01/02/2017 House of Commons

misgivings about the route we are about to go down but we must respect

the wishes of the people and bring forward a bill to support it. I

campaigned and voted to remain but will accept the result of the

referendum -- the referendum. It does not mean I am voting to give

the government a free ride to pursue a right-wing hard Brexit. It is our

responsibility to show how divisions can be healed. We need to speak not

only of process but of what sort of country we want the UK to be. How we

build new relationships with countries across the world. We must

watch and scrutinise and that is not about whether we leave the EU but

how do. The referendum was an emphatic shout of enough by those

who feel left behind by globalisation, who have had enough

of being politically and socially excluded, powerless with nobody

listening to them on issues such as immigration, and the referendum was

an opportunity for many of them to take decisive action in the hope of

bringing change. We must now listen to that. The change in my view must

begin by ending the categorisation of some leave falters as not knowing

what they are doing. That only serves to deepen the cars running

through the UK and we must take time to understand the pain and anger of

such people. I say to the government what we also must do is hear the

legitimate concerns of the 40% of people who bought of remain, not

just brushing them off as remoaners and attempting to brush off the will

of the people. We are one country and the stark divisions of the

referendum must be allowed to heal and this must start with the common

narrative from the government that the Brexit negotiations will strive

to get the best deal for everyone, not just those who voted to leave.

That is why the amendment process is so crucial. They set out a vision

and one that we in the Labour Party and others want to see, and we must

find a way through that process. After we have left the EU,

globalisation will not cease to exist and neither will the refugee

crisis and the threat of terrorism or the lack of funding for the NHS

or the pervasive inequality which exists in the UK, and Brexit must

seek to address those in a liberal and inclusive way, in a way that

supports jobs and tackles any quality and is based on building a

new consensus here in Britain on immigration. It must include the

protection of workers' rights and guarantees of legal rights for EU

nationals living in Britain. That plan must be progressive, united by

a common principle of respect, tolerance and open-mindedness, and

in that we hope can overcome despair and a brighter future for all seems

possible, even if not as part of the EU. I have listened to this debate

for the last couple of days and I can quite understand why

constituents feel we coming out of the European Union tonight. That we

are voting on that tonight. We not. The bill is a simple and

straightforward matter that simply puts us back where we believe the

situation was prior to the Supreme Court judgment. That is all the bill

does. I disagree with those who tell me that the referendum was only

advisory. In our manifesto we said explicitly that we would accept the

result of the referendum whatever it was. The referendum effectively

ceased to be advisory at that point. How voting against giving the Prime

Minister permission to start article 50 negotiations would comply with

that nobody has ever said. Or indeed how we could ever be trusted again

in taking democratic decisions in the interests of the people. Those

like me who voted to remain need to accept that we lost the argument.

That we lost the vote. I am not throwing in the towel, unlike the

Right Honourable member for North East Bedfordshire. I am responding

to this by doing all that I can to work on the aspects that are key to

me to take that forward and that includes for example the meeting

that we had this morning with the Justice select committee when we had

yet another session with leading lawyers about what we need to carry

foreword in the justice system. Here in parliament, in both houses of

parliament, since the beginning of this discussion, we have already had

some 60 hours of discussion about the EU and our leaving in it. 60

hours of debate that have taken place already. And which the front

bench I know has listened to. I would like to comment on two things

quickly. One is the term hard Brexit is one of the laziest forms of

journalism I have ever heard and it is a great shame it is being used

unless house. Maintaining the Common travel area with Ireland, the rights

of EU nationals, protecting workers' rights, the best place for science

and innovation, how that can possibly be called a hard Brexit I

don't know, but there is one issue I would like some confidence on from

ministers and that is the case of Euratom. I heard what the Secretary

of State said yesterday but I would like some assurance because they

were negotiating in good faith and then the suddenly a card.

There has been a lot of Sturm and drying over this debate and I tried

to reflect what I feel as an individual about this and I have to

say I have a sense of disbelief, despair at the decision that is

about to be made, and significant doubt in the abilities of those

people who seek to give voice to my constituents that they will go

anyway for word in meeting their needs. In Edinburgh West, 71% of my

constituents voted to remain, and I would like to make clear the

reasoned amendment today in the name of the SNP is backed by many of my

constituents, the vast majority of which voted against independence in

our independence referendum, and many of them are not SNP supporters,

and to a man and to a woman they are writing to me to say that if this

goes ahead I am firmly in favour of taking the next steps to protect my

business, to protect my child who wants to go through the Erasmus

University scheme, to protect my ability to travel, work and live

freely within Europe. It is quite fundamental in Scotland. How

strongly we feel about this matter. I would like to finish by noting it

is not just about the economics. The economics incidentally is the vast

collective madness, to step away from this matter, but the philosophy

of Europe, the philosophy of Europe as a unifier, as a collective

unifier to protect against the sort of madness and rhetoric we hear from

Tromp, racist, misogynistic, protectionist, that also is a

fundamental from me. So I feel disbelief and with every breath in

my body I will make sure that Scotland can continue to access the

single market. Thank you. Mr Speaker, may I start my speech by

congratulating my honourable friend and neighbour although not at her

place for fantastic maiden speech, bodes very well for the future of

Lincolnshire. I am going to be short and to the point. In the 20 15th

general election my conservative colleagues and I stood on a

manifesto pledge that we would let the British people decide whether to

stay in or leave the European Union, and that we would honour the result

of the referendum whatever the outcome. We won the general election

and we kept our promise on holding the referendum. We must therefore

keep our promise on honouring the result of the referendum and it is

on that basis that I will be voting with the government tonight to

trigger article 50. Thank you. I am fortunate that my personal loan

and strongly held views align with the three quarters of my

constituents aborted to remain. I will therefore be voting against the

triggering of article 50 by whatever that someone is able to do it. Royal

prerogative, prime ministerial deck tap, whatever, I am against it in my

constituents have against it and I will not be moved from that. Let me

tell you why it is so strong. Both sides of my family suffered in the

waters of the last century. It was my grandfather and my mother's said

that formed my views. He was a keen and competitive race walker and I

grew up surrounded by his trophies. When he moved to Chingford who used

to walk home at weekends, 50 miles each way, but that was before the

First World War. Like many other brave young men he stood knee deep

in trenches for months, he at least came home but the gangrene meant he

lost one leg. A few decades later another war, this time my father

born in Austria, forced to flee Vienna when the Nat sees marched in.

He came to Britain and was made welcome for which we are eternally

grateful. The reason I am passionate about the European Union is because

of the party has played in keeping fractious concert -- continent from

falling out. I know some will see it was not EU but Nato, but it was

borne out of the desire to stop war in Europe and that is no doubt in my

mind that having a political framework to resolve differences has

made a kludge contribution to keeping the peace. My generation is

privileged. We have not, most of us, had to go to war. I fully understand

his personal circumstance, his passion, but would you not agree

that the European currency has done more to divide Europe by

impoverishing Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece and that's a long as that

continues that is likely to be further division.

I do not agree. I think our continent is much more united than

it was when we were at war. How quickly we have forgotten how this

was achieved. When the world is such an uncertain place, this is not the

moment to turn away from my European home. Lured to take a huge gamble in

getting a deal with the most reckless and unreliable American

president any bus have known. There is much would like to say on these

issues, which would like to say about Cambridge and the threat to

are universities. I associate myself with many of the comments made by

honourable friends on my site, particularly with the EU nationals

around Cambridge whose future is uncertain and whose future could

have been assured of the government had moved more swiftly. And the

damage it will do to our country of those people start to leave. It

troubles me a lot. Last week, out of the blue, the government announced

they wanted to pull out of the European nuclear agency, which

appeared to happen without discussion or consultation with the

industry, without apparent thought to the wider consequences. There are

so many other things. The threat to our environmental protections, our

rights at work, data and privacy rights, our sciences sector. Three

quarters of people in Cambridge voted to remain. I came into

Parliament to represent their views. They put their trust in me and I

will not betray that. There is a real risk the government will lead a

retreat to turn Britain into an isolated island. The United States

is building a wall. At such a time we must be brave and go on to make

the case that retreat, isolation and walls do not a modern world make.

The European Union is far from perfect but we should be working to

make it better, not weakening it at a dangerous time.

This notification of withdrawal from the European Union second reading is

a long debate, and yet the bill is very succinct and rightly so.

Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon me, Mr Speaker, to be concise

in my remarks. In the run-up to the referendum on our membership of the

European Union last June, the government published, at the cost of

little over ?9 million from memory, a booklet that went to virtually

every household in the UK. It explained the reasons why they felt

it was best for us to remain members of the EU. In that booklet, it also

said, however, that whatever decision the British people decide,

we will implement. It is therefore, Mr Speaker, I believe, our duty to

ensure that we pass this legislation tonight without delaying or

Amendments designed to wreck this legislation, to ensure that the

Prime Minister has the authority to start that official, formal

withdrawal process. So that this parliament, once again, can exercise

its sovereignty and rightly holding the Godman to account, to ensure

that we get the best possible deal as we leave the European Union and

as we once again broaden our horizons as global Britain.

I rise to speak in this debate as a European. I was born a European. And

those who supported the Brexit cause told us that if we left the European

Union, we would be no less European. And I say this to them. I will hold

them at their word. Now I don't believe, Mr Speaker, that this

referendum was our finest democratic moment. I also disagree with the

Brexiteers on that. As many of my constituents have raised, there are

serious concerns about the referendum. But this debate is not

about that any more. It is the beginning of the most important

question our country faces in a generation. And we must rapidly move

on from the process that we have heard discussed, and onto substance.

And I want to say several things about that. Firstly, on immigration.

To those who say, we proudly talk of the metropolitan areas in our

country where immigration is no problem and disparage those areas

that feel strongly about immigration, I would say that that

is not the right way. We need to understand that all parts of our

country have benefited from immigration. That all British people

are tolerant and respectful of others. And that those are the best

of British values. And that the Prime Minister is wrong in designing

and economic policy entirely around shutting down immigration. And let

me say very briefly, Mr Speaker, Y. Economic division in our country is

both the cause and will be the consequence of Brexit. It is the

fact that we have an economy designed with London, like

Singapore, charging ahead, and the Northern regions of England held

back like Eastern Europe, that people feel left out and that

economic division comes because power is hoarded here in this city.

And people in the North feel like they have not had enough of a saver

too long and they voted to leave as a result. The answer must be to

restore that power and balance. The answer must be, never again to hoard

power here but to have a truly federal Britain. In my maiden

speech, Mr Speaker, I said that Wirral was an internationally minded

and cultured place. It was then and it is now. To those in our country

who have been shocked, horrified, disgraced, embarrassed, ashamed by

the racism and xenophobia we have seen, I say this. Those are not our

values. That is not my country and we move on from that point with

those values at our heart. The manifesto I stood in 2015 not

only promised a referendum on Europe but also stated that we will honour

the result of the referendum whatever the outcome. And I

committed during the referendum campaign that I would personally

respect the result even if it was decided by just one individual vote.

In the end the difference was more than one vote. 72% of the population

turned out and that showed how seriously the British public took

the task of deciding their future. In my constituency, the turnout was

more than 80%. Contrast this with 58% who turned out in the recent US

presidential election, an election with huge consequences for the USA

and the world, and yet one in which nearly 100 million Americans could

not turn out and vote. The referendum was not a consultation

bottom instruction. Today I will do my duty and vote to trigger Article

50. And then the work really begins. If we use the analogy of a flight,

we have boarded the plane and we're leaving Europe. But while we know

the general direction, we do not yet know the destination. Some

passengers believe we are heading for some kind of tropical paradise.

Some believe we are heading to some icy wasteland. But locally, we do

have a pilot who has a clear flight path. And I suspect that after

flying around for a while, we will not land on an icy wasteland, we

will not land on a tropical paradise, but we will land somewhere

quite familiar to where we originally began. While I don't wish

to belittle the great challenge we have ahead of us, the fact is the

British economy is strong, resilient and dynamic. I never from one minute

believe that by leaving the EU the sky was falling. But different

segments of our economy will inevitably be impacted in different

ways by Brexit. Some obviously benefit. Some will be is the

struggle. And all are impacted to some degree by uncertainty. So we

must work hard and quickly to reduce that uncertainty and we must provide

every support and comfort to those sectors of the economy that we know

are at most risk from Brexit. And we must listen to people with deep

knowledge and expertise in sectors that are perhaps not well

represented in this place. Yet faced some particularly context

challengers were Brexit. Such is the aviation industry, digital and

creative, and those sectors where there is no clear WTO alternative. I

encourage the Godman to continuing gauging with industry and experts.

-- the government. I look forward to holding the government to account to

ensure the government delivers a successful deal that helps Britain

and secures my children's future. I intend to vote in favour of

activating Article 50 tonight out of respect for the result of the

referendum despite the flaws and the deceit of the Leave campaign. But I

will write no blank cheques to anyone, least of all this

government. I resent -- reject the assertion of the result of the

referendum is the will of the people. It is not. It is a result of

a slim majority. It is deeply troubling. Everyone on this side of

the house recognises the growing inequality in our country, the

growing pub -- pressure on public services, competition from low paid

jobs and economic and social transformation. I certainly don't

understand how a harder Brexit and low regulation Singapore Britain is

the answer to these concerns. It will destroy jobs, destroying

employers, destroy public finances and make it more difficult to

address the social and economic challenges we recognise. We need a

vision of Britain closely integrated with our European partners and the

European market we are closely situated to. Our manufacturers,

service centres, creative industries, universities are hugely

dependent on those markets and on European skills. If we walk away

from Europe out of petty malice, we will be cutting off her nose to

spite our face. We will be cutting hope and opportunity throughout the

land. That is the antithesis of what I believe those driving forward the

gum and agenda which. Quite apart from threatening a low tax,... That

is precisely the kind of UK they want to achieve. Free from what they

see as the constraints of employment rights and environmental protection.

They want a UK with low corporate tax, no protection for people at

work and minimal public services. They have taken people's's

understandable concerns about immigration and anger over bad

employers bringing in cheap imported labour to drive down pay rates. And

they have driven through their own vision which ironically and

tragically would end up most hurting the people most concerned about the

current arrangements. They are so desperate for a trade deal with the

United States, we go capping hand to the racist president because we need

is good favour to get a trade deal. At the same time we're alienating

all other countries who want a recently shared our values of

decency, tolerance and respect. So tonight I will respect the result of

the referendum but after that, all bets are off. I will not allow good

people who voted for a Leave be hoodwinked by the hard right of the

Conservative Party. I will not allow a wonderful, beautiful, decent,

tolerant country to be abandoned to Brexit, short of a standard we have

all come to enjoy and perhaps take for granted.

Like other colleagues on this side of the House, I stood in the general

election on a manifesto promising a referendum and to respect the

result. I campaigned hard in the referendum to stay in the European

Union. It pains me greatly that my side lost. But honour and decency

binds me by the Pledge I made in the referendum and I shall vote to

support the government tonight. That said, it is also my duty to my

constituents and the country to make sure we have the best possible

outcome thereafter. In my sense that means this. In my constituency some

35% of people work in the financial and professional services sector. It

is one of the highest percentages anywhere in the country. It is

critical that that key economic interest of the United Kingdom is

central to our negotiating objectives and should not be

regarded as secondary in my judgment to anything. And if we have to be

prepared to make pragmatic compromise to secure the welfare of

that key economic sector, we should be prepared to do so. Secondly, we

should not forget the interest of our territory on Gibraltar. It

doesn't have anybody else to speak for it today. I will take the

liberty of doing so. They must have their economy protected and there

are broader able to flow uninterrupted and free. Thirdly, we

must actually make sure that Parliamentary sovereignty is now

real in this case. We are acting in accordance with the process set down

by our highest courts, where the judges acted in accordance with

their constitutional duty and shall be accepted and commended for doing

that. That means Parliament must be prepared to have a proper control of

the process. I welcome the commitment to publish the white

Paper. I accept the words in good faith of the Prime Minister and the

Secretary of State. There are two other things we must do. It is very

important that Parliament has the maximum information available to it.

And in particular it will be quite wrong if Parliament at any state had

less information than our European counterparts. And secondly, the

pledge of a vote on the final day in both houses must be meaningful --

deal. That must mean a vote before the dealers put to our European

counterparties for ratification. Otherwise it would be a Hobson 's

choice of little value. I hope ministers will reflect carefully on

those key points as the Bill makes its progress going forward.

Despite my constituency producing two enormous Brexiteers in the past,

one, so Teddy Taylor, who represented South end, and Tom

Harris, who led the Brexit campaign in Scotland, I had the highest

Remain voting constituency in the city of Glasgow at over 70%. I get

were lots of people felt they did not have a connection to the EU. I

understand that. They felt like they did not have a lesion chip with it

in their daily lives. -- relationship. We felt like it was

something done to them, rather than inclusive. Sadly, this Brexit deal

is going in the same direction. The Prime Minister has done everything

she possibly could to prevent this House from having a say a vote on

it. We are only here today for this to be because the Government was

taken to court, which had to go on appeal and then to the Supreme

Court. The Prime Minister has done everything to try and free us out --

freeze out parliament and devolved administration 's. That is

regrettable. This Brexit process has all the hallmarks of a hostile

takeover in which the vote on the 23rd of June last year is being used

to have allsorts and other issues, like the single market, the customs

union alongside. That is not good enough.

