07/02/2017 House of Commons


Live coverage of proceedings in the House of Commons, including the second day of the committee stage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



State and colleagues whose saphenous enabled every would-be contributor


to take part -- pickiness. Point of order. I think that the only way we


can work is to respect the authority of the Speaker. Otherwise there will


be complete chaos. It may be that I have my own personal view,


personally, I think that the Queen has issued an invitation to Mr Trump


on the advice of her ministers and he is the president of the free


world and if we have entertained the president of China, we can entertain


him, and that is my view, but at the end of the day, we have to respect


and support the office of Speaker. Not sure there is, but I will take


it and come back to the honourable gentleman. Point of order. At


business questions last week, I raised the inability of ordinary


members of this House to express an opinion through the vote on what was


an unprecedented quick invitation to a head of state and I believe that


we owe you a debt of gratitude for deciding in this case that such an


invitation should not be supported by members of this House. We know


the reasons why it was done. It was done rapidly in order to avoid


political embarrassment for the Prime Minister. But this certainly


should not be extended, any invitation, to this House to such a


person as Donald Trump. First, in respect of the point of order just


raised by the honourable gentleman, can I thank him and add nearly that


I responded to a substantive point of order on this matter yesterday


and I think it only fair to say there is no need for me to provide a


running commentary today? In respect of the honourable gentleman, can I


also thank him for what he said? He does not mince his words. He says


what he thinks. He always has done. He is respected for that. Across the


House. Sometimes he agrees with me, sometimes he doesn't. But his


respect for and loyalty to the institutions of the country,


including the institutions within Parliament, is, I think, universally


acknowledged. I thank him for that and I think others will too. Point


of order. I agree entirely with what my right honourable friend has said


with respect to the Speaker and I am not always in agreement with the


Speaker either but there is a worrying breach of etiquette that


has broken out now over the last few months of members clapping in this


Chamber. Is there anything within this power to do anything about


that? Members should not do so and the answer is that maybe I should be


even more robust. I usually am pretty robust. The point was made


yesterday about clapping. It should not happen. One has to deal with


every situation as it arises and sometimes it is better to let a


thing pass and to make a song and dance about it. But I respect the


honourable gentleman's commitment to tradition. If people want to change


those traditions they should argue the case for such change. I am no


stranger to that phenomenon. Point of order. If ever a statement


deserved clapping, yours did yesterday, in my opinion. I want to


raise the question of irrevocable T because we are about to go into


committee of the full House when just about every amendment we will


discuss trends on the question of whether clause 50 is irrevocable or


not. We have had the Supreme Court silent on that matter. The


Government's guidance is, the Brexit Secretary said on committee, I


quote, it may not be revocable, I don't know. There is not much


guidance from the Government on the matter. Given the importance of the


amendments were about to discuss in committee and given they hang on


this question of whether or not clause 50 is irrevocable once


invoked, is there any way we can get some guidance from the chair or from


the government before we move into debate without that basic piece of


information which would be important for honourable members?


The Right Honourable gentleman raises an important point but I am


not convinced it is a point of order for the chair, but I have a sense


that on this occasion the right honourable gentleman is perhaps more


interested in what he has to say to me than anything I might have to say


to him. He has got his point on the record. The reason I am not


convinced it is not a matter for me, and I am looking to inspiration for


people with legal expertise, is that it is not for the speaker to seek to


interpret treaties, that does not fall within my auspices. And so I


think my best advice to the right honourable gentleman is that he


should follow his own instincts and counsel. He has been doing that for


some decades. And if he is dissatisfied with my answer, knowing


what persistence fellow he is rather imagine he will be pestering the


government front bench on this matter in the upcoming debates.


Point of order, Sir Gerald Howard. Further to the point made by my


honourable friend the games but are, I entirely support him, I have


enjoyed a very good relationship with the chair, yesterday did


however caused some of us some concern. It was noticeable there was


great enthusiasm on the other side and a rather subdued aspect on this


side. We want to support you in the chair. The relationship between the


United Kingdom and the United States is extremely important and the Prime


Minister in the view of many of us managed to secure a very favourable


outcome of what was undoubtedly a tricky visit. And whilst I was keen


yesterday not to accuse you of an executive order in respect of


another matter, I do hope Mr Speaker that you will help us to ensure that


we can have full confidence in your impartiality because that is the way


that this house has to proceed. The honourable gentleman is quite right.


