as well as the interests of the 52%. I said this

before and I'll say it again, the Government must act, not for the 52%

or the 48%, but the 100%. Acting in the national interest. That can only

be achieved... I will give way. That can only the achieved if we have a

national consensus. Thank you forgiving way. I am fascinated by

this focus on the plan. And the amount of wiki is going to invite

the OBR to do and everything else. He does understand that no plans of

ice engagement with the enemy. Whilst I do not characterise... That

is a military metaphor from a soldier. What I would say to the

honourable gentleman is that it is plain that our negotiation hand is

clear and it is not compatible with the position being taken by our 27

partners. This is all going to change any course of the

negotiations and we are going to have to leave it to the Government

to make those decisions. The intervention is simply too long.

Thank you. I think on reflection, the honourable member may think that

he didn't use the right word. In describing our partners at the

enemy. It brings me to a footnote but an important footnote and that

is some of the language and tone that has been adopted by the

Government and its front bench. It is not helping the prospects for a

good outcome. You say it's disingenuous, I have been to

Brussels and spoken to the people who will be involved and they are

not particularly amused at jokes about prospective or references to

cake and eating it. -- Prosecco. They want a professional,

constructive set of negotiations and some of the comments being made

about them and their real purposes are not helping the prospects. We

have a shared interest across this house in getting these negotiations

off to the best possible start. Very difficult negotiations. On helpful

or disparaging comments along the way are simply not helping. I will

press on. Until now, the Prime Minister's two mantras that Brexit

means Brexit and it will be no running commentary of negotiations

tell us nothing about the type of Brexit that the Government proposes.

I'm not sure the recently coined red-and-white dot-mac, white and

blue Brexit takes us any further followed. -- red, white and blue.

The question everyone wants answered is, will it be the hard Brexit

suggested in Theresa May's party conference speech all the slightly

more vague form which include possible payments into the EU budget

to provide guarantees about the prospect of arrangements that are

free of tariffs or bureaucratic contentment? These are two different

versions of our future that are going to be negotiated over the next

few years and we need to know which version we are running with. We need

a clear consensus. I will. I'm before tonight honourable friend

forgiving way. He is right to insist on a plan and it's also important

that we do not stand in the way of the will of the British people and

the referendum but will he accept that there are many people on all

sides of the house who have some doubts and some misgivings about the

timing of the trigger and invoking of Article 50? The 31st of March is

just too soon and we are rushing into it. We won't start negotiations

until the German elections and that means you need may just get one year

of these. -- we may just get. I'm grateful for that intervention and I

do understand the concerns. I think they are shared across the house

about the timetable. It is a tight timetable. What I am accepted, in

accepting any amendment is the purpose of the plan and that the

motion is not to frustrate or delay the process. I know the Secretary of

State equally wants to keep to that timetable but it is an exact

timetable and it is incumbent on the Government to make sure that the

deadline is net by ensuring that the plan is available as soon as

possible in January of next year. I am going to press on. So far as...

Mr Speaker, the question, as I say, everybody's glitz, is it hard Brexit

like it was sketched out at a party conference? Being outside the single

market, arms length relationship with our EU partners. That is how it

was written. Or is it a more collaborative approach with our

partners? I understand and can hear from the statement that there is

disagreement on the other adventures about this. We cannot go in to

negotiations with that disagreement still raging and we need to go in

with consensus. I will say this allowed and clear, there is no

mandate for hard Brexit. There is no consensus for hard Brexit. No, I

have given way a number of times. In the last few months, I have

travelled across the UK to hold meetings with a wide range of

interested parties, such as businesses, large and small, two

different nations and regions, trade unions, working people in the local

amenities on the terms upon which the UK leaves the EU. I know the

secretary of state and his team have been engaged in the same exercise,

the increase on the same places and same region, speaking to some of the

same people. The overwhelming evidence is that they do not want

hard Brexit. There is not a consensus as therefore hard Brexit.

If we are going to reach a consensus, it has to be a genuine

consensus that works for everybody. So, the ball is now in the

Government's courts to produce a timely plan which meets these

requirements. That will then be the start of the process, not the end,

the start of scrutiny and accountability, not the end, if the

Government fell swoop to produce a timely and sufficiently detailed

plan, it should expect further challenge from this site and I put

the Secretary of State on Walters that it is what we will do. If the

Government... Only legislation can allow the triggering of Article 50,

that will have to be debated in the full and proper procedures in this

house as the Secretary of State accepts. This notion makes clear

that while Labour will not frustrate the process, it will shake the

debate up and head of hard Brexit. The question is as on the order

paper. To move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call

the Secretary of State for exiting the European Union. Secretary knew,

David Davis. Thank you. Before I move the amendment, can I just say a

few things to the Labour spokesman? Firstly, he ended by saying that

there is no mandate for hard Brexit. To be honest, I don't really know

what hard Brexit means. But the simple fact is a mandate was to

leave the European Union. I think we should keep that in mind when going

through this process. Secondly, to think I want to say and they are

both actual. One, he raised the issue quite properly about Northern

Ireland and it is because I'm standing in the dispatch box

yesterday that I am not chairing the joint industrial committee between

the devolved administrations on exactly these issues. There has been

a considerable amount of progress on that which, if he does not know, I

can be then on. Of course, some of it, almost by definition, is

confidential. I think he should take that as read. That is a process that

has been going on for some time and is quite well advanced. Another

thing is factual, he raises the issue of the OBR. You may remember I

was a chairman and I am quite familiar with OBR operations. The

conditionality that applies to any information put in the public domain

is that it will not bias or undermine in the referendum...

Sorry, the negotiations, applies equally there. If we put it into the

OBR, we would have the same telegraphic than what we are doing

than otherwise. For other reasons, it would be very any appropriate as

well. That inappropriate. That is because this is a negotiation, not a

policy statement and what we are aiming for, and I think we may be on

the same page on this, what we are aiming for may not be the exact

place we end up at, and I think he would understand that. Of course I

will give way. I was not making the argument that

the OBR required confidential information, which would undermine

negotiation, but that the plan must be detailed enough to let them do

their job that provides the scrutiny they need. That is the point.