The honourable member has expressed some concern and confusion about the

position that has been argued by the Brexiteers. Could he help alleviate

my confusion on the Scottish position. That is that you want a

free independent Scotland but it has to be ruled from Brussels. Can you

please explain that conundrum? IMAX are not going to explain it because

to such a lazy argument. -- I am actually not going to explain it. I

will use my extra minute to make the arguments I wish to proceed. The

Prime Minister does not have a consensus... I suggest you take that

back. The Prime Minister has no consensus to proceed in the way sea,

-- she suggests. Former Prime Minister that talks about a country

that works for everyone, this is a Brexit negotiating process and

Article 50 process that was incubated and kept that Downing

Street. That will do nothing in our attempts to fight against the poison

of political cynicism that is eating away at liberal democracies around

the world, including this one that we serve. Mr Speaker, our position

is well known as a party. The Britannic isolation that this

Government seeks is something I cannot back, I will not back and

they will be voting against the Government tonight.

I voted remain in the referendum. Not for nostalgic or... Reasons, but

a pragmatic belief that it was not the right time for us to leave.

However, the point that has been sometimes overlooked is that this

vote on Article 50 is different one reason. It is not our decision. We

have a jetty as Democrats and Members of Parliament to enact the

result of the referendum. I have not change my mind personally, but the

Conservative manifesto pledge this referendum. I was proud and

Parliament to vote for the referendum and promised voters I

would honour the result. It was made abundantly clear in the referendum

that it would be final without any ifs or buts. When I make a promise

to my voters, I intend to keep it, no ifs or buts. This debate is less

about triggering Article 50 and more about democracy. The mere suggestion

we could consider riding roughshod over democracy and destroying what

is left of the British public's faith in politicians is quite

frankly absurd. Yes, we can all think of loopholes and justification

is to rationalise voting against the referendum result but surely it is a

sad state when it comes to this. Isn't it patronising to claim that

people really did not understand what they were voting for? Mr

Speaker, it is also important we do not distort the meaning of this

debate. This vote should not be turned into a pro-or anti

immigration board. It is simply a recognition that the Government

voted in part for a desire to take that control. There has been a lot

of talk in this debate about immigration and the end to free

movement. Members of spoken of cultural and economic benefits of

immigration and I echo this message wholeheartedly. But I seriously

question whether economic be achieved by European immigration. It

disadvantages those from other Commonwealths and the wider world

who my opinion have the same right and opportunity as those living in

Europe. It bound our hands and gave us no chance to make our immigration

system link to our skills. It saddens me some members have used

this debate had a stop that. Let us remember and be clear not escape the

public today. -- not to miss guide. This is about starting the process.

We can spend weeks about what we could change and what we can, but we

have a duty today. Our economy and businesses need certainty. The last

thing we need is another referendum speculation. Now is the time to get

on with the job, work on and get the best deal for Britain. We have a

duty to honour the result, a promise to keep and we need to show the

British public we can lesson and we are not superior to the people. --

we can listen. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I respect the views of any

member in this House voting with a conscience. I have contempt for

people voting out of self-interest and self-preservation. I think the

Government can argue they have a mandate to take people out of the

EU, but not out of the single market. We are being asked to hand

over complete control of the process to a Prime Minister and Foreign

Secretary that between them, could not handover a dinner invitation

without creating a major international event. The Government

if anything has a mandate to keep us in the single market. That was what

was in the 2015 election manifesto. They don't like being reminded about

it but that was a mandate given by the people. As recently as the 24th

of October 2016, the Prime Minister said, I want the best possible deal

with the maximum opportunities for British businesses to operate within

the single market. For goods and services. The fact that as recently

as October the Primus awarded to stay in, at the very least, she

could tell us that nonmembership of the single market is too big to be

dealt with with just a single debate in this House. Some MPs have been

subject to and -- unfair pressure. The one you can tell someone they

have been undemocratic by exercising a vote. I have had that as well. I

have had an e-mail darkly hinting at the number of my constituency

wanting to leave, threatening me with potential deselection if I

dared to vote against the Government tonight. It did cross my mind that,

pension wise, you get out much better deal from losing for

retirement. I might decide to stand as a Labour candidate after I

retire. The Secretary of State concluded his speech yesterday by

asking us to trust the people. What I have heard from the Tory benches

today is much more than that. I have heard that the abolition of the

sovereignty of Parliament, they have finally accepted the people are

sovereign. There are four different sovereignties representative. The

solitary of my pupils are six to 2% wanted to stay in. We put forward a

compromise that respects those who want to leave and remain. And

respects the issues of the 55% in 2014. If we are forced to choose

between the 55% and 62% to want to remain in the EU, the party opposite

might get a matter surprise indeed. I campaigned on voted to leave the

European Union. It was in line with the butter -- alias I represent,

Bolton and Wigan, will the overwhelming view was to leave the

EU. It was an incredibly important referendum and I am disappointed

that sometimes people think we should never have had the referendum

in the first place. It was absolutely vital that we did because

when there is a transfer of power, it is for the people to approve,

even if retrospectively that transfer, that fast transfer of

power from Westminster to Brussels comes up. It is almost like the SNP

taking Scotland out of the UK without a referendum of the Liberal

Democrats changing our voting system without approval of the people. We

had to have this referendum to approve where we were, with those

transfers to the European Union. Dissatisfaction with the European

Union seemed to grow proportionally with the powers handed over to the

European Union. We could all see, whether you wanted to remain or

leave the EU, we could all see reform was absolutely vital. David

Cameron, in his speech, set out a fantastic vision for the EU. What is

this it -- his visit to Brussels whittled away that vision until

almost nothing was left. That was a proposal put to the British people.

Either we leave or we have this almost nonexistent reform of the EU.

It seems now that the campaign is to ensure that the Bloomberg vision is

almost resurrected in terms of the soft Brexit that people keep talking

about. This is the vision already rejected by the EU. During the

campaign, and both sides, there were problems. There was misleading

information. That ?350 million figure about the NHS is somewhat

overstated. In a general election, we look at the policies developed

over months and years. We look at the performance of the Government

and arguments from the opposition. We have years to decide and make up

our mind for the general election. The British people had 40 years to

make up their mind when looking at the European Union. It was not about

the last few weeks of the referendum campaign. It was about her

experience in the EU. That is by the people rejected it. Not because of

the few debatable arguments from one side or another. So I am looking

forward this evening to voting in favour of the bill and supporting

her leaving of the European Union. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since the

vote, there has been a shadow cast across the country. The decision for

the UK to leave the European Union has played heavily on us all. It has

invited communities, families and put Google parties. -- political

parties. I campaigned for us to remain in the EU not because I feel

it is perfect. I don't want to see the UK closes doors and shut itself

the rest of the world. I want to work with European neighbours to

find common solutions to problems every country is facing. From a

rapidly ageing population and the impact on health care, pension

system, to the quality needed action we have today to tackle climate

change and terrorism. My constituents voted 66% in favour of

leaving the year and I respect that decision. Some of those voted to

leave the EU because of concerns over immigration and feels this was

negatively impacting on jobs and local services. Some voted out

because they thought it meant more money for the NHS. For some, this

was an opportunity not just a registered discontent with the EU,

but also the direction this country is travelling in as a whole. Well

globalisation has brought wealth and economic growth, it has left many

people behind. In Burnley, people have seen manufacturing jobs

decline, wages stagnate and bankers pay themselves millions of pounds in

bonuses. They have been told consistently by this Government the

UK's fastest-growing economy in the G7 but they do not see their growth.

They do not see more job opportunities or wage increases.