The only thing I will say to the honourable gentleman and I say it in


a very understated way is this, I referred in the course of my


response yesterday to the lockers of the Speaker, the responsibility of


the speaker in respect of the matter that he was racing with me. They


whilst I completely understand that there can be different views about


this matter and we have heard some of them, which should always and be


treated with respect, I was commenting on a matter which does


fall within the remit of the chair. The house has always understood that


the chair has a role in these matters. If the honourable gentleman


disagrees with the means of my exercising it that is one point, or


if he does not approve of my manner, I cannot think he imagines me to


robust for his liking as he's no stranger to blunt speaking himself,


but if that is his view so it. But I was honestly and honourably seeking


to discharge my responsibilities to the house. I think in the interests


of the house we should move on to other matters but I thank him for


what he has said. If there are no further points of order we come now


to the ten minute rule motion, Holly Lynch. Thank you, I beg to move that


we'd be given to bring a bill to make certain offences, groovy is our


actual bodily harm and common assault, aggravated when perpetrated


against a constable, firefighter, doctor, paramedic or nurse and the


execution of his or her duty or against a person assisting these


people in their duty to make provisions to require those


suspected of certain assault which prose I help risk including spitting


to undergo blood tests and make it an offence without reasonable excuse


to refuse to undergo such tests to make provision about the sentences


of those convicted and for connected purposes. I come to the chamber once


again Madam Deputy Speaker to raise the profile of the risks facing


those working on the front line of our emergency services. I come to


seek approval for new legislation which would offer police officers,


firefighters, doctors and nurses and paramedics greater protection from


harm than existing legislation currently allows. Having been out


with all of the emergency services in my constituency can I start by


paying tribute to the work they do. Behind the uniform they are


dedicated and brave individuals who face risks they should not have do


an almost daily basis. They are routinely going above and beyond in


order to keep the public safe. Yet when someone sets out to


deliberately injure or assault and emergency responder the laws in


place must convey how unacceptable this is in the strongest possible


terms. This bill sets out to do just that. I want to take the opportunity


to thank the many members who on a cross-party basis when support my


campaign. I launched the campaign having spent a Friday evening in


August out on patrol with West Yorkshire Police. Into the evening I


joined a PC who was responding to a 999 col. A routine stop quickly


turned nasty and I was so concerned that I rang them a name myself to


stress just how urgently needed back-up. Thankfully other officers


arrived soon after to manage the situation and no injuries were


sustained on that occasion but I saw the dangers for myself and realise


how vulnerable officers are out on their own. Following that incident


and having secured a debate on this issue police officers from all over


the country started to contact me with their own harrowing stories of


being attacked whilst on Tuesday. What has most shocked me and


depresses police officers is that sentences handed down to offenders


for assaulting the police often fail to reflect the seriousness of the


crime or more crucially serve as a deterrent. To assault a police


officer is to show complete disregard for law and order. Our


shared values and democracy itself. That must be reflected in sentencing


particularly for those who are repeat offenders. Many officers


described feeling like they had suffered an injustice twice. Firstly


at the hands of the offender and then in the courts when sentences


were unduly lenient. Within two weeks of the incident involving the


PC and myself, another PC from Halifax was assaulted when during an


arrest and angry male grabbed his radio and used it to strike him


repeatedly in the head. I am delighted that that PC can join us


today to support this legislation change which would help to give him


and his colleagues INAUDIBLE . During the debate in October I


outlined the floors with the current system for collecting data about how


many assaults there were an Holly Sonders is so I am glad -- there


were on police officers. Official statistics produced by the Home


Office suggest they just over 23,000 assaults on police officers last


year. 450 a week, equating to an officer being assaulted every 22


minutes. Just this week the Police Federation published the results of


their welfare survey undertaken by 17,000 serving police officers. It


revealed it is actually closer to 6000 assault every day, and assault


every 13 seconds with an average police officer being assaulted 19


times a year. In the debate at the end of last year I remember my


honourable friend the member for Newport East telling the chamber


about the mother she had met who told their children that their dad


was the contest man in the world to explain his bruises on coming home


from work as a police officer. -- was the clumsiest man in the world.


The bill today would not just protect police officers, it would


cover all blue light emergency responders. A report published by


the Yorkshire Ambulance Service just before Christmas revealed staff


based violence and aggression on a weekly basis. A 50% increase in


reported incidents of attacks on staff with 606 incidents reported in


2015-2016. A paramedic in Leeds told the BBC that he faced three serious


assaults in five years. He had been bitten, head-butted and threatened


with a knife. West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service have also


reported assaults. On bonfire night they received 1043 calls with crews


attending 265 incidents. It's disgraceful that on the busiest


night of the year with those pressures firefighters in West


Yorkshire were subject to 19 attacks overnight. This Bill will ensure


anyone who assaults and emergency service responder and is charged


with a crime will be eligible for a tougher sentence because an assault


on emergency service worker is an assault on society. It is


unacceptable public servants working in their communities protecting


people and helping the vulnerable would be subject to assault as they


go about their jobs and these changes would go some way to


reflecting that. The second part of this bill aims to deal with the


hideous act of spitting at emergency service workers. As well as being a


horrible, spitting blood and saliva add another human being can pose a


risk of transmitting a range of infectious diseases. Someone like


changing or a lethal consequences. At an event organised by the member


for Wolverhampton South West I met two police officers and they both


had blood spat in their faces was trying to arrest a violent offender.


They both had to undergo anti-viral treatments to reduce the risk of


contracting the disease and faced a six-month wait to find out the


treatment had been successful. During that time one was advised he


could not see his brother who was undergoing cancer treatment because


the risk of passing on an infection was too high. He was also advised


not to see his parents because they are in such read her contact with


his brother. There was a false positive results are happy to be and


for six months until conclusive test results came through he was


understandably reluctant to be close to his wife or children fearing for


their own well-being. I am pleased that both men are also here today to


lend their support to these changes. Which had they been in place at the


time might have saved them such an agonising wait. In previous speeches


I have made on this issue I shared with MP's the story of a police


officer in the Ukraine who died after contracting TB from an


offender who spat that whilst she was trying to arrest him. At the


moment if an emergency service worker is spat at the can only take


a blood sample from an individual with permission. Needless to say


that in the case I mentioned before in this country the offender was not


in a helpful mood so subjected them to treatments and a six-month wait.