As I make progress through, I have to say I have explained why, in some

respects, that is not practical. But this debate generally is very

similar to the last proposition on Brexit, and it is the last sentence

that extends it. The Government and I can certainly except with the

amendment that whatever plan we set out, the amendment must be

consistent with the principles agreed without permission throughout

this House on the 12th of October. It recognises this House must

respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed by the

referendum on the 23rd of June, and must promote Article 50 by the 31st

of March 20 17. I must make some progress before I give way on this

important argument. To answer what the shadow spokesman said, that is

what they are signing up to. The Government should invoke Article 50

by the 31st of March 20 17. Let's be clear. It has always been our

intention as I said my intervention to him to lay out the strategy in

more detail when possible and provided it does not undermine the

UK 's negotiating position. On the points... Dolomite he will

wait a while and then I will give way. -- he will wait a while.

The article does not undermine the UK negotiating proposition. I have

said that before the House on a number of occasions and I am happy

to confirm it again today. Our amendment lays out the important

challenge to the benches opposite to those who say they respect the

result of a referendum but his action suggest they are looking for

every opportunity to thwart and delay it. We will see today if he is

willing to back the Government to respect the decision made by the

public of the United Kingdom. Before I continue with emotion, I give way.

Can I emphasise to my right honourable friend that the motion

must require Parliament to support the triggering of Article 50 by

means known to the law. As the law stands at the moment, he will

doubtless agree this requires primary legislation. Well possible

for bills to be introduced, it will in reality be the Government duty to

do that, unless it is the Government's duty to do it if it

wishes to proceed, and do that in a timely fashion that enables proper

debate on the legislation to take place.

My honourable friend should know better than to tempt me to comment

on a court case which is taking place as we stand here. I will not

do that at the moment, but we will, as you well know that we will obey

the role of wall. We will obey what the court fines. We will ensure we

do the right thing. As the spokesman for the opposition has said, one of

the reasons we're waiting on this outcome is to get precisely right

what it is this house has to do... With my right honourable friend give

way. I will, at the moment.

On the matter of timing in the amendment, would he not accept that

because the French election is in May and the general election is in

October, nothing will be achieved in a time frame. If we trigger it in

March, there will be lost negotiating time within a two-year

window. Therefore Article 50 should be triggered in the autumn, in with

time, in fact, for a referendum on the exit for the people to decide

the final deal. Of the contrary, no, I do not accept

that. There are between now and the possible end of the negotiating

process if it goes the full edition later distanced... There are 15

elections. We have already had two events this weekend, referendum and

another election. There is no point where there is no election underway.

It is simple possible to meet his requirement. Do you want me to give

way? Very good from the Secretary of

State. Isn't the crucial issue here tonight that whatever about the

caveat sector by the Shadow Minister on this, anyone voting for this

amendment tonight will be impossible to justify to the public any brain

ageing or any going back or any procrastination, anything about the

31st of March that 60 delay the triggering of Article 50? That is

the reality of the situation. The right honourable gentlemen is

right and I agree, but to balance it up, I give away to the other side of

the House. My right honourable friend, thank

you. The legalities of the situation, you must address the

political question the accountability of Government to this

house, or it's important policies. This word "Plan" is being used in

extremely vague ways and could cover some of the vague assertions that

ministers have been making over the last few weeks. With the except that

the House requires a description -- will he except, that the House

requires a description preferably published in a White Paper of the

strategic objectives the Government will be pursuing, submit that

strategy to a vote of the house, and once it has got the house's

approval, then it can move to invoking Article 50?

My right honourable friend is at least it forward and what he says

but does not fully agree with the outcome of the referendum. I agree

with him to some extent. My view on this is very clear. He has said that

the word plan is vague, and I actually think what I have said

already to this house in terms of getting every possible information

subject to not undermining negotiation, which isn't more

competitive. But there is not an issue here where we are not going to

allow the House to vote. We cannot do it as a Government even if we

wanted to. And also, as I have said, there is a considerable amount of

legislation during the negotiation, which will in some respects... I now

makes a more protest? Progress if I may. It is widely... And will not

give in to normal today. It is widely... It is widely... No, no,

no. Mr Speaker, I will make five minutes' progress if he doesn't

mind. Order, the Secretary of State is

clearly not giving way. It is so blindingly obvious that only an

extraordinarily clever person could fail to grasp it.

Secretary of State, you make my point, Mr Speaker... The negotiation

of our departure from the European Union is the most important compact

negotiation in modern times, it is widely accepted. It is important we

get it right. That is common ground. It is normal even for basic trade

negotiations to be carried out with a degree of secrecy. Indeed, the

European Commission recognises this in its own approach to transparency

in such negotiations, in which it says, is a certain level of

confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests, and keep

chances for a satisfactory outcome high. When entering into a game, no

one start by ruling his entire strategy to his counterpart from the

outset. This is also the case for the European Union. The reason for

this is to retain room for manoeuvre. This includes the ability

to give and take, to trade off between different interests, to

maximise the value of concessions, and to do so without always giving

the other side advance notice. We must retain the ability to negotiate

with a high degree of agility and speed. And the more, likely

negotiations mean it is more important. The more parties to a

negotiation, the more important this is. The more time pressure on a

negotiation, the more important. Any trade negotiation, and this is more

than a trade negotiation, Annie trade negotiation is difficult and

complex. This is the gauche be another step beyond that for a

number of reasons. It is more than just about trade. Secondly, more

than one person said, our new relationship with the EU will also

encompass continued cooperation in areas such as security, justice and

home affairs. Secondly, it is not merely a bilateral negotiation but

one involving about 30 different parties, and a number of different

interests. Thirdly, well considering our exit, Europe must also consider

its own future. We are clear we want to see a stable and secure European

Union, a vital partner to the UK at the time of very serious global

challenges. By Ellie, the political scene in Europe is not set but is

changing. -- finally. During the period of our negotiations, there

are at least 15 negotiations another political things which could change

the backdrop to our exit process. The combination of these factors and

their interplay will be coming towards the changing climate to

already come located talks. Give way.

Any moment. We must seek to a vast number of interests during our

outcome. It is that our people benefit. To do this, the Government

must have flexible at the two are just during negotiations. It is like

spreading the eye of a needle. If you have a good eye and a steady

hand, it is easy. If somebody jolt your elbow, it is more difficult. If

many people jog your elbow, it is much more difficult.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. You just read out a list

of reasons not to disclose the Government's negotiating objectives

as part of the plan, but the right honourable friend for Rushcliffe

called rightly in my view for a White Paper on the Government's

intentions. If he does not agree with the right honourable member for

Rushcliffe, would he at least agree with himself, because he called for

the same thing before he was appointed to the job. Why was a

White Paper the right thing to do in July but not now?