They find things getting harder. Because I respect my constituents

and democratic process, I will vote to trigger Article 50. But I will

not vote blindly for the Brexit deal that leaves my constituents worse

off. The deal reached must protect jobs. That means we have to access

the single market. 5000 people in Burnley work in manufacturing. Many

of the biggest employers are European and it is vital these jobs

are protected. Workers' rights must be protected. I am out past Labour

governments have championed workers Mark -- workers' rights. Burnley has

relied on vital EU funding that helps us expand. This investment has

to be replaced. The circumstances were not of my making but I believe

we must seize the moment and work together to our very best to achieve

a deal to serve the interests of all our people. In so doing, we have to

heal the divisions in our country. It's a pleasure to follow the

honourable member for Bromley. I very much chime with her words of

healing division and working for the will of the people. -- Burnley. This

is quite clearly an historic moment. The results of not only decades of

campaigning in this House but outside. It is also the result of a

decision by the people of the UK. It is perfectly reasonable and

perfectly rational that people should hold the view that we

shouldn't go ahead and free ourselves from Brussels, but to try

to frustrate the decision by 20 shall be referendum result was in

some way illegitimate or incomplete, so that others can impose their view

of what ought to have happened isn't really the ticket. No one voted

thinking, I will vote Leave because I'm pretty sure we will still remain

a member of the single market so it will be OK. No one said, I will vote

Leave because I'm pretty sure Parliament won't bowled to trigger

Article 50. -- vote. I'll vote Leave because I'm pretty sure that when

the final dealers put the parliament they will reject it. People voted

Leave because they wanted to leave. The two district councils which make

most of my constituency voted to leave by 13,000 votes. And they

voted to leave because they wanted to leave. That means triggering

Article 50. In their judgment, the Supreme Court made clear that once

given, Article 50 notice cannot be withdrawn. Therefore when this House

makes the decision on the final deal, when the choices put, it is

only to approve the deal. Our choices thereafter will be to

approve the deal, seek renegotiation or exit the EU with no deal. There

will be no option of remaining within the EU. This is the simple

choice. And we have a very short Bill, although we have a lot of long

amendments. Parliament can perfectly well contented itself with very

brief legislation and as many members of this House will know,

length need not equate to quality. But the PM's speech at Lancaster

House was the exception to that rule, setting out the 12 areas of

work the government will seek to address. The next two years imposes

an obligation on members of this House to heal the divisions and help

shape the negotiations, and ensure that our future relationship with

the EU emerges in a way that reflects an open, tolerant spirit of

exchange and accord without political control. And that we

should believe in the future just as the country did on June the 23rd

last year. Yesterday the Secretary of State

finished his speech by saying, for many years there has been a creeping

sense in this country that politicians say one thing and do

another. No I'm not sure which country he was talking about,

because the UK is a country of more than a smack a union of more than

one country. Insofar as the country of Scotland is concerned, the sense

that sometimes politicians say one thing and do another is more than a

creeping sense, it's a well founded and widespread concern and it

relates in particular to the party opposite, their Prime Minister and

their leader in Scotland. At the end of tonight we will be voting on an

SNP Amendment. I welcome the support further amendment. That amendment is

in part designed to ensure that the party opposite delivers on promises

made by politicians to the people of Scotland during the 2014

Independence Referendum. Promises that were made by Ruth Davidson such

as voting to remain in the United Kingdom was a guarantee of our EU

citizenship, and promises made that Scotland was an equal partner in the

union. Listening to the debate yesterday you could be forgiven for

thinking that Scotland is seen as an unwelcome distraction from the main

event. The message seems to be, get back in your box and know your

place. Gone are the love bombs and they are replaced with instructions

to sit down and shot and put or put it. -- shut up. What happened in

2014 was that the question of Scotland's future membership of the

European Union was central to the Independence Referendum. The SNP and

the wider yes campaign warned a no vote was a threat to Scotland's

injured trade links. We said it was a threat to our membership of Europe

because of Tory Euroscepticism. I'd like to ask the honourable and

Leonard Lady if she agrees with me that there has been much

misreporting of the recent Supreme Court decision. While the

established that Scotland need not be consulted legally, there was no

requirement that Scotland should not be consulted constitutionally. Yes

indeed. My honourable friend is absolutely right. The Supreme Court

said, and I quote, the civil convention has an important role in

facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK

Parliament and devolved legislatures. The policing of its

scope does not lie within the constitutional remit of the

judiciary. Basically, it is up to the politicians. When we in the SNP

warned that staying in the UK was a threat to our EU membership, the no

campaign said we were scaremongering. Ruth Davidson said

no means we stay in the EU. The Lib Dems, Labour said to us that voting

to remain part of the UK guaranteed our EU membership. The question for

the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems is this. What are they

going to do to deliver on the promises they made during the

Independence Referendum? What are they going to do to protect and

guaranteed that EU citizenship which they told us was guaranteed by

voting to remain in the UK? The Scottish government, unlike others,

has produced this document, a place in Europe. It has a detailed plan.

It is a plan which we heard from the Prime Minister's on lips today is

possible, because it is possible to have a soft and open border between

a country that is in the single market and a country that isn't. So

the question is for all people in this House, Labour, Lib Dem and

Tory, what are you going to do to deliver on the promises he made to

the people of Scotland? Or are you just going to sit there and admit

those promises were lies? This is a historic debate. I was

here during the Maastricht debates 25 years ago. It has been a long

campaign. The British people voted by a margin of 1.35 million to leave

the European Union. Two thirds of the constituencies in this country

voted to leave the European Union. And whilst I respect all my

constituents who voted to remain, and The Cotswolds voted very

narrowly to remain, 51% to 49%, I totally reject the Liberal Democrats

assertion that I cannot represent my constituents who voted to remain.

The British people have regained the sovereignty of this Parliament. We

will no longer be subject to the directors and regulations laid down

by Brussels. We will regain control of our borders. And above all, we

will be able to give reassurance to the Europeans living in this country

that they are welcome here, provided our European partners give

reciprocal rights to them. Mr Speaker, shorn of our EU competence

for trade, we will be able to regain our entrepreneurial spirit and go

around the world trading openly with all nations. Some people assert the

peace in Europe has been maintained by the European Union. I say the

peace in Europe has been maintained by Nato. And it is absolutely right

for our Prime Minister to make sure that all Nato members live by their

obligations of paying 2%. Mr Speaker, we, as many people have

said in this today, we will not be leaving Europe, we will be leaving

the European Union, but we are still neighbours without Europeans. They

will be friends. I think pragmatically we will do a deal for

this country that is in the interest of all the people of this country.

It is a by 's untimely complex negotiation that our colleagues on

the front bench are about to start. -- it by sand time, complex

negotiation. It is an opportunity to get the best deal we possibly can

for this country. I'm confident when our partners look at what we have

and what they have too offered to us, it would be pragmatically in

their interest to make sure we do a deal that suits both partners. I

simply say we will be set our relationship with Europe. It will be

uneasy relationship. It would be a relationship that all part of this

kingdom will be able to relate to, whether it is England, Scotland,

Wales or Northern Ireland. And I simply say to our Scottish

nationalist friends, in echoing Julius Caesar, beware of

referendums, you cannot be certain of what the result is going to be.

Mr Speaker, periodically a nation has to stand tall and say what ideas

it is driven by, what values lead its sense of direction and its

destiny. I am proud of all we have achieved as members of the European

Union in terms of our economy, our security, but also our peace between

nations, that twice in the last century have been at war. I

campaigned hard for Remain but I accept the result. I will not vote

against the second reading but I will not criticise others from

making a different choice. I am sad that tonight we will take the first

step in this House in what I believe is the wrong direction for this

country. In which I was proud to be born, that has shaped me through its

openness and generosity of spirit, my very firm sense of partnership

with other nations and the need for internationalist politics. The

responsibility now of this government has never been greater.

This must not be or feel like the end of the debate. It is right that

tomorrow the government will be publishing a white paper. It is

wrong that we didn't have it before. It is right that we have a vote. It

is wrong but it took the Supreme Court to make it happen. Voting for

Article 50 today is not a blank cheque. But it must be for this

House to be consulted and to bin include -- meaningfully vote on the

final deal. This bill has been written to limit the ability of MPs

to amend it. It is clear the views and opinions of members of this

house will not be silenced. I want to make three broad point in

contribution to this debate. We should not rule out membership of

the single market, but instead make the case EU wide reforms of freedom

of movement that can give member states greater control if they wish

it. Secondly, we must engage the public. That's why I believe the

Prime Minister should bring forward a national convention which includes

MEPs, elected mayor 's, devolved administrations, local government,

universities, higher education, civil society and others. The public

were asked their view about membership of the European Union.

