20/02/2017 House of Lords

The eyes of Europe are now on as and we have it in our grasp to set out a

new vision, realising their dreams of those who believe in union. All

we need is the courage to put a new case, all the benefits of today can

be restored tomorrow if we rebuild on firmer ground the premature union

that has really needed its people needs to be reconfigured. We should

lead this process. Although our country has voted, albeit by a small

majority, to sever links with the EU, many voters continue to voice

genuine concerns and questions about the future. Concerns which have been

echoed eloquently by noble Lords hear today. About the impact on our

economy and in living standards. The position of EU nationals working in

our communities and paying their taxes to support our service sector.

The position of UK nationals living and working in the EU. How our

departure will impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and

Gibraltar. Many are deeply concerned that our departure will precipitate

the break-up of the EU itself and fear the potential for new turmoil

in a continent which is being -- has been ravaged by war is 400 of years

but has lived in comparative peace for the last 70. They want to know

exactly what a hard press it will mean. They need to clean answers to

their questions and responses to their concerns. -- hard Brexit.

There is a deeper understanding of the benefits access to the single

market has brought to the UK and a more accurate, acute awareness of

the potential loss that could await us when we depart the EU. The single

market is and has been a great value to Wales. So much so that the

majority of parties and the Welsh Assembly while respecting the Welsh

vote to leave the EU have called for school and unfettered access to it.

It is a market which is vital to our economy. Some 68% of Welsh exports

go to the EU. Securing replacement markets is likely to be a slow and

cumbersome process which could damage our economy, certainly in the

short term. These parties and the Welsh Assembly have also called for

a balanced approach to immigration. Which would link migration to jobs

and crucially, the advocate the introduction of properly enforce

employment practices that protect workers. By Lords, I live in Conwy

county in North Wales. Sitting at the edge of the Snowdonia National

Park, it is a county blessed with the most beautiful scenery. With a

GDP per capita of 75% of the EU average, putting it on par with

Estonia and Lithuania, it has qualified for the EU structural

funding allocated to West Wales and the values since 2000. The present

Travel Show funding, running from 2014 to 2020 Caesar's benefiting

from ?1.9 billion of EU investment to support people into work and

training, youth unemployment, research and innovation, renewable

energy schemes and energy efficiency projects. -- sees as benefiting. In

an area suffering rule depredation, these are important building blocks

in their attempts to grow our local economy. After my country's decision

to leave the EU however, there are no guarantees of funding from the

British Government to continue this -- these projects. How will any

regional policy be funded? Agriculture plays a crucial role in

the Welsh economy, employing 50,000 people an output of around ?1.5

billion of produce. Agricultural funding will be upheld until 2020

but the future after that is unclear. Farmers need clarity on

future funding and projects. I would be grateful if that would be given

today. The potential impact of withdrawal from the EU on the Airbus

factory in north-east Wales also concerning. The site is run by a

European consortium and this assembles wings for civil aircraft,

wings which are transported by road and I see to Toulouse for final

assembly. It directly employs over 6000 people and many others

contribute to the supply chain and of course relies heavily on the

ability to move goods and people freely between its sites. The

analogy of the UK withdrawal of the EU to buying a House has already

been made elsewhere and I make two apologies for using it hear. -- no

apologies. Our country has made the decision to

move home, we have no idea of the cost, are to be given no survey and

no input. We are moving and are all expected to accept the jaws of home

that will be made for us, not by us. In reality, though, house-buying has

taken the balances throughout the process. Opportunities to reflect,

the information and evaluated. Learn more about where we are going. We

engage in decision-making throughout the process and make choices before

signing an agreement. We have to accept that we are divided country.

But he had Brexit delivered by a seemingly paternalistic government

will do little to heal the divisions we all feel. We are told to accept

the will of the people and unite behind the government. But unity

cannot be forced upon us. Like respect, it has to be nurtured and

errand. The first steps to unity can come from the government accepting

that voters have the right to be part of the decision-making process.

They have the right to reflect, learn more about their destination,

re-evaluate their initial decision and either confirm or change it on

these benches we believe that the British people must have the right

to the final say on the deal negotiated by the government. That

right is fundamental to our beliefs and is one of the issues we will

pursuing at the later stages of this bill. I will make clear that I am

not an enthusiast for referendums, except in the case of national

determination, and even those should be avoided where possible. I believe

the former pro Minister made a mistake in calling a referendum but

the people have spoken and their elected representatives in the other

players have chosen to follow the people's well. Those who support the

remaining cores should not be too downcast. These islands have been

seeking to define the relationship with continental Europe for the last

2000 years. The referendum result represents a turn off the wheel and

the wheel will one-day tour and again. Leaving the EU raises a

multiplicity of questions and the government's white paper has done a

good job in identifying the main ones. Perhaps inevitably, it has

been a little less -- I would like to focus on four issues. As Macbeth

said, if it is done when it is done then it is done quickly. The

government has set itself a demanding timetable, more sober than

the impending elections in Germany and France. But there is no point

extending the negotiations and definitely. The British economy will

have to change and adapt on the sooner there is certainty to format

change, the better. The British economy has shown itself to be

sufficiently flexible to adapt to shocks over the last decade and I am

in no doubt it can adapt to this one, provided the government pursues

a sensible economic policies of sound money and free trade.

Secondly, we need to nurture capacity in the civil service.

Inevitably, white or expertise in the EU and in trade negotiations if

limited. -- Whitehall expertise. The Secretary of State recently pointed

we should not worry, the full-service court will another

1940, but that misses the point. At the civil service be better

prepared, the pursuit of war in 1940 would have gone a whole lot better.

This is not the time for amateurs who floated from one post to another

in Number Ten or the Cabinet office, or the Treasury. We need to build a

team of battle hardened professional negotiators who understand the world

trade order and have the contacts to construct Britain's place in it.

Thirdly, we need to prioritise the issue of Ireland. The white paper

remind us that the British and Irish governments managed to deal with the

broader question which are purely for the 50 years between the

creation of the free State and both countries joining the European

Union, but with Britain outside and violin still an enthusiastic member

of the EU, goods and people will continue to flow freely from other

EU member states and to the republic. I find it difficult to see

how people will continue to flow freely across the border into

Ulster. The white paper says the government will seek to safeguard

business interests in Ulster, but in the absence of a customs union, I am

not sure it can't. Of course, I hope the government succeeds, in creating

a special arrangement for the border in Ireland, since if it does it will

help minimise the damage of Scottish independence, which for all the

economic argument against is now just a little bit more likely as a

result of the referendum result. Finally, I would like to make a plea

for free-trade and for the multilateral over bilateralism. The

Gladstonian system of liberal free was unilateral. In the late 19th

century, this country showed admirable contempt for countries

like Germany, France and the united states, who sought to charge tariffs

on imported goods. But in the 1890s, it was the Foreign Office, supported

by the Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain, who sought to undermine

the free-trade system by advocating bilateral trade deal. I can see this

happening again, and I do hope the Chancellor and Treasury will stand

up to these pressures. Trade should not become an arm of foreign policy,

or bureaucratic self-interest. My Lords, I have yet to decide on

whether to support amendments to this bill. I've said, I am not an

enthusiast for a never-ending referendum. But I do worry that

leaving all further scrutiny will be to leave it too late. I shall listen

to this debate and I hope the House can play a constructive role in

enhancing the quality of the final settlement.

Number 40 on the list, it reminds me that I was on 45 years outside the

European Union and I remember well some of the tremendous service that

was done, as has been mentioned, in bringing us into the European Union

and the difficulties that involve. My Lords, I voted for remain and I

was fairly enthusiastic for a referendum, on the basis that the

people were entitled to say whether or not they wished to be in the

European Union. And we know the answer, and so far as I am

concerned, the government are band to give effect to that answer. --

bound. Perhaps the obvious dramatic indication of that was Mr Cameron's

resignation on the morning after, when he said that having led the

argument to stay, he could not lead the country out of the European

Union. So, here we are. And now the situation has arisen that a question

was required to be determined as to whether the government could, in

order to initiate the negotiations, do so under the royal prerogative.

Now, the royal prerogative is well recognised as completely free

negotiation of treaties and diplomacy generally, and I think it

is generally accepted that is the right way to do it. That ministers

should be responsible for that. There is a quotation from the 18th

century that was quoted in the judgment in the Miller case, where

Blackstone, a great exponent of English law, said of the practical

reasons why the prerogative managing international relations is

explained, he says this is wisely placed in a single hand by the

British constitution for the sake of unanimity, strength and dispatch.