Laws in Australia where refusal to provide a blood sample can result


any fine and custodial sentence. My bill will mean that refusing to


provide a blood sample in itself be a crime punished by a fine or


custodial sentence. If an emergency service worker, doctor or nurse has


had to endure being spat that this measure will hopefully save them


having to endure a six-month ordeal to wait to see the consequences are


serious. It has been made clear to me Madam Deputy Speaker that the


experience I had out on the streets in my constituency was not an


isolated incident. It reflects the daily challenge police officers


face. Sadly paramedics, firefighters, doctors and nurses


also need these protections but it's worth


remembering when they find themselves under the attack it is


the police who is called. I hope this change in sentencing will go as


well weighted givings dedicated public servants the protections they


should not require but sadly do. I am not naive to the nature of ten


minute rule Bill is nor am I out any allusions about where we are in the


parliamentary calendar but I hope my details have been heard today and


will be reflected on its merits. I commend this bill to the house. The


question is that the honourable member have lead to bring in the


bill. The ayes habit. -- habit. Who will prepare and bring in the bill?


Con again, live sub Oral Roberts, Michael Dugher, Scott Mann, Hannah


Badelj, Tom Blenkinsop, Tracy Braeburn, Jim Shannon, and myself.


Second reading what day? 24th March. 24th March. Thank you.


The clerk will proceed to read the orders of the day. European Union


notification of withdrawal Bill committee. Order.


Order. European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill. We begin with


new clause one which it will be convenient to consider the new


clauses and amendments considered on the selection paper. Point of order.


Thank you. I would be grateful if you could explain to the House, not


just to the House, but to the country of of all the amendments


that have been grouped for debate today, the House will only be voting


on new clause 1 later. I think the honourable gentleman knows what the


answer will be to this. This is a very early start for points of order


before we've started, but as he knows, the way that the grouping has


been arranged was the subject of a programme motion which was debated,


which was voted on last week. So in fact, the grouping of the amendments


is as was on the programme motion. As he says the lead amendment will


be put for a division and subsequent amendments depends on what happens


in the rest of the debate. So we begin with new clause 1 which


will be it will be convenient to consider new clauses. Keir Starmer


to move new clause 1. Thank you. I rise to move new clause 1 in doing


so, I will obviously touch on other new clauses in the bucket. It is


important, I think, as we go lieu this debate today which is probably


the most important of the debates that we've had thus far and are


going to have in relation to these amendments that we remind ourselves


of the context. The negotiations that will take place under Article


50 will be the most difficult and the most complex and the most


important for decades. Arguably since the Second World War. Amongst


other things it's important that we ensure the best outcome for our


economy and jobs, the trading agreements and as I've said on a


number of occasions, what that entails is very clear. That we must


have access, tariff-free access to the single market, barrier-free


access, regulatory alignment and full access for services as well as


goods and in the White Paper, that was published last Thursday, the


Government accepts the strengths of those arguments about the trading


agreements. It's also important that we have the right ongoing future


relationship with our EU partners and Labour's has been forceful in


arguing for maintaining close collaboration with our parten nears


the fields of medicine, science, research, education, culture and


security as well as policing and counter-terrorism. Now, although


both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State maintain the idea


that all this can be agreed within two years, leaving just an


implementation stage, the reality is that we will two deals. The Article


50 agreement and a new UK-EU treaty setting out the new arrangements


along with transitional arrangements. But to be clear, we


all have a vested interest on behalf of all our constituents in getting


the right outcome. And that raises the proper role of Parliament in


this process. And that's why I've consistently argued for three


elements of scrutiny and accountability and this is the


debate that in a sense has been going on for the last three months.


