31/01/2017 House of Commons

was to basically ignore what experts were saying, about the destination

of our country should we leave the European Union. My right honourable

friend is right. We should take, pay attention to those who know what

they are talking about. The reality is our currency has fallen

significantly in value, following the referendum. That means that we

are poorer than we were before, that has already happened. But the real

damage is going to be when jobs start to be forced out of Britain as

they will be, I'm afraid, over the next few year, some I know will

argue that the loss of jobs in Britain will be a price worth paying

in the short-term for a better, long-term future. I don't agree with

that view. The fact is we will always be dependent on close

partnerships with other country, I cannot share the view that we would

be better off replacing annoying interference from Brussels with

annoying interference from Washington, but that appears to be

what some people believe we should be now heading towards. I won't be

able to give way again. But in any case, we mustn't dismiss short-term

job losses, over the next few years as unimportant. The Prime Minister

rightly aims for barrier free access to the single market. The problem

is, that without signing up tow at least some version of free movement,

he stands no chance whatever of getting barrier free access to the

single market. And in this house, we need to be frank with people about

what the prospects are for us over the next few years.

We have heard from the financial sector, and many of my constituents

and those of my honourable friend working the financial sector in the

City of London, just in that sector alone, one study suggests 70,000

jobs being lost. And there will be that scale of damage in other parts

of the economy as well. In my view, that's much too high a price to pay.

I agree with those who say the various forms of so-called soft

Brexit wouldn't solve the problem. Because we would then end up having

to apply all the rules that were devised in the EU without having any

influence at all over what those rules would be. I think that's not a

viable position for the UK in the future. I think the one glimmer for

a Brexit without the economic damage I'm concerned about would be if we

signed up not to the current version of free movement of people, but to

free movement of labour, play EU citizens can come to the UK if they

have a firm job offer in the UK. If I understand, this is how things

worked in the common market in the past. That would, I believe, if we

were to agree something along those lines, buy us a good proportion of

the barrier free access to the single market that the Prime

Minister says she wants. But she seems to have set her face against

that concession on immigration policy that would be needed, and we

would therefore pay the price. I must say, I think it's very strange

that our economic, future economic well-being, is being relegated to

the importance of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands.

The Prime Minister was Home Secretary for six years. In that

time, non-EU net migration, which we have completely controlled, is

nowhere near the tens of thousands. Last year it was a. And the EU net

migration on top of that. -- last it was 150,000. The only way of

bringing that to the tens of thousands would be an extraordinary

economic cost to the UK and I don't believe any government would be

willing to sign up... SNEEZING IN BACKGROUND. How we got ourselves

into such a mess, I think the problem is hard-wired in once David

Cameron removed his MEPs from the main centre-right bloc in the

European Parliament. Because from that moment on, British influence in

the EU was diminished. It was increasingly clear, unlike

conservative and Labour governments in the past, that the coalition and

Conservative government in the UK were unable to get their way in the

debates in the EU because their influence was so diminished. An

example I'm particularly aggrieved about is the future, the failure of

our government to protect the viability of cane sugar refining in

the EU, as practised at the Tate Lyle sugar refinery in my

constituency. Previous governments, Labour and Conservative, were able

to secure the future of cane sugar refining. This one tragically has

failed. And that's a reflection of the loss of influence from the UK,

the failure of the British government to achieve its objectives

in negotiations in the UK. The most spectacular failing of all was David

Cameron's failure to secure a meaningful renegotiation in his last

efforts as Prime Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, my conclusion is that what

we actually need is a much more engaged British government, able to

win arguments in Brussels, as previous British governments were

able to. The failure of David Cameron's attempted renegotiation

highlights very spectacularly just how big a problem as developed. But

we shouldn't now be pulling out all together, and I will be posing the

-- second Reading tomorrow night. I'll be what to make a short

contribution for what in my opinion is a very short bill. I know she's

just about to leave the chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would like to

remind the honourable Lady, the member for Richmond Park, that her

leader in May 2016 said in a speech that this is a once-in-a-lifetime

decision. I would have happily given way to her to tell her whether she

agrees with her leader or not. Clearly the opportunity has been

lost. I would like to point out that I voted, along with the majority of

this house, by a margin of over five for everyone against, that the Prime

Minister sign Article 50 by the end of March. I would be very

disappointed if this Haas does not now pass this legislation to

facilitate this. I get the impression that some in this place

are trying to frustrate the clear will of this house, and more

importantly, the will of the people by adding in matters that surely

should be left for the white paper and the wider negotiation with the

EU. I will happily give way. I'm very grateful indeed to the

honourable lady for allowing me. I am not, and I emphasise, not trying

to defy the will of the United Kingdom. I'm trying to keep the

United Kingdom together. I am a unionist. This house needs to be

aware that we are sensitive to the fact that we have a Republican Party

called Sinn Fein, four absentee members of this house, in the middle

of an election campaign in Northern Ireland, who are using the Brexit

decision to campaign for an increased vote in the assembly

election. That's my reason for voting against this bill, nothing to

do with breaking up the union. It's maintaining the union that I want.