They should be properly involved in a discussion and debate about our

future. And thirdly, on the needs of our young people, they are our

future and we have a stake in their success. How we conduct this debate

and make decisions, the language we use and the way we build

relationships between young people across borders, will be the gift

would give the next generation. On the government to set priority on

young people in the negotiations, retaining the rights and

opportunities for young people to work, study and travel, these are

free if they are under 25, so they do not become worse off than their

European counterparts. Mr Speaker, the referendum was not a proud

moment in our history. But there is more than one way to Brexit. There

are risks and we must be open about that. But we must also have an

evidenced based -- evidence -based debate. Our future depends on it. It

is a pleasure to follow the Honourable lady. Like her, I

campaigned for Remain. I did it passionately. I argued if we left we

would miss the opportunity of being the largest country in the U -- EU

that's not in the euro. But that's gone. I accept that. I would support

this bill because having voted for the referendum act, one of the first

pieces of legislation I voted for as a new MP, would be reneging in the

most extraordinary way if I turned against that just because I

campaigned on the other side. This doesn't mean I do not have concerns.

There are two areas where I am worried. The first is on trade. At

all costs we must avoid a game of protectionist chicken with the EU.

That can happen. Particularly when we know what is going on in

Washington, where we have an openly protectionist president. Be under no

illusions. Not Project Fear. If protectionism breaks down on both

sides of the Atlantic, we could have a severe crisis and we know where

that finishes. The other point is on immigration. It is absolutely right

that we cannot control immigration unless we leave the EU. But we

cannot reduce the numbers, which is what the public want, unless we have

a native British workforce that is willing and able and available in

sufficient numbers to step into the breach if the immigration shutters

come down. And the select committee which I recently joined, we have

held evidence sessions on this unheard from employers who are

completely dependent on migrant labour. And he struggled to recruit

locally, including the care sector, construction. These are vital part

of our economy. We should not pretend to the British people

immigration will be slashed if we leave. There is one part of it that

I think it's particularly important we discuss. It is not true there are

no restrictions on EU migration. You cannot come to this country as a

non-skilled migrant, which includes many skilled people, if you are from

outside the EU. You can only legally come in from the EU. I think we

should be cost is by changing that. I do not think the British people

would support and skilled migration to this country. We have to debate

that and be open with it. -- unskilled migration. We have to

support the will of the people. We are Democrats. Do it in an open and

United Way. The National interest is served by maximum unity. I give way

to my honourable friend. I thank my honourable friend and son-in-law

forgiving way. I want to endorse what he has said. It is possible, on

this very divisive and complex issue, it is possible, not only in

the same family and party, to have different views. And yet look

forward to being united to support the best possible future for our

country. The local paper did speculate on this matter. When asked

about my wife's views, I said, she is my father-in-law's daughter. On

the morning after the referendum... Not just biologically, in spirit,

obviously. I bought her a bottle of champagne and congratulated her. She

was on the winning side. We have to unite unsure winning spirit in

negotiations with Europe. We have to have a deal in the interests as

well. That is why it is about openness, free trade and a positive

Brexit. We can all get behind that and we should all get behind it and

we do that by voting for this bill tonight. Thank you. When I

campaigned as one of a fairly Billy God minority in the Labour Party in

the 1970s to join the EU, little did I think that in many years hence I

would be standing up today to vote in favour of triggering the

negotiations for our exit. But I am. It is against all my instincts and

preference for an international way of delivering a business and it is

also against the economic logic which says that a large and

uniformly regulated market is a prerequisite for the fast-growing

economy and the benefits that accrue from it. But I am going to,

basically for three reasons. The first is the democratic argument

that has been articulated by many. There is a lack of faith in

Parliament and democratic institutions. For Parliament and

politicians to win an election on a promise of a referendum, to hold a

referendum and then to actually not implement the result of that

referendum has profound implications in terms of faith in our democratic

system. I also believe that, given the complexities and difficulties of

the negotiations that we are going to be confronted with, the public

will expect this Parliament to do is very best to implement the will that

they have expressed. What I do not want to see is conspiracy being able

to blame the real problems that will arise from negotiations on the

reluctance of parliament, rather than the difficult issues that they

are being confronted with. I also support it because I think it is in

the interests of business. A decision has been made. My

discussions with businesses run along the lines of, we would prefer

to remain in, but we recognise that we are coming out. What we want is

certainty about the future trade relationships we're going to have.

That will depend on investment decisions, recruitment decisions and

until we start to negotiate and try to shape the sort of future that our

businesses will be confronted with, that uncertainty will continue and

it will severely affect the economy. Mr Speaker, I make it clear that in

voting to trigger Article 50, I not committing myself to accept the

finer outcome. I will work with others to ensure that we shaped

negotiations in a way that will be beneficial. And they reserve the

right to vote against it subsequently if I do not feel that

is so. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituents have a great deal of

common sense. They are intelligent and fought for. They go about their

lives with incredible diligence. When people have written to me

saying that they did not understand what they were voting for, I don't

believe that because I know my constituents and I trust in them. We

trust in them enough to put them on Julie 's -- jury duty and their

trust in them enough to make a decision when exercising a vote. I

also argued for, remain. I believe the Prime Minister when he said he

would go to Europe and seek to negotiate a better deal for Britain.

And he went out there and he went there in good faith. He played those

negotiations with a straight bat, Mr Speaker. But, unfortunately, to

paraphrase another speech in this House, not only did he find out when

the game back here to stand at the crease that his bat had been broken,

his shoes had been nicked and the stumps were hidden. He was hampered

by Europe's failure to recognise that it needed reform and it needed

to deal with the crucial issue of free movement. That failure to

recognise the concerns that Britain and the Prime Minister was raising,

I think they are great deal of responsibility in the outcome of the

vote. It was a deep concern to me when I heard the member for

Sheffield Hallam yesterday talking about him having it on data for the

day that the Germans have offered some deal after the referendum of an

emergency brake. If it was on the table and that was something that

was willing to be signed up to, it was far too late to do it afterwards

and after there were drastic consequences for this country. I

welcome the approach of the Prime Minister and the fact that she wants

to reach out globally. That we are leaving the US institutions but

we're not leaving... -- EU institutions. We are members of

Europe even if not members of the EU institutions. It is vital that we

build on those links and continue to look outwards. That we work on

cooperation in crime, terrorism and national to. And that we negotiate

for the best you in terms of our economy. -- and national security.

My constituents know that there was a risk to the economy. It was

explained very seriously to them. As the honourable member for Haslemere

suggest the -- said yesterday, those risks were understood and accepted

by the British electorate when they voted out. We have to respect that

decision and I will work on delivering the best outcome for my

constituents. Benjamin Franklin famously said, if

you fail to plan, you plan to fail. That is what this Tory Government

has done over Brexit. Leaving the supposedly equal family of nations

with a very stark choice. If you will indulge me, I pay tribute to

Irving Welsh, Danny Boyle and Ewan McGregor because I saw the train

spotting sequel recently and it inspired me. Choose Brexit, choose

making up numbers and plastering them on the side of buses. Choose

racist and xenophobic sentiment from some corners of the league campaign.

Choose hate crime, rising by over 40%, and LGBT Hate Crime Pack over

150 present in England and will is following Brexit board. Choose

taking to the -- people to the polls with no plan. Choose ignoring the

people of Scotland and my constituents in Livingston, despite

voting overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Choose leaving the single

market, risking thousands of jobs and costing the people in Scotland

and average of 2000 -- ?2000 in wages. Choose vital EU workers'

safety being under threat. Choose risking international standing in

academic, research and innovation communities as below is access to

funding, expertise and people from the EU. Choose the great Brexit

power grab. Taking back control of straight on an Apple Mac. Choose

returning to the Thatcher era of poverty and asperity. Choose the UK

turning its back on Europe. These are not the choices be Scottish

people made. Scotland chose differently. Scotland chose to look

outward, to face the world and embrace the EU and all of the

protections and advantages it brings. Scotland chooses life in the

European Union. Not a hard Tory Brexit. This Tory Government must

respect that. Mr Speaker, a member opposite quoted Churchill, saying it

could well be the end of the beginning of this Brexit process. I

say to the members opposite, if they do not respect the democratic will

of the Scottish people to remain in the EU, it will be the beginning of

the end of this disunited kingdom. This evening, I will vote to begin

formal process of leaving the EU because, though I voted Remain, the

referendum result was clear. In my constituency and in the country as a

whole, the majority voted to leave. Had the result gone the other way,

all of us who voted Remain would have expected that result to be

honoured. Whether voting to remain on leave, British people voted last

year in the expectation that the Government would enact that result.