The first element, the element I started the argument for last


October was that at the start we should have a plan or White Paper, a


formal document setting out the negotiating objectives. That we


should then have a system for reporting back during the course of


the negotiations and that we should have a vote at the end of the


exercise, they are the three elements. They are three elements of


scrutiny and accountability I have. I will give way. Is it the case that


if all his amendments are rejected by the Government, the Labour Party


are simply going to endorse the third reading and support the


Government? What's the point in making this case for these


amendments he's going to cave in to what the Government want in Article


50? I'm not sure how helpful interventions are like that to a


debate which is actually really important about the scrutiny and


accountability. And just to be sure, just to be clear, nagging away,


pushing votes, making the argument over three months, we have got a


White Paper. And it is important. Nagging away, making the arguments,


we have got commitments about reporting back. Nagging away and


making the arguments we have got a commitment to the vote at the end of


the exercise. So when the charge is levelled at the Opposition that they


have not made the case and are not succeeding on the case for scrutiny


and accountability that simply doesn't match what has happened over


the last three months. Thank you. And he's right to point out that


progress has been made, but does he agree with me that in order to make


a vote at the end of the process meaningful, we have to have


meaningful scrutiny as the process is going on? And we have as a


Parliament to have the chance to say to the Government you must go back


and try to do better. Having an all or nothing vote at the end when all


of the discussions and negotiations are over is not in my definition


meaningful scrutiny. Does he agree with me? I'm grateful for that


intervention and I will come to this, but the central theme of the


case I will seek to make this afternoon is that a vote in this


House must be before the deal is concluded. That is the dividing line


that makes the real difference here, but I will make progress because - I


will give way. I'm grateful to the Secretary of State and I think that


this maybe helpful - forgive me. The Shadow Secretary of State. I


hope that this will be helpful to him because he has mentioned the


fact that the Government has made a commitment to a vote at the end of


the procedure. Later when I address the House I will be outlining what I


intend that vote shall be, but it maybe of assistance to him to know


what is proposed. First of all, we intend that the vote will cover not


only the withdrawal arrangements, but also the future relationship


with the European Union. We furthermore, I can confirm that the


Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be


approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded


and we expect and intend that this will happen before the European


Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement. I hope that's of


assistance. I'm very grateful for that


intervention. That is a huge and very important concession about the


process that we are to embark on. The argument I have made about a


vote... The argument I've made about a vote over the last three months is


that the vote most cover both the Article 50 deal on any future


relationship and I know for my colleague that's very important and


that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded and I


take that from what has just been said. I will give way. Thank you


very much. Would my Right Honourable and learned gentleman, I nearly said


friend, but I have to be careful, first of all would he agree with me


it's really important that as a nation and a House we now come


together, putting aside all the party political differences to do


the right thing by our country, but most importantly perhaps on the very


point he makes. Does he share my concern in the event of no deal


being reached, that this House must also decide what happens next?


I'm grateful for that intervention and I do agree and have made, I do


agree that we all have a responsibility to bring this country


back together. We are a deeply divided... The United Kingdom... I'm


dealing with this intervention if you don't mind. It what is


significant about what has just been said is that it covers the Article


50 agreement and it covers any future relationship. That is the


first time we've heard this. It is a very significant position by the


Government and I'm grateful that it has been made and it is very


important that it has been made because certainly I think across the


House there has been real anxiety that it should cover both bases.


Whether it goes far enough for the full-back position I'll reflect on


and ideally one would want that covered, but I don't want to under


play the significance of what has just been said about the two deals


because it is the first time that clarity has been given. It's the


first time that has been conceded. It's an argument I've been making


for three months and it's very important that it has now been


conceded. It's important for my colleagues and I'm sure it's


important for people across the House. Equally important, equally


important, is the timing in that it should be before the deal is


concluded. The great fear is there would be a concluded deal which


would make any vote in this House meaningless. Now, what I hope can


now happen on the back of that concession is what I anticipate will


happen in the European Parliament. That is by regularly reporting up,


updating the House, setting ot the direction of travel, there can be


agreement about progress and that what happens at the end doesn't come


as a surprise to any of us in this House. But what has been said by the


minister is a very significant statement of position which meets in


large part everything I have been driving at in new clause 1. I will


give way. I welcome as my honourable friend does the concession from the


Government benches, but does he agree as well as timing it is the


scope of that vote which is going to be absolutely vital? If we're faced


with a choice between a hard Brexit and WTO, that is no choice. The


Government will have to go back and renegotiate.


At the moment I agree that we should have as big a say as possible on all


of this, but I don't want to under state what has been conceded in the


last ten minutes. I do take the point, but I think where we have


made significant progress on scrutiny and accountability we


should recognise where we've got to. I will give way. Whilst I echo what


the honourable gentleman has said would you agree that instantly


leaping on a concession maybe a little unwise until we're quite


clear what is amounts to. I record a concession on a plan led to a speech


in Lancaster House which didn't take us much furtherment I would like to


be persuaded that a major concession has been made. Does he agree with me


that it would be helpful because we don't know what we're debating if we


continue from now on if the minister would try to catch the chairman's


eye after the Right Honourable gentleman has sat down so he can


explain in more detail what he's proposing than the subsequent debate


on this group of amendments and we will be altogether better informed.


