07/02/2017

:00:00. > :00:07.State and colleagues whose saphenous enabled every would-be contributor

:00:08. > :00:13.to take part -- pickiness. Point of order. I think that the only way we

:00:14. > :00:20.can work is to respect the authority of the Speaker. Otherwise there will

:00:21. > :00:25.be complete chaos. It may be that I have my own personal view,

:00:26. > :00:30.personally, I think that the Queen has issued an invitation to Mr Trump

:00:31. > :00:35.on the advice of her ministers and he is the president of the free

:00:36. > :00:38.world and if we have entertained the president of China, we can entertain

:00:39. > :00:45.him, and that is my view, but at the end of the day, we have to respect

:00:46. > :00:48.and support the office of Speaker. Not sure there is, but I will take

:00:49. > :00:53.it and come back to the honourable gentleman. Point of order. At

:00:54. > :00:58.business questions last week, I raised the inability of ordinary

:00:59. > :01:04.members of this House to express an opinion through the vote on what was

:01:05. > :01:09.an unprecedented quick invitation to a head of state and I believe that

:01:10. > :01:14.we owe you a debt of gratitude for deciding in this case that such an

:01:15. > :01:21.invitation should not be supported by members of this House. We know

:01:22. > :01:23.the reasons why it was done. It was done rapidly in order to avoid

:01:24. > :01:30.political embarrassment for the Prime Minister. But this certainly

:01:31. > :01:37.should not be extended, any invitation, to this House to such a

:01:38. > :01:41.person as Donald Trump. First, in respect of the point of order just

:01:42. > :01:48.raised by the honourable gentleman, can I thank him and add nearly that

:01:49. > :01:53.I responded to a substantive point of order on this matter yesterday

:01:54. > :01:57.and I think it only fair to say there is no need for me to provide a

:01:58. > :02:04.running commentary today? In respect of the honourable gentleman, can I

:02:05. > :02:11.also thank him for what he said? He does not mince his words. He says

:02:12. > :02:16.what he thinks. He always has done. He is respected for that. Across the

:02:17. > :02:22.House. Sometimes he agrees with me, sometimes he doesn't. But his

:02:23. > :02:27.respect for and loyalty to the institutions of the country,

:02:28. > :02:32.including the institutions within Parliament, is, I think, universally

:02:33. > :02:40.acknowledged. I thank him for that and I think others will too. Point

:02:41. > :02:44.of order. I agree entirely with what my right honourable friend has said

:02:45. > :02:48.with respect to the Speaker and I am not always in agreement with the

:02:49. > :02:51.Speaker either but there is a worrying breach of etiquette that

:02:52. > :02:56.has broken out now over the last few months of members clapping in this

:02:57. > :03:02.Chamber. Is there anything within this power to do anything about

:03:03. > :03:10.that? Members should not do so and the answer is that maybe I should be

:03:11. > :03:14.even more robust. I usually am pretty robust. The point was made

:03:15. > :03:18.yesterday about clapping. It should not happen. One has to deal with

:03:19. > :03:22.every situation as it arises and sometimes it is better to let a

:03:23. > :03:26.thing pass and to make a song and dance about it. But I respect the

:03:27. > :03:31.honourable gentleman's commitment to tradition. If people want to change

:03:32. > :03:34.those traditions they should argue the case for such change. I am no

:03:35. > :03:40.stranger to that phenomenon. Point of order. If ever a statement

:03:41. > :03:45.deserved clapping, yours did yesterday, in my opinion. I want to

:03:46. > :03:48.raise the question of irrevocable T because we are about to go into

:03:49. > :03:52.committee of the full House when just about every amendment we will

:03:53. > :03:59.discuss trends on the question of whether clause 50 is irrevocable or

:04:00. > :04:05.not. We have had the Supreme Court silent on that matter. The

:04:06. > :04:10.Government's guidance is, the Brexit Secretary said on committee, I

:04:11. > :04:13.quote, it may not be revocable, I don't know. There is not much

:04:14. > :04:18.guidance from the Government on the matter. Given the importance of the

:04:19. > :04:20.amendments were about to discuss in committee and given they hang on

:04:21. > :04:26.this question of whether or not clause 50 is irrevocable once

:04:27. > :04:32.invoked, is there any way we can get some guidance from the chair or from

:04:33. > :04:35.the government before we move into debate without that basic piece of

:04:36. > :04:43.information which would be important for honourable members?

:04:44. > :04:49.The Right Honourable gentleman raises an important point but I am

:04:50. > :04:58.not convinced it is a point of order for the chair, but I have a sense

:04:59. > :05:02.that on this occasion the right honourable gentleman is perhaps more

:05:03. > :05:07.interested in what he has to say to me than anything I might have to say

:05:08. > :05:11.to him. He has got his point on the record. The reason I am not

:05:12. > :05:18.convinced it is not a matter for me, and I am looking to inspiration for

:05:19. > :05:23.people with legal expertise, is that it is not for the speaker to seek to

:05:24. > :05:29.interpret treaties, that does not fall within my auspices. And so I

:05:30. > :05:36.think my best advice to the right honourable gentleman is that he

:05:37. > :05:41.should follow his own instincts and counsel. He has been doing that for

:05:42. > :05:45.some decades. And if he is dissatisfied with my answer, knowing

:05:46. > :05:50.what persistence fellow he is rather imagine he will be pestering the

:05:51. > :05:59.government front bench on this matter in the upcoming debates.

:06:00. > :06:02.Point of order, Sir Gerald Howard. Further to the point made by my

:06:03. > :06:06.honourable friend the games but are, I entirely support him, I have

:06:07. > :06:13.enjoyed a very good relationship with the chair, yesterday did

:06:14. > :06:20.however caused some of us some concern. It was noticeable there was

:06:21. > :06:26.great enthusiasm on the other side and a rather subdued aspect on this

:06:27. > :06:30.side. We want to support you in the chair. The relationship between the

:06:31. > :06:35.United Kingdom and the United States is extremely important and the Prime

:06:36. > :06:39.Minister in the view of many of us managed to secure a very favourable

:06:40. > :06:46.outcome of what was undoubtedly a tricky visit. And whilst I was keen

:06:47. > :06:50.yesterday not to accuse you of an executive order in respect of

:06:51. > :06:55.another matter, I do hope Mr Speaker that you will help us to ensure that

:06:56. > :06:59.we can have full confidence in your impartiality because that is the way

:07:00. > :07:08.that this house has to proceed. The honourable gentleman is quite right.

:07:09. > :07:17.The only thing I will say to the honourable gentleman and I say it in

:07:18. > :07:22.a very understated way is this, I referred in the course of my

:07:23. > :07:26.response yesterday to the lockers of the Speaker, the responsibility of

:07:27. > :07:32.the speaker in respect of the matter that he was racing with me. They

:07:33. > :07:36.whilst I completely understand that there can be different views about

:07:37. > :07:46.this matter and we have heard some of them, which should always and be

:07:47. > :07:51.treated with respect, I was commenting on a matter which does

:07:52. > :07:54.fall within the remit of the chair. The house has always understood that

:07:55. > :08:00.the chair has a role in these matters. If the honourable gentleman

:08:01. > :08:05.disagrees with the means of my exercising it that is one point, or

:08:06. > :08:09.if he does not approve of my manner, I cannot think he imagines me to

:08:10. > :08:15.robust for his liking as he's no stranger to blunt speaking himself,

:08:16. > :08:18.but if that is his view so it. But I was honestly and honourably seeking

:08:19. > :08:23.to discharge my responsibilities to the house. I think in the interests

:08:24. > :08:27.of the house we should move on to other matters but I thank him for

:08:28. > :08:32.what he has said. If there are no further points of order we come now

:08:33. > :08:38.to the ten minute rule motion, Holly Lynch. Thank you, I beg to move that

:08:39. > :08:45.we'd be given to bring a bill to make certain offences, groovy is our

:08:46. > :08:49.actual bodily harm and common assault, aggravated when perpetrated

:08:50. > :08:52.against a constable, firefighter, doctor, paramedic or nurse and the

:08:53. > :08:57.execution of his or her duty or against a person assisting these

:08:58. > :09:00.people in their duty to make provisions to require those

:09:01. > :09:05.suspected of certain assault which prose I help risk including spitting

:09:06. > :09:09.to undergo blood tests and make it an offence without reasonable excuse

:09:10. > :09:13.to refuse to undergo such tests to make provision about the sentences

:09:14. > :09:18.of those convicted and for connected purposes. I come to the chamber once

:09:19. > :09:23.again Madam Deputy Speaker to raise the profile of the risks facing

:09:24. > :09:25.those working on the front line of our emergency services. I come to

:09:26. > :09:30.seek approval for new legislation which would offer police officers,

:09:31. > :09:34.firefighters, doctors and nurses and paramedics greater protection from

:09:35. > :09:38.harm than existing legislation currently allows. Having been out

:09:39. > :09:42.with all of the emergency services in my constituency can I start by

:09:43. > :09:45.paying tribute to the work they do. Behind the uniform they are

:09:46. > :09:50.dedicated and brave individuals who face risks they should not have do

:09:51. > :09:53.an almost daily basis. They are routinely going above and beyond in

:09:54. > :09:57.order to keep the public safe. Yet when someone sets out to

:09:58. > :10:00.deliberately injure or assault and emergency responder the laws in

:10:01. > :10:05.place must convey how unacceptable this is in the strongest possible

:10:06. > :10:09.terms. This bill sets out to do just that. I want to take the opportunity

:10:10. > :10:15.to thank the many members who on a cross-party basis when support my

:10:16. > :10:17.campaign. I launched the campaign having spent a Friday evening in

:10:18. > :10:26.August out on patrol with West Yorkshire Police. Into the evening I

:10:27. > :10:30.joined a PC who was responding to a 999 col. A routine stop quickly

:10:31. > :10:33.turned nasty and I was so concerned that I rang them a name myself to

:10:34. > :10:42.stress just how urgently needed back-up. Thankfully other officers

:10:43. > :10:45.arrived soon after to manage the situation and no injuries were

:10:46. > :10:48.sustained on that occasion but I saw the dangers for myself and realise

:10:49. > :10:53.how vulnerable officers are out on their own. Following that incident

:10:54. > :10:57.and having secured a debate on this issue police officers from all over

:10:58. > :11:01.the country started to contact me with their own harrowing stories of

:11:02. > :11:04.being attacked whilst on Tuesday. What has most shocked me and

:11:05. > :11:08.depresses police officers is that sentences handed down to offenders

:11:09. > :11:12.for assaulting the police often fail to reflect the seriousness of the

:11:13. > :11:16.crime or more crucially serve as a deterrent. To assault a police

:11:17. > :11:21.officer is to show complete disregard for law and order. Our

:11:22. > :11:26.shared values and democracy itself. That must be reflected in sentencing

:11:27. > :11:30.particularly for those who are repeat offenders. Many officers

:11:31. > :11:33.described feeling like they had suffered an injustice twice. Firstly

:11:34. > :11:38.at the hands of the offender and then in the courts when sentences

:11:39. > :11:42.were unduly lenient. Within two weeks of the incident involving the

:11:43. > :11:46.PC and myself, another PC from Halifax was assaulted when during an

:11:47. > :11:51.arrest and angry male grabbed his radio and used it to strike him

:11:52. > :11:55.repeatedly in the head. I am delighted that that PC can join us

:11:56. > :11:59.today to support this legislation change which would help to give him

:12:00. > :12:04.and his colleagues INAUDIBLE . During the debate in October I

:12:05. > :12:07.outlined the floors with the current system for collecting data about how

:12:08. > :12:16.many assaults there were an Holly Sonders is so I am glad -- there

:12:17. > :12:20.were on police officers. Official statistics produced by the Home

:12:21. > :12:25.Office suggest they just over 23,000 assaults on police officers last

:12:26. > :12:30.year. 450 a week, equating to an officer being assaulted every 22

:12:31. > :12:34.minutes. Just this week the Police Federation published the results of

:12:35. > :12:39.their welfare survey undertaken by 17,000 serving police officers. It

:12:40. > :12:45.revealed it is actually closer to 6000 assault every day, and assault

:12:46. > :12:49.every 13 seconds with an average police officer being assaulted 19

:12:50. > :12:53.times a year. In the debate at the end of last year I remember my

:12:54. > :12:58.honourable friend the member for Newport East telling the chamber

:12:59. > :13:02.about the mother she had met who told their children that their dad

:13:03. > :13:06.was the contest man in the world to explain his bruises on coming home

:13:07. > :13:14.from work as a police officer. -- was the clumsiest man in the world.

:13:15. > :13:17.The bill today would not just protect police officers, it would

:13:18. > :13:22.cover all blue light emergency responders. A report published by

:13:23. > :13:26.the Yorkshire Ambulance Service just before Christmas revealed staff

:13:27. > :13:30.based violence and aggression on a weekly basis. A 50% increase in

:13:31. > :13:38.reported incidents of attacks on staff with 606 incidents reported in

:13:39. > :13:43.2015-2016. A paramedic in Leeds told the BBC that he faced three serious

:13:44. > :13:47.assaults in five years. He had been bitten, head-butted and threatened

:13:48. > :13:51.with a knife. West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service have also

:13:52. > :13:57.reported assaults. On bonfire night they received 1043 calls with crews

:13:58. > :14:01.attending 265 incidents. It's disgraceful that on the busiest

:14:02. > :14:04.night of the year with those pressures firefighters in West

:14:05. > :14:08.Yorkshire were subject to 19 attacks overnight. This Bill will ensure

:14:09. > :14:18.anyone who assaults and emergency service responder and is charged

:14:19. > :14:22.with a crime will be eligible for a tougher sentence because an assault

:14:23. > :14:26.on emergency service worker is an assault on society. It is

:14:27. > :14:29.unacceptable public servants working in their communities protecting

:14:30. > :14:32.people and helping the vulnerable would be subject to assault as they

:14:33. > :14:36.go about their jobs and these changes would go some way to

:14:37. > :14:40.reflecting that. The second part of this bill aims to deal with the

:14:41. > :14:45.hideous act of spitting at emergency service workers. As well as being a

:14:46. > :14:56.horrible, spitting blood and saliva add another human being can pose a

:14:57. > :14:57.risk of transmitting a range of infectious diseases. Someone like

:14:58. > :15:01.changing or a lethal consequences. At an event organised by the member

:15:02. > :15:04.for Wolverhampton South West I met two police officers and they both

:15:05. > :15:09.had blood spat in their faces was trying to arrest a violent offender.

:15:10. > :15:13.They both had to undergo anti-viral treatments to reduce the risk of

:15:14. > :15:16.contracting the disease and faced a six-month wait to find out the

:15:17. > :15:22.treatment had been successful. During that time one was advised he

:15:23. > :15:24.could not see his brother who was undergoing cancer treatment because

:15:25. > :15:29.the risk of passing on an infection was too high. He was also advised

:15:30. > :15:33.not to see his parents because they are in such read her contact with

:15:34. > :15:37.his brother. There was a false positive results are happy to be and

:15:38. > :15:40.for six months until conclusive test results came through he was

:15:41. > :15:45.understandably reluctant to be close to his wife or children fearing for

:15:46. > :15:49.their own well-being. I am pleased that both men are also here today to

:15:50. > :15:54.lend their support to these changes. Which had they been in place at the

:15:55. > :15:57.time might have saved them such an agonising wait. In previous speeches

:15:58. > :16:03.I have made on this issue I shared with MP's the story of a police

:16:04. > :16:06.officer in the Ukraine who died after contracting TB from an

:16:07. > :16:10.offender who spat that whilst she was trying to arrest him. At the

:16:11. > :16:14.moment if an emergency service worker is spat at the can only take

:16:15. > :16:21.a blood sample from an individual with permission. Needless to say

:16:22. > :16:25.that in the case I mentioned before in this country the offender was not

:16:26. > :16:31.in a helpful mood so subjected them to treatments and a six-month wait.

:16:32. > :16:35.Laws in Australia where refusal to provide a blood sample can result

:16:36. > :16:39.any fine and custodial sentence. My bill will mean that refusing to

:16:40. > :16:44.provide a blood sample in itself be a crime punished by a fine or

:16:45. > :16:48.custodial sentence. If an emergency service worker, doctor or nurse has

:16:49. > :16:52.had to endure being spat that this measure will hopefully save them

:16:53. > :16:56.having to endure a six-month ordeal to wait to see the consequences are

:16:57. > :17:01.serious. It has been made clear to me Madam Deputy Speaker that the

:17:02. > :17:05.experience I had out on the streets in my constituency was not an

:17:06. > :17:09.isolated incident. It reflects the daily challenge police officers

:17:10. > :17:12.face. Sadly paramedics, firefighters, doctors and nurses

:17:13. > :17:23.also need these protections but it's worth

:17:24. > :17:26.remembering when they find themselves under the attack it is

:17:27. > :17:29.the police who is called. I hope this change in sentencing will go as

:17:30. > :17:31.well weighted givings dedicated public servants the protections they

:17:32. > :17:34.should not require but sadly do. I am not naive to the nature of ten

:17:35. > :17:37.minute rule Bill is nor am I out any allusions about where we are in the

:17:38. > :17:40.parliamentary calendar but I hope my details have been heard today and

:17:41. > :17:48.will be reflected on its merits. I commend this bill to the house. The

:17:49. > :17:57.question is that the honourable member have lead to bring in the

:17:58. > :18:02.bill. The ayes habit. -- habit. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?

:18:03. > :18:07.Con again, live sub Oral Roberts, Michael Dugher, Scott Mann, Hannah

:18:08. > :18:31.Badelj, Tom Blenkinsop, Tracy Braeburn, Jim Shannon, and myself.

:18:32. > :19:00.Second reading what day? 24th March. 24th March. Thank you.

:19:01. > :19:05.The clerk will proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union

:19:06. > :19:32.notification of withdrawal Bill committee. Order.

:19:33. > :19:43.Order. European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill. We begin with

:19:44. > :19:47.new clause one which it will be convenient to consider the new

:19:48. > :19:53.clauses and amendments considered on the selection paper. Point of order.

:19:54. > :19:58.Thank you. I would be grateful if you could explain to the House, not

:19:59. > :20:03.just to the House, but to the country of of all the amendments

:20:04. > :20:08.that have been grouped for debate today, the House will only be voting

:20:09. > :20:12.on new clause 1 later. I think the honourable gentleman knows what the

:20:13. > :20:17.answer will be to this. This is a very early start for points of order

:20:18. > :20:21.before we've started, but as he knows, the way that the grouping has

:20:22. > :20:27.been arranged was the subject of a programme motion which was debated,

:20:28. > :20:31.which was voted on last week. So in fact, the grouping of the amendments

:20:32. > :20:37.is as was on the programme motion. As he says the lead amendment will

:20:38. > :20:42.be put for a division and subsequent amendments depends on what happens

:20:43. > :20:47.in the rest of the debate. So we begin with new clause 1 which

:20:48. > :20:54.will be it will be convenient to consider new clauses. Keir Starmer

:20:55. > :21:00.to move new clause 1. Thank you. I rise to move new clause 1 in doing

:21:01. > :21:07.so, I will obviously touch on other new clauses in the bucket. It is

:21:08. > :21:11.important, I think, as we go lieu this debate today which is probably

:21:12. > :21:17.the most important of the debates that we've had thus far and are

:21:18. > :21:21.going to have in relation to these amendments that we remind ourselves

:21:22. > :21:26.of the context. The negotiations that will take place under Article

:21:27. > :21:31.50 will be the most difficult and the most complex and the most

:21:32. > :21:38.important for decades. Arguably since the Second World War. Amongst

:21:39. > :21:43.other things it's important that we ensure the best outcome for our

:21:44. > :21:48.economy and jobs, the trading agreements and as I've said on a

:21:49. > :21:56.number of occasions, what that entails is very clear. That we must

:21:57. > :22:00.have access, tariff-free access to the single market, barrier-free

:22:01. > :22:04.access, regulatory alignment and full access for services as well as

:22:05. > :22:07.goods and in the White Paper, that was published last Thursday, the

:22:08. > :22:12.Government accepts the strengths of those arguments about the trading

:22:13. > :22:15.agreements. It's also important that we have the right ongoing future

:22:16. > :22:18.relationship with our EU partners and Labour's has been forceful in

:22:19. > :22:23.arguing for maintaining close collaboration with our parten nears

:22:24. > :22:26.the fields of medicine, science, research, education, culture and

:22:27. > :22:32.security as well as policing and counter-terrorism. Now, although

:22:33. > :22:36.both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State maintain the idea

:22:37. > :22:40.that all this can be agreed within two years, leaving just an

:22:41. > :22:48.implementation stage, the reality is that we will two deals. The Article

:22:49. > :22:51.50 agreement and a new UK-EU treaty setting out the new arrangements

:22:52. > :22:58.along with transitional arrangements. But to be clear, we

:22:59. > :23:03.all have a vested interest on behalf of all our constituents in getting

:23:04. > :23:08.the right outcome. And that raises the proper role of Parliament in

:23:09. > :23:12.this process. And that's why I've consistently argued for three

:23:13. > :23:15.elements of scrutiny and accountability and this is the

:23:16. > :23:21.debate that in a sense has been going on for the last three months.

:23:22. > :23:26.The first element, the element I started the argument for last

:23:27. > :23:30.October was that at the start we should have a plan or White Paper, a

:23:31. > :23:33.formal document setting out the negotiating objectives. That we

:23:34. > :23:38.should then have a system for reporting back during the course of

:23:39. > :23:41.the negotiations and that we should have a vote at the end of the

:23:42. > :23:47.exercise, they are the three elements. They are three elements of

:23:48. > :23:54.scrutiny and accountability I have. I will give way. Is it the case that

:23:55. > :23:58.if all his amendments are rejected by the Government, the Labour Party

:23:59. > :24:01.are simply going to endorse the third reading and support the

:24:02. > :24:07.Government? What's the point in making this case for these

:24:08. > :24:11.amendments he's going to cave in to what the Government want in Article

:24:12. > :24:15.50? I'm not sure how helpful interventions are like that to a

:24:16. > :24:21.debate which is actually really important about the scrutiny and

:24:22. > :24:25.accountability. And just to be sure, just to be clear, nagging away,

:24:26. > :24:31.pushing votes, making the argument over three months, we have got a

:24:32. > :24:35.White Paper. And it is important. Nagging away, making the arguments,

:24:36. > :24:40.we have got commitments about reporting back. Nagging away and

:24:41. > :24:45.making the arguments we have got a commitment to the vote at the end of

:24:46. > :24:50.the exercise. So when the charge is levelled at the Opposition that they

:24:51. > :24:53.have not made the case and are not succeeding on the case for scrutiny

:24:54. > :24:59.and accountability that simply doesn't match what has happened over

:25:00. > :25:03.the last three months. Thank you. And he's right to point out that

:25:04. > :25:08.progress has been made, but does he agree with me that in order to make

:25:09. > :25:12.a vote at the end of the process meaningful, we have to have

:25:13. > :25:16.meaningful scrutiny as the process is going on? And we have as a

:25:17. > :25:21.Parliament to have the chance to say to the Government you must go back

:25:22. > :25:26.and try to do better. Having an all or nothing vote at the end when all

:25:27. > :25:31.of the discussions and negotiations are over is not in my definition

:25:32. > :25:35.meaningful scrutiny. Does he agree with me? I'm grateful for that

:25:36. > :25:39.intervention and I will come to this, but the central theme of the

:25:40. > :25:43.case I will seek to make this afternoon is that a vote in this

:25:44. > :25:48.House must be before the deal is concluded. That is the dividing line

:25:49. > :25:56.that makes the real difference here, but I will make progress because - I

:25:57. > :26:04.will give way. I'm grateful to the Secretary of State and I think that

:26:05. > :26:10.this maybe helpful - forgive me. The Shadow Secretary of State. I

:26:11. > :26:14.hope that this will be helpful to him because he has mentioned the

:26:15. > :26:17.fact that the Government has made a commitment to a vote at the end of

:26:18. > :26:22.the procedure. Later when I address the House I will be outlining what I

:26:23. > :26:27.intend that vote shall be, but it maybe of assistance to him to know

:26:28. > :26:32.what is proposed. First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not

:26:33. > :26:36.only the withdrawal arrangements, but also the future relationship

:26:37. > :26:39.with the European Union. We furthermore, I can confirm that the

:26:40. > :26:43.Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be

:26:44. > :26:48.approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded

:26:49. > :26:51.and we expect and intend that this will happen before the European

:26:52. > :26:59.Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. I hope that's of

:27:00. > :27:05.assistance. I'm very grateful for that

:27:06. > :27:10.intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the

:27:11. > :27:16.process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a

:27:17. > :27:23.vote... The argument I've made about a vote over the last three months is

:27:24. > :27:26.that the vote most cover both the Article 50 deal on any future

:27:27. > :27:29.relationship and I know for my colleague that's very important and

:27:30. > :27:33.that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded and I

:27:34. > :27:42.take that from what has just been said. I will give way. Thank you

:27:43. > :27:46.very much. Would my Right Honourable and learned gentleman, I nearly said

:27:47. > :27:50.friend, but I have to be careful, first of all would he agree with me

:27:51. > :27:54.it's really important that as a nation and a House we now come

:27:55. > :27:58.together, putting aside all the party political differences to do

:27:59. > :28:02.the right thing by our country, but most importantly perhaps on the very

:28:03. > :28:09.point he makes. Does he share my concern in the event of no deal

:28:10. > :28:15.being reached, that this House must also decide what happens next?