So we must see it through. But the referendum has shone a light on

divisions in British society. The divide between those for whom life

is working out, full of opportunity, and those for whom life seems to be

going nowhere. If we think people are angry and divided now, just

think what anger there would be if MPs rejected the referendum result,

effectively killing so many voters that they had got it wrong. --

effectively telling so many voters. The job of the Government is to make

success of Brexit. And tackle the problems the referendum has laid

bare. As a first step, we have to give the Prime Minister the school

to negotiate the best possible Brexit deal. To those who asked for

more than more detail at this time, in my experience they go shooting on

business deals, at a much smaller scale, giving details we does not

generally enable you to secure a better deal. We need to be clear,

you will walk away if you do not get a good deal, as the Prime Minister

has been. To those who want a second referendum to choose between a final

deal and staying in, I ask them, could there be any stronger

incentive for the European Union to offer us an attractive exit terms?

It might be in political interests but it is not in the UK's interest.

Mr Speaker, now we must get on with it and use this time of change as an

opportunity to frame the sort of country we want to merge. We want to

open Britain, engaging with Europe and the world, offering

opportunities to all with confidence in identity and prospects. That

confidence will enable people to be tolerant and welcoming. That is the

task ahead. When we have one of the referendum result and enacted this

bill. -- ordered the referendum result.

Thank you. This is a debate, like many others, that I hoped would not

take place. I campaigned to can-mac remain in the belief that it was the

best way to detect jobs and stability for my constituents.

However, my constituency voted with a clear margin to leave. I respect

the democratic process and the views of all of my colleagues and my

constituents and I will be voting for this bill tonight. Now that

we're having this debate, I have to speak up and fight for the people I

was elected to serve. For decades, the benefits of the EU will not

sorted people. The European Parliament was shrouded in mystery,

leaving a vacuum for Ukip to sell an alternative narrative of what the EU

does for us. During the campaign, it felt like I was trying to share with

people in a few months things we should all have been sharing with

them for years. I was trying to campaign in the referendum against

the backdrop of an increasingly dark and globalised world where things

are constantly shifting at an alarming pace. Where intolerable

cruelty has been inflicted on people because of race and a legend. Where

people are being displaced and humanitarian crisis -- crises are

happening. And the old answers to the world's problems are not coming

from our politicians any more. The vacuum left in British politics is

we MPs and party struggle to respond to this change, filled with divisive

and racist rhetoric that has created an isolationist environment. It is

no surprise when you throw in the mix experiences like my own dad's

that many people voted out. My dad is a retired welder. He is kind,

considerate and hard-working. He used to work on the shipyards with

economic migrants from Europe who worked alongside him. He hated

seeing them being exploited. He wanted them to have rights and he

wanted them to have the same terms and conditions in paid Etihad. -- in

payment that he had. But they were exploited to such a degree that you

got those could be so little it was no longer agribusiness model to

employ people like my dad there. In short, he lost his job.

People lose faith and they become angry. No government should never

underestimate what unemployment can do to people, their family, their

communities, because these scars last. This referendum was a chance

for people like my dad to vent their hurt. In areas like mine this

referendum was last a very long time ago. For me, this bill is about just

one thing. It is about process. Like many other honourable members, I

began on the Brexit Road to Damascus by advocating that Britain remain in

the EU. That is because I'm a pragmatist. I personally believe

that on balance retaining EU membership was the safe option for

Britain economically and socially. However, the collective majority of

the British people, including the overwhelming majority of my own

constituents, disagreed with that view and except that now we must

leave. The debate on the nuts and bolts of our exit deal after another

day. This bill is not about which laws to keep or abolished, or about

our future trade relationships. It is not about how we share our

security interests. Today is about the mechanism that will enable us to

begin having these discussions and debates. Not only between ourselves

in this House, but more importantly the other 27 member states. So it

comes down to the core question the Secretary of State poses today in

his opening speech. We trust the people or not? Whilst I've been

quick to learn that we are required to take some difficult and unpopular

decisions as members of Parliament which can be contrary to the views

expressed by some of my constituents, on this particular

issue I choose to trust the people will vote this evening.

Make no mistake, we are leaving the European Union. The referendum seven

months ago settled that issue. Today's vote is not about whether

you have a leave Arkansas -- Laura Main constituency. This bill is

about green lighting the Prime Minister and error approach to

Brexit, and her approach to Parliamentary scrutiny. To a fast

tracked processed avoid of any detail for triggering Article 50 in

March when key European allies will have elections distracting them. To

the grudging promise of a White Paper tomorrow to replace the blank

paper we currently have. Those of us who campaigned for Remain know that

Brexit is to happen. But how we green-lighted is a different matter.

And all of us have two ask ourselves whether we are confident that as

things stand, this government is going to get the best or even a good

deal for our country. I cannot answer that question yes. And this

bill is our only opportunity to send the Prime Minister back to the

drawing board, both on the process and the purpose of negotiation. In

the short time available to me there are three points that Walthamstow

residents, when we met on Sunday, wanted to make clear. Because they

understand there are many different ways that Brexit can happen. But

they get the importance of the single market being part of the

negotiations. But when 50% of goods cross borders at least twice before

they hit the shop floor, what we are talking about is more red tape for

British businesses. But a government that abandons the Customs Union and

a common commercial policy for a form membership that doesn't even

exist, puts thousands of jobs at risk. The Secretary of State himself

said businesses would ensure that trade with Britain continues

uninterrupted and under similar circumstances. That is clearly not

the case and the British public deserve better. Walthamstow also

wants rights for EU citizens confirmed, not to be used as

bargaining chips. Walthamstow once their employment rights protected.

The government was already talking about extending the erosion of

employment rights. This is not a done deal. My neighbour yesterday,

the member for Chingford and Woodford Green, said he was voting

to trigger Article 50 simply because of all the mistakes of the past.

While I cannot green light Article 50 tonight because of all the

opportunities of the future that it puts at stake. I am a proud patriot.

I am proud of my country. I want the best for my country. We can and we

should be doing better. We can trigger this process now. We must

rethink and go back to the drawing board for the sake of everybody we

represent, whether Leave or Remain. It is quite clear that night's vote

is an historic event. And I personally can did an incredible

honour to be here at this time in this Parliament being able to cast

my vote in this debate. People have often asked me how long I have been

a Eurosceptic. I often reply, for as long as I knew what one was. Growing

up in Cornwall I witnessed the impact that EU bureaucracy and

regulation had on our communities. How it strangled our fishing

communities. Howerd overburdened our agricultural sector with red tape

and bureaucracy that meant they were not able to operate in the way that

they felt best. And I personally waited for the negotiation with the

former Prime Minister before deciding how I was going to cast my

vote in this referendum. And it "Clear to me that despite all the

rhetoric, the EU or not willing or prepared to change, that they were

set on continuing because they had been on for some time. That was for

me the final straw that made me decide that casting my vote to leave

was the right thing to do. It was then a great relief to me when the

constituency I represent also agreed with me and voted 62% to leave as

well. I find it an easy position to be into night. It is not only my

personal view but it is the view of the vast majority of my constituents

that we should leave the European Union. Since the referendum result

I'm even more convinced it was the right decision. That it the right

thing to do. What I have detected is a new confidence in the country. A

new positive approach, a new outward looking approach. Business people I

speak to, despite the predicted doom and gloom, has said they are

positive about the future and what they want is the government to take

a clear lead, to set a clear direction, and I welcome the Prime

Minister's approach in doing that, in setting out where we are taking

our country as we negotiate to leave. And it's been quite clear

that all of the predictions of Project Fear about what would happen

when we decided to leave are being proved to be completely unfounded.

And what we find now is companies investing in the UK and the media

say, despite Brexit, they are investing here. I would like to say,

just maybe it should be because of Brexit they are investing here.

Because they are confident about the future of our country. Let me say

that I believe to night's historic vote gives us the opportunity to

start writing a new chapter for our country. Our country that has a long

and great history of standing up positively and looking at the world

and engaging with the world. I view to night's vote as the next step in

writing a new chapter for our great nation.

The European Union is a bureaucratic, cumbersome system. But

it is the longest and most successful peace process the world

has ever seen, transforming historic enemies into trading partners,

allies and friends. It gave hope to those labouring under the yoke of

communism and it has protected workers, consumers and environment,

supported the Northern Ireland peace process, and driven Britain's

economy, innovation and prosperity. I did not vote to hold a referendum

and I campaigned to remain. People in my constituency voted to leave.

My labour values, solidarity, internationalism, social justice,

say something else. Because I see the Prime Minister talking about

free trade but walking out on the largest free-trade area in the

world. To chase an imaginary trade deal with Donald Trump. A trade deal

with the USA is a distraction. The most important trade deal is the one

we negotiate with the European Union. That deal determines whether

a company in Wakefield faced tariffs on what they export. Or if Wakefield

farmers face tariffs on the land they export to Belgium. The Prime

Minister has a weak negotiating hand but she has thrown her cards on the

table before the other players and even sat down, rejecting sting in

the single market, worth 44% of UK experts currently go tariff free.