Where it placed in many hands, it would be subject to many will, many

wills of disunited and drawing in different ways create weakness any

government and to unite those several roles and reduce them to one

if the work of more and delay than the existences of state will afford.

The only reason that the prerogative was not operator of in order to

start the negotiations in connection with the European Union was because

of the effect of the European act in 1972. And the fundamental rule is

that the prerogative cannot afford, effect individual parliamentary

rates and therefore to the extent necessary to open the negotiations,

that authority needed to be given by an act of Parliament. And that is

what the Supreme Court decided and they did not decide, and certainly

gave no countenance to the idea that thereafter Parliament should control

the actual negotiations. It is certainly true that ultimately, the

negotiations, whatever they are, will certainly require to be

examined. And there is certainly a very distinct possibility that the

negotiations for the implementation in the end will require an act of

Parliament. And if that is the case, then of course Parliament will be

filling involved in that situation. But in the meantime, it seems to me

that it is much better that ministers should have the

responsibility to negotiate, because it is negotiation that is primarily

an issue here, until a final issue is reached. And, as I said, the

judgment of the Supreme Court, I think, supports that very strongly

indeed. Now, the issues have been mentioned in the course of this

debate which will certainly occupy ministers. I would like to believe

that ministers will be looking for the best possible agreement that

they can achieve in the interests of all the people, young and old,

living in the United Kingdom. In England, Wales, Scotland and

Northern Ireland. And I do not want to forget Gibraltar either. Were the

problems must be quite severe. Different, anyway, from Northern

Ireland, but those of us who have visited Gibraltar realise how

tenuous the system is, and how it may affect them. So ministers have a

responsibility to try to deal with all of that, and I do believe that

is the best for us to leave it to them to do it. Without trying to

interfere, put our finger into the pie, until they have finished the

negotiations. So, I am all in favour of the second reading of this bill.

I am all in favour of the bill being confirmed as it is, and I hope that

will be the outcome from the House. Not because I am an unelected

person, indeed, I am not the only unelected person in the British

constitution! No member of the government is elected to his or her

position. Most of them are of course elected to the House of commons, but

not to their position in government. I want to vote for this bill, not

because I am unelected but because the decision is right. My Lords, I

wanted to start by making a confession, and I am glad that the

chamber is not still, and I am hoping you will keep my concession

to yourselves. LAUGHTER

I know it will not please many noble friends on this side of the House,

and I know it will probably please many noble Lords on the opposite

side. For that, I can only say sorry to my noble friends and colleagues.

Here goes. I like Theresa May. They are, I said it. So, let me continue

in that same vein of honesty. My Lords, equally do not trust Boris

Johnson, David Davis or Liam Fox to successfully negotiate a good deal

with the EU or any other nation. They are, I have said that as well.