:28:16. > :28:20.I'm grateful for that intervention and I do agree and have made, I do

:28:21. > :28:25.agree that we all have a responsibility to bring this country

:28:26. > :28:31.back together. We are a deeply divided... The United Kingdom... I'm

:28:32. > :28:37.dealing with this intervention if you don't mind. It what is

:28:38. > :28:42.significant about what has just been said is that it covers the Article

:28:43. > :28:47.50 agreement and it covers any future relationship. That is the

:28:48. > :28:50.first time we've heard this. It is a very significant position by the

:28:51. > :28:53.Government and I'm grateful that it has been made and it is very

:28:54. > :28:57.important that it has been made because certainly I think across the

:28:58. > :29:02.House there has been real anxiety that it should cover both bases.

:29:03. > :29:06.Whether it goes far enough for the full-back position I'll reflect on

:29:07. > :29:09.and ideally one would want that covered, but I don't want to under

:29:10. > :29:15.play the significance of what has just been said about the two deals

:29:16. > :29:19.because it is the first time that clarity has been given. It's the

:29:20. > :29:22.first time that has been conceded. It's an argument I've been making

:29:23. > :29:26.for three months and it's very important that it has now been

:29:27. > :29:29.conceded. It's important for my colleagues and I'm sure it's

:29:30. > :29:37.important for people across the House. Equally important, equally

:29:38. > :29:41.important, is the timing in that it should be before the deal is

:29:42. > :29:46.concluded. The great fear is there would be a concluded deal which

:29:47. > :29:56.would make any vote in this House meaningless. Now, what I hope can

:29:57. > :30:01.now happen on the back of that concession is what I anticipate will

:30:02. > :30:06.happen in the European Parliament. That is by regularly reporting up,

:30:07. > :30:09.updating the House, setting ot the direction of travel, there can be

:30:10. > :30:13.agreement about progress and that what happens at the end doesn't come

:30:14. > :30:20.as a surprise to any of us in this House. But what has been said by the

:30:21. > :30:25.minister is a very significant statement of position which meets in

:30:26. > :30:33.large part everything I have been driving at in new clause 1. I will

:30:34. > :30:36.give way. I welcome as my honourable friend does the concession from the

:30:37. > :30:40.Government benches, but does he agree as well as timing it is the

:30:41. > :30:47.scope of that vote which is going to be absolutely vital? If we're faced

:30:48. > :30:50.with a choice between a hard Brexit and WTO, that is no choice. The

:30:51. > :30:59.Government will have to go back and renegotiate.

:31:00. > :31:05.At the moment I agree that we should have as big a say as possible on all

:31:06. > :31:11.of this, but I don't want to under state what has been conceded in the

:31:12. > :31:16.last ten minutes. I do take the point, but I think where we have

:31:17. > :31:20.made significant progress on scrutiny and accountability we

:31:21. > :31:27.should recognise where we've got to. I will give way. Whilst I echo what

:31:28. > :31:31.the honourable gentleman has said would you agree that instantly

:31:32. > :31:36.leaping on a concession maybe a little unwise until we're quite

:31:37. > :31:41.clear what is amounts to. I record a concession on a plan led to a speech

:31:42. > :31:46.in Lancaster House which didn't take us much furtherment I would like to

:31:47. > :31:51.be persuaded that a major concession has been made. Does he agree with me

:31:52. > :31:56.that it would be helpful because we don't know what we're debating if we

:31:57. > :32:00.continue from now on if the minister would try to catch the chairman's

:32:01. > :32:05.eye after the Right Honourable gentleman has sat down so he can

:32:06. > :32:11.explain in more detail what he's proposing than the subsequent debate

:32:12. > :32:14.on this group of amendments and we will be altogether better informed.

:32:15. > :32:19.I'm grateful for that intervention and I accept the point and I think

:32:20. > :32:22.far be it from me to say what the procedure would be, but that would

:32:23. > :32:28.be helpful because some of what has been said has been heard for the

:32:29. > :32:38.first time today and we need to reflect on it. If indeed it is a

:32:39. > :32:43.significant concession then shouldn't it be added to the face of

:32:44. > :32:48.the Bill? So as it can be properly examined and analysed and come to

:32:49. > :32:50.the House in a report stage with every member having the ability to

:32:51. > :33:06.look at it? I recognise the strength of the

:33:07. > :33:14.points made and there are of course other opportunities to examine what

:33:15. > :33:18.has been conceded and ensure it might find its way onto the face of

:33:19. > :33:26.the legislation. So I think it would be sensible if we recognise what has

:33:27. > :33:30.been said. Here a little more detail if we can, and reflect on that

:33:31. > :33:34.during the course of this afternoon and of course this bill does not

:33:35. > :33:41.complete its passage today or in this house. I will give way. It is a

:33:42. > :33:47.fair point, if somebody says do something in good faith you take it

:33:48. > :33:52.on board. And don't push too hard and take what is a valuable

:33:53. > :34:00.concession INAUDIBLE . I am grateful for that

:34:01. > :34:05.intervention, I think it is, when an assurance is given in a debate such

:34:06. > :34:09.as this it is a significant assurance. That having been said, of

:34:10. > :34:18.course something on the face of a statute at some later point is even

:34:19. > :34:22.better. I will give way. I am grateful, I came into this chamber

:34:23. > :34:26.with a full intention of supporting Amendment one and I still feel we

:34:27. > :34:30.need to push this to a vote. However I feel what is being said and that

:34:31. > :34:36.he wants to trust and believe this government. If we saw a manuscript

:34:37. > :34:40.amendment before the end of the afternoon I would find it much more

:34:41. > :34:44.easy to not vote on amendment one than I do at the moment. Does he

:34:45. > :34:51.agree that a manuscript amendment would be helpful? I would take that

:34:52. > :34:56.point. Can I make some progress because we have not got very far. So

:34:57. > :35:03.far as the White Paper, I have not got very far! As far as the White

:35:04. > :35:07.Paper is concerned, I am looking at the big picture and this is

:35:08. > :35:12.important for trade unions and working people and constituents who

:35:13. > :35:17.have raised these points, in the White Paper there is the commitment

:35:18. > :35:19.to convert all EU derived rights including workers' rights into

:35:20. > :35:26.domestic law of paragraph 7.1 and I don't think that commitment has been

:35:27. > :35:30.heard loudly enough and we certainly intend to hold the government that

:35:31. > :35:33.every step of the way along with other EU rights such as

:35:34. > :35:38.environmental rights and consumer rights. I have also consistently

:35:39. > :35:41.argued that the Prime Minister cannot in the Article 50

:35:42. > :35:48.negotiations negotiate to change domestic law or policy which would

:35:49. > :35:54.require primary legislation. In paragraph 1.8 of the White Paper it

:35:55. > :35:58.is made clear that the government does not accept that the Prime

:35:59. > :36:04.Minister would have that authority and expressly references separate

:36:05. > :36:08.bills on immigration and on customs. I highlight that because there is a

:36:09. > :36:11.huge concern amongst my colleagues about the threat made by the Prime

:36:12. > :36:18.Minister to alter our social and economic model and turn the UK into

:36:19. > :36:21.a tax haven. That cannot happen. That cannot happen without primary

:36:22. > :36:33.legislation. It is important we note that. I rather agree with the other

:36:34. > :36:36.members, given the government's position just outlined, would my

:36:37. > :36:39.honourable friend agree that the only substantial reason for the

:36:40. > :36:44.government not to agree to the new clause one is to deny the other

:36:45. > :36:51.house vote on a resolution and therefore the minister should

:36:52. > :36:55.explain why that is the position? I think we will have to wait and hear

:36:56. > :37:01.from the Minister, I hear what is said in the intervention. So far as

:37:02. > :37:07.the vote is concerned, there has been a change of position and it's

:37:08. > :37:11.important I just set that out. Initially the Secretary of State was

:37:12. > :37:16.saying back in October that he would observe the requirements of treaty

:37:17. > :37:20.ratification. Then in December at this dispatch box he almost said we

:37:21. > :37:25.would get a vote using the word that it was inconceivable that we would

:37:26. > :37:28.not. Then just before Christmas at the liaison committee the Prime

:37:29. > :37:31.Minister seemed to back away from that altogether under questioning

:37:32. > :37:36.from the chairman of the Brexit select committee and the fact of a

:37:37. > :37:42.vote was only conceded after Christmas. And then in paragraph

:37:43. > :37:46.1.12 of the White Paper there was a commitment to a vote on the final

:37:47. > :37:49.deal. Today it takes us a lot further forward and I think that

:37:50. > :37:53.demonstrates how by chipping away and arguing away we are making

:37:54. > :38:00.progress on accountability and scrutiny. I will. I thank my

:38:01. > :38:03.honourable friend forgiving way, he may have been listening and had the

:38:04. > :38:07.detail of what the ministers said in more detail than I did but could you

:38:08. > :38:13.tell me was it clear whether or not we would actually get a vote in this

:38:14. > :38:18.house if there was no deal? If the government failed to get a deal with

:38:19. > :38:21.the EU, which none of us want to see, but if that happens was it

:38:22. > :38:27.clear to him from what the Minister said whether or not we would get a

:38:28. > :38:30.vote in parliament in those circumstances? No and I think we

:38:31. > :38:39.need to press the Minister on that when he rises to his feet. I will.

:38:40. > :38:44.He has just very ably outlined what the government position has been to

:38:45. > :38:48.date, showing us all very ably that the government have made quite major

:38:49. > :38:51.changes in positions today. Against the background of the situation

:38:52. > :38:58.about that change of position appears to have taken place when we

:38:59. > :39:05.are debating so many different venue -- differently nuanced amendments,

:39:06. > :39:13.is it agreeable that the government should... Can I ask that

:39:14. > :39:16.interventions be a bit more brief, we only have four hours and a lot of

:39:17. > :39:23.people to get through. Just to make intervention is a bit more brief.

:39:24. > :39:30.Here Starmer. I am grateful for that intervention, I think it it would be

:39:31. > :39:35.helpful if we had both clarification and a written form if possible of

:39:36. > :39:41.the gym session which has been made so we can all see -- of the

:39:42. > :39:47.concession which has been made so we can all see what it is. Madam Deputy

:39:48. > :39:51.Speaker, given that we do as the honourable lady was saying require

:39:52. > :39:55.some sort of information as to what it is the government have actually

:39:56. > :39:59.put forward, is there any way you can require the government to put

:40:00. > :40:02.before us a manuscript amendment so we actually know what it is we are

:40:03. > :40:06.debating for the rest of the afternoon? The Minister will be

:40:07. > :40:16.speaking and I am sure he will explain them. Keir Starmer. Thank

:40:17. > :40:22.you. I am sure the Minister hears what is being said, what has been

:40:23. > :40:26.said this morning is significant, it is a concession and it does no need

:40:27. > :40:33.to be reduced to writing. I think a great deal of this debate should be

:40:34. > :40:37.spent probing the concession which has been made. I'm going to make

:40:38. > :40:40.progress because I have barely got through two or three sentences

:40:41. > :40:45.before giving way so I do not think anyone could accuse me of not

:40:46. > :40:55.conceding. In the end this comes down to a very stark choice for this

:40:56. > :41:02.house, if we are to have a vote. Either it is before the deal is

:41:03. > :41:08.concluded or it is afterwards in which case it would be a feature

:41:09. > :41:11.complete. And this concession appears to suggest it is before it

:41:12. > :41:17.is concluded and I think that timing is critical. I recognise there are

:41:18. > :41:22.other issues which come off the back of that but the timing is critical.

:41:23. > :41:26.Because the sequence of events at the end of the exercise is extremely

:41:27. > :41:32.important in terms of what this house can meaningfully say or do

:41:33. > :41:38.about the agreement which is put to us for a vote. I thank my honourable

:41:39. > :41:46.friend forgiving way. Does he agree with me it's not just the issue of

:41:47. > :41:50.the timing of the vote, it's what happens if this house declines to

:41:51. > :41:54.accept the deal the government has put forward, the Prime Minister said

:41:55. > :41:59.on the 25th of January if this parliament is not willing to accept

:42:00. > :42:03.a deal that has been decided upon with the European Union then as I

:42:04. > :42:07.have said we will have to fall back on other arrangements. That does not

:42:08. > :42:12.guarantee this house has the final decision on our future relationship

:42:13. > :42:18.with the EU. I am grateful for that intervention, I think that exchange

:42:19. > :42:23.which was referred to as the cause of concern about the vote being

:42:24. > :42:34.before the deal is concluded. But we will need greater clarification

:42:35. > :42:38.about the extent of the vote. I'm going to press on because I am not

:42:39. > :42:41.sure that me trying to explain what the Minister is going to tell us is

:42:42. > :42:52.working particularly well. If it's of any assistance to the

:42:53. > :42:58.honourable gentleman and to the committee, with your leave I would

:42:59. > :43:03.very much hope to be able to speak immediately after the Shadow

:43:04. > :43:10.Secretary of State for Health. -- Secretary of State. I have made the

:43:11. > :43:15.case for a White Paper, made the case for reporting back, made the

:43:16. > :43:18.case for a vote, we have now got this concession. I think the most

:43:19. > :43:22.helpful thing is if honourable members are given the opportunity to

:43:23. > :43:28.test what the Minister has said this morning. Thank you. New clause one,

:43:29. > :43:33.parliamentary approval for agreements with the union. The

:43:34. > :43:41.question is that new clause one B read a second time, Minister David

:43:42. > :43:46.Jones. I am very grateful, I had hoped to speak at the end of this

:43:47. > :43:50.debate but I think it may be of assistance to the committee if I

:43:51. > :43:55.deal with some of the matter is the shadow secretary of state touched on

:43:56. > :44:00.in his speech. However I don't want to go into the details of the

:44:01. > :44:04.various amendments which other members will wish to speak to win.

:44:05. > :44:10.With your consent I would like to address those at the end of the

:44:11. > :44:14.session. Could I first of all repeat what I said to the honourable

:44:15. > :44:20.gentleman when I intervened on him a few moments ago, the government has

:44:21. > :44:24.repeatedly from this dispatch box committed to a vote on the final

:44:25. > :44:29.deal, a vote in both houses before the deal comes into force. And this

:44:30. > :44:35.I repeat and confirm will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but

:44:36. > :44:40.also the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. And

:44:41. > :44:45.I can confirm again that the government will bring forward a

:44:46. > :44:52.motion on the final agreement, if I can just finish the sentence. It's

:44:53. > :44:56.rather important. A motion on the final agreement to be approved by

:44:57. > :45:01.both houses of parliament before it is concluded and we expect and

:45:02. > :45:04.intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and

:45:05. > :45:08.votes on the final agreement. I give way to the Right honourable

:45:09. > :45:13.gentleman. Stressed to the house again that this applies only to the

:45:14. > :45:18.withdrawal agreement and a final agreement on the future relationship

:45:19. > :45:29.between the UK and EU. It is my view the former is feasible within two

:45:30. > :45:32.years, the latter is highly unlikely within two years, can he tell the

:45:33. > :45:34.house what will happen in that case, I withdrawal agreement is agreed but

:45:35. > :45:38.not a new future agreement between the UK and the EU? I must preface

:45:39. > :45:44.that we do not expect we will not achieve such agreement. But my right

:45:45. > :45:48.honourable friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that if we

:45:49. > :45:51.cannot come to an agreement then clearly we will have to fall back on

:45:52. > :45:57.other arrangements. That is something upon which... That is

:45:58. > :46:03.something upon which the government has consistently been clear, I give

:46:04. > :46:08.way. The conversation we had yesterday about the importance of

:46:09. > :46:11.transitional arrangements, he cannot guarantee the trade agreement will

:46:12. > :46:14.be concluded within two years so if you don't have a transitional

:46:15. > :46:19.agreement it's like jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute,

:46:20. > :46:25.why will he not agree to negotiate the transitional arrangement now in

:46:26. > :46:32.case we need it? What the honourable lady says is of course very true.

:46:33. > :46:39.But clearly, an agreement is a matter which has to be no goatee --

:46:40. > :46:43.negotiated by two sides and it's always possible we cannot achieve

:46:44. > :46:46.such an agreement but I believe the will. But we have also made it clear

:46:47. > :46:50.that what we do see as important is during the course of the

:46:51. > :46:53.negotiations for what ever the new arrangements are that we consider

:46:54. > :46:57.what implementation period may be necessary at the end of those

:46:58. > :47:04.agreements. Again we have made that clear already. I give way to my

:47:05. > :47:07.right honourable friend. I am grateful for intervening at this

:47:08. > :47:13.stage and allowing us to have this process. He says that Parliament

:47:14. > :47:19.will have a vote before the agreement is concluded, does that

:47:20. > :47:24.mean before agreement has been reached with the other 27 or after a

:47:25. > :47:29.agreement has been reached but before it's been put into effect? I

:47:30. > :47:35.think what parliamentary sovereignty requires is that Parliament should

:47:36. > :47:38.have the ability to influence the government's position before it

:47:39. > :47:43.concludes the deal so that those with whom the government is dealing,

:47:44. > :47:46.the other parties of the negotiation, now that the British

:47:47. > :47:50.government has got to be able to produce an agreement which will get

:47:51. > :47:55.the support of parliament. If you just wait until everything, hands

:47:56. > :47:59.have been shaken with all the other Europeans, then you come here, then

:48:00. > :48:05.it means Parliament is told if you reject it you have nothing. It's a

:48:06. > :48:07.disaster. Which would give a government a majority but not a very

:48:08. > :48:17.satisfactory conclusion. I fully appreciate the points. This

:48:18. > :48:21.is clearly going to be a complex, lengthy and difficult. Can I deal

:48:22. > :48:26.with my Right Honourable friend's point first? It will be a difficult

:48:27. > :48:32.and complex agreement and it will be, of course, a matter that will a

:48:33. > :48:35.negotiation that will from time to time be subject to reports to this

:48:36. > :48:42.House, to the Brexit Select Committee and so on. But what we are

:48:43. > :48:46.proposing and what I'm committing to from this dispatch box today is that

:48:47. > :48:50.before that final agreement is concluded and it would, if you like,

:48:51. > :48:55.but the final draft agreement, it would be put to a vote of this House

:48:56. > :48:59.and a vote of the other place and that we intend will be before it is

:49:00. > :49:05.put to the European Parliament and I think that that, I hope, is as clear

:49:06. > :49:11.as I can be. I will give way to the honourable gentleman The EU 27 will

:49:12. > :49:14.decide a deal in their interests. If that deal comes to this House and we

:49:15. > :49:17.vote it down and subsequently the commission and the European

:49:18. > :49:23.Parliament agree it and say like it or lump it, what will we do then?

:49:24. > :49:27.I would have thought that in the circumstance that this House had

:49:28. > :49:30.voted it down it would be highly unlikely that it would be put to the

:49:31. > :49:38.European Parliament, but there are all sorts of sin aur yos that... I

:49:39. > :49:42.give way. Just for clarification, I think the minister said there would

:49:43. > :49:47.be a vote on the final draft agreement. I wanted to check I heard

:49:48. > :49:50.him correctly when he said that? Before the agreement is finally

:49:51. > :49:59.concluded in other words. That's the intention of this Parliament. I want

:50:00. > :50:03.to come back to the point made about the two deals that are being

:50:04. > :50:06.negotiated in parallel, the exit deal and the framework for our

:50:07. > :50:12.future relationship about the timing. I think we're being

:50:13. > :50:15.optimistic than the Right Honourable gentleman. In Article 50 it

:50:16. > :50:19.envisages in the negotiation for the exit agreement that can only be done

:50:20. > :50:24.taking into account the framework for the future relationship. So

:50:25. > :50:27.Article 50 itself envisages those two agreements being negotiated in

:50:28. > :50:35.parallel so I think what the minister set out has every prospect

:50:36. > :50:40.of coming to fruition. Can I just implore members to keep

:50:41. > :50:45.interventions short. I just implore people to just to keep it a bit

:50:46. > :50:51.briefer. My Right Honourable friend is right Article 50 on the face of

:50:52. > :50:54.it says the negotiations for the withdrawal, that the negotiations

:50:55. > :50:59.for the withdrawal agreement should be set against the framework of the

:51:00. > :51:05.continuing relationship. So on the face of Article 50, a twin track

:51:06. > :51:13.approach is envisaged. I give way to the honourable gentleman. Could he

:51:14. > :51:18.be clear, he raised our hopes for a second and I felt myself debated

:51:19. > :51:23.when he said we will fall back on other arrangements. Can he be clear

:51:24. > :51:29.about what he means by, "We would fall back on other arrangements"? If

:51:30. > :51:34.there were no agreement at all which is a scenario I think is extremely

:51:35. > :51:38.unlikely then ultimately it would be falling back upon World Trade

:51:39. > :51:43.Organisation arrangements and this again is nothing new. It has been

:51:44. > :51:52.made very clear previously including by my Right Honourable friend the

:51:53. > :51:57.Prime Minister. I'm grateful to the minister. Can he clarify a point

:51:58. > :52:00.which came up with from the Shadow Secretary of State which is

:52:01. > :52:04.important to all of us here and that is, an agreement at the end of the

:52:05. > :52:08.process might be an agreement that there isn't an agreement at all that

:52:09. > :52:11.we go to the default position. What I believe he has announced from the

:52:12. > :52:15.front bench covers the situation which will give the House a vote if

:52:16. > :52:22.there is a deal or if indeed there is no deal. And I wonder if he could

:52:23. > :52:25.confirm that the House would get the vote in these circumstances which is

:52:26. > :52:30.what I understand the assurance to be? It's very hard to see what

:52:31. > :52:33.meaningful vote could be given in a circumstance in which there what

:52:34. > :52:39.been no deal at all, but I have, having said that, I have no doubt at

:52:40. > :52:42.all that if the absence of any agreement whatever, that absence of

:52:43. > :52:49.agreement would be the subject of statements to this House.

:52:50. > :52:53.The minister's inflating and deflating people as he goes along.

:52:54. > :52:59.Can he get back to this manuscript amendment? It really is important if

:53:00. > :53:03.the concession is as significant as the minister is leading us to

:53:04. > :53:06.believe. It comes forward as an amendment and if the Government is

:53:07. > :53:12.not prepared to do that, then surely the message to the other place is

:53:13. > :53:16.what the minister has said should be encapsulated in an amendment that

:53:17. > :53:26.should be properly redebated here. I think that we are actually debating

:53:27. > :53:30.this at considerable length now. I have on behalf of the Government

:53:31. > :53:36.made what I believe is a serious commitment and I believe that it

:53:37. > :53:42.should be accepted as such and frankly in those circumstances I see

:53:43. > :53:45.no need for a further amendment. I'm grateful to the Minister for

:53:46. > :53:50.giving way. Isn't the issue and the problem that the Government has and

:53:51. > :53:55.indeed the House has that we don't know what at what stage the

:53:56. > :54:00.negotiations could be concludedment they could be concluded with months

:54:01. > :54:05.to go within the two year time frame. This House would be able to

:54:06. > :54:08.consider the agreement before it was agreed with the Commission because

:54:09. > :54:12.there was no time pressure, but we could end up with a situation where

:54:13. > :54:16.the agreement is one minute to midnight at the end of the two year

:54:17. > :54:20.period and if the Government doesn't conclude an agreement to bring it to

:54:21. > :54:25.the House before, but before it goes to the European Parliament we

:54:26. > :54:28.couldnd up with no deal. I feel, my honourable friend may agree with me,

:54:29. > :54:32.the Government has a real dilemma and it is important that the House

:54:33. > :54:36.should understand those limitations because they go to the question of

:54:37. > :54:42.whether in fact an amendment can be reasonably crafted to meet that.

:54:43. > :54:48.I think that my Right Honourable friend makes a very fair point. I

:54:49. > :54:51.think that as we proceed we have to keep reminding ourselves that we are

:54:52. > :54:55.where we are because the United Kingdom has voted to leave the

:54:56. > :55:00.European Union. And what we are seeking to achieve is a departure

:55:01. > :55:05.from the European Union on the best possible terms and I believe very

:55:06. > :55:09.strongly that what the Government is proposing is as much as possible in

:55:10. > :55:15.terms of a meaningful vote at the end of the process. I'd like to make

:55:16. > :55:22.a little bit... I give way to the honourable gentleman. I thank the

:55:23. > :55:28.Minister for giving way. Timing is only significant if it further

:55:29. > :55:33.empowers Parliament to have a meaningful say on the negotiations.

:55:34. > :55:40.So can I ask the minister again, what will happen if the House

:55:41. > :55:44.declines to approve the draft agreement which he's intending to

:55:45. > :55:48.bring before us? I think that I've already answered that extremely

:55:49. > :55:52.clearly. There will be a meaningful vote. The

:55:53. > :55:57.vote will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have

:55:58. > :56:02.achieved and I repeat that that process of negotiation will not be

:56:03. > :56:07.without frequent reports to this House or no deal and frankly that is

:56:08. > :56:10.the choice that this House will have to make. That will be the most

:56:11. > :56:19.meaningful vote that one could imagine.