This hard Brexit was not what Leave campaigners promised in the

referendum. The UK's access to the largest free-trade area in the world

will be worse after 2019. That puts thousands of British jobs at risk.

An open society without discrimination is the founding

pillar of our British and European identity. And since the referendum,

hate crime and far-right right activity is up. My father died in

October. His last vote was to remain in the EU. He came to Britain from

Ireland to get an education, race 's family, work and pay his taxes.

After Brexit, someone like him without a degree from eastern

Europe, will face barriers to come here. I hope we are better than

that. To the people of Wakefield I have always sought to act in your

best interests. My duty is to make your lives better. You did not elect

me to make you poorer, destroy your jobs and we Kinyor public services.

My judgment as someone who has lived in Belgium and Italy and worked with

entrepreneurs for seven years, as an elected Labour public servant for

seven years, my judgment is this vote will make people in Wakefield

poorer, will destroy jobs and businesses, remove social, consumer

and environmental rights, and reduce the tax base that funds the NHS and

schools and public services. History has its eyes on horse today. I can

no more vote for this than I can vote against my conscience. It is

against my values. I can no more vote for this than I can vote

against my own DNA. My constituency voted to remain by a

large margin. I voted to remain. Coming to the conclusion that I

believe I should support this bill this evening has been a very

difficult one to make. In 2015, I stood on the manifesto that promised

a referendum. Soon after, I voted in favour of the bill to put that

referendum before the British people. In December, I voted for a

motion calling on the comment to invoke Article 50 by the end of

March. I did so because the democratic process has been

undertaken and it would be wrong of me to ignore that result. I was

disappointed by the result of the referendum. But we cannot continue

this indecision and uncertainty indefinitely. To vote against

triggering Article 50 would prolong that uncertainty. We will leave the

European Union. That much is for sure. And delaying the process,

which is in effect all that that vote would achieve, can only have

negative indications for our economy. Any attempt to overturn

that decision would damage the reputation this country has for our

democracy, which we all in this place prize so highly. In my view

it's now time for this House and the nation to come together. Not only

mitigating the risks of Brexit, but exploiting the opportunities. The

best interests of our constituents, must be promoted and protected.

Whether through trade or and industrial strategy. Warwick and

Leamington is home to a thriving local economy. A superb education

system. And constituents with outward looking and inclusive... I

do not believe that this has or will change due to impending exit from

the EU. Now is the time to set out a positive vision for the UK and

turned that vision into a reality. It's an honour to speak in such an

historic debate. As a passionate pro-European, a proud Londoner and

someone who comes from a background in which Britain was a welcoming

home to me and my family, and a constituency where almost 70% of the

electorate vote to remain, it goes without saying that this is a bill

that I wish I didn't have too vote on. The decision to trigger Article

50 to leave the European Union today is a process that, once it begins,

can't be stopped. There is no turning back. Mr Speaker, I don't

agree with the Prime Minister's plan to take bus out of the single

currency and the Customs Union because the effects will be

dangerous and devastating to our economy. And that is well understood

and well documented when it concerns the City of London and Canary Wharf,

which my constituency borders on, were some 70,000 to 100,000 jobs are

at risk. It is not just the jobs of

financiers at the top end, it is the receptionists, caterers and all the

people who serve the can-mac Wharf and all those jobs. -- who serve the

city and Canary Wharf. This sector contributes around 2 million jobs in

the country and loss of revenue for public expenditure. It is really

important we do not throw the baby out of the bath water, which I feel

this plan to leave the single market will lead to. And of course, our

rights, hard-won workers' writes, women's rights and the protections

of human rights which are seen and admired all over the world. These

are the things we have put at risk, as well as investment in public

services, because these decisions will cost early. It will be deeply

problematic and damaging to our economy. Some 44% of our exports is

with the EU. Even the head of the WTO indicated that if we leave and

end up on WTO terms, UK consumers will lose some 9 billion. Mr

Speaker, it is because of the damage that this change in move away from

the single market will do to my constituents, but and down the

country to our economy, and our rights, that I cannot support

triggering Article 50. I do not believe it is in our national

interests. I do not believe it is in our interests as a country that is

supposed to be outward looking and internationalist. I do not believe

it is in the interest of future generations.

About 20 years ago, my own political career was launched on the back of a

field referendum campaign when I and many others failed to prevent the

Welsh Assembly from being set up. I am reminded very much of those days

as I look at what is happening at the moment because it was a very

divisive campaign in Wales. There were all sorts of promises made

which I feel I've never actually been kept. It was a huge

constitutional change for us. There were divisions within wheels and

threats and altercations. -- within Wales. John Prescott came to Newport

town centre and I don't campaign was removed from the streets. The

resulting fracas made the news at ten. I won't reveal the identity of

the person involved. Yes, all right then, it was me! There was a great

discussion that took place and I remember it happening in Cardiff. We

said only one in four people had voted for this Welsh Assembly. It

went through on a much narrower margin than the referendum we have

just had. What are we going to do? Some of us, and I think I was one of

the diehards, said flights carry on fighting it. Let's fight it in

Parliament and get out in the media, which do the whole campaign. I did

not think about the courts at the time but we did have any hedge

funders behind us, otherwise I might have done. There were wiser voices,

such as the current climate change Minister. The Brexit Minister

himself, who sits on the front bench and a such a good job for us. Like

those of the Cabinet member, as he is at the moment, all of these wiser

people said, we have to accept it. We don't have to admit we were wrong

but we have to admit that on this occasion, the people said one thing

and we have to go along it. They were so right, Mr Speaker. I was

wrong to say we should have carried on fighting because, as a result, we

got involved with the National Assembly advisory group Andrew at

the standing orders. We drew up candidates. We are now the second

party in Wales and close to becoming the first party in Wales as a result

of what took place. Look at how well they have all done this year. One

day, who knows as well. That is the reality we have. There were

divisions during the referendum campaign but they need to end. We

all agree with that. They will not end when so many people, who, for

the best reasons and feel they are doing the right thing, in a

minority, continue to try and fight this campaign. Stop fighting the

campaign and become part of what is going to take place now. The people

of this country has spoken. Of course I will give way. You honestly

telling me you would have stopped fighting to come out of the EU if it

had gone the other way? I can tell you now, I do not believe he would.

The honourable lady is a peacemaker. She has given me a few tellings off

in her time. If I try to do anything like that, I would have the

honourable lady having a quiet or even not so quiet word with me

putting me in my place. Because we would have had to have accepted what

the people of this country said. I am saying, let's end the division.

Of course we should. Look at what is happening in this political party.

We were all over the place a few months ago. One thing this and that.

All of us have got behind Cabinet members and our leader. That is the

lesson to this country. Our Prime Minister tonight is going to reflect

the will of the British people. It is about bringing power back, yes,

from Brussels to the people of this country but it is about going

through the lobbies and recognising that is what the people of this

country once. I say to anyone thinking of not coming through with

us tonight, think about the will of the British people and be part of

what is going to take place. That exciting new chapter in the history

of this great country. Come with us tonight, come British people.

I will start by putting my cards on the table. I loathe and detest this

toady Brexit. I despair that what this toady Brexit would do to my

beautiful country. This is to be the hardest of Brexits with cuts and

imaginable, and for what? If we were doing this for some lofty ideal,

some grand purpose, like addressing global poverty and the huge issues

of injustice around the world, maybe making it more palatable. But we are

doing this because the UK does not like immigration. That is the cold,

beating heart of this Brexit that underpins everything the --

concerning our departure from the EU. It expresses ins and all other

issues are merely consequential. We live anything connected -- in a

connected world. With exchanges of skills and ideas. Somehow we ask to

believe the myth that Brexit will take us back to a better time. I

laughed out loud when I heard all this stuff about a global UK. That

is the last thing possible they want to create. This is drawbridge UK

they are trying to create. Look at the response from the rest of the

world. When you're not laughing at us, they are taking pity on us. As

the Foreign Secretary goes out of his way to insult the people we have

to negotiate with... A negotiating position? It seems to be that we

will indulge in for the economic self harm if we look after

self-interest. Apparently, timing the UK into a deregulated tax even

if the EU thinks about looking after its own interests. That will show

them, won't it? It is not just the fact of leading EU concerns me, it

is the new worldview that is hastily designed to accommodate this

isolation. I see a Brexit Britain as a world of weird 1950s mastalgia, in

reality that will feel very much like the pages of a Daily Mail

editorial. People of Britain workers if you would in the early days of

Ukip UK, because that is what is coming. Scotland, of course, wanted

no part of this but we are to be driven off the cliff edge with the

rest of the UK. What we have now those options. We have presented a

plan to stop Scotland indulging in the worst of this madness. If that

is not listen to, we have every right to reconsider our membership

of this United Kingdom. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. When the