I have no confidence that they have the skills, understanding and

confidence to do such a deal. I know they have many other attributes, but

managing a complex and tough set of negotiations is not amongst them. My

Lords, for those of us, and there are many in this House, who have

run, Bill or managed big, multi-billion pound commercial

operations, we know that putting the trainees to run your most important

deal is a mistake. And that is what looks like it is happening. My

Lords, in this House there are eight previous EU commissioners. Two have

already spoken. There are current and past CEOs of some of Britain 's

biggest companies. There are German, past and present, of many of our

most successful businesses. And I would say to the Prime Minister,

this House is not your enemy. This House is a resource and a place to

find advice, help and skills that are not available in the other

place. So, I hope the Prime Minister will seek to involve this House more

and not with in the negotiations. I hope that a mechanism can be found

to include members of this House into the negotiations process,

whilst preserving the confidentiality required to

negotiate. Perhaps something again to the intelligence committee in the

other place. It is perhaps not the government's

finest hour, being dragged before the courts and forced to bring this

bill before Parliament so it is only natural that many in this House

might worry or be suspicious about free assurances from the government

from the dispatch box. I would like to say, as I suspect many in this

House and the other place, a legal commitment to a vote in both Houses

before the article 50 deal is brought before the European

Parliament. If Parliament rejects the deal, I would want Parliament to

be given a series of auctions, including sending the government

back to the negotiation table. I want a strong Britain with a strong

economy that serves those who voted for Brexit as well as those who

voted against. I want jobs for those without, education and health

service which are the envy of the world. I want a Britain that is

confident and not weakened by fear of false enemies. That is the

challenge of Brexit, a better, stronger Britain. I expect the

government to deliver on that promise. Millions of people have

hopes and fears resting on the actions of the government. I

genuinely wish the government well. I will do my part to help to

continue to invest in the UK economy. I will also the government

to account for the hopes and fears of many. If they cannot deliver a

better, better than we have today, then they should not be afraid to

say so. They should look at the alternative options, no matter how

politically unappealing some of those might seem today. My Lords, we

hear to serve not just political dogma. -- we are here. I would like

to say one other words about the behaviour of the House. For those of

us that have been on the backbenches for a long time, we do not behave

badly. We really do not need to be lectured on our behaviour. The

people that they leave badly generally are front run politicians

and you will find them at the front of the House, not at the back of the

House. Backbenchers in this please have an amazing record of being

absolutely brilliant at the things they bring to this House. I think

the noble Lords and members of the other place would remember that and

the debate would go much easier. -- I think if. The government is about

to take the momentous step of triggering article 50. I never had

any doubt about that happening. There is a white paper, the purpose

of which the 2nd of February, the Secretary of State said was to

inform all debates in the coming two years. So for the mother of all

negotiations, we had 73 pages, much of occupied by current analysis in

exclamatory boxes but no substantive guidance on how cooperation is

envisaged to work and how that could work is not a negotiation tactic, it

is the fundamental prospectus and should not be secret. So we are

where we are as the saying goes. We do not know where we will be at the

ends... Where we will end up as the white paper saying goes because that

is entirely a matter for negotiation. Those are the words

that spring out from the white paper, that our future relationship

is entirely a matter for negotiations. It says so in

paragraph 210 on dispute resolution and in another paragraphs. In the

paragraph on our new customs relationship and in the paragraph

regarding our relationship with European arrangements and for

interim relationships. The Irish border, financial services,

scientific cooperation, the list goes on. Depending on the results of

those negotiations, we will get the interpretation of the word possible

in the frequently used expression of frictionless and seamless as

possible. Freely as possible. As much as possible, closest as

possible and as much certainty as possible. It is worse than no

certainty because the government has said it would jump off a cliff into

disordered uncertainty as its only alternative. For my part, I do not

agree that the government already has an incontestable mandate for

that which may also turn out to be the constitutional position. Nor

mother be any certainty through early priorities because we are

nearly on the brink of swapping the EU's no negotiation before

triggering mantrap for its standard negotiation of nothing is agreed

until everything is agreed. However, there could be one important

certainty if the government would confirm the acquired right for EU

citizens currently in the UK. Holding office doing harm to the UK,

in the NHS and elsewhere so as I'm negotiation card it is bust. It is

known and shown to have no value, at least grasp the figleaf of decency

now. Though I declare a deep personal interest because my late

father was arguably the foremost engineer of his time in atomic

energy and particle accelerators. For UK purposes, the term EU

includes you at in so far as context requires therefore as that stands on

the bill, that might incline the Prime Minister to give notice as

regards the usual atom legal entity, the question is when as well as

whether that is appropriate. The arguments are not clear cut as to

whether Euroatom is automatically included. This gives the government

an opportunity, a useful alternative for transition by not triggering

Euroatom Article 50 simultaneously with regard to. With this it is the

EU definition which matters. At least have some negotiation about

the modalities under which there could be continuing membership of

Euroatom. Having regard for long-term timescales. Even a short

delay might be helpful given that the Dutch, French and German

elections and summer holidays play the UK into the format of early

talks being around the formation of financial provisions. I cannot say

why the UK would not keep this chance cards when it keeps the

useless EU migrants one. My Lords there are amendments which I will

support. The government has made its own difficulties, inadequate

information on how it is meant to work and like a perpetual motion

machine, engineering is deeply suspect. Closing of options that did

not need to be closed off with its, not a jot of EU approach. We did not

need to be hogtied that way. In the end, you will have to cut some slack

because you will be rumbled. Perpetual motion machine is always

are. I think I am next. My Lords, I first

arrived tear in 1981. When I was even younger than the noble

Baroness, the tender age of 29. Unlike Lord Mackay I actually am

elected. It is rather like being the Member for Old Sarum but I am

elected. During that time, one has seen and heard a lot and this is the

largest turnout that I have ever witnessed. Still, seeing I was the

number that I am, I listened politely and we got up to 20, 30,

40. I thought this was wonderful, no one has made the point I wish to

make and then suddenly the noble Lord stood up, whom I have not had

the pleasure of meeting but perhaps we should get together and confirm

since he clearly reads my mind or in the early hours I have been reading

his. Like the zero -- noble Lord Hope, my reputation as a political

soothsayer has suffered a bit of a battering during 2016. I got it

wrong about the referendum. I got it wrong about the US election. So my

credit with those people who thought I had some sort of political insight

is virtually zero. When I last spoke in this House, it was in March/

tear. That seems like a lifetime ago. -- March last year. But here we

are, we have an unanticipated outcome, we appear to have little or

no effective scenario planning about potential options before the event

and now we have a scramble to get our collective heads around it which

was eliminated uncomfortably for me by a conversation I had about two

months ago with a friend of mine from the north of England who turned

out to be very strongly pro-leaving. The conversation went for about ten

minutes, talking about the reasons for voting for lives. At the end we

try to sum it up. I said, I will call him Nigel for this evening, I

said, I think we are agreeing with each other that the political

grandees who were most in favour of leaving are probably intellectually

and managerially the least competent to actually manage our way out of

it? And he said yes. So, basically, those of us who did not want to

leave are going to have to manage our way through this? And he said

yes. I said, all right. Just so you know, this does not feel great and

so we moved on. I do think for many others, that is where we are. People

did not buy in large vote on political grounds. If you look at

the elected its which normally support the Conservative Party and

those who might normally be thought to support the Labour party, very

large numbers of them chose not to follow their political leaders and

to go in the wrong direction. 37.5% of the total electorate voted to

leave and 34.6% choose to remain. While the new US president might

regard this gulf between the two percentages as awesome, historic and

unprecedented, earth-shattering even, some of us might choose to

differ and recognise that it really was quite close. One of my

great-grandfathers had the good sense I suppose to be a Conservative

politician and his name is Stanley Baldwin. If ever he heard someone

speaking about politicians being in power, he would quietly correct them

and say you misunderstand the basis of being election -- elected. You

are elected into office as much to represent those who did not vote for

you or did not vote at all for those who did vote for you. As I listen to

the passionate arguments and so-called facts and counter facts

being bounded -- bandied about, as I listened with visceral distaste to

accusations of lack of patches to them by people who I think I would

describe as strangely sore winners, you normally have sore losers but we

appear to have sore winners as well as sore losers. My Lords, we need

cool and measured heads but we also need political stethoscopes in order

that we can listen to our fellow citizens. Sore winners and sore

losers do not make good negotiators, especially when disagreeing with one

another rather thoughtlessly. My final point is to echo what was said

earlier, some in your Lordships House, especially those who have

enjoyed a career in another place, particularly some of them who

achieved the dizzy heights of being appointed Privy Councillor, seem to

have forgotten that the courtesies of this House are different. They

are greatly valued by most of us. Audibly and theatrically disagreeing

with others use may be meat and drink in the other place but not

hear, my lords. I must apologise to Lord Russell, I

listened to him with interest, I didn't agree with that last remark

but that's another matter. Like others, I welcome this mercifully

short Bill, I have to confess that after more than 45 years of foremost

continuous EU debates, treaties and arguments, it's hard to think of

anything extremely new and useful to say. Of course we can add here

analysis and insight and advice aplenty and there are many noble

Lords who are supremely well qualified to do that, we have heard

some of it this afternoon and will hear a great deal more in the weeks

to come. But I cannot see the point at this stage of trying to amend

what is essentially a procedure, the use the medical term, and one that

must be handled with immense and I'm distracted care, a minimum of gold

by joking if it is to succeed and to get us through the wherewithal to

be. There is said to be two frontrunning amendments in prospect,

one concerns the status of EU residents, and that is a very tricky

one. I must confess that much as I would like to be on the side of the

unilateralists, I'm afraid it looks as though a unilateral approach is

not go to work. Some continental countries and leaders are clearly

not going to budge except under pressure and we cannot abandon 1

million British citizens. The other front runner is about Parliament's

say in our final deal, I'm not sure it will come back in this neat

package as everyone currently seems to think, particularly in the other

place. I will return to that. The plot to make is about trade and the

single market, I confess my difficulty trying to get into the

mindset of those like Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson who spoke so clearly,

and a Liberal Democrat friends, but fears of a hard Brexit, the more I

hear about their fears, the more I think I'm listing to a worldview on

trade which is completely and utterly obsolete. Services, digital

and conventional, are coming to dominate international exchange,

data and information flows generate more economic value them all global

goods trade and our economy is 81% services, 33% of it digital or

digitally related businesses. Slightly under half a current expert

earnings come from services and this will grow fast, and the white Paper

tells us that 30% of total value of goods and exports and services

anywhere. Not just financial services, all the other services,

retail consultancy, legal services, creative industries, fashion,

tourism, accountancy, are still bigger earners than financial

services. The reason for this is doubly powerful trend is that in the

last few years we've seen the complete collapse of communication

and information cost to almost zero, and production going international,

with revolutionary effects on trade flows and investment. There is a

massive shift of global GDP shares from West and North East and South

taking place, a total reversal of fortunes, the old form of

globalisation in the 20th century which went on before 1990, when

North and West got richer and the South got poorer, now it's the other

way around except for the very richest who have done well in both

areas. The chief new winners are China, India, Ozil, Indonesia,

Nigeria, Mexico, Turkey, three of those in the Commonwealth, and

services no no boundaries, they are duty free, and the other hand they

are restricted in the EU by numerous rules. The fact is that the US has

not been a good place in recent years for services expansion. Our

services UK exports have grown less to other members within the EU then

to outside markets. Outside countries not in the EU have done

better exported into the EU than we have sent 1993. Of the 20 countries

with the fastest export growth in the last ten years, only three are

in the EU. Meanwhile, W shares widened across all continents,

making nonsense of protected production zones like in the single

market, and with components and partly processed products crossing

borders multiple times. The obvious conclusion and analysis is that

being in or out of the old single market is of decreasing relevance to

our interests and prosperity, skills and share innovative power are

becoming more important. My Lords, it's a bit affected in these

conditions, we have so far been rather bad exporters, one of the

weakest in the Europe, with heavy imports to fill the gap. We cannot

go on like this with a new model. As Lord Hill said earlier, business

cards operate in a vacuum, and will not wait for the deliberations and

negotiations. They are making their own deals and arrangements, quite

aside from the complexity, the whole prospect depends on how they use

customers across the Channel. The EU is entering a major period of

upheaval, another year of crisis is around the corner, the process to be

agreed by 70% council members, and new relationship has to be grew by

39 parliamentary chambers, how will it be found at a Brussels level, who

will have the authority to settle it all. We must stay very close to our

European neighbours on a whole range of security and safety issues. But a

new mental model is required to comprehend the unprecedented trade

situation. Tony Blair says the government are not masters of the

situation. He hasn't grasped these fluid new conditions, no government

is in control. We are caught up in historic forces, social,

technological and political, much bigger than any single government,

as are many other countries including the USA. The single market

is a smaller and smaller part of the scene. Our interests, and our future

prosperity, now my on the wider stage and we must move confidently

and unimpeded the centre of it. It's always about to follow the much

respected Lord, 20 years ago I followed him chairing the Foreign

Affairs Committee in the other place. Who do live in strange times,

this is a very short bill but with momentous consequences. Consensual

habits, built over 45 years are to be set aside, Brexiteer is argued

for restoring national sovereignty, parliamentary sovereignty and

therefore it's puzzling that the government did not wish this debate

to take place and relied instead on the royal prerogative, like some

17th-century Mike. Again we had the amazing spectacle of the other place

approving this bill with a vast majority, when the majority of

members of Parliament believe it not to be in our national interest. I

make three brief points. First, the nature of the decision on June 23.