I'm grateful for that intervention and I accept the point and I think


far be it from me to say what the procedure would be, but that would


be helpful because some of what has been said has been heard for the


first time today and we need to reflect on it. If indeed it is a


significant concession then shouldn't it be added to the face of


the Bill? So as it can be properly examined and analysed and come to


the House in a report stage with every member having the ability to


look at it? I recognise the strength of the


points made and there are of course other opportunities to examine what


has been conceded and ensure it might find its way onto the face of


the legislation. So I think it would be sensible if we recognise what has


been said. Here a little more detail if we can, and reflect on that


during the course of this afternoon and of course this bill does not


complete its passage today or in this house. I will give way. It is a


fair point, if somebody says do something in good faith you take it


on board. And don't push too hard and take what is a valuable


concession INAUDIBLE . I am grateful for that


intervention, I think it is, when an assurance is given in a debate such


as this it is a significant assurance. That having been said, of


course something on the face of a statute at some later point is even


better. I will give way. I am grateful, I came into this chamber


with a full intention of supporting Amendment one and I still feel we


need to push this to a vote. However I feel what is being said and that


he wants to trust and believe this government. If we saw a manuscript


amendment before the end of the afternoon I would find it much more


easy to not vote on amendment one than I do at the moment. Does he


agree that a manuscript amendment would be helpful? I would take that


point. Can I make some progress because we have not got very far. So


far as the White Paper, I have not got very far! As far as the White


Paper is concerned, I am looking at the big picture and this is


important for trade unions and working people and constituents who


have raised these points, in the White Paper there is the commitment


to convert all EU derived rights including workers' rights into


domestic law of paragraph 7.1 and I don't think that commitment has been


heard loudly enough and we certainly intend to hold the government that


every step of the way along with other EU rights such as


environmental rights and consumer rights. I have also consistently


argued that the Prime Minister cannot in the Article 50


negotiations negotiate to change domestic law or policy which would


require primary legislation. In paragraph 1.8 of the White Paper it


is made clear that the government does not accept that the Prime


Minister would have that authority and expressly references separate


bills on immigration and on customs. I highlight that because there is a


huge concern amongst my colleagues about the threat made by the Prime


Minister to alter our social and economic model and turn the UK into


a tax haven. That cannot happen. That cannot happen without primary


legislation. It is important we note that. I rather agree with the other


members, given the government's position just outlined, would my


honourable friend agree that the only substantial reason for the


government not to agree to the new clause one is to deny the other


house vote on a resolution and therefore the minister should


explain why that is the position? I think we will have to wait and hear


from the Minister, I hear what is said in the intervention. So far as


the vote is concerned, there has been a change of position and it's


important I just set that out. Initially the Secretary of State was


saying back in October that he would observe the requirements of treaty


ratification. Then in December at this dispatch box he almost said we


would get a vote using the word that it was inconceivable that we would


not. Then just before Christmas at the liaison committee the Prime


Minister seemed to back away from that altogether under questioning


from the chairman of the Brexit select committee and the fact of a


vote was only conceded after Christmas. And then in paragraph


1.12 of the White Paper there was a commitment to a vote on the final


deal. Today it takes us a lot further forward and I think that


demonstrates how by chipping away and arguing away we are making


progress on accountability and scrutiny. I will. I thank my


honourable friend forgiving way, he may have been listening and had the


detail of what the ministers said in more detail than I did but could you


tell me was it clear whether or not we would actually get a vote in this


house if there was no deal? If the government failed to get a deal with


the EU, which none of us want to see, but if that happens was it


clear to him from what the Minister said whether or not we would get a


vote in parliament in those circumstances? No and I think we


need to press the Minister on that when he rises to his feet. I will.


He has just very ably outlined what the government position has been to


date, showing us all very ably that the government have made quite major


changes in positions today. Against the background of the situation


about that change of position appears to have taken place when we


are debating so many different venue -- differently nuanced amendments,


is it agreeable that the government should... Can I ask that


interventions be a bit more brief, we only have four hours and a lot of


people to get through. Just to make intervention is a bit more brief.


Here Starmer. I am grateful for that intervention, I think it it would be


helpful if we had both clarification and a written form if possible of


the gym session which has been made so we can all see -- of the


concession which has been made so we can all see what it is. Madam Deputy


Speaker, given that we do as the honourable lady was saying require


some sort of information as to what it is the government have actually


put forward, is there any way you can require the government to put


before us a manuscript amendment so we actually know what it is we are


debating for the rest of the afternoon? The Minister will be


speaking and I am sure he will explain them. Keir Starmer. Thank


you. I am sure the Minister hears what is being said, what has been


said this morning is significant, it is a concession and it does no need


to be reduced to writing. I think a great deal of this debate should be


spent probing the concession which has been made. I'm going to make


progress because I have barely got through two or three sentences


before giving way so I do not think anyone could accuse me of not


conceding. In the end this comes down to a very stark choice for this


house, if we are to have a vote. Either it is before the deal is


concluded or it is afterwards in which case it would be a feature


complete. And this concession appears to suggest it is before it


is concluded and I think that timing is critical. I recognise there are


other issues which come off the back of that but the timing is critical.


Because the sequence of events at the end of the exercise is extremely


important in terms of what this house can meaningfully say or do


about the agreement which is put to us for a vote. I thank my honourable


friend forgiving way. Does he agree with me it's not just the issue of


the timing of the vote, it's what happens if this house declines to


accept the deal the government has put forward, the Prime Minister said


on the 25th of January if this parliament is not willing to accept


a deal that has been decided upon with the European Union then as I


have said we will have to fall back on other arrangements. That does not


guarantee this house has the final decision on our future relationship


with the EU. I am grateful for that intervention, I think that exchange


which was referred to as the cause of concern about the vote being


before the deal is concluded. But we will need greater clarification


about the extent of the vote. I'm going to press on because I am not


sure that me trying to explain what the Minister is going to tell us is


working particularly well. If it's of any assistance to the


honourable gentleman and to the committee, with your leave I would


very much hope to be able to speak immediately after the Shadow


Secretary of State for Health. -- Secretary of State. I have made the


case for a White Paper, made the case for reporting back, made the


case for a vote, we have now got this concession. I think the most


helpful thing is if honourable members are given the opportunity to


test what the Minister has said this morning. Thank you. New clause one,


parliamentary approval for agreements with the union. The


question is that new clause one B read a second time, Minister David


Jones. I am very grateful, I had hoped to speak at the end of this


debate but I think it may be of assistance to the committee if I


deal with some of the matter is the shadow secretary of state touched on


in his speech. However I don't want to go into the details of the


various amendments which other members will wish to speak to win.