:56:20. > :56:23.I'd like, I will take one further intervention. I will take it from

:56:24. > :56:28.the honourable gentleman. I think the point here is for this to be a

:56:29. > :56:33.meaningful concession, what the House wants is the opportunity to

:56:34. > :56:38.send the Government back to our EU partners to negotiate a deal if one

:56:39. > :56:43.hasn't been reached. Going on to WTO rules I say to the minister will be

:56:44. > :56:48.deeply damaging for our economy and wholly unacceptable. Well, I hear

:56:49. > :56:52.what the honourable gentleman says, but frankingly I can't think of a

:56:53. > :56:57.greater signal of weakness than for this House to send the Government

:56:58. > :57:03.back to the European Union and to say we want to negotiate further. I

:57:04. > :57:11.think that that would be seized upon as a sign of weakness and therefore,

:57:12. > :57:19.I can't agree with it at all. I would like to make further progress.

:57:20. > :57:23.I think I've taken a large number of interventions and I'm sure that

:57:24. > :57:31.other honourable members wish to speak. Let me say this. This will be

:57:32. > :57:35.a meaningful vote. It will be the choice between leaving the European

:57:36. > :57:39.Union as I've said with a negotiated deal or not and as I've said to send

:57:40. > :57:45.the Government back to the negotiating table would be the

:57:46. > :57:51.surest way of undermining our negotiating position and delivering

:57:52. > :57:56.a worst deal and in any case we can't extend our... I give way for

:57:57. > :58:01.the final time to the Right Honourable gentleman.

:58:02. > :58:05.Giving way. When he first revealed his concession to my honourable and

:58:06. > :58:10.learned friend, there was a bit which he hasn't read out in the

:58:11. > :58:14.speech he has just been giving which referred to timing intention and the

:58:15. > :58:19.position of the European Parliament. Co please repeat what he said the

:58:20. > :58:25.first time round? I think it is important that the House is able to

:58:26. > :58:30.hear that. If it is of assistance to the honourable gentleman I read out

:58:31. > :58:33.the same words twice, but nevertheless I will read them again

:58:34. > :58:39.just so that he fully understands the commitment that the Government

:58:40. > :58:42.has made. The Government has committed to a vote on the final

:58:43. > :58:46.deal in both houses before it comes into force. This will cover both the

:58:47. > :58:50.withdrawal agreement and our future relationship with the European

:58:51. > :58:53.Union. I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a

:58:54. > :58:58.motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of

:58:59. > :59:02.Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will

:59:03. > :59:08.happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the

:59:09. > :59:14.final agreement and I hope - I will not take any further, I think I have

:59:15. > :59:19.been more than generous. If I could turn to the amendments in

:59:20. > :59:24.question and the honourable gentleman has referred to his

:59:25. > :59:31.amendment, new clause 1, but new clauses 18, 19, 20, 110, 137, 175

:59:32. > :59:35.and 182 and they all seek in one way or another to ensure that Parliament

:59:36. > :59:40.will have a vote on the final deal that we agree with the European

:59:41. > :59:44.Union. Let me assure the House again as I've ensured in answer to

:59:45. > :59:48.interventions that will be involved throughout the entire process of

:59:49. > :59:57.withdrawal and again, let me remind the House, what the extent of the

:59:58. > :00:03.Secretary of State's engagements. A very brief question to the minister.

:00:04. > :00:08.If the European Parliament votes down the deal, then Europe will

:00:09. > :00:11.carry on negotiating. He is saying if the British Parliament votes down

:00:12. > :00:17.the deal that's the end of the negotiations. We pride ourselves on

:00:18. > :00:20.our sovereignty in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker and his position

:00:21. > :00:26.seems to be a denial of that sovereignty. I'm not entirely sure

:00:27. > :00:30.that the Right Honourable gentleman understands the process. The role of

:00:31. > :00:34.the European Parliament would be to grant or withhold consent to the

:00:35. > :00:37.deal that had been agreed by the European Council and there could be

:00:38. > :00:42.no assurance that there would be further negotiations. May I say this

:00:43. > :00:48.- we are come considerable way away from that position. As the

:00:49. > :00:52.negotiations proceed, as I've said, there will be very many more

:00:53. > :00:55.opportunities, many more, many more opportunities for this House and for

:00:56. > :01:05.the other place to consider the negotiations. I'm afraid not because

:01:06. > :01:08.I've already been very generous. I was reminding the honourable House

:01:09. > :01:11.of What the Secretary of State has done. He made six oral statements

:01:12. > :01:15.and there have been more ten debates, four in Government time.

:01:16. > :01:20.There are over 30 Select Committee inquiries going on at the moment.

:01:21. > :01:23.There will be many more votes on primary legislation to between now

:01:24. > :01:28.and departure from the European Union. I suggest that the amendments

:01:29. > :01:32.that I've referred to are unnecessary. I reiterate that both

:01:33. > :01:37.House will get a vote on the final deal before it comes into force and

:01:38. > :01:40.I can confirm once again that it will cover both the withdrawal

:01:41. > :01:44.agreement and our future relationship, but we are confident

:01:45. > :01:47.that we will bring back a deal which Parliament will want to support and

:01:48. > :01:51.the choice will be meaningful and that choice will be whether to

:01:52. > :02:00.accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal.

:02:01. > :02:05.Can I move new clause 180 and amendment 50 in the name of my

:02:06. > :02:11.honourable friends and myself and could I speak favourably about new

:02:12. > :02:14.clause 110 in the name of the honourable member for Nottingham

:02:15. > :02:18.East which is the strongest of a range of amendments albeit that any

:02:19. > :02:23.amendments in this section which are put to the vote will have our

:02:24. > :02:27.support because they are all trying to increase Parliamentary

:02:28. > :02:32.supervision over the process. Now before the minister led us through

:02:33. > :02:38.the dance of the seven veils I was trying to find out, I was going to

:02:39. > :02:44.question him on the question of irrockability of Article 50 and I

:02:45. > :02:49.still think goes to the heart of what we're debating. Can I say to

:02:50. > :02:53.the minister in terms of what he described as a serious announcement.

:02:54. > :03:00.If you make serious announcements in the course of a committee stage of a

:03:01. > :03:05.Bill of this importance then these serious announcements should be

:03:06. > :03:11.followed by an amendment. If we are here debating the Dangerous Dogs

:03:12. > :03:15.Bill, and a serious announcement was made in the middle of the Dangerous

:03:16. > :03:19.Dogs Bill then that serious announcement would be followed by an

:03:20. > :03:23.amendment on the face of the Bill. If it was good enough for a Bill of

:03:24. > :03:28.that description then how much more is it important to have such an

:03:29. > :03:33.amendment in the biggest constitutional change facing this

:03:34. > :03:39.country for half a century? So we thank the Minister for His

:03:40. > :03:43.announcement. We thank him for the apparent concession. We don't doubt

:03:44. > :03:46.for a second the seriousness with which he makes this serious

:03:47. > :03:50.announcement, but I think most of us, I think the minister himself,

:03:51. > :03:54.would think that such an announcement should be followed by

:03:55. > :03:59.an amendment on the face of the Bill so this Bill can then go through its

:04:00. > :04:04.proper processes with honourable members able and willing to debate

:04:05. > :04:08.an announcement of such seriousness in the proper way. I give way to the

:04:09. > :04:20.former Chief Whip. Who seems anxious to regain his

:04:21. > :04:24.previous position. I can assure the right honourable gentleman I am

:04:25. > :04:29.content to speak in the house on these matters. The question is, the

:04:30. > :04:32.reason why it may not be sensible to have a detailed amendment, listening

:04:33. > :04:37.to the range of interventions from colleagues there are clearly a large

:04:38. > :04:41.number of scenarios which may arise, ones which will need to be dealt

:04:42. > :04:46.with politically, I do not want detailed legislation so that this

:04:47. > :04:53.goes back into the courts, I wanted debated in this house, not by a

:04:54. > :04:56.judge. At least he is consistent, when he was Chief Whip he did not

:04:57. > :05:02.want detailed amendments either in case democracy prevailed in terms of

:05:03. > :05:06.these matters. I will give way in a second, but most people saying a

:05:07. > :05:11.serious announcement from the front bench would expect it to be followed

:05:12. > :05:16.by an amendment so the matter can be properly debated and tested. I give

:05:17. > :05:20.way. I thank the honourable gentleman forgiving way and I agree

:05:21. > :05:24.with the point about the manuscript amendment it would make things a lot

:05:25. > :05:29.cleaner, but does he agree with me that having an announcement that we

:05:30. > :05:34.may have a Hobson 's choice at the end of something is not really a

:05:35. > :05:37.proper choice? I very much agree with the honourable lady and she has

:05:38. > :05:43.conveniently led me right onto the next point I was going to make, I

:05:44. > :05:47.think her point goes to the heart of the dilemma the house is going to

:05:48. > :05:51.find itself in unless we find ourselves taking action to the

:05:52. > :05:59.contrary. That does strike at the matter of whether clause 50 is

:06:00. > :06:02.irrevocable or not. I tried to give a flavour of the government's

:06:03. > :06:08.confusion in this matter but it was a brief point of order and therefore

:06:09. > :06:13.I want to give the full flavour of the government 's confusion because

:06:14. > :06:17.this Brexit secretary said when asked the specific point, he said,

:06:18. > :06:23.and I quote, one of the virtues of the Article 50 process is that it

:06:24. > :06:27.sets you own way. It is very difficult to see it being revoked,

:06:28. > :06:34.we do not intend to the baulk it. It may be revoked the ball, I do not

:06:35. > :06:38.know. That is the basis we are being asked to take this fundamental

:06:39. > :06:41.decision affecting the future of this country. We have been all these

:06:42. > :06:51.things because it determines the position the house will find itself

:06:52. > :06:56.in. If it is, unless there is an agreement from the 27 members of the

:06:57. > :07:00.European Union, negotiations stop, the guillotine comes down and you

:07:01. > :07:04.are left with a bad deal or no Deal, then any vote in the house against

:07:05. > :07:14.that sort of Damocles hanging over the house will not be a proper

:07:15. > :07:22.informed judgment. Would he agree with me that triggering the Article

:07:23. > :07:25.50 on the basis of possible Reebok ability is like walking down the M4

:07:26. > :07:29.in the middle of the night and hoping you won't get killed. You

:07:30. > :07:38.might not but better not to walk down there in the first place? I

:07:39. > :07:47.think the analogy is there, and we now that the noble Lord Kerr

:07:48. > :08:16.believes it to be revoke a ball. The judgment was based on that

:08:17. > :08:25.proposition so does he agree it is irrevokable? I give way. The purpose

:08:26. > :08:31.was for the purpose of those proceedings and I have to say that

:08:32. > :08:37.we can derive nothing from that as to whether it is irrevokable or not

:08:38. > :08:42.and indeed there is powerful legal argument that it is capable of being

:08:43. > :08:48.revoked. The honourable gentleman should talk among themselves before

:08:49. > :08:51.they come to a house with an agreed position but both of these people

:08:52. > :08:57.are on the backbenches so it does not matter if they have alerted

:08:58. > :09:01.debate after proceedings, what matters is a confusion in the front

:09:02. > :09:12.bench and whatever the right Honourable member thinks, the Brexit

:09:13. > :09:17.secretary did not know... One last time. The right honourable gentleman

:09:18. > :09:19.is pursuing this relentlessly, but can he explain why he is doing so,

:09:20. > :09:39.may I suggest that it is because he knows... To be said I am pursuing

:09:40. > :09:48.something relentlessly is a component indeed, I shall treasure

:09:49. > :09:55.it. It's about this house having a genuine choice at some stage and

:09:56. > :09:56.looking at what the government has negotiated and then being able to

:09:57. > :10:29.say yes bringing us back to where we are now

:10:30. > :10:35.in terms of the referendum. An astute point. If I may say so, I

:10:36. > :10:38.think the issue is even more fundamental, I think we have to know

:10:39. > :10:46.what happens when we say no before we go ahead at the present moment.

:10:47. > :10:50.We make a new effort in new clause 180, new clause 180 is called the

:10:51. > :11:10.reset amendment and when I asked We will only approve the deal once

:11:11. > :11:15.the terms are such that we believe they are in the interest of this

:11:16. > :11:19.country. The Prime Minister should be prepared not to present us with a

:11:20. > :11:25.bad Deal or no Deal, not a bad deal for world trade terms, but a deal

:11:26. > :11:30.that we know is going to be in the interest of our constituents and the

:11:31. > :11:37.country. I think that's absolutely fundamental to this debate. I know

:11:38. > :11:44.and understand political leadership but at the end of March, it came

:11:45. > :11:48.about the Tory conference, people were getting flappy about whether

:11:49. > :11:54.the Prime Minister was a born-again Brexit supporter or still a secret

:11:55. > :11:59.submarine remain, I cannot understand why people think even

:12:00. > :12:03.from the Brexit side, because presumably they want success for the

:12:04. > :12:07.country and its economy, thinking it's a good idea to invoke article

:12:08. > :12:13.50 and till you know what the end destination is going to be.

:12:14. > :12:16.Similarly I cannot believe it's a good idea to leave the European

:12:17. > :12:19.economic area which is governed by different areas and different

:12:20. > :12:25.instruments until you know what the alternative is going to be. Instead

:12:26. > :12:29.of giving these points away and putting all of the negotiating power

:12:30. > :12:33.into the hands of those you are negotiating with and they are our

:12:34. > :12:38.partners now but any negotiation is a tension between two parties. Any

:12:39. > :12:42.negotiation depends on a card you will have in your hand and if the

:12:43. > :12:47.other side know that after two years the sword of Damocles comes down it

:12:48. > :12:51.puts them in a much more powerful position in terms of the

:12:52. > :12:57.negotiation. That is why we try... I give way. I thank you forgiving way,

:12:58. > :13:01.I agree with most of what he said which is why it is important we get

:13:02. > :13:05.an amendment on this so the house and the public know exactly where we

:13:06. > :13:12.are going. Why don't we put the government front bench on a course

:13:13. > :13:18.with the TUC to learn how to negotiate. And astute point, I think

:13:19. > :13:22.a lot could be learnt in terms of negotiating position and the prying

:13:23. > :13:24.point is to not put yourself in a position of weakness. Do not put

:13:25. > :13:31.yourself in a position of weakness with the European Union who are on

:13:32. > :13:34.the whole honourable people and want what is in the interest of the

:13:35. > :13:37.continent of Europe and it's not a good idea for the government to put

:13:38. > :13:42.themselves in a position of weakness with the new president of the United

:13:43. > :13:46.States who will take every possible advantage from an opponent he senses

:13:47. > :13:54.as he will sense is negotiating from a position of weakness. In

:13:55. > :13:58.conclusion, I would argue strongly for the new clause and the

:13:59. > :14:03.amendments we put down. To secure the position at the end of the

:14:04. > :14:08.negotiations before we embark on something which is going to leave

:14:09. > :14:11.this house not just with a bad Deal or no Deal, but with the

:14:12. > :14:18.metaphorical gun pointed at its head when it comes to address these

:14:19. > :14:25.serious questions. We have to know the end position before we embark on

:14:26. > :14:29.the fundamentally dangerous course. John Redwood. Thank you, I agree

:14:30. > :14:34.fully with the right honourable member for Gordon that we should not

:14:35. > :14:36.wish to do anything which weakens or undermines the British are

:14:37. > :14:43.bargaining position and that all the efforts of this house as we try to

:14:44. > :14:49.knit together should be designed to maximise the leverage as a newly

:14:50. > :14:52.independent nation and securing the best possible future relationship

:14:53. > :14:57.with our partners in the European Union which is why I find myself in

:14:58. > :15:00.disagreement with many of the well-intentioned amendments before

:15:01. > :15:07.us today. I think they are all trying to undermine or damage the UK

:15:08. > :15:11.negotiating position, maybe inadvertently. One of my honourable

:15:12. > :15:20.friend says nonsense, let me explain why it is dangerous if some of these

:15:21. > :15:24.amendments were adopted. We are invited to believe that if the House

:15:25. > :15:27.of Commons decided it did not like the deal which the government had

:15:28. > :15:31.negotiated for our future relationship with the EU and voted

:15:32. > :15:37.it down the rest of the EU would turn around and say sorry and offer

:15:38. > :15:41.us a better deal. I just don't think it's practical politics, I don't

:15:42. > :15:44.understand how they believe that is going to happen. What could happen

:15:45. > :15:49.is that those in the rest of the EU who want to keep the EU and her

:15:50. > :15:53.contributions in the EU might think it was a good idea to offer a very

:15:54. > :15:57.poor deal to try to tempt Parliament into voting the deal down so that

:15:58. > :16:03.then there was no Deal at all which might suit their particular agenda.

:16:04. > :16:08.Why is he so worried about the House of Commons INAUDIBLE

:16:09. > :16:16.? Isn't it right and proper we have a choice, informed or otherwise? I

:16:17. > :16:19.am supporting the government offering the house vote and the

:16:20. > :16:24.government cannot neither house a vote of the house wants to vote, the

:16:25. > :16:29.house will vote. But it's important that those who want to go further

:16:30. > :16:33.and press the government even more should understand it could be, let

:16:34. > :16:37.me deal with one point at a time, it could be deeply damaging to the

:16:38. > :16:42.United Kingdom negotiating position and is based on a completely unreal

:16:43. > :16:47.view of how multinational negotiations go when a country is

:16:48. > :16:49.leaving the European Union. I find it disappointing that those

:16:50. > :16:53.passionate advocates of the European Union in this house who have many

:16:54. > :16:59.fine contacts and networks across the continent and access to the

:17:00. > :17:03.councils and wisdom of our European partners make no contribution to

:17:04. > :17:07.these debates at all in the form of explaining to us more about the

:17:08. > :17:10.attitudes of the other member states, what the weaknesses of their

:17:11. > :17:14.negotiating position is and what their aims are in the negotiation,

:17:15. > :17:20.to better inform the government position so we can do better for

:17:21. > :17:24.them and for us. I give way. Making an articulate case as ever about the

:17:25. > :17:30.dangers of a vote at the end of the process but could he explain why on

:17:31. > :17:36.November 20, 2012 in a very interesting blogger post entitled

:17:37. > :17:40.the double referendum on the EU, he advocated a second referendum with

:17:41. > :17:44.the following question, do you want to accept the new negotiated

:17:45. > :17:49.relationship with the EU or not? How on earth and why on earth has he

:17:50. > :17:53.changed his mind since then? I do not disagree with that at all, I am

:17:54. > :17:57.happy to have a vote on whether the new Deal is worth accepting or not

:17:58. > :18:01.but that is within the context of leaving the European Union. I agree

:18:02. > :18:05.with the Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal and if the

:18:06. > :18:08.best the government can do is a bad deal and might well want to vote

:18:09. > :18:12.against that deal in favour of leaving without a deal and that is

:18:13. > :18:17.exactly the choice which government ministers are offering this house.

:18:18. > :18:22.It's a realistic choice, a democratic choice. It is no choice

:18:23. > :18:26.to pretend that the house can rerun the referendum in this pulpit and

:18:27. > :18:32.fought to stay in the EU. We will send the article 50 letter, the

:18:33. > :18:35.public have voted to leave so if this house voted to stay in what

:18:36. > :18:37.significance does that have and why should the member states turn around

:18:38. > :18:46.and agree? I give way. Wouldn't it be better to delay

:18:47. > :18:49.Article 50 until after the new German Government is elected in

:18:50. > :18:53.October and the French in May because we've only got two years and

:18:54. > :18:57.then we would have the power of time of the negotiation and the power of

:18:58. > :19:03.being a member rather than giving it in and finally going back to his

:19:04. > :19:07.former position, if we offered a referendum of the people before

:19:08. > :19:10.Article 50 was triggered they would think perhaps we may stay in and

:19:11. > :19:18.therefore, would come to the table before Article 50 was triggered. The

:19:19. > :19:23.issue is the future relationship and I think this House is capable of

:19:24. > :19:25.dealing with whether we accept the future relationship with the

:19:26. > :19:30.Government which has negotiated or not, but the point that the

:19:31. > :19:34.Opposition amendments and many of the Opposition MPs are missing is

:19:35. > :19:38.that it is the case that once you have sent the Article 50 letter you

:19:39. > :19:42.have notified your intention to leave and after two years if there

:19:43. > :19:47.is no agreement we are out of the European Union. And the Right

:19:48. > :19:51.Honourable gentleman raised the issue of is it irrevocable? He

:19:52. > :19:56.didn't give his own answer to that. I find it disappointing that the SNP

:19:57. > :20:02.who take a strong interest in these proceedings have no party view on

:20:03. > :20:07.whether it is irry vokcable or not? I accept the testimony of the

:20:08. > :20:11.Attorney-General and the noble lord who was the advocate for the remain

:20:12. > :20:14.side in the Supreme Court case that it is irry vokcable and the House

:20:15. > :20:19.has to take its decision in the light of that. And as far as I'm

:20:20. > :20:23.concerned, it is irrevocable for another democratic reason and that

:20:24. > :20:25.is that the public was told they were making the decision about

:20:26. > :20:31.whether we stay in or leave the European Union. And 52% of the

:20:32. > :20:35.public, if not others, are expecting this House to deliver their wishes.

:20:36. > :20:40.That was what ministers told this House when we passed the referendum

:20:41. > :20:46.Act. That is what every voter in the country was told by a leaflet at our

:20:47. > :20:50.expense sent by the Government to that you the people are making the

:20:51. > :20:53.decision and so this House rightly, when it was under the Supreme

:20:54. > :20:57.Court's guidance given the opportunity to have a specific vote

:20:58. > :21:03.on this matter, over whether we send the letter to leave the European

:21:04. > :21:07.Union, it voted by a majority of 384 with just the SNP and a few others

:21:08. > :21:12.in disagreement because it fully understood that this was a decision

:21:13. > :21:15.the British people had already taken and it fully understood this House

:21:16. > :21:21.of Commons has to do their bidding. I give way. I thank the Right

:21:22. > :21:27.Honourable member. Isn't he assuming that all of the people in Europe

:21:28. > :21:32.that we have been negotiating with are add var series which is perhaps

:21:33. > :21:37.the wrong standing point to take. Isn't it the case that a vote, a

:21:38. > :21:41.meaningful vote on the substance of any deal my equally focus the

:21:42. > :21:44.Government's mind on what it can sell to this House and unite this

:21:45. > :21:49.House and the people we represent in a very divided country.

:21:50. > :21:53.Well, he has won that argue. We are going to have a vote on whether we

:21:54. > :21:57.accept the deal or not. I hope it works out well. My criticism is not

:21:58. > :22:00.of the Government decision to make that offer. I think it was a very

:22:01. > :22:05.good offer to make in the circumstances the my criticism was

:22:06. > :22:11.and is of those members who do not understand that constantly seeking

:22:12. > :22:14.to undermine expose alleged weaknesses and do damage to the

:22:15. > :22:20.United Kingdom case is not helpful and it would be very helpful because

:22:21. > :22:23.many of them have talent and expertise from their many links with

:22:24. > :22:27.the EU to do more talking about how we can meet the reasonable

:22:28. > :22:30.objectives of the EU and deal with the unreasonable objectives that

:22:31. > :22:34.some in the Commission and some member states hold. I give way to

:22:35. > :22:42.the former leader of the SNP. The position is, despite the right hon

:22:43. > :22:48.Raja's certainty about irrevok kabletity. The Right Honourable

:22:49. > :22:52.member to his right-hand side former Attorney-General is not sure, but

:22:53. > :22:56.doesn't agree with the honourable gentleman and the minister, the

:22:57. > :23:00.Brexit minister doesn't know. Does this remind you of a certain

:23:01. > :23:07.question in European history where one mass mad and one was dead and

:23:08. > :23:12.the other had forgotten. Is that the basis on which the Right Honourable

:23:13. > :23:22.gentleman wants to take us over a cliff edge? I note that the SNP

:23:23. > :23:28.hasn't a clue and doesn't want to specify whether it is irrevocable or

:23:29. > :23:32.not. Can I just remind him that the

:23:33. > :23:36.Supreme Court did not rule on the matter.

:23:37. > :23:43.It clearly did rule on the matter because the reason it found against

:23:44. > :23:53.the Government was because they deemed it to be irrevocable.

:23:54. > :23:59.On this supreme red herring it doesn't matter whether the ECJ think

:24:00. > :24:06.Article 50 is irrevocable or not, the British people have determined

:24:07. > :24:11.that it is an irrevocable decision. I think that was a helpful

:24:12. > :24:15.intervention. This legal wrangle is fascinating how those who wish to

:24:16. > :24:20.resist or delay or cancel our departure from the EU are now

:24:21. > :24:26.flipping their legal arguments since three or four weeks ago when they

:24:27. > :24:31.were clear it was irrevocable. He is a man of coverage and he has a

:24:32. > :24:35.long fine history of supporting sovereignty of this place. He says

:24:36. > :24:40.that the Government is going to give us a vote in the event of a deal.

:24:41. > :24:46.But why doesn't he agree with us, me, whoever, over here and indeed

:24:47. > :24:52.over there, who want the same vote, sovereignty of this place in the

:24:53. > :24:56.event of no deal being struck by the Government despite their finalest

:24:57. > :25:01.efforts? That's the vote we have on second reading of this Bill. If you

:25:02. > :25:05.are at all worried about leaving the EU, you should clearly not have

:25:06. > :25:11.voted for this Bill on second reading. And that's the point of the

:25:12. > :25:17.irrevocable debate. I give way. Can I just clarify and take him back

:25:18. > :25:21.to his comments on his blog post in November 2012 when he argued in

:25:22. > :25:25.favour of a referendum at the beginning of the process and at the

:25:26. > :25:28.end. He just said he didn't think there should be a referendum on

:25:29. > :25:32.whether we should leave the European Union. However, he did not

:25:33. > :25:35.therefore, exclude his view perhaps still being that there should be a

:25:36. > :25:38.referendum on the terms of the deal. Will he clarify whether he thinks

:25:39. > :25:42.the people should have the final say?