Much of the debate, the post-referendum analysis, is focused

on the regional differences, London, Scotland and so on. Perhaps of more

interest to us and to the government, if they wish to govern

for the country as a whole, is the age difference. Three quarters of 18

- 24-year-olds voted to remain. The young, whose interests have been

most affected, but it strongly to remain, the old, who by definition

have shorter term interest, voted to leave. 46 was the point at which

there was the change over. Why this age differential? There was a new

nation, but surely nostalgia as well. A yearning for yesteryear, a

reluctance to come to terms with UK of today with its modernity and

diversity, to adapt, it was making Britain great again, and again was

perhaps the operative word, in looking back to some time of the

past. Perhaps nostalgia even includes memories of the

Commonwealth as it was. Indeed the group of Conservative members

apparently wanted new entry channels at our ports and airports for the

Commonwealth, but oddly seem to focus only on the white old

dominions. They perhaps forget that Commonwealth governments, perhaps

universally, favoured remain. Past attempts to revive, North trade had

not been particularly successful. And any new deals from rich with the

Commonwealth could harm some of our key national interests, including

agriculture, land, beef and so on. Surely there is now a danger that

the government desperately try, after Europe, to create automotive

alliances, for example by cosying up to the Trump illustration in the US,

appoint already made generation to pollution in the human rights

commission. -- in relation to pollution. And there are hints on

shifts in Sharon policy will stop with the people must be consulted,

they have spoken, their view should be respected and technically, this

must be right. Although the referendum was only advisory we to

acknowledge political reality and not like Tony Benn in 1975, having

worked hard for a referendum, continuing to campaign against what

was the common market, even after 2-1 voted in favour, not 52-48. Out

of the referendum, about? Let us not ignore the weakness of the camera.

-- Mr Cameron. He vowed to lead the European People's party, much

against our interests, he promoted this act to hold a referendum before

any chance of a power to Brussels as if it was an alien, hostile power,

and it was hardly surprising therefore that he was not credible

when he stood on his head and advised the country to follow his

lead. How do we now respond to the Bill? And we follow our arms and say

that people have spoken, long live the people? I make three points. We

had to concede that the Remainers were too gloomy, at least on the

effects of a negative vote, in the short-term, but the Brexiteers were

guilty of blatant lies. The addition of some study national health

service, the imminent entry of Turkey and no mention of an exit

fee. Yes, we should look with respect, as we have already come on

the work of scrutiny committees who have been trailblazers, particularly

our EU committees. There are no chances at least of the impact of

leaving by passing amendments, EU citizens can the Irish border, the

environment and workers' rights. We had to ask ourselves, did the

referendum give the government a blank check? Are there no

constraints on their ambitions, on the single market, customs union,

borders, universities? There should at least be a meaningful vote in

parliament at the end of the process, and as Lord O'Donnell said

what is now proposed is no real concession. Finally, we should not

rule out the possibility of a second referendum, when the final package

is clear. David Davis began the debate on January 31, column 818, by

speaking of a very simple question, do we trust the people or not? On

June 23 the people voted negatively to leave, do we still have that

trust? Should they not be now trusted by the government to give an

answer to the positive question, do you approve of the package which the

government has negotiated on your behalf? Applets to the Lord

Anderson. Identity the threats and there may be many reasons why this

has in his current form should be abolished or reformed but expressing

our views honestly is not one of them. Those in the other place who

seek to threaten and bully us should be ashamed of themselves.

If we sent back to the Commons amendments to say simply look again

at this, that is what we do with legislation. At least that is my

understanding after a year in the house. This is a different. And, my

lords, we live in uncertain times, in an uncertain world them even more

uncertain today now that the new leader of the free world appears to

have no understanding or respect for his role or worse. Each day brings

another jaw-dropping statement, press briefing, appointment, tweet

or executive order, and the reality of which is stark and dangerous in

my view. I have always been a great fan of America, I have always wanted

a really close relationship with the country that has the most power. And

I have wanted a close relationship with Europe, and I am now concerned

about my relationship, our relationship with a continent. But

to be fair even if I had been Hillary, in an international world

we stand with our friends, be that EU, Nato, the Commonwealth, or the

United Nations, none of these great groups are perfect, far from it and

all needs to be more effective and dynamic. But the EU was ours. And it

is our nearest and dearest and I am brokenhearted that on a simple

majority, in a poorly argued campaign, on both sides, our nation

is walking away from peace, security, jobs and economic success.

Yes, we will survive, how well is yet to be seen. But do not threaten

or tell me not to fight for what I believe in, or to stay as involved

as is humanly possible post-Brexit to Europe. And on this debate, on

the power to jiggle RTE 50 -- trigger Article 50 I have a

conditions. Without Euratom, the peaceful use of many new chiller

facets is not certain. -- new colour. -- nuclear. The leaving of

the EU does not mean leaving Euratom. What I would say to my

noble Lords is that it is beyond vital that we remain in Euratom even

if we were outside Euratom for the reasons unforgiven. One of the

other. We should give the assurance to the EU you unilaterally that

their future is secure. This is no way for a decent country to behave.

And on the single market, I think we need our heads examining if we

leave. I was a Home Office minister and worked with Theresa May for

three years in the Home Office and she is a very sensible and a very

clever woman. And I am hoping the odd hope that a heart Brexit is a

negotiating position and that common sense will prevail in negotiations,

seeing as retaining access to the market. Anything else is beyond mad.

Lastly I come to perhaps the most important part of the process that

this debate kicks off. That which we say should give the British people

the final say on the deal, when it is done. To listen to MP after MP in

the Commons debates say how much they disagree with leaving the EU,

but they did not wish to frustrate the people... It was as if there to

hone is -- as if they're cojones had gone missing, if you'll pardon the

expression. That is why this must go back to the people. It would be

almost impossible for parliament suitably vote without becoming a

nation of the British people, it starts with the people and must end

with them. When they are in a position to make a judgment based on

facts. Based on the deal itself. Parliament can debate and argue but

it is clear that the Commons believes it must not frustrate the

will of the people. Although if you will excuse my cynicism, I do wonder

what will happen when the cold wind of Brexit rose public opinion the

other way. -- blows public opinion the other way. The referendum was

clear, clear as mud. Retrospective clarity that is now given to it was

not there at the time and is no substitute for the ultimate truth

that will be the deal. We should make this momentous change and leave

the EU on a simple majority of an advisory referendum, based on

campaigns that only had a tangential relationship to the truth, and given

as the result of appeasement to the right wing of the Conservative Party

is unforgivable. The final decision must go back to the people and the

people of this country can be trusted, knowing the deal on the

table, to make a decision as to whether their first view, now

informed by reality, remains their view. Of the people, by the people,

for the people. My lords it is a pleasure to follow Baroness

Featherstone, who spoke of her convictions with entertaining

European language, I note. I am a member of the EU select committee of

which more later. I note the ratio of the number of words to be spoken

in this second reading of the debates to that contained in the

bill is surely a parliamentary record. I will try not unduly to add

to that ratio and confine my remarks to three areas. Firstly, the bill

itself. On this matter, I wholly associate myself with the remarks

and reasoning of my noble friend the liberal Lord Hope of Craighead, and

in particular his, and I quote in desire to get an. There has been

much eloquence are doing the same today, and I would only add the

simple observation that if you don't drive successfully forward is by

looking in the rear view mirror. Second area I want to touch briefly

on is uncertainty. Any amendment in this process that promotes

uncertainty should be rejected, as not being in the national interest.

Others today has spoken to this, there are at least three areas of

uncertainty that we must have regard to that worry me. First is

uncertainty concerning the status of our negotiators at negotiations. And

here, Lord Hill and Lord Empey were particularly good and

thought-provoking, and I wholly agree with them. Our negotiations

must be empowered and cannot do a good job if they are not. Secondly,

concerning uncertainty, is a truism that uncertainty is the enemy of

commerce, which after all is the root of our prosperity and success.

Ultimately, it provides the very services that we all hold so dear.