results came through on the 24th of June, I must admit, my emotion was

one of great sadness. And it continued for some time. Sadness, I

think, as you honourable gentleman for Cambridge said, not just because

of the economic consequences, potential or not, because I do

believe in the medium to long-term this country will see a stable and

prosperous economic future, but sadness because of the division that

it put between ourselves and our European partners and allies. And

some of those divisions that were showing up in our own country. It is

absolutely vital that we come together and rebuild some of that

social capital that was lost. We have to do so by building on the

decision we are taking tonight. When you're taken decision, whether it is

right or right or wrong or something you don't know, what you can do is

ensure the next decisions you take the best possible decisions for your

country. And for your people. That demands that we involve all the

peoples of the UK in this, whether from Northern Ireland, England or

Scotland or Wales. It demands that we immediately reassure European

citizens in this country of the rights here, as we would expect

other countries within the EU to assure our own citizens. That is a

matter of moral decency. It is also very important that we fight hard to

retain those institutions which are not part, effectively, the European

Union, which we are vital, technically and in so many other

ways for our general well-being and the health of our economy. Whether

that is the European medicines agency or not. Another thing that is

vital is that the work incredibly hard. We, selling my party, have put

the country this position. It is our duty to get out there and ensure

that we have the best possible arrangements. That is not just mean

writing newspaper column saying how wonderful it is, that means getting

out there and doing the hard work, treating people with respect,

building up relationships that perhaps have been more than a little

bruised over the last few months. It is also vital that this place has a

decision to make. A decision to make that we have a sovereignty to make

that decision over our future relationship with Europe. Not the

Government, not the European Parliament on its own, but we hear.

And finally, I would hope that we would conduct these debates with

honesty, clarity and not with bombast. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It

is an honour to speak on this debate today. Last Friday, celebrating my

first 100 days as an MP, I spoke to a room of 50 dedicated activists and

members of my stitches in Labour Party meeting. I am proud that we

were able to talk frankly and honestly about this vote. Many spend

months knocking on doors and delivering leaflets alongside my

predecessor, Jo Cox, advocating that people should vote Remain. Excuse

me. Whilst others in the room voted another way.

I am sure that... I thank the honourable lady for the speech that

she is making and I just wanted to say on behalf of the whole house

that I am sure Jo Cox and her family are in our thoughts as we take this

vote on the referendum tonight. Absolutely. I do appreciate that.

Thank you so much. I also voted to remain. As I spoke and listened to

my friends and colleagues, it was difficult and occasionally emotional

as I explained why I felt it was my duty to respect democracy and vote

in favour of triggering Article 50. Batley and Spen voted 63% to leave.

The people have spoken. And I must listen. However painful this is now,

we're leaving the European Union. It is my duty to listen to everyone.

Move on from levers, remains and get the best deal for everyone. Once,

Batley and Spen was a manufacturing powerhouse. But things move on and

now we are celebrated for beds and biscuits. The mills are shopping

centres, offices, flats or in some cases have fallen into disrepair.

Jobs for life I've been replaced by the gig economy. Many of my

constituents are in low pay and insecure work. People have not seen

a significant improvement in standards of living for decades.

Left behind by globalisation. I have no doubt financial insecurity and a

sense of contributed to the leave vote. That said, what my

constituents did not vote for is giving this Government a blank

cheque. They did not vote for losing jobs, having your rights at work

watered down. Losing maternity, paternity pay. Human rights or LGBT

rights. Mr Speaker, there are also lessons to be learned from my former

industry, the creative industries. They must also have their voice

heard in upcoming negotiations. In evidence given to the culture

media and sport director they told us the UK is the third largest

supplier of films, second largest producer of television in the world

and in the area of video games we are constantly at the cutting edge.

The creative economy accounts for one any live-in jobs. However it is

fair to seek a vote for leaving the EU was not one of the industry at

large wished for. The survey ahead of the referendum fund 96%... I will

give way. I thank the honourable lady for giving way. Does she agree

the point she is making is the creative industries is not just

about here but the places we represent and the North watch our

readers in this industry? I thank my honourable member for that point and

it is true one of our biggest expanding industry locally is the

creative industries and he must support that at every opportunity

because if we lose free movement of labour we could easily lose a

pipeline of highly skilled creatives and if that happens we must develop

a domestic training and education system that fills the skills gaps in

that industry. However, the time to debate these details will come

later. First we must vote to move this process on. Not with angry

denial or blind optimism but on a mission to be vigilant about the

rights of those with the least and those living here who support those

in most need. Thank you, Mr Speaker, it is a

pleasure to follow the member for Backley and spent and in this

particular bill we have come to similar decision. In the referendum

I believe the considerable short-term risks of leaving the EU

outweighed the unquantifiable future benefits but I underestimated the

deep mistrust of the EU. The people have decided to leave and I must

respect their decision and will support this bill. The hard work now

begins. For example, how do we access the benefits free trade from

outside EU structures like the single market and the customs union?

Some believe nothing is possible but the alternative to working for

success is to hope things go badly even to Will it and to be

ceaselessly critical and ultimately only achieve an ethical of the

lament, we are all doomed. None of us have perfect foresight and I am

absolutely confident we will have much greater success in line up

future of free trade agreements and some members have suggested. The

negotiations will begin soon. In my view we need an agreement that is

generous to Europeans living here, enthusiastic and continuation of an

academic and research cooperation and wrestled our solidarity with

Europe on defence, practical ways but well coming to skills, tourists

and entrepreneurs, free of the European Court of Justice but never

compromising on standards of the rule of law. And ventures in

pursuing our own trade deals but never underestimating the importance

of free trade and easy customs clearance in all we do with Europe.

That is what I hope the Government White Paper will lay out and I hope

it brings out what one nation of diverse parts together, for whatever

concerns about the journey we shall start positive, not cynical.

I want to start by paying tribute to Gino Miller, a courageous woman who

fought for our constitution. -- Gina Miller. She found herself and her

family the subject of a hideous media campaign and from the public

for the crime of simply being a Democrat. She prevented an

ill-equipped Government overreaching itself and enforcing its own version

of without the view of Parliament being heard. She acted fearlessly,

without the board and parliamentarians and Democrats

across the country overheard a great debt of gratitude. Honourable

members will know I introduced the bill to safeguard all the workers'

from the EU legislation after our withdrawal from the EU but

unfortunately it was blocked and we over four I was discussion through a

handed out to Bill and I do hope the Government tunes in this time. I

realise they are these allocated next week to discuss amendments

however there is no guarantee my amendments will be hurt so I would

like to highlight the now to demonstrate the importance. People

in this country deserve to know their rights at work will not be

thrown away. I give way. Doesn't have what she

had just made sure how outrageous it is and the fact members are not

restricted to just three minutes per speech for the Government is

imposing just three days for of the most important built this country

has faced in our lifetimes? It is very difficult and there are

lots of complex issues and many members on both sides will

appreciate that -- would appreciate greater time to discuss. I would

first like to say new clause nine requires the Government to produce a

plan on steps to ensure you workers' rights will be maintained in UK law

before withdrawal from the EU and I wonder if people see that and

tomorrow's White Paper. Close ten makes provision workers' rights

continue to be enforced on exit date subject to changes on the member

primary legislation and the new schedule one that places and primary

legislation each workers' rights EU directives because this is front and

centre from the working people who are four-minute in an increasingly

unstable labour market. The protections against against

discrimination, paid holiday, leave for working parents. They have

become accepting minimums for reasonable and followers and then

weaved into the fabric of employment. On the steps of Downing

Street in July the Prime Minister misrepresented those who have a job

at the others have security in the job and they are the millions of

agency workers in the care sector, retail industry, security industry

factories and the rely on these protections to enjoy the same wages

and holiday entitlement as permanent workers and in return they get equal

access to facilities, vacancies and amenities. Some have been reassured

by the Government of the Brexit will not undermine workers' rights but

the other comments by Matt honourable friend for Walthamstow

just demonstrate this is not the case. -- the earlier comments by the

member for Walthamstow. If it is the case can look forward to my

amendments appearing in the bill going forward. Despite being on the

other side of the bit I accept the British public voted for operated