:25:43. > :25:46.No, I don't think on this occasion, 2012 is 2012 and we were trying all

:25:47. > :25:49.sorts of things to try and get us out of the European Union and we

:25:50. > :25:52.found one that worked and I'm grateful that we found one that

:25:53. > :25:59.worked and now is now and you have to speak to the current conditions

:26:00. > :26:03.and the state of the argument. It depends on what the two options

:26:04. > :26:07.are. The honourable gentleman over to the other side of the House is

:26:08. > :26:11.clear, his choices are you accept the deal or you stay in the European

:26:12. > :26:14.Union. Although I was on the Remain side of the argument, there was an

:26:15. > :26:17.unconditional question on that ballot paper. It said leave or

:26:18. > :26:23.remain. My side of the argument lost. I accept that. We are leaving.

:26:24. > :26:29.He really wants to re-run the referendum all over again and I

:26:30. > :26:34.don't think that's acceptable. My final point is I do think people

:26:35. > :26:39.are trying to make the negotiations far more complicated and long-winded

:26:40. > :26:43.than we need. Because of the Prime Minister's admirable clarity and the

:26:44. > :26:49.12 points we don't need to negotiate borders, money, taking back control

:26:50. > :26:53.and sorting out our own laws and getting rid of ECJ jurisdiction.

:26:54. > :26:55.That's mandated by the British people and that's something we do.

:26:56. > :26:59.What we are going to be negotiating is just two things. One is there any

:27:00. > :27:04.Bill at the end of it when we leave that we have to pay? May answer is

:27:05. > :27:09.simply no, of course, there isn't. There is no legal power in the

:27:10. > :27:13.treaties to charge Britain by bill and there is no legal power for any

:27:14. > :27:17.minister to make a payment to the EU over and above the legal payment of

:27:18. > :27:21.our contributions up to the date of our exit and the other thing that

:27:22. > :27:25.the Government needs to sort out is, our future trading relationship with

:27:26. > :27:29.the European Union where we will offer them the generous offer let's

:27:30. > :27:33.carry on as we are and register it as a Free Trade Agreement. If they

:27:34. > :27:37.don't like that, most favoured nation terms under the WTO is fine.

:27:38. > :27:42.That's how we trade with the rest of the world. Very successfully at a

:27:43. > :27:48.profit, at the moment, and so they should relax understand it could be

:27:49. > :27:53.a lot easer why and there will not be economic damage. The Government

:27:54. > :27:56.has taken an admirable position and it made wonderful concessions to the

:27:57. > :28:02.other side and I hope they will accept them because they have had an

:28:03. > :28:07.impact on this issue. I'd like to speak to new clauses 28,

:28:08. > :28:13.54 and 99 standing in my name and that of other honourable and Right

:28:14. > :28:18.Honourable colleagues. New clause 28 is about the sequencing of votes on

:28:19. > :28:23.final terms. It's the issue on which we've had a concession this

:28:24. > :28:27.afternoon from the minister. New clause 54 is about how to secure

:28:28. > :28:33.extra time if we need it in our negotiations with the EU and new

:28:34. > :28:40.clause 99 embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the process. I was

:28:41. > :28:45.disappointed, I'm pleased to follow the honourable member for Wokingham,

:28:46. > :28:51.but I was disappointed that he didn't come clean to the House on

:28:52. > :28:54.the fact that he has alternative an alternative Parliamentary process

:28:55. > :28:59.which he hopes to use to secure the kind of Brexit he wants. He has not

:29:00. > :29:02.referred to another blog which he has written recently in which he

:29:03. > :29:06.wrote, "Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a college.

:29:07. > :29:11.All the time you belong to the college you have to pay fees. When

:29:12. > :29:23.you depart, you have no further financial obligations. ." ." Putting

:29:24. > :29:27.that to one side, he has not read the excellent paper by Alex Barker

:29:28. > :29:35.of the Financial Times which points out the obligations that we will

:29:36. > :29:37.fall into three categories, legally binding budget commitments and

:29:38. > :29:45.contingent liabilities which indeed are arguable. I'm going to make a

:29:46. > :29:49.little bit more progress. What the honourable member for Wokingham has

:29:50. > :29:53.also pointed out and he's right about this, ministers can only

:29:54. > :29:57.authorise spending and sign cheques with Parliamentary approval. He's

:29:58. > :30:02.right about that. And it's right that we should have that say, but,

:30:03. > :30:08.of course, what it means is that he's hoping that he can use that

:30:09. > :30:13.moment to veto the withdrawal arrangements and scupper the kind of

:30:14. > :30:22.future relationship which might be more constructive and more

:30:23. > :30:27.productive. In second reading, the honourable member said like all

:30:28. > :30:32.divorces it will be a trade off between access and money, but for

:30:33. > :30:36.the honourable member for Wokingham and his friends, there isn't a trade

:30:37. > :30:42.off, he doesn't want access and he doesn't want money either. Now, if I

:30:43. > :30:49.can just return to new clause 54 which calls for extra time.

:30:50. > :30:55.Honourable members have raised the need for extra time if Parliament

:30:56. > :31:00.has declined the final terms. One in which the Government has not managed

:31:01. > :31:05.to complete the negotiations within 24 hours specified in Article 50.

:31:06. > :31:10.This is more likely than not. Almost everyone who has looked at this

:31:11. > :31:14.matter in detail is incredulous at the idea that we can complete the

:31:15. > :31:18.negotiations in 24 months. The record for completing trade deals is

:31:19. > :31:25.not good and there are many more strands to this negotiation. It

:31:26. > :31:29.would be patently absurd to flip to a damaging situation without an

:31:30. > :31:34.agreement if we could see once we got into the negotiations and we

:31:35. > :31:38.have the detailed work schedule that a further six or 12 months would

:31:39. > :31:44.bring us to a successful conclusion. Similarly, it's possible that the

:31:45. > :31:47.minister's optimism is well founded, but the while the negotiation have

:31:48. > :31:55.been completed the Parliamentary process hasn't and in that instance

:31:56. > :31:59.too we ought to have extra time. New clause 99 addresses a different

:32:00. > :32:04.matter. It embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the approval of the

:32:05. > :32:10.final terms of withdrawal. It ensures that the UK with draws on

:32:11. > :32:15.terms approved by Parliament. This was a major plank of the Brexit

:32:16. > :32:19.campaign bringing back control and restoring Parliamentary sovereignty.

:32:20. > :32:24.New clause 99 is the fulfilment of that promise, the working out in

:32:25. > :32:27.practise of what was promised. The Prime Minister has already said that

:32:28. > :32:34.Parliament should have a vote at the end of the process. New clause 99

:32:35. > :32:39.strengthens that promise by requiring primary legislation to

:32:40. > :32:41.give effect to any agreement on arrangements for withdrawal and even

:32:42. > :32:47.more importantly, on the future relationship. This is important as

:32:48. > :32:50.it means Parliament does not just have to give a metaphorical

:32:51. > :32:57.thumbs-up which as my Right Honourable friend the member has

:32:58. > :33:04.said could be meaningless. Instead, Parliament can undertake line by

:33:05. > :33:07.line scrutiny. Brexit has major constitutional political economic

:33:08. > :33:09.and social consequences. It is right that Parliament approves the way it

:33:10. > :33:28.is done. Article 50 paragraph one states that

:33:29. > :33:31.a member state may decide to withdraw from the union in

:33:32. > :33:37.accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The

:33:38. > :33:42.Supreme Court said in their judgment withdrawal makes a fundamental

:33:43. > :33:48.change to the UK's constitutional arrangements. The UK constitution

:33:49. > :33:51.requires such changes to be affected by Parliamentary legislation. In

:33:52. > :33:56.line with the Supreme Court judgment new clause 99 in Parliamentary

:33:57. > :34:04.approval as a constitutional requirement which the EU must

:34:05. > :34:07.respect. New clause 99 also deals with the issue raised by the

:34:08. > :34:16.Honourable member at the beginning of the debate, what we do in the

:34:17. > :34:18.absence of any agreement. Either the Prime Minister's negotiations will

:34:19. > :34:25.succeed in reaching a satisfactory conclusion or they will not. New

:34:26. > :34:30.clause 99 provides for both scenarios. Legislation in the second

:34:31. > :34:35.as well as the first. So that Parliament is in control and decides

:34:36. > :34:40.the basis for leaving. The new clause does not block Brexit, it

:34:41. > :34:45.does not slow down the negotiations, I voted to give the Bill a second

:34:46. > :34:50.reading, my constituents are Leave voters, this is about Parliament

:34:51. > :34:58.having sovereign control over the process. I am grateful for tabling

:34:59. > :35:01.and speaking to this amendment, I think it's very important in terms

:35:02. > :35:07.of the concerns expressed on all sides of the house about the

:35:08. > :35:12.so-called concession offered early, can she confirmed she will push her

:35:13. > :35:16.amendment to the vote? I may wish to test the will of the house on this

:35:17. > :35:25.new clause when we come to the end of the debate. I think most rational

:35:26. > :35:33.people would say the new relationship is more important than

:35:34. > :35:38.the terms of withdrawal. She said a moment ago that new clause 99 does

:35:39. > :35:43.not seek to delay our derail the leaving process. In the event of

:35:44. > :35:48.section B of her new clause coming about, namely no deal, if Parliament

:35:49. > :35:54.voted against it doesn't be effective new clause 99 clearly mean

:35:55. > :35:59.that we would actually stop the process of leaving and thereby deny

:36:00. > :36:02.the effect of the referendum? I do not think it does mean that and I

:36:03. > :36:08.think that depends on whether extra time had been agreed with the

:36:09. > :36:12.European Union or not. I think if he refers back to article 50 he will

:36:13. > :36:17.see that we may get an extension of the other member states agree to

:36:18. > :36:24.give us that unanimously. They may, they may not. As we stand here today

:36:25. > :36:32.it's quite difficult to project ourselves forward into the situation

:36:33. > :36:36.we will find in two years' time. Doubly grateful, but doesn't she

:36:37. > :36:39.agree that in the event they do not give us extra time by mutual

:36:40. > :36:43.agreement and in the event that Parliament has rejected withdraw

:36:44. > :36:47.without an agreement, then the effect of section B of her new

:36:48. > :36:50.clause is very clearly that the referendum result will be negated by

:36:51. > :36:56.Parliament and doesn't that go against what she is voting for? I

:36:57. > :37:00.don't think it does because it allows open the possibility of the

:37:01. > :37:09.government going back to the drawing board and making a further new

:37:10. > :37:12.arrangement. But as I say, I think for us now, when we have not

:37:13. > :37:20.embarked on this, when we don't know what the deals are, it's extremely

:37:21. > :37:26.difficult... Isn't it the case and that she agree with me that many of

:37:27. > :37:31.the other 27 countries will be going to their Parliament's for approval,

:37:32. > :37:35.for their approach to these negotiations and surely it would

:37:36. > :37:38.strengthen our government's hand if the government involved themselves

:37:39. > :37:44.in a process within this Parliament that could maximise the support

:37:45. > :37:51.coming on all sides of the house for the government's approach and why

:37:52. > :37:55.isn't that seen as a strength? I could not agree more, we know Angela

:37:56. > :38:00.Merkel has to get parliamentary mandate for the way she conducts

:38:01. > :38:04.herself in all her negotiations in the European Union and some of us

:38:05. > :38:08.have tried over the years to improve the quality of our European

:38:09. > :38:18.scrutiny. But it seems we are now only focusing it when we are about

:38:19. > :38:23.to leave. I am grateful, assuming the house agrees this amendment, and

:38:24. > :38:28.we do trickle Article 50 on the 31st of March and we do vote against the

:38:29. > :38:32.deal and the commission and the European Parliament say sorry that

:38:33. > :38:37.the deal you have, like it or lump it, what can we do about it? They

:38:38. > :38:41.don't care, we haven't got these powers to stop them imposing the

:38:42. > :38:47.deal they want to put on us once we've triggered Article 50. I think

:38:48. > :38:50.what the Honourable gentleman is arguing is the same as the

:38:51. > :39:03.Honourable member for walking, that Article 50 is irrevocable. If you

:39:04. > :39:06.look at Article 50 paragraph three you will see it says unless the

:39:07. > :39:10.European Council in agreement with the member states unanimously decide

:39:11. > :39:17.to extend the period, this can happen. It will depend on how the

:39:18. > :39:25.negotiations are undertaken, where we have got to and on the torn. --

:39:26. > :39:35.on the torn. The Treaty of Lisbon sets out the term, whether it is

:39:36. > :39:39.irrevocable or not is down to the weakness of the Treaty of Lisbon.

:39:40. > :39:43.But some of the best deals reached in the EU have been at the 11th hour

:39:44. > :39:46.and the one thing which will concentrate the minds of all

:39:47. > :39:55.involved in these negotiations are the fact they had to happen by March

:39:56. > :40:01.2019 or it will go on and on and on? Well, I don't think the threat of

:40:02. > :40:05.the cliff edge is a positive in these negotiations. And I note the

:40:06. > :40:09.Chancellor of the Exchequer has described this as a second-best

:40:10. > :40:15.option and the white paper also says that crashing out is a second-best

:40:16. > :40:20.option. Actually I think it's the worst option. What new clause 99

:40:21. > :40:24.does is to level up the playing field so as well as having the vote

:40:25. > :40:31.on the withdrawal terms and the money we will also be able to have

:40:32. > :40:35.detailed scrutiny for this house on the future relationship. I have

:40:36. > :40:40.consulted my constituents on the Brexit they want. They do not want

:40:41. > :40:45.the cliff edge option, there are all sorts of things about Europe which

:40:46. > :40:50.they light even though it was a majority leave voting constituency.

:40:51. > :40:53.They like the customs union, the social chapter, cooperation and

:40:54. > :41:02.collaboration. They particularly like the arrest warrant. Indeed. She

:41:03. > :41:05.says she would like collaboration and supporting the government is

:41:06. > :41:10.negotiation, does she think it's a good idea in a negotiation to say we

:41:11. > :41:13.think we owe you a lot of money, tell us how much or is it better to

:41:14. > :41:20.say I don't think we owe you anything. My experience of

:41:21. > :41:22.negotiating is that one of the most important thing is that we

:41:23. > :41:27.understand what the people on the other side of the table thank and I

:41:28. > :41:31.think that's absolutely profound to making a success of this. It's not

:41:32. > :41:34.to say we are going to give the person on the other side of the

:41:35. > :41:43.table everything they want but we do need to be open to listening to what

:41:44. > :41:47.they want as we go forward. Going back to a point about the different

:41:48. > :41:50.approaches the European states adopted a negotiation, my

:41:51. > :41:55.understanding, I am not a lawyer so I hesitate in the face of such

:41:56. > :42:00.eminent legal presence in this chamber, but isn't it because in

:42:01. > :42:02.countries like Germany where they have a legal culture where when they

:42:03. > :42:10.make treaties they are directly applicable without further

:42:11. > :42:14.legislation, but we have to legislate things into effect so is

:42:15. > :42:17.that why they take a tougher approach for the authorise things

:42:18. > :42:21.because once the government has signed up to the treaty it

:42:22. > :42:25.automatically becomes law? I don't think this is an opportunity for a

:42:26. > :42:31.seminar on the political institutions of the Federal

:42:32. > :42:37.Republic. What I think is that new clause 99 is about embedding what is

:42:38. > :42:42.basic to the British constitution as bound by the Supreme Court which is

:42:43. > :42:48.parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process. In the end the

:42:49. > :42:53.referendum was about trust. It was about the kind of settlement that

:42:54. > :42:59.most voters want. I know what kind of Brexit deal my voters want, I

:43:00. > :43:07.think new clause 99 is the best way to give it to them. Thank you ladies

:43:08. > :43:12.and gentlemen. I hope the house will allow me to just mention the fact

:43:13. > :43:16.that today is indeed the 7th of February which is 25 years to the

:43:17. > :43:23.day from the signing of that fateful Maastricht Treaty and I am glad, I

:43:24. > :43:28.see my right honourable friend looking over at me with a wry smile

:43:29. > :43:33.on his face because of course I don't doubt for a minute he will

:43:34. > :43:37.recall he once said, I hope I am not mistaken, that he had not read the

:43:38. > :43:42.treaty but maybe he never said anything of the kind. I would be

:43:43. > :43:47.more than happy to accept that. But I did eventually put down that

:43:48. > :43:56.something like a or so amendments and I voted against it 47 or 50

:43:57. > :44:00.times. I have to say I am not going to vote against this under any

:44:01. > :44:06.circumstances whatsoever and indeed it's the first occasion in relation

:44:07. > :44:10.to any European legislation since 1986 which included the single

:44:11. > :44:16.European act where I put down a sovereignty amendment and I was not

:44:17. > :44:19.even allowed to have it selected for debate which I found very difficult

:44:20. > :44:26.to accept that the time. But the reality is we are now, we have moved

:44:27. > :44:34.well ahead, we have now had a referendum which was accepted by 6-1

:44:35. > :44:40.in this house. We have also had a vote on this very bill which was

:44:41. > :44:51.passed by 498, 500 if you include the tellers, to 114 to agree the

:44:52. > :44:57.principal of this bill. That is why I now move onto the next question, I

:44:58. > :45:02.would like to make this other point that when I look at these new

:45:03. > :45:06.clauses and I think in deference to other people who wish to speak,

:45:07. > :45:10.going through the intricacies of these vast number of new clauses is

:45:11. > :45:16.not going to help us very much. For a very simple reason that the bottom

:45:17. > :45:21.line is that it would effectively give a veto to override the result

:45:22. > :45:29.of a referendum. It's as simple as that. I would be happy to. Did he

:45:30. > :45:33.not just say he had put down 150 amendments of his own back? Surely

:45:34. > :45:37.he is diffusing his own argument? The whole point of this places to

:45:38. > :45:40.challenge other point of principle things we don't believe in and that

:45:41. > :45:44.is what we are trying to do and he should be supporting us. I am so

:45:45. > :45:50.glad that the honourable lady has made that point because of course

:45:51. > :45:55.the difference between what I was doing in those days and what is

:45:56. > :45:59.happening now is that we were actually arguing against the

:46:00. > :46:02.government's policy to implement European government which is what

:46:03. > :46:09.the Maastricht treaty said and which by the way the electorate in the

:46:10. > :46:13.referendum have now accepted. And the second point is that we were

:46:14. > :46:16.arguing for a referendum which we've now got. So my amendments were

:46:17. > :46:24.moving in the right direction in line with what the government have

:46:25. > :46:33.now agreed and what the people themselves have also agreed. I will

:46:34. > :46:37.give way. Clearly enjoying his day in the sun. I did not vote for the

:46:38. > :46:41.referendum legislation like the right honourable member, but could

:46:42. > :46:46.he tell us of his 40 years of campaigning what regard he has had

:46:47. > :46:51.to the two thirds of people who when he started actually voted for the UK

:46:52. > :46:57.to remain in the European Union? I can only say that in our democratic

:46:58. > :47:00.system when 6-1 of this house and the House of Lords as well vote in

:47:01. > :47:03.favour of a referendum by sovereign act of Parliament and give the

:47:04. > :47:08.people in his constituency as well as in mine, not to mention

:47:09. > :47:12.Stoke-on-Trent on which there is going to be quite an interesting

:47:13. > :47:17.test in a few days' time, that the fact is that the decision was given

:47:18. > :47:22.to those people by act of Parliament and they made that choice to leave.

:47:23. > :47:28.That is definitive and I do not see any purpose I have to say and I am

:47:29. > :47:32.not going to waste time on some of the intricate arguments we have

:47:33. > :47:36.heard so far, many of which I think are going round in circles. The

:47:37. > :47:40.question is do we implement the decision of the United Kingdom or

:47:41. > :47:49.not, the answer is that we do and we must and that was conceded by this

:47:50. > :47:52.house and all, almost everybody, I say with great respect to my right

:47:53. > :47:57.honourable friend who did not, but the bottom line is we are giving

:47:58. > :48:03.effect to the decision of the United Kingdom electorate.

:48:04. > :48:11.He himself was one of these two-thirds back in 1975 when he

:48:12. > :48:14.voted for the European Community. So all of these years he was

:48:15. > :48:18.campaigning against the sovereignty against that decision and indeed he

:48:19. > :48:21.was campaigning against his own sovereignty and against his own

:48:22. > :48:25.decision! That's politics! As the honourable

:48:26. > :48:29.gentleman knows only too well because he has a similar experience

:48:30. > :48:42.with respect to his position with regard to Scotland. So the bottom

:48:43. > :48:47.line is this, we are faced with a simple decision which is going to be

:48:48. > :48:53.decided at a vote later today. I imagine. It maybe it will be p nart

:48:54. > :48:58.tomorrow as well and then there will be a third reading and all these

:48:59. > :49:03.attempts in my judgment to produce different versions of delay will

:49:04. > :49:07.effectively, I hope, be overridden by the vote that's taken by this

:49:08. > :49:10.House as a whole in line with a decision that was taken by the

:49:11. > :49:14.British people which is the right way to proceed. I would just like to

:49:15. > :49:21.add one other point though with respect to the Bill itself. I'm in

:49:22. > :49:25.no way criticising the selection of amendments because I think it is

:49:26. > :49:30.entirely right that we should have an opportunity to look at a variety

:49:31. > :49:37.of perm tass before that vote is cast, but I have to remind the House

:49:38. > :49:44.that this Bill, which was passed by 498 to 114 simply says to confer

:49:45. > :49:48.power on the Prime Minister to notify under Article 50 of the

:49:49. > :49:52.treaty and European Union, the United Kingdom's intention as

:49:53. > :50:01.expressed by the referendum itself, to withdraw from the EU. And clause

:50:02. > :50:07.1 simply says and no more, "The Prime Minister may notify under

:50:08. > :50:11.Article 50 (2) on the treaty of the European Union the United Kingdom's

:50:12. > :50:19.intention to withdraw interest the EU. It goes on to say to put this

:50:20. > :50:24.matter to bed in case anyone tries to argue this could be overridden by

:50:25. > :50:30.some other European Union gambit. This section which we've passed

:50:31. > :50:35.already in principle has effect despite any provision made by or

:50:36. > :50:42.under the community Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment. In

:50:43. > :50:46.other words nothing is to stand in its way about which emulates from

:50:47. > :50:52.the European Union and that's a very simple proposition and this Bill is

:50:53. > :50:56.short because it should be short. I would like to make this last point

:50:57. > :51:02.and that's to look back at what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme

:51:03. > :51:06.Court made a judgment on one simple question - should it be by

:51:07. > :51:11.prerogative that we express this intention to withdraw and notify

:51:12. > :51:16.under Article 50 or should it be Bill? There was a big battle. Many

:51:17. > :51:20.people took differing views. We respect the outcome of the Supreme

:51:21. > :51:27.Court's decision and that is why we've got this Bill. The fact is

:51:28. > :51:34.that that is final. But in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that very

:51:35. > :51:38.judgment the court itself made it clear what this Bill was meant to be

:51:39. > :51:42.about and it was whether it should be by Bill or prerogative and they

:51:43. > :51:46.said by Bill. What they also added and these are my last words for the

:51:47. > :51:51.moment on this subject and it's this - they said it was about one

:51:52. > :51:55.particular issue and that's the one I mentioned. They then said it has

:51:56. > :52:00.nothing to do with the terms of withdrawal. It has nothing to do

:52:01. > :52:03.with the method. It has nothing to do the timing and it has nothing to

:52:04. > :52:11.do with the relationship between ourselves and the European Union. A

:52:12. > :52:15.new clause 1 spends its entire wordage going into the very

:52:16. > :52:22.questions the Supreme Court said this decision was not about. So this

:52:23. > :52:25.new clause and the other ones are all inconsistent both with the

:52:26. > :52:31.Supreme Court decision, also with the decisions that were taken on the

:52:32. > :52:44.second reading of the Bill, of course... Point of order. Surely new

:52:45. > :52:55.clause 1 which we're debating is in order or we wouldn't be debating it?