Certainly the third uncertainty is all types, very worrying for all of

our inhabitants of the island, in sort, lots of uncertainty in effect

and that must bill must not add to it. In an unamended form, if passed,

it will reduced uncertainly at least partially. The third and main area

concerns the work of the EU select committee, who indeed in the other

committees of the house, I see noble lord Lord Lang, his accident caused

usual committee -- his excellent constitutional committee,... I

served with the European Parliament, and it feels very much as it is in

the same position as this house is. The same problem from the other end

of the telescope, as it were, and we discussed the parliamentary role,

particularly during our recent three days in Strasbourg, and those

discussions took place with 17 MEPs from 12 countries. On a formal

basis. It seems to me and it is difficult sometimes to be absolutely

sure of things that they will rely on three things in their own

scrutiny of their own process at the other end of the telescope. And they

are, firstly, their own committee structures which are weaker than

ours, a bit, and secondly undertakings given to them about

access to information, and thirdly a special structure where one of their

number with staff and indeed with some other MEPs chosen by him, will

have a special level of engagement in the process. It struck me that

these three things in the round not so different from where this house

is, today. At least those MEPs thought that was a reasonable place

to be. And therefore it would seem to me it's not so unreasonable for

me to agree with that. The EU select committee and other committees of

this house are serving up quite a barrage of goodly reports in this

process, informing discussion, and providing scrutiny generally. The EU

select committee itself has already been remarked as 73 active members

members of these house in the structure, the same number again of

ex-members on the benches of this house. There are 25 full-time staff,

and anyone who has come across them will know what a high-quality staff

we have. And since the 23rd of June, we have served up ten reports that

have been prevented -- presented for debate in this house, where anyone

can have their say, and there are a further seven reports in the

pipeline dumbing down and I have some knowledge of what they are like

and they are also thought-provoking and helpful, and hopeful to the

process. The committees, I would like to recognise, receiving from

ministers and from their staff a tremendous level of engagement and I

know that personally and in fact there was a minister I was speaking

due on Friday he was making me a promise about something. Also the

committees of the house are a scrutiny to -- tool, impartial and

this house, and I we should use them to their limits and I believe that

this path would be far more effective in the end at enabling the

nation to achieve a successful Brexit, not successful just for us

to give a million but in fact also for the 500 million citizens of the

EU. My lords, I would like to just comment on the comment that the Earl

AM has made of importance of the committee. But I have been very

impressed by the work of the select committees and the way they are

impartial in looking at all these issues and I very much regret that

they get so little attention in the media because I think they do merit

it and it does not often occur. Now, the problem about this debate with

so many speakers, which must almost be a record, is that all points one

wanted to make have already been made, again, and again, that the

time allowed is such that one must be highly selective on what one

concentrate on. So I have torn up my original speech. And I will

contribute if fume staccato points to indicate broadly where I stand

upon them. It is difficult to say anything new. Firstly, I would like

to compliment our front bench, the government and ministers, on the

front bench for the way in which they have insular that this house

has been so fully involved in the observations. In the whole process.

-- in the consultations in the process. Our Constitution committee

on which I serve and which has been said has been so admirably cheered

-- chaired by Lord Lang, we raised earlier on the need to consult

Parliament throughout, and I was astonished that the judges that took

such black from the media on their judgment on the need to consult

Parliament and so on and in relation to what we are now going to do in

Article 50 come the need for the legislation parliamentary authority

to embark on parliamentary -- Article 50, they insisted on the

primacy of Parliament, and I believe that our front bench is really

deeply congratulated on the very robust way they are taking forward

the council that process. I voted remain. I voted remain not least

because very early in my political career and it was a very, very long

time ago, at university, I got very involved as he sort of young lad

from a coal mining community in Scotland, very involved in the wider

debate on the EU and became committed to the belief that we

should join the then common market. But despite the fact that I have

remained with that view, and that is my remaining position, although I

had to say that I did an awful lot of negotiations in the EU win

various ministerial roles and I became rather embittered by the fact

that in so many of them, there was really a sort of I think I would say

the things that I didn't want the EU to be doing. For example.

Subsidiarity was paid little attention to in many of our

discussions and yet I feel is very important. I became somewhat less

enthusiastic but I did vote remain and I remained with that view. I

will however be voting yes to this bill for all the reasons that my

noble friend Lord Haig outlined. I suspected that I am now a minority

when I say that we should not regard that referendum vote as necessarily

final. That is what I originally thought but listening to the debate

recently and the reason is because I think I am in the same cap as they

are. The vote was close, and I think we must remember that vote was very

close. It was different in different parts of the countries as the bishop

has emphasised in his earlier comments. And so many voters in

terms of age groups, as clearly demonstrated, said that it was

different and it was close. And so many voters in my belief when

talking to them about the referendum...

So many voters didn't know what to believe on the different figures

that were being bandied about. They were voting not about the EU

referendum that about issues they were unhappy about generally, and

wanted to make a protest vote. So I don't, this is probably a minority

view, but I don't believe that referendum vote should be decided as

final. The real issue is what the reaction is to the outcome of the

negotiations. That is the final judgment, where it should take

place. I read the debates on the other place and I'm still somewhat

confused about the timing and process as to the relationships

between the vote in our Parliament and in the European Parliament so I

wonder if when my honourable friend could clarify what timing and powers

of the European Parliament are in this process and in Russian two

hours. Next, much has been made about the benefits of the wider

trade the cushy oceans with other major economies. -- trade

negotiations. As I understand it, these negotiations are normally

taken many years, so the benefits could be very slow in coming and

some of the discipline of it coming rather faster and I would be

interested in the Minister's comments of how that process of

wider negotiations will progress. I very strongly support the points of

the Lord in his speech on the possible consequences for the

universities and the scientific substance of withdrawal, in relation

to be funding and possibly the ability to recruit and retain

foreign nationals. I have had lots of representations on this point,

from agricultural centres, which have a high reputation

internationally, they are very concerned about whether they will be

able to attract people in the future. Added to that is the

position of other EU citizens working in this country and our own

citizens in the same situation in EU countries. We are now considerably

seeing that it's a worry to businesses as well. The lack of

clarity is having practical effects as I gather that evidence is now

emerging of Polish workers and others no going back to their

countries because of the fear they will not be able to remain here. I

know the Prime Minister has this on board and understandably stresses

the need for agreement and reciprocity but there is mutual

interest between ourselves and the rest of the EU on this issue because

there is a similar concern among their citizens, and at least as much

as we have. Could I ask, is there any possibility of a fast track

process to resolve this at an early stage and remove such misery and

uncertainty. Many people? Finally I referred in the early debate to how

long I believe this process will take more I was impressed on the

earlier speech, it's clear many in this house whose experiences are

worth tapping and benefiting from an today is a very good example. It's

the pressure to follow the noble Lord, I came into the other place

when he was a minister in the government and so was able to listen

to him with great interest and I might say great learning then. I'm

now privileged to be a member of the EU Select Committee and I'm learning

a lot there. I don't intend on the short speech to dwell on the Nokia

issues that the committee is dealing with. I want to talk more about the

context within which our deliberations in committee and in

the chamber are taking place. I leave every meeting of the committee

and subcommittee, thinking, this is much more complex than any of us

ever thought. And there is not an issue that we are looking at where

you realise, as you listen to the different views and the different

witnesses, this is very difficult. And therein lies the problem. We are

living in a world where complexity is scaring people. We don't need

experts, we were famously told. That sort of means, we don't need

knowledge. Keep it simple. Keep it in short sentences that can become a

slogan. Populism. It is becoming the driver of politics around the world.

But some of us know, if nothing else from our history books, but also

from the experiences of members of our family, that populism strives on

driving division and polarisation of people and countries. Populism

doesn't like diversity. It rejects it. And this concern and fear, which

has arisen because of globalisation and seeing that the world is so

complex, and what globalisation brings, has driven fear of

migration, I was born in Sunderland and am really proud but it is

monocultural. We don't have that many migrants in the north-east. But

people believe what they read about migrants and they are frightened.

And yes, for me, one of the great strengths of our country is its

travesty. We're not all the same. It is whether things that makes our

soft power, the modern indispensable from our work, so effective for this

country. But the truth is, this country has been divided by the

referendum. The Prime Minister is the most important issue to address.

I wish she would put forward her ideas about migration at the

beginning. If she put forward proposals about work permits, the

people from the European Union, and if you're going to come to this

country, you have two contribute in order to be entitled to benefits,

for example, that I believe she wouldn't have had to announce that

we have the leave the European Union and so on, she would actually happen

able to negotiate deals. Many other European countries are looking for

that sort of way to tackle migration. But we are where we are

as people keep saying. The painful divisions mean that the debate has

become, quite honestly, unacceptable. If we talk about the

essence of politics which involves compromise, then we are divided.