I'm absolutely delighted that he honourable lady has clarified her

position. I'm sure that her words have been taken on board by everyone

here. Let's not tie our Prime Minister's hands. I ask this house

to respect the will of the people of my constituency in South East

Cornwall, and the wider country, who voted to leave. Let's pass this

bill, trigger Article 50, and let's get on with leaving the European

Union as our masters, the public, instructed us to do on the 23rd of

June. I thank my honourable friend for giving way... Sorry! Mr Deputy

Speaker, I am minded to support the bill at second reading, because,

like my honourable friend for Holborn and St Pancras, I respect

the overall referendum outcome, even though I campaign for a different

result. I believe the government is entitled to comments leave leave

negotiations by the 31st of March. But that we are entitled to some

assurances about their intentions and the way they planned to proceed.

I don't think the limited time allowed for the bill is right, and

it would be possible to allow more time and still meet the government's

deadline. The impression the Prime Minister and her ministers have

given since they assumed power is that they want to silence MPs and

sideline Parliament and rely solely on their interpretation of the

referendum result. Increasingly that looks as if it means ignoring the

views of the 48% who voted to remain. And even a large number of

those who voted to leave when it comes to issues like the single

market. I heard the honourable member for South East Cornwall say

in an earlier intervention in the debate that it's only eight to

clause bill and she didn't understand the need for a White

Paper. But I ask, is it sensible to embark on an epic journey without

some idea of where we will end up or how we will get there first and mark

it's one thing to give approval to start the negotiations, but

something else to wash our hands of constituents concerns and give the

government a free hand to do just as they please. I will give way. Did

the honourable gentleman not acknowledged that the Prime Minister

has already promised to issue that White Paper at the earliest

opportunity? I acknowledge that after a lifetime of denial she said

that we would get it, and we would get it in the vote of the bill.