With your consent I would like to address those at the end of the


session. Could I first of all repeat what I said to the honourable


gentleman when I intervened on him a few moments ago, the government has


repeatedly from this dispatch box committed to a vote on the final


deal, a vote in both houses before the deal comes into force. And this


I repeat and confirm will cover not only the withdrawal agreement but


also the future arrangement that we propose with the European Union. And


I can confirm again that the government will bring forward a


motion on the final agreement, if I can just finish the sentence. It's


rather important. A motion on the final agreement to be approved by


both houses of parliament before it is concluded and we expect and


intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and


votes on the final agreement. I give way to the Right honourable


gentleman. Stressed to the house again that this applies only to the


withdrawal agreement and a final agreement on the future relationship


between the UK and EU. It is my view the former is feasible within two


years, the latter is highly unlikely within two years, can he tell the


house what will happen in that case, I withdrawal agreement is agreed but


not a new future agreement between the UK and the EU? I must preface


that we do not expect we will not achieve such agreement. But my right


honourable friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that if we


cannot come to an agreement then clearly we will have to fall back on


other arrangements. That is something upon which... That is


something upon which the government has consistently been clear, I give


way. The conversation we had yesterday about the importance of


transitional arrangements, he cannot guarantee the trade agreement will


be concluded within two years so if you don't have a transitional


agreement it's like jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute,


why will he not agree to negotiate the transitional arrangement now in


case we need it? What the honourable lady says is of course very true.


But clearly, an agreement is a matter which has to be no goatee --


negotiated by two sides and it's always possible we cannot achieve


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


that what we do see as important is during the course of the


negotiations for what ever the new arrangements are that we consider


what implementation period may be necessary at the end of those


agreements. Again we have made that clear already. I give way to my


right honourable friend. I am grateful for intervening at this


stage and allowing us to have this process. He says that Parliament


will have a vote before the agreement is concluded, does that


mean before agreement has been reached with the other 27 or after a


agreement has been reached but before it's been put into effect? I


think what parliamentary sovereignty requires is that Parliament should


have the ability to influence the government's position before it


concludes the deal so that those with whom the government is dealing,


the other parties of the negotiation, now that the British


government has got to be able to produce an agreement which will get


the support of parliament. If you just wait until everything, hands


have been shaken with all the other Europeans, then you come here, then


it means Parliament is told if you reject it you have nothing. It's a


disaster. Which would give a government a majority but not a very


satisfactory conclusion. I fully appreciate the points. This


is clearly going to be a complex, lengthy and difficult. Can I deal


with my Right Honourable friend's point first? It will be a difficult


and complex agreement and it will be, of course, a matter that will a


negotiation that will from time to time be subject to reports to this


House, to the Brexit Select Committee and so on. But what we are


proposing and what I'm committing to from this dispatch box today is that


before that final agreement is concluded and it would, if you like,


but the final draft agreement, it would be put to a vote of this House


and a vote of the other place and that we intend will be before it is


put to the European Parliament and I think that that, I hope, is as clear


as I can be. I will give way to the honourable gentleman The EU 27 will


decide a deal in their interests. If that deal comes to this House and we


vote it down and subsequently the commission and the European


Parliament agree it and say like it or lump it, what will we do then?


I would have thought that in the circumstance that this House had


voted it down it would be highly unlikely that it would be put to the


European Parliament, but there are all sorts of sin aur yos that... I


give way. Just for clarification, I think the minister said there would


be a vote on the final draft agreement. I wanted to check I heard


him correctly when he said that? Before the agreement is finally


concluded in other words. That's the intention of this Parliament. I want


to come back to the point made about the two deals that are being


negotiated in parallel, the exit deal and the framework for our


future relationship about the timing. I think we're being


optimistic than the Right Honourable gentleman. In Article 50 it


envisages in the negotiation for the exit agreement that can only be done


taking into account the framework for the future relationship. So


Article 50 itself envisages those two agreements being negotiated in


parallel so I think what the minister set out has every prospect


of coming to fruition. Can I just implore members to keep


interventions short. I just implore people to just to keep it a bit


briefer. My Right Honourable friend is right Article 50 on the face of


it says the negotiations for the withdrawal, that the negotiations


for the withdrawal agreement should be set against the framework of the


continuing relationship. So on the face of Article 50, a twin track


approach is envisaged. I give way to the honourable gentleman. Could he


be clear, he raised our hopes for a second and I felt myself debated


when he said we will fall back on other arrangements. Can he be clear


about what he means by, "We would fall back on other arrangements"? If


there were no agreement at all which is a scenario I think is extremely


unlikely then ultimately it would be falling back upon World Trade


Organisation arrangements and this again is nothing new. It has been


made very clear previously including by my Right Honourable friend the


Prime Minister. I'm grateful to the minister. Can he clarify a point


which came up with from the Shadow Secretary of State which is


important to all of us here and that is, an agreement at the end of the


process might be an agreement that there isn't an agreement at all that


we go to the default position. What I believe he has announced from the


front bench covers the situation which will give the House a vote if


there is a deal or if indeed there is no deal. And I wonder if he could


confirm that the House would get the vote in these circumstances which is


what I understand the assurance to be? It's very hard to see what


meaningful vote could be given in a circumstance in which there what


been no deal at all, but I have, having said that, I have no doubt at


all that if the absence of any agreement whatever, that absence of


agreement would be the subject of statements to this House.


The minister's inflating and deflating people as he goes along.