Judges who do their job interpreting the law are derided as enemies of

the people, those who disagree with the decisions and direction taken by

the government are cast aside as the moaners, not concerned with

preventing the will of the people. We point out that the degree of

sovereignty will not be absolute, even though agreement will involve

some loss of sovereignty, we are seen as not prepared to accept this

will of the people. I believe we have to change the tone of the

political debate that will be good not just for us as a country and

society but for the future negotiations with the EU. The point

of Parliament is to solve this disagreement through debate. Poland

shouldn't give in to intimidation -- parliament shouldn't give in. This

bill is essentially about the right for Parliament to be involved and

hopefully to have some control over the process of leaving the European

Union. It would be odd if we were to be policed out of that right. We

know that feeling has to be confronted, I think we as women know

that stop threats are not intimidate me or, I believe, this place. Today

and next week, Parliament can take back control of leaving the EU. I

hope we will do it in a way that demonstrates we recognise and

celebrate the diversity of views and of people in this country. Rather

than seek motivation and polarisation, we do what we can to

bring people and the country together. My lord, I voted to join

the European economic community in 1975 when I was young and optimistic

and had little idea what the longer term imprecations were and what this

would mean in practice for the British people. Over the last 40

years I have spent many happy hours under this machinery at the bottom

of the telescope looking upwards, trying to make this labyrinthine and

ever-growing institution work in practice in some of our most

challenging communities. My colleagues and I have at our fingers

burnt on many occasions, in practice the bureaucracy was horrendous and

it always paid its invoices late, often 12 months late. Over the last

12 years I have been privileged to spend quality time sitting on a

number of EU select committees in your lordship is macro house, now

looking down this telescope, trying to discover more about which levers

are connected to what and how in practice partnerships are happening

across the 28 countries that make up this institution. If I'm honest, the

experience hasn't filled me with confidence. My sense is been at its

simplest that there are lots of setting up of all this machinery,

reading the papers at what feels like 6000 feet, unsure who's

watching all the complex linkages and leaders that make all of this

government work. The real acid test for the general public of this

outdated machinery is, can it deliver for the peoples of Europe in

practice when it really counts? The last few years, this public is

watched children drowning in the Mediterranean, witnessed an

organisation that seems to have little if no control of its borders.

This institution has not filled people with confidence, lots of

meetings, lots of politicians slapping each other on the back of

billions of euros spent but can it all deliver all it really counts? My

Lords, it has been my position recently is, given the scale and

reach of this project, that the British people should be able to

visit again the question of our place within the European Union,

fundamentally because I worry that there was a democratic legitimacy

problem. If people could not understand and crossed its inner

workings and had little control over it, and it was right they should

have a say as to whether they should travel further down this road. On

this occasion I didn't vote, I wanted to hear the British public's

response. I did understand that when the British people had decided upon

this question, one way or the other, my responsibility as a member of

this house was the work with others to ensure this decision was then

connected and carried out the best of ability. Questioned, yes, but not

undermined and imperfect but legitimate democratic process. Now

the British people have decided, it's not our job, however

disappointed some of us may be with the result, the play clever

political games with what is now the clear wish of the British people to

leave. The decision has been made and our job is to pass this

legislation and allow the Prime Minister and her team to initiate

the negotiation with our colleagues in the European Union. I fear that

those who play games at this time undermined the very democracy we

live in and people's confidence in it. Amid all the noise I have been

impressed by the Prime Minister's calm and considered approach and

sense of purpose. It is time, not unquestioningly, to get behind her

and pass this legislation for the sake of the peoples of this country.

The world is changing and increasingly fast moving. The

Internet is the defining principle of our age, the future will be

defined for our children by entrepreneurs and innovators in this

new century. In this new environment there are real questions as to

whether the government and public sector machinery and institutions

that we now have our fit for purpose given the global talent as we face.

The European project could have renewed this out of date

infrastructure will stop I fear many of our people know from personal

experience that instead, it is crowning them in treacle and they

don't like it. Big impersonal is Titian 's, be they in business or

the state, are anathema to the Sage -- impersonal institutions. People

have deep experience of red tape every time they pick up the phone,

try and take a mortgage out at the moment, they see and experience what

is happening in our financial services for example. They don't

know whether the EU is to blame, the large unwieldy banks or whoever put

it feels like no one is in control any more of the beast and they do

not like it. How to drug are a nation of shopkeepers but of

entrepreneurs -- our children are a nation. We in this room have

experience from the wrong century and we've been it. How deep is our

grasp it we are honest with ourselves, of what is actually going

on in Fiji machinery operating below us? How many of our politicians down

the corridor have ever even thought about this question? My Lords, I

suspect in the vote last June, the British people watched and listened

to the mini ford claims from politicians, from all sides of our

political spectrum, during the referendum campaign, that turned out

not to be true and instinctively worried that this machinery in the

life of its own and that no one was actually in charge of it.

My lords I am an entrepreneur who has spent my life taking problems

into opportunities and am optimistic about the challenges we now face

because it is laden with possibilities and many people I work

with out in the real world are seeing that. People are beginning to

turn their sails into this new wind and we need to get behind them.

Challenges, yes, but new opportunities, certainly. This new

time requires from us all a very different mindset and some of our

largest institutions with the most to lose inevitably find this most

difficult because so many of their vested interests are tied up in an

old order that is now passing away. One of the opportunities we now

faces to spend far more time and effort in using this new digital age

to reinvent how our public sector works. The modern world of the

Internet is about integrated working, our government silos and

processes are just profoundly out of date, and yet we carry on as though

nothing is changing around us will stop my lords the great repeal bill

offers us a rare opportunity to transform bureaucracy and regulatory

culture as the noble Lord Lord Howell has suggested. Let us not

miss this opportunity, our economy depends upon it. My lords, I want to

live in a country that is welcoming, inclusive, tolerant, and creative.

And therefore happy and prosperous. But I fear that Britain is heading

in a different direction. The referendum seems to have unleashed a

wave of anger and intolerance which is truly frightening and dangerous

for this country. My lords, I have canvassed in many elections over the

years was that one of the most cheering aspects of doing so has

been the response. Even from those who say they would not dream of

voting for my party, in a million years. But people have been pleasant

and polite. But when I campaigned for a remain vote, I was stunned by

the irrational hostility I met. And when I dared to raise my concerns

over the outcome of the referendum my post bag both virtual and real,

it is astonishing people will actually put stamps on these

diatribes will stop it was awful. There were plaintive messages from

Europe, from UK citizens leaving their completely abandoned. But

there were many, many more branding me shut, poor, harlot, scum, and

much worse. Encourage no doubt by various more vicious parts of the

media these correspondents terrify, and two other people who share my

views, they defy the will of the people. My lords it is certainly

debatable whether what my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke

referred to as an opinion poll, is a sensible way of determining the will

of the people. And I would just like to pay tribute to the one touring MP

-- Tory MP who had the courage to defy the will of the whips and

follow his conscience. Here, here. But whatever way the public voted in

the referendum, I believe it is not only write that the responsibility

of those that who believe leaving Europe would be bad, to say so, and

not be intimidated by bullies. Sacrifice freedom of speech, and

society loses far more than just the debate about Brexit. For those of us

in this house who believe that the country is taking a dangerous path

without even knowing whether we can turn back, speaking out is not only

a right in a responsibility but surely a duty. That position can

feel a little lonely over here but I don't believe that we are appointed

to this house merely to troop obediently through the lobbies. My

lords, I do believe that it would be damaging to this country both

economically and socially to leave the EU. Jobs will be lost,

particularly in the finance sector which contributes so heavily to the

Exchequer and the exits are already beginning. Manufacturing will move,

yes we are hearing about investments, now, but for every

investment that is being trumpeted there are many others that are being

put on hold or even abandoned already. Talent will migrate, top

scientists and academics are already voicing concerns about joining

organisations in the UK. Perhaps they see themselves as citizens of

the world, a concept so despised by the Prime Minister but not by those

who prefer a global vision to narrow nationalism. Would it be so

surprising if the UK's now perceived hostility to foreigners led these

people to conclude they might be more at home elsewhere? My lords,

the stock market may look reassuring, now, but it is no guide

to how investors rate prospects for UK plc. I fear that a year from now

the economy will be looking distinctly less healthy. But I

acknowledge that in June last year there was a majority vote advising

the government to leave the EU. Hence, it is only right that we

begin that process by triggering Article 50. But only if we do so

with due caution. Whatever the various motivations people had for

casting their ballot, I believe that my right honourable friend and

Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right when he said that

they didn't vote to get poorer. So it is crucial, absolutely crucial,

that there should be a vote on the terms. Instead, the government seems

to be adopting a University challenge type approach to this

issue. I have started so I will finish. Well, that might work for

Chris Yeo, it is not the way to deal with the future of a country. -- it

might work for a quiz show. The path with the EU must be put to the

parliament in a meaningful vote. Where is the sovereignty of

Parliament if that is denied? But there must also be a referendum to

determine whether it is the will of the people to leave on those terms,

and why would any dedicated Brexiteer object to that? Unless

they feared the terms would be unacceptable to a majority. Without

this protection I cannot support this bill. The right honourable

Margaret Beckett was able to say that she believed the potential

consequences of this bill are catastrophic, but she'd vote for it.