:52:56. > :53:00.This is a matter for the chair. I'm sure it is in order, the problem is

:53:01. > :53:06.whether we vote for it or not of the and there is extremely good reasons

:53:07. > :53:11.for not doing so. In addition, every single element of new clause 1 and

:53:12. > :53:15.the other amendments are all designed and these are all

:53:16. > :53:17.honourable people, all honourable gentlemen on both sides of the

:53:18. > :53:21.House, some of them are Right Honourable. I simply make this point

:53:22. > :53:25.that they know perfectly well what they're doing. They're trying to

:53:26. > :53:33.delay, obstruct and prevent this Bill from going through and I say

:53:34. > :53:41.shame on you. Thank you very much. An honour to

:53:42. > :53:46.follow the honourable gentleman who has fought his corner for 40 odd

:53:47. > :53:52.years. I intend to fight mine, but not for as long as that. I beg to

:53:53. > :53:58.move in the name of my Right Honourable. Amendment 43 concerns

:53:59. > :54:01.democracy at the end of this process as well as the beginning of it. It

:54:02. > :54:05.would require the Prime Minister to look at the overwhelming case for a

:54:06. > :54:09.people's vote on the final exit package that this Government

:54:10. > :54:14.neglects with Brussels after triggering Article 50. On 23rd June

:54:15. > :54:19.last year, a narrow majority voted to leave the European Union although

:54:20. > :54:24.I deeply regret that outcome, I am a democrat, I accept it, but voting

:54:25. > :54:30.for departure is not the same as voting for destination. So now, the

:54:31. > :54:33.Government should give the British people a decision referendum to be

:54:34. > :54:39.held when the EU negotiation is concluded. Now, I will admit that

:54:40. > :54:43.mandate referendum and decision referendums are not phrases that I

:54:44. > :54:48.have used before in this context. Because they're not really my words

:54:49. > :54:51.at all. They are the words used by the current Secretary of State for

:54:52. > :54:56.Exiting the European Union who himself made the case very

:54:57. > :55:01.eloquently in 2012 for the Liberal Democrat policy today for there to

:55:02. > :55:04.be a referendum on the deal at the end of the process. I will happily

:55:05. > :55:10.give way. On 11th May of last year, that this

:55:11. > :55:15.was a once in a generation decision, was he doing straightforward with

:55:16. > :55:22.voters? The Government is intending it to be a once in a generation

:55:23. > :55:27.opportunity as the honourable peb has proved. Sometimes you have to

:55:28. > :55:31.fight for two generations or the thing thaw believe in. If you have

:55:32. > :55:37.the courage of your convictions then you keep going. Can I quote the

:55:38. > :55:42.Brexit Secretary directly? I would not want to para phrase or risk

:55:43. > :55:47.misquoting him. To quote him directly, the aim of this strategy a

:55:48. > :55:51.strategy of two referendums on a mandate referendum and a decision

:55:52. > :55:58.referendum is to give the British people the final say. But it is also

:55:59. > :56:00.to massively reinforce the legitimacy and negotiating power of

:56:01. > :56:09.the British negotiating team. I don't think I'll say this all that

:56:10. > :56:12.often during this process, but I completely and utterly agree with

:56:13. > :56:18.the Brexit Secretary and indeed as we have learned earlier on, that

:56:19. > :56:23.those words were endorsed the following day on his blog by the

:56:24. > :56:27.member for Wokingham who we have discovered didn't really mean it. He

:56:28. > :56:34.was just saying it at the time as a ruse.

:56:35. > :56:39.Can I tell him why he's wrong in this matter? If we were to give on

:56:40. > :56:45.the face of the Bill a second referendum at this stage that would

:56:46. > :56:48.tie the hands of negotiators. We could only be offered a bad deal

:56:49. > :56:52.because it would be in the hands of the people we were negotiating with

:56:53. > :56:56.to drive the British people to reject it and it would be a failed

:56:57. > :57:00.policy from the start. I'm grateful to him for his intervention. I have

:57:01. > :57:03.to say though that the logic of his argument is that the minister

:57:04. > :57:09.shouldn't have made the offer for this House to have a say either at

:57:10. > :57:13.the end of the deal. And if you are in a position where you're about to

:57:14. > :57:18.go over a cliff to not give yourself the opportunity to not go over the

:57:19. > :57:22.cliff that's the ultimate negotiating weakness as the Brexit

:57:23. > :57:28.Secretary rightly pointed outed four and a bit years ago.

:57:29. > :57:33.He really must correct the record. I did not make the offer flippantly or

:57:34. > :57:37.not intending to see it through in 2012. It was a fair offer which was

:57:38. > :57:40.not taken up. I with all my colleagues then made a different

:57:41. > :57:49.offer in 2015 which was accepted and we are pursuing.

:57:50. > :57:59.We would no way which to impune the Right Honourable's integrity. It was

:58:00. > :58:03.a method to get the outcome. He is therefore, I guess, the hard Brexit

:58:04. > :58:09.equivalent of Malcolm X by any means necessary. If I can make a little

:58:10. > :58:14.bit of progress I would be grateful. I would be very grateful. I think it

:58:15. > :58:19.is true that this is an argument that absolutely began with

:58:20. > :58:26.democracy. It cannot now in all honesty end with a stitch-up. This

:58:27. > :58:32.it was especially true given that the Lee campaign offered no plans,

:58:33. > :58:47.no instructions, no prospectus, no vision of what out would look like.

:58:48. > :58:53.I was a Remainor as well. I regret the result. Does the honourable

:58:54. > :58:57.gentleman agree with Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary, that

:58:58. > :59:05.a second referendum raises a lot of fundamental problems? We are dealing

:59:06. > :59:10.with a lot of fundamental problems in any event. The bottom line is

:59:11. > :59:13.this - the reality is we are not talking about a second referendum.

:59:14. > :59:17.One would argue that the referendum on 23rd June was a second

:59:18. > :59:21.referendumment we are arguing for a referendum on the terms of the deal.

:59:22. > :59:27.Something that has not been put to the British people even once.

:59:28. > :59:31.I'm grateful for the honourable member giving way. He says we'll get

:59:32. > :59:35.to a cliff edge. His offer of a referendum is no choice. He would

:59:36. > :59:41.either have to vote for it or vote for against it. If you voted against

:59:42. > :59:44.it, you would have that cliff edge that people are trying to avoid? We

:59:45. > :59:47.are offering an opportunity for them not only to have the final say of

:59:48. > :59:52.the deal, but having looked over that cliff edge to say no thanks and

:59:53. > :59:59.to remain in the European Union. That's aly jt mat and democratic

:00:00. > :00:02.offer for a party to make. Whilst it is legitimate to take an alternative

:00:03. > :00:06.point of view, it is fully democratic. I want to make a clear

:00:07. > :00:10.point here and I'll make progress if colleagues do not mind. You see I

:00:11. > :00:14.want to give credit here, there is a few of them here now. A little bit

:00:15. > :00:19.of credit to our SNP colleagues in this House here today. Because

:00:20. > :00:26.during the Scottish independence referendum they were able to produce

:00:27. > :00:29.a 670 page paper, a White Paper, on exactly what leaving the United

:00:30. > :00:33.Kingdom would look like. Now, of course, I didn't agree with them,

:00:34. > :00:36.but at least the people of Scotland knew what it was they were voting

:00:37. > :00:41.for and what it was they would be rejecting. If that vote had gone the

:00:42. > :00:45.other way in 2014, there would have been no need for a second vote then

:00:46. > :00:51.on the independence deal away from the United Kingdom. Now, this

:00:52. > :00:54.Government is going to take some monumental decisions over the next

:00:55. > :00:58.two years. I still believe that it will be impossible for them to

:00:59. > :01:02.negotiate a deal that is better than the one we currently have inside the

:01:03. > :01:07.European Union. But these negotiations will happen and a deal

:01:08. > :01:10.will be reached. And when all is said and done, someone will have to

:01:11. > :01:15.decide whether the deal is good enough for the people of Britain.

:01:16. > :01:19.Surely the only right and logical step is to allow the people to

:01:20. > :01:24.decide whether it is the right deal for them, their families, their

:01:25. > :01:27.jobs, and our country, not politicians in Whitehall or

:01:28. > :01:32.Brussels, not even this House, but the people. No one in this

:01:33. > :01:37.Government, no one in this House, no one in this country has any idea

:01:38. > :01:42.what the deal the Prime Minister will agree. It is completely

:01:43. > :01:47.unknown. I'll give way. Does he share my surprise at the resistance

:01:48. > :01:50.to his perfectly sensible suggestion of a ratification referendum given

:01:51. > :01:53.that the whole hallmark of a leave campaign was about taking back

:01:54. > :01:59.control? Surely that means control for the British people, not just

:02:00. > :02:04.control for the MPs? That's an excellent point. It seems bizarre

:02:05. > :02:09.that having tried to claim, take back control, that very effective

:02:10. > :02:15.slogan that was used, they now wish to seed control to those occupying

:02:16. > :02:19.the 21st century of smoke filled rooms in Brussels and Whitehall to

:02:20. > :02:25.have a stitch-up imposed on the British people. He will remember his

:02:26. > :02:28.predecessor produced a leaflet saying only the Liberal Democrats

:02:29. > :02:33.will offer a real referendum. I presume they had no idea of the

:02:34. > :02:36.implications if the people voted to come out at that stage he said it

:02:37. > :02:39.was a once in a generation vote. He is saying we should have a mandate

:02:40. > :02:43.referendum and a terms referendum. So when will he be saying if those

:02:44. > :02:44.two go through, we should have a are you really sure about that

:02:45. > :02:54.referendum? He seems to be under the impression

:02:55. > :02:57.that democracy is a one-hit game. Somehow if you believe passionately

:02:58. > :03:02.in what you believe in, you have to do give in. He and I both sat on

:03:03. > :03:07.this side of the chamber during the last five years of the Labour

:03:08. > :03:13.administration. When the Labour Party won its big majorities in 97,

:03:14. > :03:17.2001 and 2005, did he give in and say it would be frustrating for

:03:18. > :03:22.people to stop fighting the Conservative cause? He didn't. It's

:03:23. > :03:27.right to respect the will of the people, but it's to disrespect the

:03:28. > :03:34.will of democracy when you give in. I have said before, his approach is

:03:35. > :03:39.Hotel California, you can check out but never leave. He wants people to

:03:40. > :03:43.vote and vote again until he gets a result he agrees with. The British

:03:44. > :03:45.people have voted and we have to leave the European Union and

:03:46. > :03:52.implement the will of the British people. I will come onto that in a

:03:53. > :03:56.moment. I don't think it is in any enacting the will of the British

:03:57. > :04:00.people to consistently refused the British people to have the right to

:04:01. > :04:03.have the say on the deal that will affect generations to come and which

:04:04. > :04:11.none of us here know what it will look like. He will know that I

:04:12. > :04:14.support the position that he is articulate in in amendment 43, but

:04:15. > :04:19.in light of the concession we have heard from the government today,

:04:20. > :04:23.does he share my concern that at the end of this negotiation the choice

:04:24. > :04:27.this Parliament will have is between accepting the deal that the

:04:28. > :04:34.government offers, possibly a bad deal, or falling out of the European

:04:35. > :04:37.Union on WTO terms at a cost of ?45 billion of our GDP. Do you not think

:04:38. > :04:44.the British people might be worried about that and might want to have a

:04:45. > :04:47.say about it? He continues to make a very strong case and be bold and

:04:48. > :04:50.putting it across, not just today. There is no doubt whatsoever that

:04:51. > :04:54.whatever the British people voted for on the 23rd of June, for

:04:55. > :04:58.certain, they did not vote to make themselves poorer and it would be

:04:59. > :05:04.absolutely wrong for that game of poker to end up as a consequence, a

:05:05. > :05:09.dropping off the cliff edge without the British people having the right

:05:10. > :05:13.to have their say. I will give way. His argument would have force if the

:05:14. > :05:19.question on the 23rd of June had been, to give the government a

:05:20. > :05:24.mandate to negotiate bring back a deal. It wasn't. It was a

:05:25. > :05:28.conditional question, do you want to leave or remain. People listened to

:05:29. > :05:32.the arguments about the risks and they decided to leave. He can't

:05:33. > :05:37.accept that and I think a Democrat should be able to. I think he's

:05:38. > :05:40.quite wrong. Undoubtedly, I have said clearly, the majority of people

:05:41. > :05:46.voted to leave the European Union on the 23rd June. The government has a

:05:47. > :05:51.mandate to go along at that point. What they didn't do, because they

:05:52. > :05:56.were not asked, was to decide that the destination. As the current

:05:57. > :05:59.Brexit secretary quite rightly said in his speech four years ago,

:06:00. > :06:03.destination and departure are different things. It's right for

:06:04. > :06:05.Democrats to make the case of the British people not to have their

:06:06. > :06:14.world taken from them and have a stitch up imposed upon them. I will

:06:15. > :06:18.give way one more time. What would happen if we did have a second

:06:19. > :06:23.referendum and the British people rejected that offer. Where would

:06:24. > :06:28.that leave us? The wording on that ballot paper would be up for

:06:29. > :06:32.discussion. Our vision is we would accept the terms of the governments

:06:33. > :06:37.negotiation, or the United Kingdom would remain in the European Union.

:06:38. > :06:41.I will give way last time. We have no problem in supporting his new

:06:42. > :06:44.cause, if as the UK Government believes in the White Paper, that

:06:45. > :06:49.they have 65 million people behind their negotiating position, what are

:06:50. > :06:53.they afraid of? It seems to me people who have been arguing for the

:06:54. > :06:57.sovereignty of Parliament in this country, and to enforce the will of

:06:58. > :07:00.the people and all of that, to now be so scared of the people troubles

:07:01. > :07:04.me and it makes me worried they don't have the courage of their

:07:05. > :07:07.convictions. Looking forward, and I want to make some progress now

:07:08. > :07:10.because others need to get in, the deal must be put to the British

:07:11. > :07:14.people for them to have their say because that's the only way to hold

:07:15. > :07:25.the government to account. We already know in all likelihood that

:07:26. > :07:28.48% of the British people will not like the outcome of the deal, and we

:07:29. > :07:30.now know the kind of Brexit this Prime Minister intends to pursue,

:07:31. > :07:33.you can pretty much bet that perhaps half of the 52% will not like it

:07:34. > :07:36.either. They will feel betrayed and ignored. The only way to achieve

:07:37. > :07:41.democracy and closure for both leave and remain voters is for there to be

:07:42. > :07:45.a vote at the end. The government claims to be enforcing the will of

:07:46. > :07:48.the people, but I would put you that is nonsense. If I was being very

:07:49. > :07:51.generous, the best you could say is that the government is interpreting

:07:52. > :07:54.the will of the people. Some would say they are taking a result and

:07:55. > :08:02.twisting it to mean something quite different. The Conservatives won a

:08:03. > :08:11.mandate in the mate with teeth -- in the May 2015 general election. In a

:08:12. > :08:16.manifesto they pledged a referendum but also to keep Britain in the

:08:17. > :08:24.single market. That second pledge, to keep us in the single market was

:08:25. > :08:27.not caveat it, not contingent on the outcome of any referendum. It was a

:08:28. > :08:32.clear pledge. The government are now breaking that pledge. They are

:08:33. > :08:39.making a choice. I have given way an awful lot. They are making a choice.

:08:40. > :08:43.They choice that the British people have not given them permission to

:08:44. > :08:50.make. And a choice that isn't just damaging to our country, but also

:08:51. > :08:55.divisive. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to pursue a form of

:08:56. > :08:59.Brexit that United our country, that achieved consensus and reflected the

:09:00. > :09:04.closeness of the vote, that sought to deal with and heal the divisions

:09:05. > :09:08.between Leave and Remain. Instead, she chose to pursue the hardest and

:09:09. > :09:14.most divisive and destructive form of Brexit. I would say she is

:09:15. > :09:19.tearing us out of the single market and leaving us isolated against the

:09:20. > :09:24.might of world superpowers. I passionately believe that ending our

:09:25. > :09:29.membership of the world's biggest free market will do untold damage to

:09:30. > :09:32.this country, to the prospect and opportunities, especially for young

:09:33. > :09:36.people who voted heavily to remain in this country. It's vital for our

:09:37. > :09:42.economy, and that's why my party refuses to stop making the case that

:09:43. > :09:46.this deal must include membership of the single market. Those who settle

:09:47. > :09:50.for access to the single market rather than membership, are, I

:09:51. > :09:52.respectfully suggest, waving the white flag to this assault on

:09:53. > :09:57.British business and the cost of living for every family in the

:09:58. > :10:01.country. But giving the government is making a set of extreme and

:10:02. > :10:05.arbitrary choices that were not on the ballot paper last June, the only

:10:06. > :10:10.thing a democrat can do is to give the people the final say. If the

:10:11. > :10:14.Prime Minister is so confident that what she is planning is what people

:10:15. > :10:21.voted for, then why would she not give them a vote on the final deal?

:10:22. > :10:26.I won't give way, I have given away plenty of times and will bring my

:10:27. > :10:30.remarks to an end for everyone else's say. The final deal will not

:10:31. > :10:35.be legitimate. It will not be consented to, and our country will

:10:36. > :10:38.not be achieving closure if it is imposed on the British people

:10:39. > :10:41.through a stitch up in the corridors of power in Brussels and Whitehall.

:10:42. > :10:48.Democracy does mean accepting the will of the people at the beginning

:10:49. > :10:52.of the process and at the end of the process. Democracy means respecting

:10:53. > :10:56.the majority and democracy also means not giving up on your beliefs,

:10:57. > :11:00.rolling over and conceding when the going gets tough. You keep fighting

:11:01. > :11:04.for what you believe is right and that is what Liberal Democrats will

:11:05. > :11:08.do. We agree with the Brexit secretary, let's let the people have

:11:09. > :11:16.their say, let's let them take back control. Oliver Letwin. May I just

:11:17. > :11:19.start by correcting the record. I had something to do with the

:11:20. > :11:22.production of the manifesto the Right Honourable gentleman was

:11:23. > :11:27.clearly unable to read in the time available to him. It made no such

:11:28. > :11:33.assertion. It was perfectly clear that what it said about the single

:11:34. > :11:37.market was to be superseded where a referendum results, which we didn't

:11:38. > :11:44.anticipate, but the British people would take is out of the EU as a

:11:45. > :11:47.whole. And I regret that. I voted to remain, I campaigned to remain. But

:11:48. > :11:59.the fact is the British people voted to leave. What is interesting, I

:12:00. > :12:05.think, about this debate, and it has been very interesting, is that it is

:12:06. > :12:09.one of those moments in which the cloak of obscurity is lifted from an

:12:10. > :12:13.issue and it becomes clear what is actually the dynamic going on. And

:12:14. > :12:18.what is actually going on here, is we have reached the crunch issue. We

:12:19. > :12:22.have reached the point at which we are discussing whether the effect of

:12:23. > :12:27.the Supreme Court judgment should be that Parliament has the option at

:12:28. > :12:31.some date in the future of overruling the British people and

:12:32. > :12:36.cancelling the leaving of the EU, or whether it should not have that

:12:37. > :12:44.ability. My right honourable friend, the minister, has made it perfectly

:12:45. > :12:47.clear that there will be a vote. But the vote, he has also made it

:12:48. > :12:52.perfectly clear is the vote between the option of accepting it

:12:53. > :12:55.particular set of arrangements negotiated by Her

:12:56. > :12:58.Majesty'sgovernment, and not excepting those arrangements and

:12:59. > :13:03.thereby leaving the EU without either in the one case a withdrawal

:13:04. > :13:06.agreement, or in the other case, an arrangement for the future. My right

:13:07. > :13:11.honourable friend is right. I think we can be optimistic we can reach

:13:12. > :13:17.such agreements, but we don't know if we will. Following the logic of

:13:18. > :13:24.the referendum decision, that the judgment of this house should simply

:13:25. > :13:28.be about whether the deal is good enough. To warrant doing a deal, or

:13:29. > :13:33.whether, on the contrary, we should leave without a deal. That is a

:13:34. > :13:37.completely different... To the proposition which, in various

:13:38. > :13:44.guises, some are exempt entirely from this the opposition front

:13:45. > :13:48.bench, but some on the opposition benches are putting, which is that

:13:49. > :13:52.Parliament should instead by one means or another be given the

:13:53. > :13:55.ability to countermand the British people's decision to leave your Mac

:13:56. > :14:00.by giving a vote on whether we should leave or shouldn't leave, or

:14:01. > :14:02.in the proposition of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, whether the

:14:03. > :14:07.people should have a second referendum on whether we should

:14:08. > :14:12.leave or not to leave. Either of those propositions is a clear

:14:13. > :14:14.determination to undo the effect of the referendum. And we have now

:14:15. > :14:20.reached the point at which that has come out into the open. I will give

:14:21. > :14:24.way to the former leader of the SNP. Can we just instruct the government

:14:25. > :14:28.to negotiate a better deal? The phrase in the Conservative manifesto

:14:29. > :14:35.which he didn't write was, we say yes to the single market. That

:14:36. > :14:38.sounds pretty unequivocal. We were at that moment a member of the EU

:14:39. > :14:41.and we said yes to the single market and I campaigned for the single

:14:42. > :14:47.marketing campaign to remain part of the EU. That was the government's

:14:48. > :14:50.position in the referendum. But we'll is committed to a referendum

:14:51. > :14:54.and the point of committing to the referendum, and we made that

:14:55. > :14:58.perfectly clear in able range of speeches and the manifesto, was that

:14:59. > :15:01.if the British people voted to leave, we would leave. It seems to

:15:02. > :15:06.me perfectly clear that the word leave means leave. It does not mean

:15:07. > :15:09.remain. And what the right honourable gentleman, who is an

:15:10. > :15:13.expert parliamentarian has been arguing, in many ways over a long

:15:14. > :15:17.time, more explicitly the leader of the Liberal Democrats has been

:15:18. > :15:21.arguing, is that leave ought to be translated as remain. I deny this is

:15:22. > :15:26.a translation that fits the in the site which is susceptible. It seems

:15:27. > :15:29.to me perfectly clear that those of us who campaign to leave and those

:15:30. > :15:33.who campaigned to remain have a choice, we can either accept the

:15:34. > :15:38.referendum result rejected. I accept it. The gentleman opposite, maybe

:15:39. > :15:44.some honourable members who are not gentleman, but winning, opposite,

:15:45. > :15:48.also take that view. It may be that some take the view we should reject

:15:49. > :15:51.the referendum result. It's a perfectly honourable view. The

:15:52. > :15:55.leader of the Liberal Democrats was in effect offering that we should

:15:56. > :16:00.reject the result openly. I don't decry his ability to argue that, but

:16:01. > :16:04.everybody arguing that should come out openly, as he did, and not

:16:05. > :16:07.pretend they are trying to present some method of parliamentary

:16:08. > :16:10.scrutiny. It's nothing of the kind. They are trying to present a means

:16:11. > :16:14.of undoing the result of the referendum. This house has actually

:16:15. > :16:17.voted conclusively not to undo the result of the referendum and I think

:16:18. > :16:21.the house was right to do that. Whether it was right not to do that

:16:22. > :16:26.with its eyes open, and should not be dialled by anyone into passing

:16:27. > :16:34.amendments that have an effect that it has not been signed up to buy

:16:35. > :16:37.anybody. Can I just point out to him that it is absolutely clear, and I

:16:38. > :16:40.want to clarify from my point of view, that this place, and indeed

:16:41. > :16:44.Parliament as a whole, and indeed the courts, have no right whatsoever

:16:45. > :16:48.to bar the will of the people. It would be absolutely wrong to

:16:49. > :16:50.overturn the outcome of the referendum last June. I am merely

:16:51. > :16:54.asking for the British people to have a final say on the deal and

:16:55. > :17:01.should they reject the deal, to stay in the EU. And voting to say you

:17:02. > :17:05.vote to leave the EU does not mean voting to leave the single market.

:17:06. > :17:09.It didn't for Norway or Switzerland. There are two issues here. One is

:17:10. > :17:13.whether the question of leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

:17:14. > :17:19.It doesn't. I argued in a referendum when I was persuading those to

:17:20. > :17:22.remain, I continue to take the view and of all is taken the view that

:17:23. > :17:26.leaving the EU does entail leaving the single market, which I regret,

:17:27. > :17:30.but in my view it doesn't tail it. Leaving that aside, I accept that

:17:31. > :17:34.the proposition of the Liberal Democrats is that it should not be

:17:35. > :17:37.this house directly that countermand is the referendum, but there should

:17:38. > :17:43.be a second referendum to countermand it. One of the points

:17:44. > :17:49.made is right. The proposition The Right Honourable made, a Beverley

:17:50. > :17:53.decent proposition, however many times it takes, the British people

:17:54. > :17:56.should go on being asked to reverse their original decision, because one

:17:57. > :18:00.should never go on giving up to do so because the right answer is to

:18:01. > :18:05.remain. As a Beverley respectable proposition but not the proposition

:18:06. > :18:09.of a Democrat. It's the proposition of eight Kwarasey that knows the

:18:10. > :18:14.answer and believes the people that vote otherwise are misguided and

:18:15. > :18:17.they need to be misled time after time to revise their opinion by

:18:18. > :18:23.whatever means until at last they give the answer which is required.