Hear, hear. How to make the people who make this

point, it has been made about five times, we doubt what I actually

said. I said this is one negotiating option among several, and that is

the case. The other thing I say to him is this... He said, I have just

been giving reasons for not outlining negotiating objectives.

That is not true. I will come back to why any minute. It is a reason

not to lay out in detail some of the trade-offs and some of the options

which we do have to keep for ourselves, until we play them in the

negotiating chamber. I make this point to the house more general in

this... During the course of the Amsterdam Treaty, we had a difficult

negotiation to carry out, and I kept the house up to date with every bit

of it, at the right time, at the appropriate time, not when it

undermines the national interest, which is the problem here. I give

way to my right honourable friend. I am grateful. Does he accept that

you can be an honest Brexiteer, but still want to proclaim parliamentary

sovereignty? That is a perfectly logical point of view. I happen to

agree with them that we want the article through without any wrecking

amendments that tiny hands of the Government unduly, but can he admit

that when we have a final deal with the Great Repeal Bill, wall that

final deal come to the for approval? The constitutional form, I think,

2010, we are effectively bound by that. -- the constitutional reform

Bill 2010. Somebody said on this site and maybe it was a spokesman

said that... Yes, OK. I'm grateful, maybe we are talking

about the same thing, but can he say in terms, because I think it is

important, that there will be a vote on the final deal in this House? And

what he says about statutes and I understand that, but just simply,

for the record, there will be a vote on the final deal in this house?

I said before that is what I expect, simple as that. Let me pick up on

the point of parliamentary scrutiny in a bit more depth if I may... I

will give way... Of the contrary, no, if you forgive me for a minute,

I give way to him. I am grateful that I want to pursue

the issue of the 2010 act, because the 2010 act says that the

Government cannot ratify a treaty until such time as the Government

has laid the treaty before the House, and 21 sitting days have

passed. It does not guarantee a vote. And in fact this Government

since 2010 on several occasions has refused to allow a vote on treaties,

even when they have been asked for by the opposition. Is he now

specifically saying that they will guarantee a vote at such a point.

Point? I was in the middle of a sentence...

It is inconceivable... If the European has a vote, it is

inconceivable this House does not. I give may...

Honourable friend. I wonder if my honourable friend

might clarify the point that any think at the end of the process

would merely be on the deal, and it would not reverse the fact we have

let the European Union? I think that is entirely correct.

Will he forgive me for a few moments that I will make a bit more progress

and keeping in mind. All of this does not mean that parliamentary

scrutiny is not very important. Of course it is, and of all people I

would be the last to argue that. That is why I have already given

three oral statements to this house, 250 questions answered, and while

ministers like myself authority appear before select committees on

ten occasions so far, and appearing in front of the Brexit committee in

order. That is why the Government announced a series of themed debates

with workers' writes being what we discussed, and another debate coming

up before Christmas. Also 15 other debates on this and the other House.

There is no doubt that how we handle and disclose information is

important to the negotiating process. Needless to say, I have

given a great deal of thought to how we achieve accountability at the

same time as preserving the national interest. That is why, actually, in

the first parliamentary committee hearing before the House of Lords

select committee, I gave an undertaking... I volunteered an

undertaking that British parliamentarians will be at least as

well served at in information as the European Parliament. As I said to

the spokesmen on other occasions, I said I would provide as much

information as possible subject at the end to not undermining the

national interest. This is a substantial undertaking

but it must be done in a way which would not comprise a negotiation. I

give way. Thank you forgiving way. He repeats that what he is doing he

thinks is in the national interest but he must have heard from

industrialists, as we have on this side of the house, that the

uncertainty and the lack of clarity from Government ministers is meaning

that people put back projects, and they don't invest and that is why

the public finances are in such a mess. We heard this during the

campaign, how the economy was going to collapse. I seem to have noticed

in your last few months that the economy is doing very well indeed,

thank you airy much. This naysaying, this talking down the country is

quite frankly the least desirable part of the opposition's behaviour.

Yes I will give way. Let me say how strongly I support him but coming

back to the point made by our honourable friend from Rushcliffe

who is a very great national treasure, he called for us to set

out our strategic mission. Surely this Government has set out and

strategic vision with great clarity. It is that they want to recover

control our borders, make our own laws, keep our own engage in free

trade and leave the European Union. What could be more strategic than

that? As he is exactly right and that brings me rather neatly to the

next thing I want to say because members of the opposite have tried

to pretend we have told them nothing but that simply demonstrate an old

adage that those who are deaf will not hear. In a moment. As the Prime

Minister set in Excel, while we will not give running commentary, and

they love that phrase, we will give clarity where ever possible. As she

told the house earlier this month, our plan is to deliver control of

the people from the European Union to the United Kingdom. I have also

been clear about what this involves. Free movement of people cannot

continue as it is now. It will not mean pulling up the drawbridge. We

will operate an immigration system in our national interest with a view

to winning the global battle for talent. Labour do not like this,

partly because they cannot agree on their own policy. In the last few

weeks, we have heard at least three different positions on the future of

free movement remember that the shadow front bench. At least three,

probably more. It is no surprise they don't want to talk about it. It

is a substantial decision that reflects the will of the British

people. Similarly, the Prime Minister said that we intend to

remove the UK from media restriction of the European Court of Justice.

This is part of the process to recover control of our own laws.

Something the Labour Party do not like because they think the ECJ is

the printable garage or of British rights and freedoms. In a moment. In

which British people fought to create and preserve those freedoms

it is unsurprising that the party who tried... Have little

understanding of the proper origins of freedom and the rule of law. Yes,

I will give way. Thank you much. Any determination to find out something

of knowledge from the Minister that was asked today several times, with

the UK want to be any customs union or not? It can... Can the Minister

for Brexit let us know? Will we be in the customs unit, union or not

any customs union? It was on the ballot paper. People did not want to

leave the customs union. I think 1 million Scottish people voted to

leave the European Union. That is what is on the ballot paper. I will

not sidestep the question. The simple truth is what the Prime

Minister said, I'm a minister of the covenant. The Prime Minister said

this is not a binary option. There are around four different

possibilities and they are still assessing that. I'll give an

undertaking that I will notify the house in detail when we come to that

decision. That is the point. I will make progress and give away again in

moment. There are some among the Labour Party who think the

jurisdiction of the ECJ will underline employment law. Again,

this shows a sorry ignorance. Employment section in the UK does

not derive principally from the European Court of Justice.