My lords, I cannot do that. How on earth could I explain let alone

justify such behaviour to a grand daughter who I truly believe would

be better off if Britain stays in the EU. My lords it is a pleasure to

follow Baroness Wheatcroft with whom I agree on many points. Making

speeches is what we do but this is certainly one speech I never wanted

to have to make. Not because I am still angry and upset because we

have decided to leave the European Union and not because I am a bad

loser as my leave friends might suggest. And not because I believe

that leaving is the biggest mistake we have made as a country in modern

times. But because we have prioritised issues of immigration,

some valid, others definitely not, over the future strength of our

economy. And because of the profoundly damaging effect that this

decision will have on the millions of vulnerable people in this country

possibly for decades to come. Some 45 years of our country standing

shoulder to shoulder with Europe through good times and bad times has

meant that our trade, our jobs, our aspirations for a cleaner world, our

research and scientific activities, our rights to work, including

maternity rights, are safer goods and consumer protection, and our

sense of security have become enmeshed with our fellow Europeans.

In those 45 years, the UK has become immeasurably better off. That is why

we joined Europe, my lords, in the first place, and incidentally why

Mrs Thatcher was so keen to be the God mother to the single market once

we were in. Yes, years of cooperation and yet we are about to

see that cooperation unravel as we go forward with the great divorce.

What a great shame, as we set out to unravel over 7000 pieces of

legislation, statutory instruments, agency contracts, and countless

other decisions. And so, we come to the decision of the supreme Court on

the 24th of January. The wording of the court judgment is quite stark

and witty. I quite, briefly, you will be glad to know, my lords: the

2016 referendum is of great political significance and said the

court. However, its legal significance is determined by what

Parliament included in the statute authorising it. And that statute

simply provided for the referendum to be held. Without specifying the

consequences. The change in the law required to amend the referendum's

outcome must be made in the only way permitted in the UK constitution,

namely by legislation, and of quote. It is perhaps interesting, my Lords,

to reflect that now we have the Supreme Court judgment, it would

have been entirely possible for a majority of the electorate to have

voted remain and for the government subsequently to have brought forward

legislation as it is doing now to trigger an Article 50 exit. Lewis

Carroll himself could not have invented a better referendum. None

will have prizes. Everyone participating in this legislative

exercise of the bill's second reading, and now that the government

has published the White Paper, which is not so much a starting pistol

more a cry for help, everyone must act according to his or her

conscience, as he or she answers this question. Which cause of action

is best for our country in the light of the referendum result? For, as

they say in Game Of Thrones, winter is coming, inadvertently revealing

her frayed nerves, the very first line of the Prime Minister's

introduction to the White Paper reads: we do not approach these

negotiations expecting failure. The truth is, and noble Lords have said

this tonight, nobody can including the Prime Minister, knows what to

expect because the practical impact of Brexit cannot be controlled by

the UK alone. And, in addition, Brexit is now a joint venture

between government and Parliament, even with luck on our side, my

Lords, the mess can get only messier. And how did it come to pass

that the government in trying to buy ale that I could build a negotiating

position refused to affirm outright that those EU nationals living here

will have what ever happens and automatic and inviolable right to

stay? The government is effectively holding them hostage. In all

humanity it should have been our clear national position on the day

after the referendum to say that there would be no question of

altering the status of French, Polish, Spanish and other people

living here. They are not bargaining chips, but Brexit seems to be

loosening common sense and I'm afraid common decency sometimes. The

Brexit minister has listed the 12 pillars of our national position in

the forthcoming negotiations. The 12 pillars of Hercules. And I can try

to sum up one of them will stop let's leave the common market. But

then let's see if we can reinvent it under another name. We are

effectively saying to our European partners it will be OK if we leave

one day, and then come back the next, wearing a new hat. Some people

get euphoric about the resounding Article 50 vote in the House of

Commons. What is it that Kenneth Wilson used to say? They think it's

all over. In fact it has hardly begun, my lords, a match that will

be played over many years, in many stadiums, through many different

competitions, with many changing Dean -- team sheets and shifts in

tactics. To those outside the house who say that the House of Lords has

no right to amend this Bill, I say stop threatening us and let us get

on with our constitutional duty. The one we all tried to carry out

everyday to act and speak and vote responsibly, according to our

consciences, and the best interests of the United Kingdom, and that is

what we will do, my lords. I followed to speakers who have

explained extremely effectively the problem that Brexit will bring. My

Lords, our country budget 52% to 48% to leave the European Union, in one

sense that is a clear result. However the 52% who voted to leave,

a number did so in expectation that we would revert to Norway style

arrangement or something similar to it which would continue to give

access to the single market. Indeed the Conservative Party encouraged

that view. In its general election manifesto in 2015, it said that

there should be in in-out referendum, and it promised to

honour the result. It also said that a Conservative government would, "

safeguard British interests in the single market. The manifesto

suggested we could stay in the single market with the words, "We

say yes to the single market". So what is the government now interpret

the result is a vote for a hard Brexit in which we leave the single

market and the customs union with all the dangers that a hard Brexit

will inevitably lead to? I submit that there is no majority in our

country for a hard Brexit. The referendum result was a decision to

leave the EU did was not a decision on exactly what should happen next.

In opening a second reading debate, the leader of the house said that a

good deal will be one that works for all parts of the United Kingdom. My

Lords, I agree with that aim. But I wonder how this will be done when

the Prime Minister has that issues of immigration and justice a head of

protecting our economy and jobs, which need access to the single

market and Customs union to maximise both our exports and our inward

investment. My name is attached to an amendment for committee stage in

the name of Baroness Queen, that asks for the assessment to be

undertaken at the impact of Brexit on the economy of the north-east of

England before Article 50 is triggered. The same principle could

apply to all parts of the UK because it is vital that the government

understands that different parts of the UK are not the same in their

dependency on the EU for manufacturing exports and jobs. The

north-east of England needs access to overseas markets for its

products. 50% of north-east exports go to the European Union. Leaving

the single market and the customs union will put that huge success at

risk. So I asked the minister, what the government plans to do to secure

continued, private sector, inward investment in the north-east of

England, and across the whole of the UK, once we have left the EU and

develop the free trade agreement we already have with the other 27

countries of the European Union. Just one generation ago 6 million

people worked in manufacturing this country. There are half that number

and now, with many people forced to work in low-paid jobs insecure terms

and conditions of service. How Brexit help the poor part of the UK

improve activity and drive growth and investment in higher value jobs

will be put at risk? I have come to the conclusion the government is not

in control of events. It seems to think its role now is just to add Mr

a hard Brexit. When most people in this country want it to show

leadership by negotiating a soft Brexit. And probably the most

vacuous political slogan I've had in recent times is that Brexit means of

Brexit. If that means that we have the fallback on World Trade

Organisation rules, it is very bad news for regions with manufacturing

exports that benefit zero tariffs to the EE. The Prime Minister is on

record as wanting a frictionless system of exporting. That is not

with the government is actually doing as it removes us from the

single market and the customs union. Huge friction will result from our

departure from the European Union. My Lords, for all these reasons I

have concluded that a final decision on whether to accept the terms

negotiated for exiting the EU in two years' time, must be taken by the

people in full knowledge of all the indications on the advice of

Parliament. That is not about reopening the result of the

referendum last year but it is about asking people to confirm the actual

terms of Brexit are satisfactory to them. Voters gave the government

essence of direction last year by putting to leave the EE but they did

not say what they wanted the government to negotiate in its

place. -- leave the year. So they should have the right to confirm or

not what the government achieves from its forthcoming negotiations.

The European Union is not a perfect institution as we reminded earlier

on. It needs major reform. But the problems of today's world require

international solutions to our problems. And the European Union is

a very successful example of close international working, and it will

not be in our best interest to turn aside from all the advantages

membership has given us. We do not want to promote narrow nationalism

is. The bill we are debating tonight is short, but it certainly isn't

sweet, at least not for the person like myself who voted last June to

remain in the European Union. It now... The Prime Minister exhorted

us to believe that leaving the European Union leads to a brighter

future for our children and grandchildren to. I am sorry to

disappoint the Prime Minister but neither I nor my grandchildren

believe that. It remains my view that we will be less prosperous,

less secure, and less influential in the world and we would have been had

we decided to stay in the EU, but that was not the view taken by the

majority of those who voted, and I respect and accept, as I have done

since the 24th of June, that it would not be proper or correct for

this house to frustrate the triggering of Article 50. I only

wish that the ardent supporters of Brexit, some of them in this house,

would cease immigrating and trying to suppress the views of those who

think, as I do, that surely is an democratic approach as you can get.