:18:24. > :18:27.That is unfortunately, I point out to the right honourable gentleman,

:18:28. > :18:32.the very dynamic that has given rise to this whole problem. We are at

:18:33. > :18:35.this juncture today because there was a government that passed the

:18:36. > :18:38.Maastricht Treaty against the will of the British people without

:18:39. > :18:41.consulting them, that took us into a form of the European Union to which

:18:42. > :18:44.they had never consented, that has led to a set of results that have

:18:45. > :18:48.eventually produced a democratic result that the right honourable

:18:49. > :18:52.gentleman and I both dislike, and his answer to that is to go on with

:18:53. > :18:56.that logic until at last the British people totally lose faith in any

:18:57. > :19:01.semblance of democracy in this country. I personally cannot accept

:19:02. > :19:06.that proposition. In the end, much as I would have preferred to remain,

:19:07. > :19:09.I prefer to be in a country run as a democracy, and which has faith in

:19:10. > :19:10.its governance and we can only achieve that today by fulfilling the

:19:11. > :19:21.terms of the referendum. It is a minor point, but I want to

:19:22. > :19:25.come just braefl to the question of the various knew clauses that are

:19:26. > :19:35.before us. And they do seem to me to differ. New clause 1 actually is a

:19:36. > :19:38.fairly innocuous item. I'm delighted that my Right Honourable friend seem

:19:39. > :19:42.to be indicating that we won't actually be accepting new clause 1

:19:43. > :19:49.and I'm delighted we won't be accepting it because there is doubt

:19:50. > :19:54.about whether it is just issuable. It states in it that what has to be

:19:55. > :19:59.accepted is the statement of the proposed terms of the agreement. If

:20:00. > :20:04.that's written into the law I suppose that a very clever lawyer

:20:05. > :20:08.and Lord Pannick and others are very clever lawyers might be able to

:20:09. > :20:11.mount some kind of judicial review of the question whether the

:20:12. > :20:16.Government had in fact brought forward a statement of the proposed

:20:17. > :20:22.terms of the agreement that it was adequate to the intent of the Bill

:20:23. > :20:26.or the Act. I doubt that that would acurd and therefore, I don't

:20:27. > :20:33.personally have any very strong feelings about new clause 1. New

:20:34. > :20:38.clause 99 and new clause 110 about which some honourable members

:20:39. > :20:42.opposite have spoken are entirely different in character because each

:20:43. > :20:48.of them actually makes it perfectly clear in two different ways that the

:20:49. > :20:54.House of Commons would actually be called upon to make a set of

:20:55. > :21:01.decisions which are both issuable and undermine the leaving of the EU.

:21:02. > :21:05.In the case of new clause 99, I think notwithstanding the exchange I

:21:06. > :21:09.had with the honourable lady that it is perfectly clear that if

:21:10. > :21:16.Parliament found itself in a position in which it had not

:21:17. > :21:20.approved in her section B the withdrawal without agreement, then

:21:21. > :21:24.Parliament would have created an appalling conflict of laws because

:21:25. > :21:28.Article 50 is very explicit. It says the treaty has seize to apply to the

:21:29. > :21:32.state in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal

:21:33. > :21:38.agreement or failing that two years after notification. If the EU by

:21:39. > :21:42.consensus had not extended the period, then the treaties would

:21:43. > :21:46.seize it apply, but Parliament would prospectively have voted not to

:21:47. > :21:53.leave. Now, if Parliament has voted not to leave and the treaties don't

:21:54. > :21:59.apply I'd like to know who in this House could say which of the laws is

:22:00. > :22:05.superior to the other? So I think new clause 99 is clearly deficient

:22:06. > :22:09.as a piece of legislation and I hope therefore that those who are

:22:10. > :22:18.proposing it will take that point and not press it. New clause 110 is

:22:19. > :22:22.not as bad as 99, though it is very odd, it is very odd because it says

:22:23. > :22:26.that any new treaty or relationship with the EU mustn't not be concluded

:22:27. > :22:31.unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of

:22:32. > :22:35.each House of Parliament. Now, it is possible to be subject to approval

:22:36. > :22:39.without being approved. It seems entirely unclear on the face of new

:22:40. > :22:44.clause 110 whether it is referring to approval or to the process that

:22:45. > :22:49.might have led to approval and that itself, of course, would be just

:22:50. > :22:53.issuable. Quite apart from that bad drafting it is a legal minefield

:22:54. > :23:00.that it creates because it makes it clear that it is any knew treaty or

:23:01. > :23:04.relationship request the EU which mustn't be concluded. One possible

:23:05. > :23:10.relationship is the relationship of not being in the EU and therefore,

:23:11. > :23:16.it itself arguably at least and this could be contested in court, is

:23:17. > :23:21.again an opportunity for Parliament to reverse the intent of the

:23:22. > :23:26.referendum and deny leaving. So what we have in new clauses 99 and 110

:23:27. > :23:32.which look on the face as if they are as innocuous as new clause 1 are

:23:33. > :23:35.measures which are neither innocuous and well drafted. They fulfil the

:23:36. > :23:42.purposes which I have been referring to in the earlier part of my remarks

:23:43. > :23:45.namely to put Parliament in the position of potentially reversing

:23:46. > :23:52.the decision of the British people. And therefore, I very much hope that

:23:53. > :23:57.if my Right Honourable friend is at any time remotely tempted to accept

:23:58. > :24:02.new clause 1, he will never accept new clause 99 or 110 and we will

:24:03. > :24:10.resist such amendment should they appear here or in the other place. I

:24:11. > :24:15.I have two concerns with new clause 1. It is clear the Government needs

:24:16. > :24:20.to involve Parliament throughout the whole process. The second is we

:24:21. > :24:23.cannot know all the permutations around which agreement and exit

:24:24. > :24:26.maybe affected and therefore to legislate for it now before we know

:24:27. > :24:32.how it is going to end up is premature and would end up risking

:24:33. > :24:38.binding the hands of the negotiators and the Government. I share my

:24:39. > :24:42.honourable friend's preference for not legislating in that respect.

:24:43. > :24:47.There are good reasons why over a very, very long historical evolution

:24:48. > :24:52.the House of Commons has always resisted legislation that governs

:24:53. > :24:59.its own proceedings. We have a number of authorities about our

:25:00. > :25:03.constitution written that the nearest proxmation is the standing

:25:04. > :25:07.orders of the House of Commons. And that is not a frivolous remarks by

:25:08. > :25:13.those authorities, it is a true remark and the reason it has arisen

:25:14. > :25:17.is because we have resisted having legislation that governs the House

:25:18. > :25:20.of Commons and the reason we've resisted it so avoid the judges

:25:21. > :25:25.becoming the judges of what should happen in the House of Commons. And

:25:26. > :25:30.we have in fact invented over a very long period the principle that the

:25:31. > :25:34.judges don't intervene in the legislature and the legislature

:25:35. > :25:39.doesn't intervene in the decisions of the judiciary and to legislate

:25:40. > :25:43.about how the House of Commons proceeds is therefore moving over a

:25:44. > :25:47.very dangerous line and I'm therefore with my honourable friend

:25:48. > :25:52.in hoping that we won't accept new clause 1. I'm just saying that if we

:25:53. > :25:56.were tempted at all to introduce any piece of new legislation at any

:25:57. > :26:01.stage, it should certainly look like new clause 1 and not new clauses 99

:26:02. > :26:09.and 110. Those would be to subvert the referendum and that, we cannot

:26:10. > :26:16.allow. I do have some respect for the

:26:17. > :26:21.honourable member for West Dorset and I have been in enough Bill

:26:22. > :26:24.committees to hear some of the arguments. When I hear honourable

:26:25. > :26:29.members resorting to the oh well, the drafting of this particular

:26:30. > :26:32.phrase particularly when it came to this question about subject to the

:26:33. > :26:37.approval of both Houses is somehow an alien concept and something that

:26:38. > :26:44.we must resist in all circumstances. I hear the last refuge of the

:26:45. > :26:49.Parliamentary barrel scraper, I think if the honourable member has

:26:50. > :26:57.arguments against new clause 110 which I would like to move, it is

:26:58. > :27:01.the amendment in my name, if he has substantive arguments against it,

:27:02. > :27:06.better engage with those rather than dance around and find second or

:27:07. > :27:12.third order against. It has been a very interesting debate so far.

:27:13. > :27:17.There was a moment of excitement I suppose, well in Parliamentary terms

:27:18. > :27:21.excitement at the beginning when the Brexit minister stood up and said

:27:22. > :27:26.well, let me in a breathless way give you a concession, I'll indicate

:27:27. > :27:31.that there is something here that is substantively different and he did

:27:32. > :27:33.come to the dispatch box and did clarify a little bit further, not

:27:34. > :27:40.much further than the Prime Minister had done in her speech to Lancaster

:27:41. > :27:48.House, something about the timing of the vote that Parliament will have,

:27:49. > :27:53.but of course, the Right Honourable member for Rushcliffe quickly

:27:54. > :27:57.spotted in the definitions of when a negotiation is concluded, when it is

:27:58. > :28:02.signed off, there is still a bit of a grey area there when that timing

:28:03. > :28:06.would come and so, for some small mercies I suppose, many honourable

:28:07. > :28:11.members might say well, this is some level of progress. However, having

:28:12. > :28:15.marched us up to the hill in expectation this was a great

:28:16. > :28:18.concession, I'm afraid as the time has ticked by, as the machines have

:28:19. > :28:23.gone past, we've kind of marched back done the hill again because

:28:24. > :28:27.through the probing of many honourable members on both sides of

:28:28. > :28:29.the House we have since discovered a number of things about that

:28:30. > :28:34.particular vote. Don't forget what we're trying to do today in this

:28:35. > :28:40.whole section is secure a meaningful vote, a properly meaningful vote so

:28:41. > :28:43.Parliamentry sovereignty can come first as the Supreme Court

:28:44. > :28:49.emphasised in their particular judgment. First of all, when

:28:50. > :28:55.pressed, the ministers did have to admit that if we ended up in a

:28:56. > :29:00.situation of no deal the House wouldn't be getting a vote on that

:29:01. > :29:04.circumstance. That is deeply regrettable because new clause 110

:29:05. > :29:07.is deliberately drafted to talk about new treat quay or a

:29:08. > :29:10.relationship and a relationship talks about the connection between

:29:11. > :29:14.two entities, that connection can be a positive and new one, it can also

:29:15. > :29:20.be one which has a disjoint within it and so we should have a vote if

:29:21. > :29:24.that relationship is to include the circumstance of no deal. The

:29:25. > :29:28.minister said, I will give way in a moment, but the minister said that

:29:29. > :29:32.we wouldn't be what having a vote on no deal. That's extremely

:29:33. > :29:36.disappointing of the it is not what I would regard as in the spirit of

:29:37. > :29:40.the concession that should be sought because we were lobing not just for

:29:41. > :29:45.a concession on the timing of that Parliamentary vote, but on the scope

:29:46. > :29:48.of that vote. In other words, the circumstances in which having gone

:29:49. > :29:53.through the negotiations we would find ourselves being able to vote.

:29:54. > :29:57.It is a little bit as though you could imagine two years of travel,

:29:58. > :30:03.journey down the road of negotiation, we get to the edge of

:30:04. > :30:08.the canyon and we have a point of decision. Are we going to have that

:30:09. > :30:13.bridge across the cash which might be the new treaty? It might take us

:30:14. > :30:19.to the new future or are we going to decide to jump off into the unknown,

:30:20. > :30:23.into the abyss and Parliament should have the right to decide that point.

:30:24. > :30:27.This is the concession that I think many honourable members were seeking

:30:28. > :30:32.and it is not the concession that we received. I'll give way to the

:30:33. > :30:35.honourable gentleman. He made an extraordinarily important

:30:36. > :30:39.clarification of his amendment and it is as I suspected and expected

:30:40. > :30:44.relationship includes the potential of no relationship and therefore, he

:30:45. > :30:48.is, is he not, putting forward the proposition that Parliament should

:30:49. > :30:53.be able to reverse the effect of the referendum and seize the United

:30:54. > :30:58.Kingdom being able to leave the EU? No, it is quite clear that as we saw

:30:59. > :31:01.in second reading and it is quite clear I think to all concerned that

:31:02. > :31:04.we will be leaving the European Union. The referendum made that

:31:05. > :31:08.judgment. That was the question on the ballot paper. The House came to

:31:09. > :31:13.that particular point of view, but it is important that Parliament

:31:14. > :31:15.verves that right as the Prime Minister has sort of indicated that

:31:16. > :31:22.we should be able to have a say on the final deal. Now, this is our

:31:23. > :31:28.opportunity, this is our final opportunity, our final opportunity

:31:29. > :31:32.to legislate on the face of the Bill precisely what circumstances those

:31:33. > :31:36.would be and I have to say, no, I won't give way because I know there

:31:37. > :31:39.is a lot of honourable members wanting to get in. What was

:31:40. > :31:43.deplating in the minister's so-called concession which actually

:31:44. > :31:49.now feels quite hollow was the fact that he then went on to say that if

:31:50. > :31:54.Parliament did decide to reject or to vote against a draft deal he

:31:55. > :31:59.wouldn't go back into negotiations. The Government would feel that this

:32:00. > :32:02.was, "A sign of weakness" Of somehow or another. Personally, I think

:32:03. > :32:07.that's entirely wrong. If Parliament says with respect to the Government,

:32:08. > :32:15.this isn't quite good enough, please go back and seek further points of

:32:16. > :32:20.clarification and further points. That should be a source of strength.

:32:21. > :32:24.I believe it strengthens the arm of Government for them to be able to

:32:25. > :32:27.say, "We'd like to do this, but Parliament are keen for a better

:32:28. > :32:32.deal." It is useful to have that for the Prime Minister. So new clause

:32:33. > :32:35.110, I believe, is a helpful amendment for the Government and for

:32:36. > :32:39.the Prime Minister and what was disappointing was that the minister

:32:40. > :32:43.didn't just say this in response to, you know, pressure from honourable

:32:44. > :32:48.members. He had it in his script, in his piece of paper, from which he

:32:49. > :32:51.was reading his remarks. He had pre-prepared the circumstances where

:32:52. > :32:55.he was going to say that he was not prepared to go back into

:32:56. > :33:00.negotiations if Parliament declined to give support to those new

:33:01. > :33:01.arrangements. So we can see that the concession is not quite all that it

:33:02. > :33:10.is meant to be. One of the things troubling me is

:33:11. > :33:13.the principle of equivalents. As I understand it, the European

:33:14. > :33:17.Parliament has the opportunity to vote on the deal before presented to

:33:18. > :33:21.the European Council and it in effect has the right of veto. My

:33:22. > :33:24.interpretation is that the deal is therefore sent back to the

:33:25. > :33:28.negotiating team for further negotiation. Does he agree with me

:33:29. > :33:32.that one of the strong points here, we have to ensure that those who

:33:33. > :33:38.voted to leave the EU, have at least the same equivalents of what their

:33:39. > :33:42.parliament can do with that of the European Parliament? She absolutely

:33:43. > :33:47.makes an incredibly important point. And one that is in defence of the

:33:48. > :33:51.sovereignty of our Parliament. It is about putting Britain first and

:33:52. > :33:55.making sure we do defend and safeguard the rights of our

:33:56. > :33:59.constituents and make sure that the European Parliament doesn't have an

:34:00. > :34:03.advantage that we would not. And if the European Parliament has the

:34:04. > :34:07.opportunity to reject the new relationship, the new arrangements,

:34:08. > :34:13.then so should we. It's a very simple point. With respect, even if

:34:14. > :34:17.the Minister were to personally come here and make that verbal

:34:18. > :34:21.concession. He's a very able minister, but ministers can be here

:34:22. > :34:28.today and gone tomorrow. Ministers come and go. Having such clarity on

:34:29. > :34:31.the face of the bill enshrined in the legislation is really important

:34:32. > :34:35.for honourable members. This is a question that transcends party

:34:36. > :34:40.political issues. I think he should hear the voice of members from all

:34:41. > :34:43.sides on this particular issue. We recognise we are going to be leaving

:34:44. > :34:48.the European Union but we want the best possible deal for Britain.

:34:49. > :34:52.Parliament is sovereign here. Yes, we have ministers who lead on the

:34:53. > :34:57.negotiations, but he can't cut Parliament out altogether. It should

:34:58. > :35:01.be a source of strength for them. A very final intervention. The thing I

:35:02. > :35:04.really don't understand, and I have been thinking about this since the

:35:05. > :35:08.point was made by the Right Honourable member for Ponty cracked

:35:09. > :35:12.and Castleford. When he says can we have a vote in the situation of not

:35:13. > :35:16.having a deal, the Liberal Democrat leader has been clear in this case

:35:17. > :35:20.that he would either say yes to the deal, sorry, you if you said no to

:35:21. > :35:23.the deal you would remain in the European Union. When he says there

:35:24. > :35:28.would be a vote on a no deal situation, what are the two choices?

:35:29. > :35:34.Would one of them be remaining in the European Union? My understanding

:35:35. > :35:38.is that we remain in the European Union until such time as the Article

:35:39. > :35:44.50 two-year period expires, after which time there is the famous cliff

:35:45. > :35:46.edge. I'm hoping now we had a partial acceptance from the

:35:47. > :35:49.government that the vote needs to take place in Parliament

:35:50. > :35:52.sufficiently early on the draft arrangements, that Parliament would

:35:53. > :36:02.then have a sick fish and period of time to say to ministers, perhaps we

:36:03. > :36:06.like 90% of the deal done but we would like to go back to get a

:36:07. > :36:09.slightly better deal. -- have a significant period. To take

:36:10. > :36:13.Parliament out of that process altogether would be a great shame. I

:36:14. > :36:19.would like to move on because honourable members want to get into

:36:20. > :36:31.this discussion. The question, the wording in New Clause 110 is very

:36:32. > :36:34.deliberate. We need to take the opportunity the Supreme Court has

:36:35. > :36:37.given us and also listen to the entreaties of the Prime Minister

:36:38. > :36:43.herself in her own white paper where I think the 12th of 12 points was to

:36:44. > :36:49.say that we would not aspire to a cliff edge, that we would try to get

:36:50. > :36:53.a deal, and this new clause 110 simply seeks to facilitate in many

:36:54. > :36:56.ways the role Parliament could have in achieving the very thing the

:36:57. > :37:00.Prime Minister has said she wants. I'm afraid to say to the Minister,

:37:01. > :37:07.Hobson 's choice, take it or leave it. Source style votes are not

:37:08. > :37:11.acceptable and not good enough for Parliament. We have to do have a

:37:12. > :37:16.continued say in this and I would urge the house across the parties to

:37:17. > :37:23.consider the role that new clause 110 could play in making it a

:37:24. > :37:26.meaningful vote. Dominic Grieve. It's a pleasure to participate in

:37:27. > :37:30.this debate. I agree with one comment made by the Honourable

:37:31. > :37:34.member for Nottingham East in moving his amendment to 110, the problem

:37:35. > :37:40.that the Devils this debate is that we are in a completely grey and

:37:41. > :37:44.murky environment. When it comes to ascertaining how this process will

:37:45. > :37:51.or should unfold. Someone who campaigned for the Remain campaign,

:37:52. > :37:56.this worried me at the time. But I have to accept the electorate has

:37:57. > :38:00.spoken. For me, the key issue is, how can I help the government never

:38:01. > :38:04.get some of the reefs that seem to be present so we can achieve a

:38:05. > :38:09.satisfactory outcome and try to give effect to the expressed will of the

:38:10. > :38:13.electorate. The problem we have is that we cannot predict what the

:38:14. > :38:17.situation is going to be in two years' time. We have no idea what

:38:18. > :38:21.the political landscape is going to be here in terms of the economic

:38:22. > :38:25.condition, whether in fact we are doing very well in the run-up to

:38:26. > :38:30.Brexit or very badly. We cannot predict what the landscape will be

:38:31. > :38:34.on the European continent and the state of the current union itself

:38:35. > :38:39.and how it would impact on the negotiations. Nor could we predict

:38:40. > :38:45.the wider security situation that may exist for our continent. That's

:38:46. > :38:50.why, it has always seemed to me, that the idea that this house in

:38:51. > :38:55.some way forgoes its responsibility to safeguard the electorate's

:38:56. > :39:01.interest because a referendum has taken place, is simply not a view to

:39:02. > :39:05.which I am prepared to subscribe. And in those circumstances, we have

:39:06. > :39:11.to do have regard to what the situation might be. We have to do

:39:12. > :39:15.have regard to the difficulties the government undoubtedly faces also in

:39:16. > :39:19.its unpredictability, but also to rule nothing out. And to pick up the

:39:20. > :39:23.point that has been made, I repeat it, because it's my position and I

:39:24. > :39:27.will hold to it to the end. The public opinion on this matter might

:39:28. > :39:32.change radically. And this house would be entitled to take that into

:39:33. > :39:35.account. Equally, I accept that at the moment there is no such

:39:36. > :39:42.evidence, and it is our duty to get on with the business of trying to

:39:43. > :39:46.operate with Brexit. How do we introduce safeguards into this

:39:47. > :39:52.process? There is an ultimate safeguard, this house has the power

:39:53. > :39:57.to stop the government in its tracks. But that tends to be a

:39:58. > :40:01.rather chaotic process and leads usually two governments falling from

:40:02. > :40:05.office. It's an option that one can never entirely rule out in 1's

:40:06. > :40:09.career in politics, but it's not one I would wish to visit my colleagues

:40:10. > :40:13.on the front bench. But I have to say it's an important matter and one

:40:14. > :40:17.of the risks they undoubtedly run in this process is that could happen to

:40:18. > :40:21.them. We can't exclude it. But actually, it's very much better that

:40:22. > :40:27.we should have some process by which Parliament can provide input and

:40:28. > :40:31.influence the matter in a way that facilitates debate and enables us

:40:32. > :40:36.collectively to come to outcomes which at least we can accept and

:40:37. > :40:41.which may be in the national interest as we do it. I give away.

:40:42. > :40:45.On a point of clarification, will my right honourable friend indicate

:40:46. > :40:51.whether he perceives New Clause 110 as potentially being a vehicle which

:40:52. > :40:55.if invoked could block Brexit and keep us within the European Union?

:40:56. > :41:01.Because at the moment, it's not clear to me. I will come clause 110,

:41:02. > :41:04.the amendment, in just a moment. It's certainly very well-meaning,

:41:05. > :41:08.but I happen to think there are problems with it and I will explain

:41:09. > :41:14.what they are in a moment. One of the points that has been made, or

:41:15. > :41:18.should be made, is that it is usual for government to bring important

:41:19. > :41:23.treaties to this house for approval before they sign it. It's quite

:41:24. > :41:28.common is a phenomenon. It's not unusual. Not normally ratified it

:41:29. > :41:36.signed. There is a long history of doing this on important treaties. In

:41:37. > :41:41.an ideal world, the obvious course of action, sequentially, is the

:41:42. > :41:45.white paper, and I'm delighted we succeeded in securing it because it

:41:46. > :41:48.sets out a plan. The government getting on with the treaty

:41:49. > :41:52.negotiations. And in our ideal world, I would like to see the

:41:53. > :41:57.government come back before anything is concluded to ask this house for

:41:58. > :42:00.its approval. And to indicate what it has succeeded in achieving. The

:42:01. > :42:08.house would then have to make judgments at that time in relation

:42:09. > :42:11.to the situation overall. I'm grateful to the Honourable member

:42:12. > :42:14.for giving way as he takes us through the sequence of this. The

:42:15. > :42:18.minister indicated that the beginning of the debate that there

:42:19. > :42:22.was a concession that would make this more meaningful. I don't expect

:42:23. > :42:27.him to comment, but it appears number ten on our briefing that this

:42:28. > :42:29.is exactly the same as what the Prime Minister offered in her

:42:30. > :42:34.Lancaster house speech, and therefore nothing has changed. I

:42:35. > :42:40.have to say, I don't think I agree with that. I don't know what number

:42:41. > :42:44.ten may or may not be doing. I had some role in trying to secure the

:42:45. > :42:49.concession that was read out by the Minister. It is by no means a

:42:50. > :42:52.perfect concession as far as I am concerned, but I will come on in a

:42:53. > :42:57.moment to explain some of the difficulties I think that house has.

:42:58. > :43:02.I give way to the Honourable Lady. The daily Mirror is reporting that

:43:03. > :43:05.number ten has said that all the concession does is give clarity

:43:06. > :43:12.around the timing of the vote and nothing else. The timing, it is

:43:13. > :43:15.absolutely right that there had been indications from the government on a

:43:16. > :43:20.number of occasions previously that they would allow this house to have

:43:21. > :43:24.a say. Indeed, I have to say, looking at the matter logically, the

:43:25. > :43:30.idea we would be deprived of having a say, that is lighting a blue touch

:43:31. > :43:34.paper and retiring. If a government wishes to bring its self down, then

:43:35. > :43:41.denying Parliament a say on some really important issue is just not

:43:42. > :43:48.feasible. I will give way in just a moment. I had some role in trying to

:43:49. > :43:52.look and see how the government could provide some assurance on the

:43:53. > :43:57.process. Not perfect, and the Minister has read out what he has. I

:43:58. > :44:01.have to say to the Honourable Lady, I think it's a significant step

:44:02. > :44:06.forward, as was said by the Honourable and learn it gentlemen,

:44:07. > :44:10.the member for Holborn and St Pancras, a significant step forward

:44:11. > :44:16.on what had been said previously. It has provided to my mind helpful

:44:17. > :44:20.clarification. Number ten is briefing that there is no real

:44:21. > :44:25.change. The concession is not a concession. That is number ten it's

:44:26. > :44:31.self. I can read what's on the paper. I take the view that it is a

:44:32. > :44:38.significant step forward. I will say no more about it at this time. I

:44:39. > :44:42.will give way. The house will have its say, the question is the

:44:43. > :44:47.circumstances under which it has that say, and what is the default

:44:48. > :44:51.position if it doesn't agree? Can we adjudicate between the daily Mirror,

:44:52. > :44:54.number ten, the minister in the front bench and the interpretation

:44:55. > :44:59.of the right honourable gentleman by having something on paper in the

:45:00. > :45:07.bill so we can all then have an interpretation crystallised around a

:45:08. > :45:09.central truth. The right honourable gentleman, with characteristic

:45:10. > :45:16.sagacity goes to the heart and snub of the problem. Is it readily

:45:17. > :45:21.probable to put on the face of this bill, the intention is set out by

:45:22. > :45:25.the minister when he read it out at the dispatch box? There are, I'm

:45:26. > :45:30.afraid, it seems to me, some really good reasons, in fairness to the

:45:31. > :45:34.Minister and government, why it presents difficulties. The most

:45:35. > :45:38.obvious difficulty is the finite nature of the negotiating period

:45:39. > :45:42.under Article 50 will stop one of the things I was interested in is

:45:43. > :45:46.whether we could secure from the government an undertaking that we

:45:47. > :45:51.would have a vote at the end of the process before, in fact, the signing

:45:52. > :45:59.of the deal with the commission. Contrary to what is in amendment

:46:00. > :46:03.110, the Council of ministers and the commission are not two separate

:46:04. > :46:07.processes. The commission will sign the initial agreement when the

:46:08. > :46:12.Council of ministers gives them authority to do it. Then it goes to

:46:13. > :46:16.the European Parliament for a ratification or approval process,

:46:17. > :46:20.call you what it will. These are not two separate things. The problem we

:46:21. > :46:25.run is that if this negotiation follows a pattern, which we have

:46:26. > :46:28.often had in the course of EU negotiations in running into the

:46:29. > :46:33.11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second and we are about to drop off

:46:34. > :46:36.the edge, I confess that I don't particularly wish to fetter the

:46:37. > :46:41.government's discretion in saying that at that precise moment they

:46:42. > :46:45.have to say, we are sorry, we have to give a decision until 48 hours

:46:46. > :46:49.after we have dropped off because we have to get approval from both

:46:50. > :46:55.houses of parliament. That is a real problem. It's a real problem

:46:56. > :47:01.inherent in the ghastly labyrinth, from my point of view, into which we

:47:02. > :47:13.have been plunged. And we have to try to work our way through with

:47:14. > :47:17.common sense. Was his understanding that what the minister said was that

:47:18. > :47:20.the deal would be presented to Parliament after it had been agreed

:47:21. > :47:27.by the commission and the Council, but before it had been agreed by

:47:28. > :47:31.Parliament. If so, that seems like a really late stage in the process.