Doesn't seem much use to me, Deputy Speaker. The referendum, as has been

pointed out, settled the question about our wish to leave the EU, but

didn't shape the answer. When the Prime Minister is eventually broke

her silence in a Lancaster house speech to reveal her intention to

disengage entirely with the single market, I don't accept that she was

reflecting the views of a majority of people in this country. We need

to try and ensure continued access to that market on the best terms we

can secure. And one I think that doesn't exclude others from

regulatory decisions. Because without doing that, we are risking

jobs, businesses and setting in train a period of uncertainty that

may do untold damage to our economy. I accept that the Prime Minister's

position is influenced by her desire to end freedom of movement, but

where is the evidence that all those voting leave actually wanted to

prioritise the concerns about freedom of movement against access

to the market for our goods and services? Why is it unreasonable to

try and reach agreement on controls and freedom of movement? Why is it

so wrong to seek their movement arrangements, as my honourable

friend for Wolverhampton North East suggested? Arrangements that allow

for those we need to come here and work, while placing restrictions on

those with no skilled labour. Perhaps one way of helping that

process would be if the government were to indicate as a positive

gesture that we are not going to use the rights of EU citizens already

living and working here as a bargaining chip. It wouldn't

actually be a massive concession because the Home Office has already

calculated that 80% of EU migrants living here after 2019 will be

entitled to permanent residency. I will give way. I thank the

honourable gentleman for giving way. He makes a very good point about

protecting the rights of EU citizens who are contributing to this country

living here. When he makes the point about a bargaining chip, he also

accept that other countries in the European Union, who are also

potentially using this as a bargaining chip rather than this

government. It's very difficult to enter negotiations unless we have a

similar agreement on their side to protect the rights of British

citizens living elsewhere in Europe. One way to start a negotiation is to

offer up a gesture of goodwill. That's what I'm proposing in this

situation. It seems to me that we are actually talking about people

who are mostly engaged in crucial jobs which helps support and secure

the jobs of many other British citizens. We were told the

referendum was a decisive result, but of course, it couldn't have been

much closer. There are many parts of the UK, and indeed England, that

didn't vote to leave. My own constituency voted by a majority of

just over 2002 remain. If I break that down further, -- by just over

2000 to remain. Two of four wards voted to remain and two voted to

leave. I have no intention of speaking for the views of one group

and ignoring the feelings and opinions of the others. Rather

helpfully I carried out a rather extensive survey of my constituents

following the referendum because of the closeness of the result. And my

wish to better understand what people were telling me. 64% said

they want the UK to continue to trade our goods and services within

the single market. 76% think that we should commit to giving EU citizens

already living and working here the right to remain. People made clear

their concerns about the cost of living, research funds and training

programmes, employment and job security. We can't simply leave

these things to chance. How are we to proceed, will we have

three strands, administrative legal and trade? Will we try to deal with

them all at once? Will there be parallel negotiations and talks with

other countries? Who are the negotiator, how many do we have? Do

we have the capacity for so many complex negotiations in so short a

time? Do we have enough experts, he has left, I was going to say... Do

we have enough experts at our disposal? We need to know what real

progress is being made on the bright New World that enthusiastic

Brexiteers are promising. I want to be optimist tick about our future,

and I was slightly encouraged to that effect by elements of

Government thinking in the recent green paper building our industrial

strategy, but I don't feel sufficiently optimistic to want to

trust our future to those who lied their way through the referendum,

making promises of extra money for the Health Service that they have no

intention of honour, it is for these reasons that this House needs to

amendment with regular feedback on the shape and progress of these

negotiations. A right to intervene on the final offer, and a right to

reject that offer, if it's plainly against the interests of the vast

majority of our constituencies. Thank you very much Mr Deputy

Speaker. I was a Remainor and I think it was a mistake to leave. I

still think it is a mistake to leave but that decision taken. And I think

the House, tomorrow night, will respect the decision that has been

taken. The question now is not whether we are leaving, the question

is where we are going to arrive. We must focus on the best which of

securing that, not only in our interests, but in the interest of

the whole continent, we need to grasp the opportunities of Brexit,

which do exist, and they are significant. The Prime Minister was

right to say that she is going to seek a bold and ambitious trade

agreement with the EU, anything which disrupts trade is likely to

diminish it, and therefore output. A deal that safeguards both the UK and

our counterpartties from that disruption is much-needed and in

practise, there may be only a little over a year to negotiate it. That

brings me to my first point. It seems to me that a transitional

arrangement, probably a formal agreement is going to be absolutely

essential. Without it, firms in the financial sector for example, will

act to protect their shareholders from the consequences of a cliff

edge. A large number have given evidence to the Treasury committee

on exactly that point. They are not all making it up. The action they

will take in a small way has already begun and this is much more than

just brass plating. We need to be clear that the absence of a

transitional agreement will cost jobs and economic activity at least

in the short to medium term and we shouldn't just let that slip. Slip.

My view, a clear and early commitment from the Government to a

transitional period or, I, along with a number of others have been

calling it a stand-still. At the end of the Article 50 process should be

priority number one for the start of the negotiations and it should be

born in mind... I will give way. I am grateful for him giving way, does

he also agree such arrangement are not only in our national interest

but in the interest of every other EU state which is why they should

agree to that suggestion from the Government soon eraer than later. I

agree with that. They have an opportunity to agree with it because

it will be on stainable under voting. That point wasn't initially

understood if you look carefully at Article 50 you will see that to be

the case. I want to make a couple of other point, one about the customs

union and the single market. On the customs union if the UK leaves, a

huge amount of work will be required to develop an enforce ruled of of

gin, despite the extra bureaucracy, I still think there is merit in

leaving. If the greatest opportunities do turn out to be in

Asia, in the medium to long-term as many forecast, then we should put

the country in a position to benefit. I strongly agree with my

honourable friend, he is not here, the member for Gainsborough, that a

liberal economic nationalism should underpin everything... I will give

way. I am grateful. I agree with much of what he has to say. Would he

agree that city UK's analysis has changed dramatically, and that it,

like him, can see the add van tajss there may be -- advantages there may

be in Brexit having once been of the opinion that Brexit would be the

worst possible thing for the financial sector in this country?

Well they did say it was and they have decided the best thing to do is

look for the opportunity, rather than spend their time moaning about

where they are, but it is the customs union point they have

focussed on, on the basis of what I read on my iPad, they only announced

that, at least I only saw it since came to the House. I will say a few

words about the single market. The Treasury committee has heard

convincing evidence that both parties in the negotiation, the EU

and us, have a lot to gain from maintaining a high degree of access,

and a lot to lose, in the absence of that access. We should bear in mind

that the EU, like the you, benefits from integration with the supply

chains in automotive and aerospace sectors and we benefit from access

to London's deep financial market, which lower the costs of capital, to

European firms and of course to British firms. Restructuring

manufacturing supply chains would cost both sides a lot, and so too

would the fragment takes of... I won't if my right honourable friend

will forgive me for the same reason that my right honourable friend said

I don't get bonus points. Unlike the customs union access to the singing

market is opt in a binary choice, a wide variety of options is possible.