Nevertheless, to prevent any misrepresentation or

misunderstanding, the Government has announced it will not road

employment connections. Just so there can be no doubt about it. --

erode. While Labour talks about employment rights, this Government

has made clear guarantees bring forward legislation needs from the

repeal bill to ensure those rights currently enjoyed are maintained.

Clearly somebody has the support of the Labour Party in what they want

to say. I will get round to you indeed. We have been clear that the

great repeal buildable translate into the UK law wherever practical.

I'm not going to give away for a second because this point is

incredibly important. No more will be changed without the explicit

approval of parliament. -- law. No law will be changed without the

approval of parliament. I give way to the honourable lady. I'm very

grateful to the honourable gentleman forgiving way. Did I hear the

honourable gentleman correctly? Ditty Sadie Government will decide

whether or not we will seek to remain in it or out as it? And then

the house, rather the opposition, will be told what the Government's

decision is and we will have no say in it in this place? Well, she

wasn't listening. I think she should have made up the question before she

heard the last paragraph. What I said was there will be no more

changed in this country without the approval of the House of Commons. --

law. Let B2 customs union, since it is important. There are several

options of customs union around. There are several options on customs

union. One is shown by Norway, which is in the single market but not any

customs union. You have got one shown by Switzerland, which is

neither any customs union nor any single market but has a customs

agreement. There are a whole series of options that exist and we will

come back to the house when you're ready. On her other point, she

intimated that because I made the undertaking to the opposition

spokesman that was somehow to them and not the House of Commons. Any

undertaking from this dispatch box is to be whole House of Commons. You

should understand that. A further area where our aims are being made

very clear is in justice and Home Affairs. As I said in front of this

house last week again, our aim is to preserve the currently ship as best

they can, consistent with our broader aims. This clearly extends

the areas of security and law enforcement. Even at the delight

after we leave, the UK will face threats from terrorism to organised

crime. As such, I believe that their mutual interest in, interest for

continued cooperation. Being part of Europe will maintain an important

role to us, as it does now, to ensure laws are a date and

maintained. The area which has dominated this debate, trade, this

Government has been as clear as sensible at this stage. We have said

that they are seeking the freest possible trading arrangements, both

in respect of tariffs but also nontariff barriers. The Government

was my view is that the best deal is most likely achieve... One moment.

Most likely to be achieved in the outcome but there are an number of

means to arrive at that deal and a number of outcomes. It does not make

sense at this stage to box ourselves in. I'm a believer in free trade,

and want to see the freest trade possible with the European Union but

also the rest of the world. We will be a global, averaging nation and

will be an advocate for free trade. We want to embrace opportunities of

Brexit. We want to be able to maintain the best relationship

possible with European Union. Not for the moment. We have made our aim

is clear on immigration, the ECJ, workers' rights and legislation more

broadly. Clear aims on justice and Home Affairs, and on trade. Not for

the moment. It's important that the house understands what we are aiming

for. It's also important that we do not close of options before we

absolutely have to do. Just this weekend, the Leader of the

Opposition suggested he would seek to try and tie the hands of the

Government uncertain outcomes, such as the European market. To do so

would seriously undermining national interest because it undermines our

ability to negotiate freely. As I said in my first appearance at this

dispatch box in this role, Parliament will be regularly updated

and engaged. Keeping in mind the strategic aims, as well as the fact

that we cannot be an -- it cannot be any national interest to jump to

negotiations are set out every detail, we will set out plans on the

triggering of article 50. It is well that when we decide to trigger

Article 15, the Government will notify European Council. The house

will always be informed. -- 50. Having the support of the spirit of

today's motion that nothing we say will jeopardise our negotiating

position, the Government of entering all so underlines the timetable for

our departure. Furthering the priming of the's intention to notify

by March 21 -- 31st. Paying lip service but rank to be the aim of

the people across from me. The Shadow Cabinet cannot decide if they

respect the will of the people. My opposite number once to keep his

options open with a second referendum, the most attractive

thing you could do with our position at the moment. No. Today, we will

see whether they are prepared to back Britain, support our plan to

follow the instruction of the British people and leave the

European Union. This garment is absolutely determined to know that

decision made by the people of Britain on June 23. Order. The

original question was as on the order paper. Since when amendment a

has been proposed as on the order paper. The question is that the

amendment be made. Mr Stephen Geffen 's. Thank you. Can I thank the

Shadow Minister for his speech and the opportunity for us to debate

this subject today? As we have said in the past, we are keen to continue

to work with him and his colleagues and indeed members from across this

house where that is possible. We appreciate the remarks that teenage

and are devolved administrations but frankly, with very high B moment,

and with the comments of the Government, it is not enough for us.

What is bound is not enough for us. It is 167 days, almost six months,

since the referendum. We have 113 days to go until the 31st of March

deadline at the Government has set itself. We are almost two thirds of

the way through their to talk about a glacial pace of process made a

something of an overstatement in this case. So far, Government has

told us nothing for severe mental about soft Brexit, hard Brexit,

great Brexit or red, white and blue Brexit earlier on today. What we are

getting, are we getting a continental Brexit to keep our

partners on onside or a all-day Brexit? May be a deep-fried Brexit.

There has been an impact. A significant number of questions

remain unanswered. These are not a question that float out there. They

are questions that must go to the very heart of what the Government's

because trading position is. What is it telling its negotiating partners,

if anything? Is it telling them that the single market is important and

we need to maintain single membership -- when of the singer

market is like having listened to the Scottish leader that said the

overriding priority is to maintain single access to the thing market is

to maintain single access to the thing market wizards do they agree

with her on that? What about the right of EU national? European

National 's call this country their home, they call Scotland their home,

England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I hope they continue to call

this country their home. What a huge contribute and they have made now

and in the past. They deserve better than the continued uncertainty that

they have at present. On the point of freedom of movement, it is

something on which we all benefit from. I would have bet we will

continue to benefit from in a large number -- and a large sum of our

industries benefit from. Not least the food and drink in it, industry.