:47:32. > :47:37.And does he think there's a problem if the EU Parliament can send it

:47:38. > :47:42.back to negotiations, but the UK Parliament can't. There are bound to

:47:43. > :47:45.be difficulties in this because the whole process of negotiation, as she

:47:46. > :47:53.is aware from Article 50, is rather one-sided. This is an inherent

:47:54. > :47:57.difficulty. Let's suppose for a moment that these negotiations are

:47:58. > :48:00.concluded in 18 months. I would hope in those circumstances the Minister

:48:01. > :48:05.would say, thank you, but we will not do the first agreement, we want

:48:06. > :48:08.to go back to both houses of parliament before we agree with the

:48:09. > :48:14.commission because we have time to do so. But if it is the 11th hour, I

:48:15. > :48:18.accept the government has a problem. And that problem is not taken into

:48:19. > :48:28.account in New Clause 110. The preference is for Parliament to

:48:29. > :48:32.be asked its opinion before any agreement has been signed with the

:48:33. > :48:37.council on the, the commission on the authority of the council. Does

:48:38. > :48:42.he accept this 11th hour problem, can easily be got round in the

:48:43. > :48:48.torturous process of European negotiations stopping the clock is

:48:49. > :48:52.hardly unknown and if all the member states were agreed that the British

:48:53. > :48:57.Government had to be given time to get the approval of Parliament they

:48:58. > :49:03.would allow two or three weeks to' lapse. Now would he also agree that

:49:04. > :49:12.what we need is something on paper to clarify these highly important

:49:13. > :49:16.poin? So would he agree with me in inviting the minister to table an

:49:17. > :49:20.amendment in the House of Lords giving precise effect to whatever

:49:21. > :49:27.the concession is meant to mean. If we pass new clause 99 or new clause

:49:28. > :49:31.110 today, it can be replaced with that Government amendment. If they

:49:32. > :49:36.come up with a better clarification, but what we can't do is leave this

:49:37. > :49:40.debate continuing for the next two years on what the minister did or

:49:41. > :49:48.did not mean when he made his statement to the House today.

:49:49. > :49:54.The Right Honourable gentleman had a very long career. So long in fact

:49:55. > :50:01.that I think he is capable of recognising the difference between

:50:02. > :50:08.an intervention and a speech. Dominic Grieve... It would be

:50:09. > :50:13.helpful if the Government were in a position to amplify on the brief

:50:14. > :50:17.statement, but also acknowledge and my honourable friend knows this that

:50:18. > :50:22.just as he expressed it, doing this by means of an amendment is, I

:50:23. > :50:28.think, going to be difficult. I know Government drafts men have extreme

:50:29. > :50:32.inagain uity and this maybe an issue which might be taken up, but I think

:50:33. > :50:35.there are some difficulties because there is a whole series of

:50:36. > :50:39.conditionalities in it and I don't wish at the moment to fetter the

:50:40. > :50:46.Government in it's ability to carry out this negotiation. It would seem

:50:47. > :50:51.a greateror if we do this, because we will undermine the ultimate

:50:52. > :50:54.outcome to our own detriment. This has been something which worried me

:50:55. > :51:00.throughout. So for those reasons, it don't want to take up more of the

:51:01. > :51:03.House's time, for those reasons, my inclination, although I have had

:51:04. > :51:09.great difficulty over this today and indeed in the days that led up to it

:51:10. > :51:13.is so accept the assurance that's been given by honourable friend the

:51:14. > :51:17.minister to be a constructive step forward, but I think he will have to

:51:18. > :51:23.face up to the fact that this issue isn't going to go away. Even when we

:51:24. > :51:26.have enacted the legislation and triggered Article 50 this will be a

:51:27. > :51:30.recurrent theme throughout the whole of the negotiating process and it

:51:31. > :51:34.will come back much, much harder as we get closer to the outcome and it

:51:35. > :51:38.becomes clearer from all the leaks that will come from Brussels what

:51:39. > :51:41.sort of deal or non deal they're going to have. So the Government had

:51:42. > :51:46.better have a strategy because if the strategy is to avoid this House,

:51:47. > :51:49.isle afraid I have to say to my honourable friend the Government is

:51:50. > :51:56.going to fail miserably and I don't want that to happen. I want to try

:51:57. > :52:02.and guide this process as best I can as a previous law officer towards a

:52:03. > :52:05.satisfactory conclusion. I'm grateful to my Right Honourable

:52:06. > :52:11.friend who played a considerable part in this. What the remarks that

:52:12. > :52:15.the minister do is put an onus on the Government to make sure that a

:52:16. > :52:21.reporting process of the negotiation is also meaningful because you can't

:52:22. > :52:25.have a vote at the end of this after 18 months of radio silence so the

:52:26. > :52:30.negotiating process can be sensible and can be relevant and can give the

:52:31. > :52:33.House a real feel of what's to happen, if that's not there, the

:52:34. > :52:38.vote at the end would mean very little. I agree entirely with my

:52:39. > :52:42.honourable friend and I hope the Government will listen because this

:52:43. > :52:49.issue is not going to go away and it will keep con coming back whilst

:52:50. > :52:50.this issue dominates our politics until we have satisfactorily

:52:51. > :53:05.resolved it. I just want to say as he thanked the

:53:06. > :53:11.minister, the House ought to thank him. He set out the responsible

:53:12. > :53:16.version about how to deal with this issue.

:53:17. > :53:19.I'm grateful. I listened to his speech and some of the things I

:53:20. > :53:23.might have said he had already said and he approached it from a similar

:53:24. > :53:30.angle. I will just say this in conclusion at the risk of repeating

:53:31. > :53:37.myself. Yes, I give way. His speech seems to be predicated on the idea

:53:38. > :53:47.that the Government can go to and from to Europe and negotiate

:53:48. > :54:02.something that Parliament might be happy with. Isn't this I don't know

:54:03. > :54:07.and I actually think that none of us know. You can make some broad

:54:08. > :54:10.assumptions and there appears to be goodwill to reach a sensible

:54:11. > :54:13.agreement. You can see how that could be easily derailed by

:54:14. > :54:16.political pressures and considerations within other EU

:54:17. > :54:19.states and you can also see and I have to say that the United Kingdom

:54:20. > :54:23.is at a disadvantage of these negotiations for reasons that are

:54:24. > :54:28.plainly obvious. But seeing as we have embarked on this course, what

:54:29. > :54:33.we have got to do collectively is try to apply common sense. I often

:54:34. > :54:38.don't hear common sense on this issue and frequently I don't seem to

:54:39. > :54:43.hear it from some members on my own benches who seem fixated on

:54:44. > :54:50.ideological considerations that will reduce this country to beggary if we

:54:51. > :54:53.continue with them, but I do consider we have to be rational in

:54:54. > :54:59.trying to respond to the clearly stated wishes of the electorate.

:55:00. > :55:03.Until such time we they show they might do as they did between 197 and

:55:04. > :55:08.a last year that they changed their mind on the subject and even then it

:55:09. > :55:13.might be a different future and not a return to the past. I will do my

:55:14. > :55:16.best to support the Government. I welcome the minister's comments and

:55:17. > :55:19.in the circumstances therefore, I think that they are looking at the

:55:20. > :55:23.amachinedments the best solution we have this evening and as I say, that

:55:24. > :55:27.doesn't mean to say that the Government is not going to have to

:55:28. > :55:30.continue thinking about how it involves this House and otherwise

:55:31. > :55:41.this House is simply going to involve itself. It is a pleasure to

:55:42. > :55:48.follow the excellent speech from the member. A chrkically shrewd speech.

:55:49. > :55:51.I agree wholeheartedly with one of the things he said towards the

:55:52. > :55:56.beginning of his speech. We cannot allow the fact that there has been a

:55:57. > :56:00.referendum to absolve this House of Its duty to scrutinise the

:56:01. > :56:05.Government's progress through these negotiation and to act in the

:56:06. > :56:08.national interest. I wholeheartedly agree with him about that and it is

:56:09. > :56:12.that view which is conditioning the entire which in which I'm

:56:13. > :56:17.approaching this debate. I disagreed with him however about the other

:56:18. > :56:22.substantive thing he said was in respect of the concession made by

:56:23. > :56:27.the member for clued, the Brexit minister. I agree that it is a

:56:28. > :56:32.substantive concession that the Government has made here today. I'm

:56:33. > :56:35.less Angwin I confess than some of my honourable and Right Honourable

:56:36. > :56:39.friends about that. It doesn't feel that we have moved much beyond where

:56:40. > :56:43.we are in the Lancaster House speech. Inasmuch as what is being

:56:44. > :56:48.offered to the House is a debate right at the end of the process, at

:56:49. > :56:53.a point we don't know exactly, but seemingly right at the dog days of

:56:54. > :56:58.the process and a choice at that point between the deal that is on

:56:59. > :57:03.offer which in my view is likely to be a bad deal because it is

:57:04. > :57:07.predicated itself on our leaving the single market, and leaving the

:57:08. > :57:11.customs union and the hard hard Brexit we feared and no deal and if

:57:12. > :57:15.there is no deal then as the minister has confirmed here today,

:57:16. > :57:19.what the country will face is exiting the European Union on WTO

:57:20. > :57:25.terms. Now what does that mean for the country? Well, according to the

:57:26. > :57:30.Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, it would mean a

:57:31. > :57:34.reduction of around ?9 billion worth of trade per annum for the United

:57:35. > :57:38.Kingdom. That's the view of the WTO. What does it mean according to the

:57:39. > :57:43.Treasury? Well, before the referendum the Treasury said that

:57:44. > :57:49.they thought it would mean an annual reduction in the receipts for this

:57:50. > :57:54.country of ?45 billion per year. That's the reduction in GDP that

:57:55. > :57:58.they saw. It is an eye watering sum. It would be equivalent to putting

:57:59. > :58:02.ten pence on the basic rate of income tax in this country and

:58:03. > :58:07.that's why above all else, we have to consider incredibly carefully

:58:08. > :58:11.where we're going because if we end up at that point, it will be

:58:12. > :58:17.disaster for Britain the I said I wanted to speak in favour of

:58:18. > :58:21.amendment 43 by the honourable member for west moorland and

:58:22. > :58:26.Lonsdale. I would have liked to have been able to speak in respect of my

:58:27. > :58:29.amendment, new clause 52 or new clause 131 by the Liberal Democrats

:58:30. > :58:35.which would have gone further and insisted on there being a second

:58:36. > :58:39.referendum. Apparently we can't have those amendments because they would

:58:40. > :58:44.mean a money commitment that there isn't in respect of this Bill, but

:58:45. > :58:49.it seem to me to be ironic when the potential cost of falling out of the

:58:50. > :58:54.European Union is ?45 billion, not to spend ?100 million on making sure

:58:55. > :59:01.we don't do that is a pretty good deal. On the particular point, there

:59:02. > :59:04.is amendment 44 to be voted on on Wednesday which does have a

:59:05. > :59:09.provision for a referendum evaluation that doesn't therefore

:59:10. > :59:13.need to be costed and therefore, it is in order and people who want a

:59:14. > :59:19.second referendum on the film say can vote for that amendment. I'm

:59:20. > :59:23.pleased with that. I hope we will vote on that tomorrow. The reason I

:59:24. > :59:27.am insistent that we need to consider once more a second

:59:28. > :59:30.referendum, a con fir matetry ratify katetry referendum, whatever you

:59:31. > :59:35.want to call it, I believe that Brexit is going to be a disaster for

:59:36. > :59:41.our country. One that is going to cost us and future generations in

:59:42. > :59:45.lost trade, in lost revenues, and in lost opportunities. I believe that

:59:46. > :59:52.it is a disaster for us to be dividing the country as we have done

:59:53. > :59:55.on this issue. On our values and on the crucial things we hold in

:59:56. > :59:59.concert and I won't give way because the honourable member has spoken a

:00:00. > :00:07.lot in this debate. I also think it is destructive for us to have

:00:08. > :00:11.engaged in Brexit and unleashed a catalytic force of destructive

:00:12. > :00:17.politics, not just in this country, but across the west. And it is to my

:00:18. > :00:23.eternal regret that we launch down this route with this Parliament in

:00:24. > :00:27.my view not being sufficiently vigilant on diligent as to the risks

:00:28. > :00:31.that we face in this referendum or to the nature of the referendum that

:00:32. > :00:37.we were offering to the country because I believe that it was a

:00:38. > :00:41.profoundly flawed referendum. Flawed in many regards and one which could

:00:42. > :00:45.I'm sure many people would feel right across this House, could have

:00:46. > :00:49.been dramatically improved with greater scrutiny, and with greater

:00:50. > :00:52.care. Why did we not offer that scrutiny? Because I do not think

:00:53. > :00:56.that many members in this House on either side of the debate seriously

:00:57. > :01:01.thought that the referendum was going to be lost. There was a

:01:02. > :01:05.widespread view that this was a referendum being agreed upon for

:01:06. > :01:11.ideological reasons to solve the culture wars that have raged in the

:01:12. > :01:15.Tory Party for 30 odd years and it wasn't really considered carefully

:01:16. > :01:20.enough. But we have an opportunity in this House now to make aid

:01:21. > :01:27.mendments for the mistake that we made -- amends for the mistake that

:01:28. > :01:30.we made, not the people, they voted on the question we offered them,

:01:31. > :01:35.they voted with the information that we provided, they voted with the 50%

:01:36. > :01:40.plus one margin that we put in statute. We have an opportunity to

:01:41. > :01:44.rectify some of those mistakes and I feel that we should. I feel we

:01:45. > :01:48.should follow the view that the Brexit Secretary had when he was on

:01:49. > :01:53.the back benches in this House and it is the honourable member for west

:01:54. > :01:57.moorland said have a final con fir matetry referendum. We had a mandate

:01:58. > :02:02.referendum which said we should leave the European Union, but we do

:02:03. > :02:06.not know what the terms of that leaving will be and it is legitimate

:02:07. > :02:10.for us to consider that. It wouldn't be denying democracy to do that. It

:02:11. > :02:16.would in my view be doubling down on it. The problem with simply pushing

:02:17. > :02:24.for a vote in this place on the terms of that deal is that I feel we

:02:25. > :02:27.run the risk of leaving the people doubly dissatisfied because it is

:02:28. > :02:33.perfectly possible that this House could reject the prospect of us

:02:34. > :02:37.falling out of the European Union on WTO terms because of the costs that

:02:38. > :02:42.will become apparent when we see the extra cost for our production of

:02:43. > :02:46.cars, for chemicals, for financial services, for all of the other

:02:47. > :02:50.things that would see their tariff price rise for export out of this

:02:51. > :02:55.country. It is perfectly possible that as the honourable member said,

:02:56. > :03:00.we start to see a change in the views of the country in respect of

:03:01. > :03:05.Brexit when those things happen. I will give way in a moment. Why do

:03:06. > :03:10.I ask for that? Because I hope the country does change its mind. I'm

:03:11. > :03:13.not shy about saying that. I feel Brexit is a mistake. I think it will

:03:14. > :03:18.damage the future of our children. It is not in our national interest

:03:19. > :03:22.and although the people have voted for it, I think we have a duty to

:03:23. > :03:27.scrutinise the Government's management of this process to give

:03:28. > :03:30.clarity to the people as to what it's really going to mean to them,

:03:31. > :03:36.not the projections and not the promises and not the ?350 million

:03:37. > :03:40.lies that were scrawled on a bus, nor some of the so-called threats

:03:41. > :03:45.from project fear, but the reality of what Brexit is going to mean in

:03:46. > :03:49.pounds, shillings and pence for my children, for all of our children

:03:50. > :03:53.and at that point we will be doing our duty if we not only scrutinise

:03:54. > :03:56.and vote in this place, but use that vote to give the people the final

:03:57. > :04:13.say on the final terms of the deal. Can I say from the outset, it is

:04:14. > :04:20.really important for all of us just step back from the way we have done

:04:21. > :04:23.politics for too long and to the detriment of British politics? The

:04:24. > :04:31.idea there are concessions to be made, whether there are briefings

:04:32. > :04:35.from Number 10 that say no concessions can be made, whether we

:04:36. > :04:43.say they have been given and the abyss and that, and isn't it

:04:44. > :04:48.wonderful, and something is triumphant over another? Whether you

:04:49. > :04:54.have seen of the Brexiteer 's or remain as, it is not only tedious

:04:55. > :05:02.and inaccurate, it does not do us or our constituents any favours. I for

:05:03. > :05:06.1am sick and tired of it. It was back in September or October for a

:05:07. > :05:14.number of people on these benches said the what now happened, as we

:05:15. > :05:19.leave the EU, we have accepted the referendum result. Transcend normal

:05:20. > :05:23.party political divide because it is so important, not for my generation

:05:24. > :05:29.but for my children and grandchildren that are to come. As

:05:30. > :05:34.others have said, I will give credit, these are the most important

:05:35. > :05:38.negotiations we have entered for decades and it is critical we get it

:05:39. > :05:52.right because of the consequences for generations to come. So can we

:05:53. > :05:57.in effect stop the sort of... It is not acceptable any more. Let us try

:05:58. > :06:07.to come together, to heal the divide, because we need to say this,

:06:08. > :06:13.he was not just in my constituency. I look to Nottingham in Ashfield,

:06:14. > :06:20.because the results of the borough are bigger than my constituency and

:06:21. > :06:26.excludes eastward, and I will not go into the demography of them, but in

:06:27. > :06:34.my constituency, the vote for Leave was about the national average, 51%,

:06:35. > :06:39.maybe up to 52%. Some of my voters, as indeed across this country, voted

:06:40. > :06:48.to leave the European Union because they wanted to and they were adamant

:06:49. > :06:53.they wanted this place to have true sovereignty, true Parliamentary

:06:54. > :07:00.sovereignty. And yet the awful irony of it is, since this vote, there are

:07:01. > :07:06.many people who feel that Parliament has been completely excluded. The

:07:07. > :07:15.government had to be brought in. This bill had to come because of

:07:16. > :07:19.some brave citizens that went to court to say, Parliamentary

:07:20. > :07:23.sovereignty must mean that, it must be sovereign and it must exceed the

:07:24. > :07:31.powers of the government. And then it has failed to say if this place

:07:32. > :07:37.has been excluded. And so it has been that we are leaving the single

:07:38. > :07:45.market, we have abandoned free movement, long held beliefs on all

:07:46. > :07:49.sides that people are against, in some instances, everything we have

:07:50. > :07:55.ever believed in the decades, and those we have in effect, last week

:07:56. > :08:00.when we voted to put into action the result of the referendum, we did not

:08:01. > :08:05.vote according to a conscience all our long-held beliefs. I did not

:08:06. > :08:09.vote with my conscience. If I am truthful about it, I am actually not

:08:10. > :08:17.sure I voted in the best interests of my constituents. That upsets me

:08:18. > :08:21.because when I came here, I have not come here for a career, I came here

:08:22. > :08:25.because I wanted to represent my constituents and did a very best for

:08:26. > :08:31.them, and I genuinely do not know if I did not last week, but I was true

:08:32. > :08:35.to the promise I made to my constituents. I promise them that if

:08:36. > :08:40.they voted Leave, they would get Leave, and that is what drove me

:08:41. > :08:43.with a heavy heart through the lobbies and against my conscience

:08:44. > :08:46.but I do believe I did the right thing and I look myself in the

:08:47. > :08:53.mirror every morning, believing I have been true to the promise made

:08:54. > :08:57.to my constituents. But if I will not now be true to my belief in

:08:58. > :09:02.Parliamentary sovereignty, I do not want to vote against my government,

:09:03. > :09:07.I have never been to slaughter my government, even though at times...

:09:08. > :09:14.I have always been true and loyal to my government. In this instance, I

:09:15. > :09:20.think that Newport one 110 and bodies admirable objectives. And

:09:21. > :09:26.goodness me, anyone would think this is revolutionary. Whatever happens,

:09:27. > :09:30.be a deal, and I support my government and Prime Minister in all

:09:31. > :09:37.their efforts to get that deal, and I thank the Minister for the

:09:38. > :09:42.concession he has given, and if people do not like the word

:09:43. > :09:47.concession, I will abandon that, for what the Minister has said has been

:09:48. > :09:52.the right thing to say. The excellent speech from my right

:09:53. > :09:58.honourable learn a friend, it is progress and the right thing to do.

:09:59. > :10:02.But what concerns me is what happens if, despite its best efforts, the

:10:03. > :10:08.government fails to no-fault of its own and we have no deal. And how

:10:09. > :10:15.revolutionary is it to say, in the event of no deal and in a writing

:10:16. > :10:19.meaningful time, as we go to that new relationship, please could we

:10:20. > :10:23.have a say, not on by Harper Parliament, on behalf of all our

:10:24. > :10:32.constituents? That is why I come to this place. She has got to the nub

:10:33. > :10:35.of the issue. What my constituents fear is that they have seen

:10:36. > :10:38.throughout this process Parliament being sidelined and been presented

:10:39. > :10:45.with this deal or no Deal option with the horror of ending up in

:10:46. > :10:49.limbo, giving the difficulties of negotiating terms. That will put our

:10:50. > :10:53.country in a bigger mess than we are an already. That's what they fear

:10:54. > :10:56.that is why they want Parliament to have a say. I agree with much of the

:10:57. > :11:01.content of what the right honourable gentleman says but I am also

:11:02. > :11:08.reminded of what the member for Beaconsfield said, who knows where

:11:09. > :11:13.we may be in 2-mac reduced time? Nobody seems to have thought of in

:11:14. > :11:20.these terms. We may not have our Prime Minister. It may be another

:11:21. > :11:24.Prime Minister. We might not have the same Secretary of State. Even my

:11:25. > :11:28.right honourable friend, the minister. That is a circumstance

:11:29. > :11:33.that could change. Another circumstance that could change as

:11:34. > :11:39.the economy, the mood in Europe and it might actually be... Those

:11:40. > :11:43.hardline Brexiteers, there may be circumstances that they want to

:11:44. > :11:49.protect themselves from and they may want this debate and it may also be

:11:50. > :11:56.the case that actually WTO tariffs and those other things that we fear

:11:57. > :12:01.actually might be in our best interest. That is the point of this.