Can he get back to this manuscript amendment? It really is important if


the concession is as significant as the minister is leading us to


believe. It comes forward as an amendment and if the Government is


not prepared to do that, then surely the message to the other place is


what the minister has said should be encapsulated in an amendment that


should be properly redebated here. I think that we are actually debating


this at considerable length now. I have on behalf of the Government


made what I believe is a serious commitment and I believe that it


should be accepted as such and frankly in those circumstances I see


no need for a further amendment. I'm grateful to the Minister for


giving way. Isn't the issue and the problem that the Government has and


indeed the House has that we don't know what at what stage the


negotiations could be concludedment they could be concluded with months


to go within the two year time frame. This House would be able to


consider the agreement before it was agreed with the Commission because


there was no time pressure, but we could end up with a situation where


the agreement is one minute to midnight at the end of the two year


period and if the Government doesn't conclude an agreement to bring it to


the House before, but before it goes to the European Parliament we


couldnd up with no deal. I feel, my honourable friend may agree with me,


the Government has a real dilemma and it is important that the House


should understand those limitations because they go to the question of


whether in fact an amendment can be reasonably crafted to meet that.


I think that my Right Honourable friend makes a very fair point. I


think that as we proceed we have to keep reminding ourselves that we are


where we are because the United Kingdom has voted to leave the


European Union. And what we are seeking to achieve is a departure


from the European Union on the best possible terms and I believe very


strongly that what the Government is proposing is as much as possible in


terms of a meaningful vote at the end of the process. I'd like to make


a little bit... I give way to the honourable gentleman. I thank the


Minister for giving way. Timing is only significant if it further


empowers Parliament to have a meaningful say on the negotiations.


So can I ask the minister again, what will happen if the House


declines to approve the draft agreement which he's intending to


bring before us? I think that I've already answered that extremely


clearly. There will be a meaningful vote. The


vote will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have


achieved and I repeat that that process of negotiation will not be


without frequent reports to this House or no deal and frankly that is


the choice that this House will have to make. That will be the most


meaningful vote that one could imagine.


I'd like, I will take one further intervention. I will take it from


the honourable gentleman. I think the point here is for this to be a


meaningful concession, what the House wants is the opportunity to


send the Government back to our EU partners to negotiate a deal if one


hasn't been reached. Going on to WTO rules I say to the minister will be


deeply damaging for our economy and wholly unacceptable. Well, I hear


what the honourable gentleman says, but frankingly I can't think of a


greater signal of weakness than for this House to send the Government


back to the European Union and to say we want to negotiate further. I


think that that would be seized upon as a sign of weakness and therefore,


I can't agree with it at all. I would like to make further progress.


I think I've taken a large number of interventions and I'm sure that


other honourable members wish to speak. Let me say this. This will be


a meaningful vote. It will be the choice between leaving the European


Union as I've said with a negotiated deal or not and as I've said to send


the Government back to the negotiating table would be the


surest way of undermining our negotiating position and delivering


a worst deal and in any case we can't extend our... I give way for


the final time to the Right Honourable gentleman.


Giving way. When he first revealed his concession to my honourable and


learned friend, there was a bit which he hasn't read out in the


speech he has just been giving which referred to timing intention and the


position of the European Parliament. Co please repeat what he said the


first time round? I think it is important that the House is able to


hear that. If it is of assistance to the honourable gentleman I read out


the same words twice, but nevertheless I will read them again


just so that he fully understands the commitment that the Government


has made. The Government has committed to a vote on the final


deal in both houses before it comes into force. This will cover both the


withdrawal agreement and our future relationship with the European


Union. I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a


motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of


Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will


happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the


final agreement and I hope - I will not take any further, I think I have


been more than generous. If I could turn to the amendments in


question and the honourable gentleman has referred to his


amendment, new clause 1, but new clauses 18, 19, 20, 110, 137, 175


and 182 and they all seek in one way or another to ensure that Parliament


will have a vote on the final deal that we agree with the European


Union. Let me assure the House again as I've ensured in answer to


interventions that will be involved throughout the entire process of


withdrawal and again, let me remind the House, what the extent of the


Secretary of State's engagements. A very brief question to the minister.


If the European Parliament votes down the deal, then Europe will


carry on negotiating. He is saying if the British Parliament votes down


the deal that's the end of the negotiations. We pride ourselves on


our sovereignty in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker and his position


seems to be a denial of that sovereignty. I'm not entirely sure


that the Right Honourable gentleman understands the process. The role of


the European Parliament would be to grant or withhold consent to the


deal that had been agreed by the European Council and there could be


no assurance that there would be further negotiations. May I say this


- we are come considerable way away from that position. As the


negotiations proceed, as I've said, there will be very many more


opportunities, many more, many more opportunities for this House and for


the other place to consider the negotiations. I'm afraid not because


I've already been very generous. I was reminding the honourable House


of What the Secretary of State has done. He made six oral statements


and there have been more ten debates, four in Government time.


There are over 30 Select Committee inquiries going on at the moment.


There will be many more votes on primary legislation to between now


and departure from the European Union. I suggest that the amendments


that I've referred to are unnecessary. I reiterate that both


House will get a vote on the final deal before it comes into force and


I can confirm once again that it will cover both the withdrawal


agreement and our future relationship, but we are confident


that we will bring back a deal which Parliament will want to support and


the choice will be meaningful and that choice will be whether to


accept that deal or to move ahead without a deal.