-- undemocratic. Supporters have listed a small part of the veil in

which the government has shrouded its policies since the referendum,

but we have not yet seen more than a glimpse of its ankle and we have not

been given a single metric or impact assessment on the choices of

government has already made and is preparing to make more of. Not a

figure has emerged setting out the various options, and costing them,

since those published last March from which the new government has

now changed. Not a word about the shape of the new immigration regime,

the altar on which our member of the single market is to be sacrificed,

not on how the government proposes to prepare and sustain the Common

travel area with Ireland and abroad the winning position of border

controls on goods moving between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The government assures us that they had been conducting detailed studies

of all these factors, every part of the economy, but have not shown us

the results of any of those studies. Perhaps the results are too alarming

to be shown. But we are being asked by a pig in a poke, what can we say

about the choices the government has made already? It was surely in my

view on ways to make a primitive decision to leave the single market,

without any idea of what the alternatives might be negotiable --

unwise. On issues relating to freedom of movement, under great

stress at the moment within the European Union, might it not have

been better to see how much possibility might be available in 18

months' time, rather decide now that we were not even conflict that fixed

ability? Is the customs union, if our partners can understand what the

government said in the White Paper and arbiter at Reading rules than I

am. It is helpful however that the government has begun to face up to

the fact that we do need a dispute settlement siege as part of our new

partnership. They haven't got very far. It is truly staggering that a

government which accepts the compulsory George session of the

International Criminal Court, the European Union Court of Human

Rights, of the dispute settlement procedures of the WTO and of the law

of the seashore to concede such a horror as the European Court of

justice, despite the fact that the court is often handed down judgment

of great benefit to this country, striking down restrictive practices

and the dealing with state aids which were illegal, and dealing with

tariff barriers to trade. Of course it is my judgment in that time which

we didn't like but so of course have our own Supreme Court, as the

government has discovered recently. It with this paucity of information

and this degree of obfuscation, what can and should we be doing when we

look at the deal? The most important thing is to make sure that when a

deal is struck on it is clear that a deal cannot be struck, both houses

are seized of the outcome in a timely manner, enabling them to make

decisions and to avoid the cliff edge which the Prime Minister quite

rightly wish to avoid. Some assurances have been given to this

effect in the other place, but they are fairly vague and no doubt

capable of almost any amount. The Putin -- misleading use. The

provisions on this point clearly need to go on the face of the bill.

And since the government has conceded the principle, it shouldn't

be too difficult to do that. One concluding thought, the UK really

does need to concentrate on the positive aspects of its vision for a

new partnership, to establish a prospect of mutual benefit without

which any hope of a positive outcome for negotiations will simply not

materialise. They have begun to do this on foreign policy, and European

security, unscientific co-operation and law enforcement and internal

security, but so far in far too tentative and hesitant of way. We

need to face outwards, towards our past and future partners, not

backwards towards those who reject everything about the European Union.

Our face does need to be smiling and not a snarling one, and that

particularly to the 3 million citizens from other European

countries who live and work here. My Lords, this isn't the first time

that we have considered this subject and it's worth and bring that the

last summit happens, it was Prime Minister Wilson who decided to hold

a referendum for very similar reasons that David Cameron had at

the time. I have to say that in 1975, I was very very keen on

joining the European Union, exactly like fellow colleagues, I thought it

was a great trading area, a great opportunity. I saw a great deal in

the votes because it took place in Olympia which is part of my own

constituency at the time. I spent a lot of time in Brussels, in 1975I

started to go to Brussels many times, I negotiated, many people

here have negotiated, and I know the advantage of a house like this, with

his experience and wisdom and knowledge, many of us had friends in

Brussels, in art, education, we share enormous friendship between

us. What we are discussing today is Brexit. I don't know about anybody

else but I know Lord Hennessey is but at this and I am, as far as I'm

concerned, we're taking a view for the next 200 years. We're not taking

a view about next month or two months' time. If we go back

hysterically for over 350 years, we actually played the part of being

the power broker between France and Germany.

After World War I someone mentioned of our foreign policy that we

haven't had a foreign policy since after World War II. At that

particular time, what did we do? We won the war with our allies, but we

lost the peace. And we also had the terrible situation of having to live

with losing an empire at the same time. People forget that the common

market that by 1960 and 1970 was in a dreadful mess economic latecomer

race days were over, those who think that somehow or other it has been

sweet running all the way through should look back on the history of

that period. We reckon we were a bunch of losers who we would be much

better with Europe, and it is only of recent late, fax three

parliaments ago when in practice the Queen's speech said we must we

engage with the world because we had been not doing so. If I could make

this point. The EU as I said, I have spent a great deal of time there, as

many of you have, but as most of my life as a businessman, all the way

through, in negotiating. And I think the role the government is is quite

right. Looking at it practically, you are looking at it as a

negotiation, and remember that the Prime Minister made the that we want

to finish off dealing with partners. I hate the word deal. We negotiate

with partners, we don't do deals with them because we want to be

ongoing doing more business in the years to come. Therefore a clean

break, pulling right out of the internal market, not the single

market, the internal market, and all the aspects of it does give one much

a better position to be able to negotiate in the future. People

always talk about European citizens. Doesn't exist. There is not such a

thing as a European citizen, you are a citizen of a nation state, and

that statement 28 states, you are a citizen of that state you are not a

citizen of Europe, this often forgotten. But in the ultimate, the

only thing I have believed in looking back historically if you

have not got economic strength you have no strength anywhere. The

collapse of the USSR demonstrated that in spades. But what I am

seeing, since back in June, when I came out publicly because Michael

Gove and Boris Johnson said to me that many politicians speak but no

industrialists, will you come out publicly and say why it is you are

going to be doing what you are doing customer I truly believe that we

have a great opportunity with the rest of the world, and my own

company which has been around 200 years, has been operating in the far

east since about a June $40 and there is no novelty in doing

business out there. But I have been seen of late is very interesting.

When I told friends I was going to vote for Brexit, I was almost

ostracised, I mean, people really had a go at me at dinner parties, in

differing ways, saying what the hell are you doing? So I said to them,

you know, this is how I feel about it but what is very interesting of

latecomer friends in the city, in business, in major companies, one

after the other now that time has gone on our saying I think we can

handle this. I think there are ways we can change it, and I think in

some ways, it is very much of trade, transport, tourism, in many areas it

is going to be better for us. On that front. So what I am saying is

that we are seeing increasingly now a attitude of mind that it is let's

get on with it, we are doing it for a very, very long run and we want to

finish up by purely making the observation that I really do think

that it is the right thing to show to our friends, I use the word

friends, in Europe that we really mean change. And we are going to do

it. I will read something to you. EU standards have taken us through war

and oppression. On that last bit I have the advantage of my age. I was

born in the depression and I certainly grew up in the time of war

but we weren't occupied, we had have been committed might have been dust.

Their successors, who did not, must now think afresh about the continent

and its needs. The past holds an important lesson in integration,

trusting, growth and appointment, where it mattered more than

unfettered cabinet movement and when fiscal policy accounted for more

than monetary policy. Today the leaders will also need to do

discover something of the far-sightedness of the early

generations, and like them they will need to show that the union can help

conditions not hurt them and that capitalism and democracy can be

reconciled. -- reconciled. In a globalising world and in a union

with five times more members than the original group, it'll take a

real effort of historical imagination and reinvention. But

without it, EU is living on borrowed time. This was written by Professor

Lazar, the professor of industry at Columbia University in the state of.

I wanted to say that in the long-term we will be able to live

happily with Europe and defend its like we did in 1940 and onwards,

defence is a huge factor, and I would like to feel that they would

be able to reinvent themselves and we will all get on well with each

other in the centuries to come down next month. My lords I would like to

follow on the themes picked up by a my noble friends. They have all

drawn attention to the fallacy that the Prime Minister seems to believe

and we have to assume she believes it... Letters assume that she does

believe it that there is no alternative to where she is heading.

And in particular that this includes leaving the internal market. Now, of

course, many political leaders over the years have used the phrase there

is no alternative and in many cases it is always used as a note also do.

But tautology. There is an alternative is made to the package

that Mrs may brings back to Westminster. Well, that is

tautological. I think there is something tautological about the way

this whole argument is going. The fact is that the government, and I

would like to ask the noble Lord the minister who is expected all these

in all these matters, is it merely the case that the government has not