Scotland has suffered over the years from emigration. We benefited more

than most freedom of movement and the minister is now aware of that. I

know. This is something we want to keep, something and benefit us and

something that will continue benefit us. It doesn't just benefit us

financially, it benefits of culturally by enriching our treaties

and also benefit by bringing these people to enrich our society and on

that point, I will give way. Honourable gentleman and I'd only

thing I will say is this. At that were detained and work in particular

is not only achieved by an absolute rule on freedom of movement, control

of borders by Rome government will be operated, presumably, in the UK

national interest, why does he expect that to punish Scotland, it

wouldn't? Why not give Scotland some of the responsibilities over

immigration. The vote to leave campaign, the secretary of state was

a fall and active member did much. It's good to see the member of

Surrey Heath in his place today. Was it not him who said that Scotland

could have control over emigration if we voted to leave the European

Union? I'd be delighted to hear his plans. I look forward to him joining

us in the lobbies at some point. He can come home to his roots and will

welcome him. Let's not forget the impact this is having elsewhere in

United Kingdom. If you think about jobs and the economy Nissan have

been given reassurances, but what about other industries? What about

the food and drink industry, what about fishermen and farmers will get

rules and regulations from the European Union. What happens to cap,

what happens duly coastal communities fund that is so

important fishing communities? What happens about Horizon 2020? What

happens to universities will benefit from freedom of movement? What

happens to work the's writes, who are now having workers' rights which

will come back to this place which has not been the best place to

guarantee those rights in the past. What happens to be environment, but

benefited from Europe as well? I'll gladly give way. I thank the

honourable member for giving way. He's referred to work the's writes.

The Government has confirmed the Government doing what they in many

areas UK law exceeds the UK minimums. And in many areas such as

parental rights and others we relied on the European Union ruling. And I

tell you right now, I would trust the European Union a lot more than I

trust this government. So we need more details. As the president of

the European Central Bank said it is important to have clarity over the

negotiation process as soon as possible to reduce uncertainty. The

Secretary of State's speech has not reduced that uncertainty in the

slightest today. Now the Secretary of State also made the point that no

law changed without the sale of Parliament. I ask him this. I know

he's in the chamber but not in this place. Will no law that is the

responsibility of the Scottish Parliament be changed without the

seasonal and consent of that parliament? That a critical point

because this motion fails to take on board the impact of devolved

administrations and that huge array of questions lie on and said --

unanswered. Not just in Edinburgh but in Belfast on Cardiff as well. I

am grateful to my honourable friend who was making an excellent

contribution well worthy of the award he won last night. Would he

agree with me that the Government talks about respect, but the people

of Scotland voted to remain within the single market. Why were the UK

Government not respect the wishes of the Scottish people and make sure

support -- make sure we obtain the benefits of membership. He raises an

excellent point. I hope the Minister has his notepad today to respond to

this. We were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland on November 27

that Scotland would be gaining significant powers. Now, I wonder if

the Minister will outline to us what those powers are, and I come back to

the point I made earlier, will they include immigration amongst other

powers? Mr Speaker, Scotland is a European nation. And we are proud to

be a European nation. We benefit and we see it every day in our

interaction, food and drink, University, businesses, the

financial sector amongst many others. It benefits us in many

different ways financially, socially, even politically, Mr

Speaker, so many areas, climate change, energy where we agreed so

much more with European consensus than we do with the Westminster

consensus. The relationship with the European Union is important, and

with be important in the future, but for the record it's important for us

to bear in mind that Scotland has always been a European nation. In my

constituency, in the town of St Andrews this as a statue of the

general who led Polish region. We remember the sacrifice that they

made in the contribution the Polish community has made to Scotland in

parts of the UK. I remember the interaction between universes of

Scotland and those costume for hundreds of years, such as those

attending Scottish universities and in the Netherlands and elsewhere. I

remember the letter of the rule that written just after the Battle of

Stirling Bridge. The first thing William Wallace did was to tell the

Hanseatic league that Scotland was open for business again. This has

been going on a long, long time. The lack of preparations for this is

irresponsible. Across the road today we have the court case, I don't want

to go too much into that. The Scottish law. It will be making the

yard was for the Scottish Government and will make them much better than

I possibly could. That the Scottish Law advocate will be making the law.

What concerns you are trying to take an enormous undertaking, the

Secretary of State considers himself, isn't it that the

Government governs, also the seagulls, that the legislative

scrutinises his belief that it's worth, and never has that more

important. The judiciary does not decide the laws but carries out the

task of assessing whether or not those rules of thing adhered to. All

of us in that chamber must respect that. Similarly, as for the devolved

administrations to have a say over areas under their responsibility.

I'll give way on that point. In the court is currently going through the

sieve the Supreme Court the advocate for Scotland is it as a political

restriction on Parliament has the ability to act. Is it not the case

that that forms part of the 2016 Scotland act and is on a statutory

footing? Is here as concerned as I am as the new lack of clarity on

that point? Not yet, not yet. If its time. He makes an excellent point.

It is chaos, pure and simple. The chaos is not the fault of the

judges. It is the fault of the Government who have carried on the

responsibility of the league campaign by continuing to give

personal details. Now, I know that the Secretary of State does not like

the use of the prerogative, and we are well aware of that. But this all

could have been avoided. Now, credit where it's do. But credit to David

Cameron, and you won't hear that often on these benches. Frankly, you

don't shoot often on the bench as Ivor! David Cameron sat down with

Alex Salmond, sat down with the First Minister of Scotland, the

member for Gordon, and hammered out the Edinburgh agreements to give the

Scottish independence referendum legal footing. I'll be doubted a

little bit from that. The agreement said, it was agreed by Westminster

and the Scottish Government, and full credit to everybody,

particularly officials who will dominate. The Government are agreed

that the referendum should have a clear, legal base. Just imagine,

just imagine if you'd done that. Be legislated for by the Scottish

parliament, conducted so what to demand the confidence of Parliament,

governments and people. To deliver a fair and the expression of the views

of people and the result that everyone will respect.