We don't need to look into the crystal ball for this, we can read

the book, Switzerland has better access than Saudi Arabia, Canada has

better access than Colombia, reverting to WTO rules would be a

huge risk for the UK and one we should do a great deal to avoid. It

must mean an end to the direct applicability of EU law and control

and a restoration of control over EU migration. But we should also bear

in mind there is a majority in the country for a high degree of

continued engagement with our closest neighbours.

It is one many on the Continent also want. Huge advantages can flow from

maintaining a high degree of political engagement from outside

the EU. It will be as economically beneficial as politically expedient

to try and construct it. It can help heal the Brexit wounds to which the

Prime Minister referred in her outstanding speech, and it can

address the deep unease that seems to be developing about Brexit among

the young. Many of them are rejecting much of the rationalety of

current political discourse and many are certainly rejected the populist

economic nationalism which President Trump represents and some

adistribute to Brexit -- attribute. In demonstrating we understand and

are responding to those voices of concern, we can win support at home,

and we can construct alliances among our counter parties abroad. By

making clear that we want to engage deeply with the EU from outside it,

and that is why if we can avoid the politics of unreason, if we can

avoid too the divisions at home and abroad it could bring, we can still

reap considerable opportunities from the Brexit decision.

Mr Deputy Speaker I too supported the argument for Remaining in the

European Union, and I would do so again. Nevertheless, I respect the

decision which was made in the referendum. And hence my support

without qualification for the second reading of this bill. I am not in

favour of referendums, since I, a very strong up holder of democracy,

it would be a contradiction if I was advocating referendums on various

topics but the fact remains that the Cabinet Office in February found 16,

2016, said four months before the referendum took place, the result of

the referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union

will be final. And it would be unfortunate if the view was taken,

that the votes of some people and the, in the Black Country and the

West Midlands where there were majority strong majorities for

leaving, be it in my borough and Walsall and the other three

boroughs, if those votes were counted, were considered to be less

important than others. Now, I respect fully the strongly held

views of those who don't and can't suppose the second reading. But

nevertheless, that is not my opinion, that is not my view and

hence the reason I think it is important, that the decision taken

in the referendum, the majority decision should be accepted. It is

said it is a narrow, it was narrow, of course it was narrow, but so have

been the result of many general elections. It is said that lies were

told, certainly many lies were told by the Leave people. One must say

lies have also been told in general elections as well. Now it is one of

The Ironies that the Leave people made a great deal of emphasis on the

sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament. Parliament, it was said

it should be supreme, it shouldn't be subject to the use one European.

What happened in this case. -- European Union. When it came to

triggering Article 50, instead of having the debate we are having at

the moment, we went to courts, the Government went to the courts or

tried to use the royal prerogative. I would ask what kind of respect for

sovereignty of the House did the Government show by going to the

courts? And I am very pleased indeed that the courts did what they did,

the judges far from being enemies of the people were the defenders of

Parliamentary democracy and we should be very grateful indeed for

the decision of the High Commission and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court

court. Now, immigration or the free movement of labour which ever

category one wants to mention was an issue during the referendum

campaign. Strong feelings. And one doesn't have to be aist Orr

prejudice and undoubtedly there where people who were deeply

prejudiced, racist adds they may be who did want to leave the European

Union, I wouldn't sce that for one moment, but there were many others,

the majority who voted to leave, who are not racist, but who do have and

continue to have strong feelings over immigration, and my view, it

may well be wrong, I may be wrong on this, if the European Union has

shown some flexibility on the movement of labour, it may well be

that this debate would not be taking place today. And I would also say

this about the free movement of labour, if the European now would

look at that issue, it may well be it would be far less ammunition to

the parties of the far right within the 27 states.

Leading, leaving the European Union, must not leave so many of my

honourable friends who have rightly said to a backward right-wing

agenda, protection for worker, many which laws which have come about,

arising from membership where the EU, combatting gender discrimination

or indeed any form of discrimination. Those sort of rules

and regulations, must be defended at all costs. I have from the start of

my political life perhaps even before my political life fought

discrimination, in Parliament and outside, and I shall continue to do

so, until the crematorium makes its claim. Leaving the European Union

must not mean less cooperation on combatting criminality. Above all

else the Government must learn this lesson about the Royal Prerogative.

That the ongoing negotiations which are going to take place must be the

subject of debates in this House, from time to time. There might be

statements from minister, we can't have a situation where Parliament is

silent until the outcome of the talks. Parliament has a right. A

sovereign Parliament which we say we are. Nod of to have statements on

and questions put to minister, about what is going to go on in the First

Minister's Questions two or so years on this very important issue.