:12:02. > :12:06.We do not know where the we should be in two years' time, it is right

:12:07. > :12:14.we keep our options open and it is right we debate on it. She is making

:12:15. > :12:18.her points with the usual eloquence. Does she agree with me that one of

:12:19. > :12:24.the other contexts that has clearly changed since the 23rd of June is

:12:25. > :12:28.the geopolitics of the world? We have a new leader in the United

:12:29. > :12:33.States, we have some very serious concerns that have been raised about

:12:34. > :12:38.Putin in Russia, all of that changes the context. We do not know in two

:12:39. > :12:42.years' time where we might be. I absolutely agree with the right

:12:43. > :12:47.honourable gentleman. That is exactly the point that many members

:12:48. > :12:55.across this House are now making. In conclusion, could it gently say to

:12:56. > :13:01.the government, of course give way. The honourable lady has given a very

:13:02. > :13:10.honest speech and I must commend her for her honesty and decency. We have

:13:11. > :13:13.just had the pre-excellent, calm, rational speeches, explaining the

:13:14. > :13:22.things that are tearing this country apart. Is it not time now for us all

:13:23. > :13:26.to understand that not only are we talking to our own constituents, but

:13:27. > :13:34.this House has been listened to across the world? The people who

:13:35. > :13:38.will be deciding on Brexit are also listening, and the more

:13:39. > :13:44.triumphalist, the more aggressive, the more rebellious are actually the

:13:45. > :13:50.worst enemies to get us to where we need to be. I completely agree and

:13:51. > :13:55.can I say, it is part of this bringing together, this forming and

:13:56. > :14:01.building of the consensus, not just in this place, but the country at

:14:02. > :14:05.large, families, friends, communities remain divided and we

:14:06. > :14:12.must come together. People have put their trust as I have in my Prime

:14:13. > :14:15.Minister and government. I have said to them, as somebody who was always

:14:16. > :14:21.believed in our continuing membership of the European Union, we

:14:22. > :14:24.lost that debate, I now trust the Prime Minister and government when

:14:25. > :14:32.it comes to the abandoning of the single market, freedom of movement

:14:33. > :14:36.and even leaving the customs union, but I will continue to fight for all

:14:37. > :14:42.of those things because I believe in them but I trust them to get the

:14:43. > :14:46.best deal for our country and all I ask is, rather than have to vote for

:14:47. > :14:53.an amendment when this bill, which is a good vehicle to deliver the

:14:54. > :14:59.result, and should not be amended, but all we are asking is that this

:15:00. > :15:07.place, in the event of no deal, actually has a voice and a vote. Mr

:15:08. > :15:12.Howarth, if the government cannot see the profound logic and sense of

:15:13. > :15:17.that, it will put people like me with no alternative in order to make

:15:18. > :15:23.my voice clear and heard, on behalf of all my constituents and to

:15:24. > :15:27.support the right honourable gentleman in this amendment, it is

:15:28. > :15:33.reasonable and fair but it encompasses in what it seeks to

:15:34. > :15:39.achieve the right thing, and I will give way... In the case of there

:15:40. > :15:42.being a deal, it is very clear that ministers made a commitment that the

:15:43. > :15:48.House will vote on it. In the case of there not being a deal, I do not

:15:49. > :15:53.know whether the honourable lady can answer the question any better than

:15:54. > :15:57.the honourable gentleman, but my reading of new clause 110 is it only

:15:58. > :16:00.deals with cases where there is a new treaty or relationship being

:16:01. > :16:05.proposed, it does not deal with the case of there not being a deal. I am

:16:06. > :16:12.very grateful for the intervention. I am sure you could explain it if it

:16:13. > :16:17.needs any further clarity. The relationship has been exactly that.

:16:18. > :16:22.If we do not have a deal, we then have a new deal on new relationship

:16:23. > :16:27.with the European Union. I congratulate him on putting the word

:16:28. > :16:32.relationship into that clause because it perfectly encompasses no

:16:33. > :16:36.deal, it encompasses all eventualities. It is not rocket

:16:37. > :16:41.science, it is not revolutionary, it is the right thing to do and I make

:16:42. > :16:49.it clear... I will give way once more. I want to take the lady back

:16:50. > :16:57.to the remarks about a bad deal or no Deal. How does she see the WTO?

:16:58. > :17:00.How does she see, if the UK does not get a deal, dishes see that as a

:17:01. > :17:09.sign of failure by the UK Government? It is a language I want

:17:10. > :17:14.to abandon, failure and success. I will not play that game. I want us

:17:15. > :17:18.to come together, I want is now to get the best deal and in the

:17:19. > :17:24.eventuality that we do not get a deal to make sure that this place

:17:25. > :17:30.absolutely gets that vote. On that basis, I will listen to the debate

:17:31. > :17:37.but I have to say, I will vote in favour of this amendment and make it

:17:38. > :17:45.clear, not for any design, but to stand up for what is right for all

:17:46. > :17:50.my constituents. Can I commend the honourable member on her speech,

:17:51. > :17:56.much of which I agree with because, like her, I voted this week to

:17:57. > :18:01.trigger Article 50 as part of the second reading because I think we

:18:02. > :18:07.should respect the referendum result and I campaigned for us to remain

:18:08. > :18:10.but like her, I think we have a cross Parliament a responsibility to

:18:11. > :18:14.get the best possible Brexit deal, and that means all of us should be

:18:15. > :18:18.involved in that because we know there is so much yet to be decided

:18:19. > :18:24.about what kind of Brexit do we get, what kind of terms we have as part

:18:25. > :18:33.of leaving the EU. That is why I stand to support new clauses one, 99

:18:34. > :18:37.and 110 because everyone today has said that they agreed that the

:18:38. > :18:41.Parliamentary vote should be meaningful but in fact what the

:18:42. > :18:45.minister said does not provide that assurance at all.

:18:46. > :18:53.First of all the government is not prepared to put that on the face of

:18:54. > :18:56.the bill. If the government changes, if things change, what reassurance

:18:57. > :19:00.do we have if this boat is not on the face of the bill that it will

:19:01. > :19:06.happen at the right time, that it will be respected in the right way.

:19:07. > :19:09.Secondly, if there is no deal, then there is no match report and that

:19:10. > :19:14.matters because what it means is that it is possible for the

:19:15. > :19:20.executive with power concentrated in its hands to decide to reject a deal

:19:21. > :19:25.from the EU that maybe parliament might have accepted. It gives the

:19:26. > :19:30.executive the power to decide. Actually it's going to go down the

:19:31. > :19:34.WTO route without going for any of the many alternatives that there

:19:35. > :19:39.might have been with no say for parliament. There is no opportunity

:19:40. > :19:41.for Parliament to say there was a better deal on offer and actually

:19:42. > :19:46.the government should be working with the EU to get that better deal

:19:47. > :19:51.that might be in the interests of all our constituents. I do think we

:19:52. > :19:54.should give the executive the concentration of power in their

:19:55. > :19:59.hands to simply be able to choose the WTO route with no possible

:20:00. > :20:05.debate or discussion or vote. There should be devoted on an alternative.

:20:06. > :20:09.I think to be fair to the honourable lady, she has at least gone some way

:20:10. > :20:12.to answering her question. What I think she said is that if the

:20:13. > :20:19.government judges the best available terms on offer are not good in the

:20:20. > :20:23.government's definition a bad deal, what she is saying is she would let

:20:24. > :20:27.the government to put that in front of Parliament and ask parliament to

:20:28. > :20:32.decide whether that is indeed a bad deal. I think that's what she said,

:20:33. > :20:36.could you confirm that? That would be one way to do to make sure there

:20:37. > :20:41.was indeed a substantive vote rather than the government simply heading

:20:42. > :20:45.directly for the WTO alternative without giving Parliament the

:20:46. > :20:49.alternative option to do so. I think the second challenge with the

:20:50. > :20:53.government's approach, if there is a deal, actually the timing of the

:20:54. > :20:57.vote will still make it very difficult for Parliament because the

:20:58. > :21:00.vote will come after it has been agreed with the 27 countries, after

:21:01. > :21:04.it's been agreed with the commission but before it goes to the European

:21:05. > :21:10.Parliament. And again Parliament will only get the choice between the

:21:11. > :21:15.executive's deal and the WTO terms, even if again we know that there was

:21:16. > :21:18.a better or fairer deal on offer. Now I hope there will be agreement

:21:19. > :21:21.across this has, I hope that the government will be able to come up

:21:22. > :21:27.with the best possible Brexit deal and in fact it will have strong

:21:28. > :21:31.support and endorsement. But if it doesn't, eventually things unravel

:21:32. > :21:36.along the way, what is the opportunity for Parliament to have

:21:37. > :21:40.its say and do try and bring things back together? Again, the timing of

:21:41. > :21:46.this vote, leaving a dry to the very end of the process makes it very

:21:47. > :21:51.hard to do. With the honourable lady agree with me that the opportunity

:21:52. > :21:54.would be for the government to be to request an extension of the article

:21:55. > :21:59.50 process if we've not been able to conclude up possible deal and the

:22:00. > :22:02.request for that extension would be greatly enhanced and strengthened if

:22:03. > :22:06.it had the mandate of Parliament behind it, so this would be a

:22:07. > :22:11.partnership of the legislature and the executive working together to

:22:12. > :22:15.strengthen the national interest, vis-a-vis the European partners.

:22:16. > :22:19.That would certainly be one option. If the EU Parliament votes down the

:22:20. > :22:23.deal, that is indeed what would happen, the EU parliament would get

:22:24. > :22:25.the opportunity to save the negotiations should be extended but

:22:26. > :22:30.currently the UK parliament would not get that opportunity was that I

:22:31. > :22:32.don't think the purpose of this should be to extend the

:22:33. > :22:38.negotiations, we should be trying to implement the decision that has been

:22:39. > :22:41.taken as part of the referendum but we do need the safeguards in place

:22:42. > :22:45.to prevent the government running hell for leather or an option which

:22:46. > :22:50.is bad for Britain if it turns out that Parliament judges there is a

:22:51. > :22:56.better offer on the table that would give us a better Brexit deal. The

:22:57. > :23:01.honourable lady is very passionate on this subject. My concern is that

:23:02. > :23:06.once the Article 50 process has been begun, if at the end of this process

:23:07. > :23:11.parliaments rejects it, nothing happens, then we leave and my

:23:12. > :23:14.concern is that an undesirable result and that is why binding the

:23:15. > :23:19.hands of the government with these amendment is not in the interest of

:23:20. > :23:22.this country. But I don't think these amendments would bind the

:23:23. > :23:26.hands of the government, I do agree with him that there is a concern,

:23:27. > :23:29.that we could end up sort of toppling off the edge of the

:23:30. > :23:33.negotiations without having a deal in place and that means I there's an

:23:34. > :23:37.incentive on all of us in Parliament to want there to be a deal in place,

:23:38. > :23:41.both in terms of the Brexit deal but also in terms of what the future

:23:42. > :23:44.trade arrangements should be on what transitional arrangements should be

:23:45. > :23:48.in order to do that. That will be the incentive of all of us in

:23:49. > :23:52.Parliament but my concern is that at the moment but with the government

:23:53. > :23:57.has set out its arrangements, there isn't an incentive on the executive

:23:58. > :24:02.to try and get a deal that the whole of Parliament can support because

:24:03. > :24:06.the executive can simply go down the WTO route and decide to reject

:24:07. > :24:09.alternatives without any say for Parliament and actually we don't

:24:10. > :24:14.have the right incentives to get possible deal. With the Right

:24:15. > :24:19.honourable lady agree that actually everybody in this house on all sides

:24:20. > :24:23.and the government would like tariff free trade. We're entirely agreed

:24:24. > :24:27.about that, the only issue is what can be individually and together do

:24:28. > :24:31.to make it more likely the other 27 states agree it because they will

:24:32. > :24:37.make that decision. I actually do agree with the honourable member, we

:24:38. > :24:41.do want tariff free trade and he and I would probably have a difference

:24:42. > :24:44.of agreement about the customs union. I think there's huge

:24:45. > :24:47.advantages of staying in, does it affect the decision we might make

:24:48. > :24:52.about three movement or other aspects of the single market, could

:24:53. > :24:55.have advantages and he would be outside the customs union but that

:24:56. > :24:59.is one of the issues that in the end becomes part of the crunch questions

:25:00. > :25:02.for the deal and then maybe alternative options that the

:25:03. > :25:06.government could sign up to on things like the customs union that

:25:07. > :25:10.the government and the executive on its own would be rejecting rather

:25:11. > :25:14.than having the opportunity for Parliament to have its say if there

:25:15. > :25:17.was a better deal on offer. Some of this also comes under the timing

:25:18. > :25:23.because I do except there's an article 50 timescale of two years

:25:24. > :25:28.and it will be for the EU to decide what happens at the end of that if

:25:29. > :25:32.there is no deal in place. But that also comes down to the timing of

:25:33. > :25:36.this vote and at the moment because of what the minister said earlier,

:25:37. > :25:41.this borders on the very end of the process and could very well end up

:25:42. > :25:45.being at the end of the two years. The strength of new clause 110 is

:25:46. > :25:50.that it requires the vote to be before this as gone to the

:25:51. > :25:53.commission and to the Council as well as before it goes to

:25:54. > :25:56.Parliament. The advantage of that is that we have a parliamentary debate

:25:57. > :26:01.on the board at an early on stage in the process so that if it were to

:26:02. > :26:04.reach the point where there was no agreement, there would still be the

:26:05. > :26:10.opportunity for further negotiations and debates before we get to the end

:26:11. > :26:16.of the Article 50 process. I hesitate to say this but sometimes I

:26:17. > :26:20.think this house fails to realise its own powers. If indeed it's the

:26:21. > :26:25.case in the course of the two years of the negotiation and becomes clear

:26:26. > :26:28.the government is rejecting and negotiating opportunity that this

:26:29. > :26:31.house thinks it's better than the one it's pursuing, there's nothing

:26:32. > :26:36.to prevent this house from asserting its authority order to make the

:26:37. > :26:40.government change direction. It's a question of whether we have the will

:26:41. > :26:43.to do it but the problem the point that she is raising is that it does

:26:44. > :26:47.come back to this issue. If you write up against the wire you might

:26:48. > :26:52.be tipping the government into losing an agreement with nothing to

:26:53. > :26:56.replace it. Where that to be the case, that would be the decision,

:26:57. > :27:00.the responsibility of Parliament to behave with the common sense that

:27:01. > :27:03.the honourable member has advocated earlier and I would trust Parliament

:27:04. > :27:07.to behave with common sense in the circumstances, not to push Britain

:27:08. > :27:11.into an unnecessary cliff edge because I don't think that is what

:27:12. > :27:15.Parliament wants to do. I think Parliament has already shown it

:27:16. > :27:19.wants to respect the decision that was made in the referendum and that

:27:20. > :27:22.has been important. But I also think Parliament wants to get the best

:27:23. > :27:26.deal for Britain and Parliament would be pragmatic about what those

:27:27. > :27:33.options are at that time but the problem with OTS suggested is that

:27:34. > :27:36.there might be an alternative way for Parliament to exercise its

:27:37. > :27:39.sovereignty. In practice, what are those ways? You can have a backbench

:27:40. > :27:44.motion that the government ignores, you could have an opposition day

:27:45. > :27:46.motion that the government ignores, you could have a no-confidence

:27:47. > :27:51.motion but I personally do not think that would be the appropriate

:27:52. > :27:55.response to something very odd to instead be looking at what the

:27:56. > :28:00.alternative would be in order to simply get a better deal out of the

:28:01. > :28:03.negotiations. If he was to come up with an alternative way for

:28:04. > :28:07.Parliament to exorcise its sovereignty that I haven't thought

:28:08. > :28:11.of, maybe there is an alternative to this vote today. It seems to me, if

:28:12. > :28:15.we want to be sure that we have something in the legislation to make

:28:16. > :28:19.sure there is records to Parliament over these important issues that

:28:20. > :28:22.will affect us for so many years to come down the right thing to do is

:28:23. > :28:25.to get something onto the face of the bill. I'm going to make some

:28:26. > :28:29.progress because I know other people want to get in. There are many ways

:28:30. > :28:31.that the government could do this, the government to come forward with

:28:32. > :28:37.a manuscript amendment that simply puts into practice the things that

:28:38. > :28:40.it has said today, that would be immensely helpful, that might

:28:41. > :28:45.provide reassurance that many need. There is a new class 99 which could

:28:46. > :28:49.be done through an act of Parliament. -- clause 90 nine. There

:28:50. > :28:54.is a strong case for these decisions to be taken through acts of

:28:55. > :28:58.Parliament. We could do so in other similar weighty matters. On new

:28:59. > :29:02.clause 110, which to be honest much of what it does is simply to put on

:29:03. > :29:06.the face of the bill the point is that the Minister has already made

:29:07. > :29:09.and that he has said he will do but provides the reassurance on the face

:29:10. > :29:14.of the bill with the added benefit that there is the clarity that would

:29:15. > :29:18.also be a vote if there was no deal and if we were going down the WTO

:29:19. > :29:23.route and also that the timing of the vote would be early on in the

:29:24. > :29:27.process to get Parliament the opportunity to have a say before we

:29:28. > :29:32.get to the final crunch end of the negotiations. The honest truth is,

:29:33. > :29:36.new clause 110 really isn't that radical, it's simply putting into

:29:37. > :29:38.practice and embedding in the legislation the things that some

:29:39. > :29:42.honourable members opposite have said that they would like to

:29:43. > :29:46.achieve, so pointedly simply put it on the face of the bill to embed

:29:47. > :29:51.that I do have that reassuring is in place. In the end, there's a reason

:29:52. > :29:53.why all this is important, we all talked about parliamentary

:29:54. > :29:56.sovereignty on both sides of the referendum debate, we talked about

:29:57. > :30:03.the importance parliamentary sovereignty. I think that comes with

:30:04. > :30:05.it, Parliamentary responsibility. We shown that responsibility by

:30:06. > :30:10.deciding to respect the results of the referendum already as part of

:30:11. > :30:15.the second reading vote. With that Parliamentary sovereignty and that

:30:16. > :30:18.Parliamentary responsibility is also the responsibility to recognise that

:30:19. > :30:23.we've got to get the best possible Brexit deal for our whole country

:30:24. > :30:28.and not just to walk away from that process and the deal and the debates

:30:29. > :30:32.on that deal. I have to say as well, if we end up simply saying we will

:30:33. > :30:37.walk away and we will have the concentration of power simply in the

:30:38. > :30:41.hands of the executive, I've never supported concentrations of power in

:30:42. > :30:43.this way. All of us, everyone of us should be part of making sure we get

:30:44. > :30:53.the Brexit deal. A pleasure to follow on from the

:30:54. > :30:56.Right Honourable Lady and indeed I Right Honourable and learned friend.

:30:57. > :30:59.I agree on the principle Parliament should vote on the final deal, I

:31:00. > :31:04.argued that during the referendum and I haven't changed my mind now.

:31:05. > :31:08.On top of that, as people talk about Parliament being stripped of its

:31:09. > :31:10.rights, it's worth pointing out that any domestic implementing

:31:11. > :31:14.legislation as a result of any deal is reached at the international

:31:15. > :31:17.level would of course require Parliamentary approval and the usual

:31:18. > :31:23.way. The legal effect of Brexit at home would be dealt with through an

:31:24. > :31:26.act of legislation in advance of the ratification of the international

:31:27. > :31:31.treaties. In relation to the international element, I think it's

:31:32. > :31:34.useful to distinguish two key components of the diplomacy, the

:31:35. > :31:38.terms of exit and the terms of any new relationship agreement on trade

:31:39. > :31:41.security on the other areas of cooperation that its common

:31:42. > :31:47.agreement, we all agree we want to preserve that. With that in mind, I

:31:48. > :31:50.want to just welcome again the White Paper and the Lancaster house speech

:31:51. > :31:53.which as we talk about all the process and procedures set out a

:31:54. > :32:02.positive vision for Britain of post-Brexit. As a self-governing

:32:03. > :32:07.democracy, a strong European neighbour but also a global leader

:32:08. > :32:11.when it comes to free trade. I confess as a former Foreign Office

:32:12. > :32:16.lawyer who spent six years advising on both EU law and particularly

:32:17. > :32:19.treaty interpretation, I find article 50 palpably clear on the

:32:20. > :32:26.surface, on the face of it. If this applies the EU treaties two years

:32:27. > :32:30.after article 50 is triggered. The language is mandatory as a matter of

:32:31. > :32:33.treaty law. If Parliament refuses to approve the terms of any exit

:32:34. > :32:39.agreement, the UK drops out without one. Before there is general

:32:40. > :32:43.hysteria across the House and on this side as well, there's a general

:32:44. > :32:48.principle of customary international law it's true of common law that

:32:49. > :32:52.where there's a general rule you can have exceptions but the exceptions

:32:53. > :32:56.must be interpreted narrowly and there are exceptions to this. There

:32:57. > :32:59.is an exception if the EU unanimously agrees to extend the

:33:00. > :33:05.period under article 50 paragraph three. If you look at the clear

:33:06. > :33:08.language used, I think it's only conceivable to imagine that

:33:09. > :33:11.happening if at all in very exceptional circumstances for a

:33:12. > :33:22.limited period and in relation to the exit terms.

:33:23. > :33:29.It is extremely doubtful the paragraph you merit three could be

:33:30. > :33:35.used to delay departure on those grounds, which means many of those

:33:36. > :33:43.amendments could be unlawful as well as unwise. He makes a very careful

:33:44. > :33:51.and interesting analysis but, at the end of the day, if there is no deal,

:33:52. > :33:56.we were forced to leave on WTO terms, it would be a scandal if this

:33:57. > :34:02.House did not have a chance to have a say in it and a betrayal. We hope

:34:03. > :34:07.perhaps in the Lord's people might look more carefully. The government

:34:08. > :34:13.is on borrowed time. I pay tribute to the chair of the Select Committee

:34:14. > :34:18.and I agree there should be a vote. I have not heard anyone explain the

:34:19. > :34:24.alternative negotiation strategy to the one that has been advanced by

:34:25. > :34:28.the government other than staying in limbo within the EU, which would

:34:29. > :34:33.create more uncertainty for business, greater frustration for

:34:34. > :34:40.the public and frankly devastate, paralyse our negotiating hand. There

:34:41. > :34:45.is a second exception and it is not true to say that triggering Article

:34:46. > :34:51.50 is irreversible. It can be reversed as I explained earlier, you

:34:52. > :34:58.have the time of the specific exception envisaged in Article 50,

:34:59. > :35:03.paragraph 5. You leave and apply to rejoin. That is, the clear language

:35:04. > :35:08.on the face of Article 50 course is binding as a matter of UK law and of

:35:09. > :35:14.course it was a previous Labour government with Lib Dem support that

:35:15. > :35:18.signed us up not just at the Lisbon Treaty but explicitly to the fact is

:35:19. > :35:21.we now face, that is why I suffered a little bit with some of the

:35:22. > :35:24.railing against some of the difficult legal confines the

:35:25. > :35:31.government finds itself on not just as a matter of its own policy but as

:35:32. > :35:36.a matter of law. The choice on the final deal is clear. The British

:35:37. > :35:40.Parliament can view to the ex-agreement and all the terms of

:35:41. > :35:45.the new relationship agreement but in that case, Britain would leave

:35:46. > :35:49.the EU without agreeing terms. With respect to the new relationship

:35:50. > :35:52.agreement, the UK Government would of course be free for further

:35:53. > :36:00.negotiations but that could not delay. Brexit from happening. These

:36:01. > :36:03.facts will focus our minds quite rightly and quite understandably and

:36:04. > :36:10.with a sense of trepidation. It will also focus minds on the other side

:36:11. > :36:15.of the channel amongst our European friends. On the assumption that it

:36:16. > :36:18.would take at least 18 months to read all the terms of any new

:36:19. > :36:24.relationship agreement, the idea to Parliament voting down any deal

:36:25. > :36:28.would set the UK back for further round of meaningful negotiations

:36:29. > :36:31.before Britain leaves is a odds with the procedure in the Lisbon Treaty

:36:32. > :36:42.and frankly I find it neither feasible nor credible. He mentioned

:36:43. > :36:49.earlier Article 50 subsection paragraph three, which provides for

:36:50. > :36:52.transitional arrangements, for a country to negotiate the

:36:53. > :36:56.arrangements to continue indifferently until a subsequent

:36:57. > :37:00.state is provided that the end of the negotiating process for the

:37:01. > :37:06.implementation. Does he not agree that that should create a window for

:37:07. > :37:10.the exactly the circumstances he is so concerned about? If you read the

:37:11. > :37:16.Article 50 paragraph three it explicitly refers to the withdrawal

:37:17. > :37:19.component of the diplomacy but he is also right to say there is scope for

:37:20. > :37:24.transitional arrangements to deal with some of the so-called cliff

:37:25. > :37:30.edge concerns the honourable members are rightly concerned about. Of

:37:31. > :37:34.course, the ostensible aim of Article 50 in fairness to the

:37:35. > :37:39.previous government was to facilitate certainty, the focus

:37:40. > :37:45.minds of the negotiating parties and avoid withdrawal, leaving a

:37:46. > :37:51.lingering Shadow over the EU but also the departing nation. Many if

:37:52. > :37:57.the amendments we are considering today are counter-productive because

:37:58. > :38:02.it would weaken our flexibility and negotiating position and critically

:38:03. > :38:05.making the risk of no deal more likely. Honourable members

:38:06. > :38:11.supporting these amendments need to face up to the fact that they are

:38:12. > :38:18.courting the very scenario that the say we so dearly want to seek to

:38:19. > :38:24.avoid. Equally, I would say for my part, I could not count on voting

:38:25. > :38:28.attempts to an act negotiating terms and binding legislation because that

:38:29. > :38:33.would set the government up to face a blizzard of legal challenges on

:38:34. > :38:36.the final deal which I would find deeply responsible because it would

:38:37. > :38:44.seem to me the amount of poison tactics. Would he not agree that the

:38:45. > :39:00.Prime Minister's approach so far in pandering not so much to the tens of

:39:01. > :39:04.thousands of immigrants risks the scenario we have just discussed? The

:39:05. > :39:10.idea is to be done and she needs to admit it. I would gently say to the

:39:11. > :39:14.honourable member that, between open-door immigration and close to

:39:15. > :39:19.immigration, it seems to me quite wide scope for sensible reciprocal

:39:20. > :39:22.arrangements which allow us to retain control over the volume of