Then it went on, the two governments are committed to continue to work

together constructively in the light of the outcome whatever is on the

best interests of the people of Scotland on the rest of the UK.

Silly is this, why, Mr Speaker, was there so little preparation, was it

negligence? -- so the question is this. Was this complacency? Or did

they think everything would be OK they didn't need to Father? I will

give way on that point. That they didn't need to bother. If he has

been following the Supreme Court as closely as I have he will be aware

that it was pointed out yesterday that the Government had opportunity

to give legal force to this referendum as a result of an

amendment proposed by the member for Gordon but said they didn't want to

do so. The then Minister for Europe said, and I quote, this legislation

is about holding a vote. It makes no provision for what follows, the

referendum is advisory. It was that clearly that it was their intention

to make no provision. My honourable and learned friend

makes a very fine point. As always. Can I compare with another point, Mr

Speaker, before elections, and we're here to scrutinise the work of

government. They put forward elections and we scrutinise that.

Nobody questions that the Government should try and prepare the

manifesto. For elections we for delivering will pore over

manifestos. There is some poor soul in the civil service who has to go

through the Labour manifesto. Whatever happens, the Government got

it wrong. It needs to change. That is the responsibility of the members

who campaigned for out. It's not just us asking these questions.

Manfred Webber, the president of the EP PZ, the British government wants

to tackle graduate deliverable Brexit, and what Brexit really

means. The Foreign Secretary has some

responsibility and he has quite a job on his hands. Nobody is taking

the Foreign Secretary terribly seriously now. That he seems to be,

determined to make a titanic success of this process. But he's also been

telling everybody different story. I wonder if this goes beyond the

Brexit process. I wonder if what is happening is that he's deciding what

Christmas party should be giving his Foreign Secretary counterparts. It

is a Christmas tree of the? Is the flight into Egypt if it's too soft

on refugees? Or is he going to go for Santa on his way to Lapland with

his announcement that would cause a Freedom of movement problem. Maybe

he'll just get to done with it. If you look at the chaos of the heart

of this government and contrasted with the Scottish Government, look

at Ireland. A hugely important partner, a key nation, one of our

partner nations, our sister nations. Charlie Flanagan told this

government's Brexit committee that they had no idea how the UK would

approach Brexit. The Irish Minister for jobs described the international

trade sector of the husband who wants a divorce but keeps all the

assets on the family home. Compare that with the reception me First

Minister got in Dublin just last week. Compare that with the

partnership that we are holding. And the member says that getting a

positive response, they wish they could get a positive response! Even

James Riley, the deputy party leader said we are very much heartened by

the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU, we would be very

supportive of ensuring that Scotland's voices heard in UK

dissociation is as well as the voices of our fellow Celts north of

the border. It is chaos, pure and simple. It is chaos that is

affecting our day-to-day lives and will continue to. Mr Speaker, this

is too important to let the Government off the hook. It is too

important to have full scrutiny. It is too important to the powers of

the devolved administrations to purely leave it to this place. And

that's why we cannot back his amendment today. Order, on account

of the number of would-be participants in this debate it is

necessary to impose time limits. We will start with a time limit of

eight minutes on backbench speeches. I give due notice that is not likely

to endure for very long. Members can help each other. Mr Iain Duncan

Smith. Mr Speaker, I will hopefully be brief. I arrived really to

support the Government amendment and to make it clear that I believe

making great pacing getting ourselves through this process into

the negotiations is the key for whatever the Government does now. I

think the one thing that most people, and clearly the opposition

failed to define, what is leaving the European Union? They keep saying

they want, and don't want to frustrate the will of the British

people. They say that means they don't want to delay Article 15. Then

in the same breath, with respect to the honourable gentleman who speaks

for the opposition on this matter they go on to qualified what leaving

means. -- article 50. You want to be a member of

everything we are in and of Nablus was one of two small changes. In

that sense, I think the purpose of what do speaks more, and I will come

back to this, but their own problems rather than negotiations which this

Government has embarked on and will embark on once they activate article

50. I make no bones about it, I voted in the campaign for the UK to

leave the European Union and I again believe that it is necessary for us

to understand what they mean by that, define that and then act on

that, as some of my colleagues have already said. Leaving the European

Union means they are no longer subject to European all. From that

flows the other elements that were debated during the process. -- law.

Firstly, taking back control of our borders and taking back control of

what happens to the money raised by taxation. There's cannot happen if

we are subject to European law. This is the key element. Leaving the

European Union means we are no longer subject to the jurisdictions

of European law. That is quite important. The failure to accept

that on the other side means they are not really in favour of leaving

or having accepting that we are leaving, they are debating how we

say an with modification. Therefore I want to remind that a report was

published about why people voted leave and they made it clear in

publication 4852. Many remain as on the same. They wanted control of

migration and sovereignty to return. I was surprised by them using and

agreeing to the term of sovereignty. We have always been told in the

south and no one out there can act is about sovereignty. Isn't he said

Eric issue only debated here amongst obsessed politicians who can't get

away from the fact that no one thought about it out in the country.

That track esoteric. This is something they all agreed they

wanted. And the phrase take back control, something we used endlessly

in the course of our debate in this matter. Without very clear and being

clear what they wanted, when people say they don't know what they

wanted, it's simply not true. I think that does a disservice to the

public that they cannot understand what they mean when they voted to

leave. I think there were very clear about that. Then I've heard that the

Liberals go on about the destination, they voted to leave but

they didn't vote for a destination. Leaving is a destination. It means

you are control of yourself. This country is not moving, where it is

but we no longer become subject to European law. Laying silly games

like that does not help anybody believe what we are going to do.

Therefore there is no point in any of these negotiations for us to try

and ask the European Union for something they said they cannot and

will not give us. This is the main bit. There is no point in going to

them and saying, we want to be out of the European Union, we are going

to be free to make our own laws but will you let us stay in the single

market and can they stay in the customs union as a point of special

pleading? I can understand those of my colleagues who want to stay and

there are elements that I understand, it's a wholly reasonable

position to be in but if we are leaving the European Union, staying

in those two things, I do not think stands. Maud Bottomley, I wouldn't

want to be because again, that brings us under control of the

European Union and that is one of the reasons we originally wanted to

leave. I would say another question is of what is enough detail? Enough

detail is discussed in these points. I come back to the single point, why

would the United Kingdom want to stay in a customs union when one of

the DLLs that is important on making that important decision to leave the

European Union is getting back the opportunity to make our own trade

arrangements? I would rather we stayed in than stay in the customs

union because it seems completely pointless to me to actually embroil

ourselves in the customs union and go through all of this rigmarole,

bargains and eight, rows, only to find that at the end of the day,

there is no jewel in the crown at the end which is asked making

free-trade arrangements. I would say the house on this point, quite

interestingly, I discovered in the house of Representatives there are

no no less than five elements of legislation, three bills, I think,

and to bills going to build houses of the Senate as well. Actually, now

paving the way for a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.

So much for the existing president was my view that we will be at the

back of the queue, it appears the legislators in Congress they are

slowly at the front of that Q. They know the reason why. Because they

are the great free trading nation of the world and we believe in free

trade and that is very want to be ourselves. It's very want to take

ourselves and many others. I think the rest of the debate, once you get

through that and understand that buildings, I think for us, it's

really a case of process. I listened very carefully to the honourable

gentleman as he spoke for the opposition and I understand DVD

problem that the opposition has right now. We were in opposition

ourselves for a number of years and often divided. I was leader, even

so, Ireland it very well. It's like herding cats when you are an

opposition and there are a lot of cats on the benches behind him. They

are divided about what they actually want. The reality is for many of

them that they are exposed into a simple position of not really

wanting to leave but recognising that 70% of them now sit in

constituencies that actually voted overwhelmingly to leave. They are

now actually focusing on the fact that they run the risk politically

of being in danger at the next time that an election is called. I

understand fully there needs to try and somehow confuse the issue with

this particular agreement to the amendment. -- amendments to the

agreement. The amendment is very clear. It actually set a date for

which article 50 has to be invoked. By not voting against this amendment

tonight, the Labour Party has given to the Government a blank cheque to

go forward and invoke Article 50 without any real caveats. Now, I'm

wholly in favour of that. I have to say. I am supporting the Government.

I didn't think the Labour Party was approaching the Government and I

welcome them into that position and although some of my colleagues and

honourable friends buildable info doing it. I see from the shaking of

the heads that many of their own -- many on their own ventures also

deplore them for that. I congratulate them. Final order. I

was momentarily distracted by someone else speaking to me by which

the honourable gentleman was the beneficiary of a few seconds but his

time has now elapsed. Mr Hilary Benn. Mr Speaker, I want to begin by

expressing my concern about the continuing town of some of this

debate around the UK's exit from the European Union and to express the

hope, which may be vain, that today will mark the end of the phoney war.

The decision has been made, we will campaign -- we all campaigned on one

side of the other, we accept the result and Parliament will vote in

favour of triggering article 50 but the deal, and that is of importance

to the notion which my honourable friend put down today, is that in

return the Government comes forward with and gets on with producing a

plan. Because it is entirely reasonable that the house and the

British public should expect the Government to publish a plan well in

advance of the vote and I would welcome the fact that belatedly,

nearly six months on, the Government has finally done so today. Please

continue to talk about democracy, deniers, as we see headlines like

people defying the will of the people. Or as ECB Prime Minister's

official spokesperson saying that while others want to frustrate the

will of the British people, the covenant is pressing on with it.

Then we have an into that? Because, it does a profound disservice to the

scale of the task that we face as a country, to the seriousness of the

task and to the importance of the outcome to every thing or person

that lives in the United Kingdom. I say to the Secretary of State, the

Government, the Prime Minister should be trying to unite the

country as it goes about its task. We all try to achieve the best

possible deal and to recognise it was was abilities and we have heard

it, to the 48% as well as 2-D 52%. Maybe today will mark the day when

they begin to do that. Of course, Mr Speaker, there are different views

about the future of our relationship with the EU. While leaving is not in

doubt, the nature of that new relationship, and there I disagree

with the honourable gentleman who has just spoken, well that is up for

debate. Yes, very briefly. We all want a plan, but does he believe

that Labour should not be default an amendment on the Article 50 vote

that lays down a specific future for us to stay in the specific, single

market? I have no idea what the legislation will look like I will

just make the point that when I last checked, Norway was not a member of

the European Union. Unless any honourable members want to

contradict me, it is not a member, it is outside the European Union but

is a member of the single market. One that demonstrates is there are

choices to be made about the future relationship we bought dot-mac

aren't going to have. All it does is create further uncertainty and, can

I say, the member that is no longer in his place but to say it might

consist of hints, I would remind that when Moses came down from the

mountain airing the tablet, it did not contain the ten hints. He was

pretty clear. He was pretty clear about what he was telling people not

to do. Nor I have to say, reminding the house that he has got up eight

times to enlighten us not a great deal about what the Government's

objectives are to business and I've never heard Parliament described as

elbow joggers but I did like the analogy too. We are not elbow

joggers, we are participants and we intend to scrutinise the Government.

Apart from anything else, it would have been quite unacceptable for the

Government, I'm going to proceed, to have told the 27 about what its

objectives were before Parliament and the British people. It's really

important that we get the plan and that the Government publishes one

that is of substance. In some areas, to be feted Government, we know what

the plan is as we know, for the car industry, that has been very, very

clearly set out. We know what the Government once, no tariffs. Because

they don't want things to happen that would make it difficult for

trade to be undertaken. The rest of the manufacturing is quite

reasonably, as the secretary said about all the meetings he is

undertaking, great forecasted what about us? Is it reasonable to then

say what the objectives are for the rest of the manufacturing industry?

I think it is. Then there is the case of the customs union, which got

even more curious during the course of the Secretary of State's speech

because the Brymon is that us twice that it's not a binary choice. Now

we understand it is a four way choice. The Secretary of State said

there are four different models and I think the honourable lady who is

no longer in her place asked a perfectly reasonable place, could

you at least tell us the four different options you're looking at

so we can all join in? So we can join the conversation about which of

the Government might eventually decide to choose. Presumably we will

seek maximum access to the single market for financial services, jobs,

tax revenue that depend upon it. It is important we can do that, I'm

sure. It is, I'm sure it causes the Chancellor to lie awake at night.

How will they work in practice with Macaulay affect lecturers at

universities? Doctors and nurses? People picking and processing

vegetables? Chefs, co-workers, highly skilled engineers,

technicians, IT specialists. Will companies, and this is a question we

have heard on the select committee a lot, will company still be able to

move staff within the company to go to another base elsewhere in Europe

in order to repair a product, solve a problem, create a new business

opportunity? When will we be able to offer clarity to the EU citizens

about their position here? Now we know they will all have to be

documented full but it's a fair question. How many civil servants

will that take? A much will it cost? When will it be completed? What

about our universities? Now, young people from the rest of Europe will

be asking, will I still apply to come to Britain because when I stop

being treated as a home student and be an overseas student? They need to

know. Universities need to be able to plan. Will be continue to

participate in the Erasmus programme that allows you people in Britain

from low income backgrounds do go and study elsewhere in Europe? Will

we continue to be part of a rise in 2020? What about the whole range of

agencies? I pick one, the European medicines agency. You could say you

want to remain a member of it and that could be seen as Jerry picking.

Working with European neighbours to agree on how quickly and safely we

can bring new medicine to market is good for patients in Britain as well

as for patients in Europe. Can I plead with the Government just to be

a bit more into the aspect and I don't say that so much about the

Secretary of State, but more enthusiastic and clear about

determination to find their way to cooperate on foreign policy defence

and security in the fight against terrorism? Because that is so

important to all of us. Finally, that transitional arrangement, the

cliff edge. The fact is, and the negotiating plan. Previous

governments on a whole host of treaties, the Lisbon Treaty, the

constitutional treaty, the Nice Treaty, the acid and treaty. When we

join the Common market, sought to join it in 19 ciggy seven, set out

what the governor is trying to achieve. -- Amsterdam. George, they

spoke about the need for adaptations and were very considerable that an

adequate period would be needed. I simply say that if it was sensible

to admit you're going to need transitional arrangements when you

were joining the common market, a much simpler organisation, is it not

sensible now to admit that if you can't negotiate all of it within 18

months, listen to what we shall Bali said yesterday, to admit now that,

if necessary, it will be prepared to seek... Do I get any more injury

time? Of course I will give way. Does he agree with me that we might

fall back on rules and tariffs and how bad bad would be not only for

business but jobs and the broader economy.

That is absolutely right. We've have a lot of evidence before the select

committee of which is a valued member. It says as much about

bureaucracy, as she said, rules of origin, delays, you see whole

businesses have been created on the basis of goods moving back and

forth. Four, five, six times before they are finally added to the

product that's going to be sold. People need to understand that. The

way business works in the Europe of which we have been part has created

a whole way of operating that has sustained jobs. To say we will walk

away, it doesn't matter, we can cope, no, I'm not going to give way,

that really misses the point about why businesses worried at the

implications. The last but 1.I want to make is

this, on the question of a vote on the final deal, I heard him say

today I expect they will be a vote. Well I expect that the district line

will turn up within five minutes. Today they were longer delays. He

said it is inconceivable that they will not be a vote. While some

people will has said it was inconceivable that Donald Trump

would be elected President of the United States. That does not fill me

with a great deal of confidence. The simple answer to the question, will

there be a devote when the deal comes before us is simply to stand

up look at the house directly in the eye and say, yes, they will be.

Mr Kenneth Clarke. Mr Speaker, it gives me pleasure to follow the

right honourable gentleman. It shows the odd situation we are in. I think

I can say I follow him agreeing with every word that he uttered. It may

be a very long time before either of us are able to find ourselves in

that situation and any other subject. But this particular subject

is quite unlike any decision that has come to this House of Commons

worried many years. We know that when we leave the European Union,

going through a seven-year process of deciding what our political,

economic relationships are with the European future with the rest of the

world, we are embarked on some of the most complicated and decisions

this has won now face for a century. Although those debates come later, I

won't choose today to argue my well-known views on the merits of

membership of the European Union. I think the decisions we are taking

today, on the Parliamentary procedure that should apply to a

government when it is engaged in policy-making acting on behalf of

the United Kingdom, the urge citizens, not just a citizens, is

equally important. If we carelessly agreed to things today we may

actually create precedents which will be coated in future to the

detriment of both houses of parliament and to the weakening of a

system of checks, balances and accountability which I think is

crucial to our Constitution. Of course, today, I speak politically

not legally. There are series issues for the Supreme Court we are here

waiting to hear. I have to say, given that we started with the

opposition motion I was never able to understand why the Government was

indicating that it posed some sort of threat. If you read the motion

that puts down, with great respect to the honourable gentleman of the

opposition, he is working very sadly. I have high regard for how he

conducts himself, but this is a harmless resolution. It sets out

what you would expect to happen in any similar circumstance. And we'll

certainly have expected to happen at any time, probably over the next

100, 150 years. Certainly in every parliament I've sat in. Before we

had this present situation... I said before, only the last few decades,

can I recall directly. But in previous parliaments it would have

been regarded as self evident that the process we have to follow up was

the Government would produce a policy statement, a white paper,

setting out its strategic objectives and what its vision was, if you

like, for the role of the United Kingdom it was trying to sleep. The

House of Commons would be invited to have a vote on that strategy, with

approval the Government would then go forward, going getting the

consent of the house, invoke article 50 and go on to start the

negotiations. It really is quite unnecessary performance to start

trying to modify that. I'm extremely worried that people are trying to do

so. I echo what was actually said by the party, the Scottish National

party 's spokesman, the member for North East Fife. I don't think

scrutiny and debate is a threat to the Government of deliberate or the

quality of decisions. It is my opinion that if we went back to

proper Cabinet did not Cabinet government in this country, if you

are a minister with a controversial proposal it is actually very useful

to have them tested by your colleagues and improved in this

discussion before you go to the House of Commons. Actually, every

minister's had the experience of taking part in debates House of

Commons. Of course, you maintain your cause, but every now and then

you have a sinking feeling that your opponent is on a rather strong point

and you go away and improve it. I think in strengthening negotiation

positions the Government actually could benefit from having a proper

process, particularly as at the moment it is sadly clear from the

constant remarks made to the newspapers and the leaks from now

and again that at the moment the ministers have no idea what the

strategy is anyway. They don't actually agree with each other. The

Government has two or three oddments against this. There is the royal

prerogative which is a matter for the Supreme Court, and excellent

treasure from whom I have the highest respect, James Eadie, has

been arguing that the Royal prerogative still applies to making