Can I move new clause 180 and amendment 50 in the name of my


honourable friends and myself and could I speak favourably about new


clause 110 in the name of the honourable member for Nottingham


East which is the strongest of a range of amendments albeit that any


amendments in this section which are put to the vote will have our


support because they are all trying to increase Parliamentary


supervision over the process. Now before the minister led us through


the dance of the seven veils I was trying to find out, I was going to


question him on the question of irrockability of Article 50 and I


still think goes to the heart of what we're debating. Can I say to


the minister in terms of what he described as a serious announcement.


If you make serious announcements in the course of a committee stage of a


Bill of this importance then these serious announcements should be


followed by an amendment. If we are here debating the Dangerous Dogs


Bill, and a serious announcement was made in the middle of the Dangerous


Dogs Bill then that serious announcement would be followed by an


amendment on the face of the Bill. If it was good enough for a Bill of


that description then how much more is it important to have such an


amendment in the biggest constitutional change facing this


country for half a century? So we thank the Minister for His


announcement. We thank him for the apparent concession. We don't doubt


for a second the seriousness with which he makes this serious


announcement, but I think most of us, I think the minister himself,


would think that such an announcement should be followed by


an amendment on the face of the Bill so this Bill can then go through its


proper processes with honourable members able and willing to debate


an announcement of such seriousness in the proper way. I give way to the


former Chief Whip. Who seems anxious to regain his


previous position. I can assure the right honourable gentleman I am


content to speak in the house on these matters. The question is, the


reason why it may not be sensible to have a detailed amendment, listening


to the range of interventions from colleagues there are clearly a large


number of scenarios which may arise, ones which will need to be dealt


with politically, I do not want detailed legislation so that this


goes back into the courts, I wanted debated in this house, not by a


judge. At least he is consistent, when he was Chief Whip he did not


want detailed amendments either in case democracy prevailed in terms of


these matters. I will give way in a second, but most people saying a


serious announcement from the front bench would expect it to be followed


by an amendment so the matter can be properly debated and tested. I give


way. I thank the honourable gentleman forgiving way and I agree


with the point about the manuscript amendment it would make things a lot


cleaner, but does he agree with me that having an announcement that we


may have a Hobson 's choice at the end of something is not really a


proper choice? I very much agree with the honourable lady and she has


conveniently led me right onto the next point I was going to make, I


think her point goes to the heart of the dilemma the house is going to


find itself in unless we find ourselves taking action to the


contrary. That does strike at the matter of whether clause 50 is


irrevocable or not. I tried to give a flavour of the government's


confusion in this matter but it was a brief point of order and therefore


I want to give the full flavour of the government 's confusion because


this Brexit secretary said when asked the specific point, he said,


and I quote, one of the virtues of the Article 50 process is that it


sets you own way. It is very difficult to see it being revoked,


we do not intend to the baulk it. It may be revoked the ball, I do not


know. That is the basis we are being asked to take this fundamental


decision affecting the future of this country. We have been all these


things because it determines the position the house will find itself


in. If it is, unless there is an agreement from the 27 members of the


European Union, negotiations stop, the guillotine comes down and you


are left with a bad deal or no Deal, then any vote in the house against


that sort of Damocles hanging over the house will not be a proper


informed judgment. Would he agree with me that triggering the Article


50 on the basis of possible Reebok ability is like walking down the M4


in the middle of the night and hoping you won't get killed. You


might not but better not to walk down there in the first place? I


think the analogy is there, and we now that the noble Lord Kerr


believes it to be revoke a ball. The judgment was based on that


proposition so does he agree it is irrevokable? I give way. The purpose


was for the purpose of those proceedings and I have to say that


we can derive nothing from that as to whether it is irrevokable or not


and indeed there is powerful legal argument that it is capable of being


revoked. The honourable gentleman should talk among themselves before


they come to a house with an agreed position but both of these people


are on the backbenches so it does not matter if they have alerted


debate after proceedings, what matters is a confusion in the front


bench and whatever the right Honourable member thinks, the Brexit


secretary did not know... One last time. The right honourable gentleman


is pursuing this relentlessly, but can he explain why he is doing so,


may I suggest that it is because he knows... To be said I am pursuing


something relentlessly is a component indeed, I shall treasure


it. It's about this house having a genuine choice at some stage and


looking at what the government has negotiated and then being able to


say yes bringing us back to where we are now


in terms of the referendum. An astute point. If I may say so, I


think the issue is even more fundamental, I think we have to know


what happens when we say no before we go ahead at the present moment.


We make a new effort in new clause 180, new clause 180 is called the


reset amendment and when I asked We will only approve the deal once


the terms are such that we believe they are in the interest of this


country. The Prime Minister should be prepared not to present us with a


bad Deal or no Deal, not a bad deal for world trade terms, but a deal


that we know is going to be in the interest of our constituents and the


country. I think that's absolutely fundamental to this debate. I know


and understand political leadership but at the end of March, it came


about the Tory conference, people were getting flappy about whether


the Prime Minister was a born-again Brexit supporter or still a secret


submarine remain, I cannot understand why people think even


from the Brexit side, because presumably they want success for the


country and its economy, thinking it's a good idea to invoke article


50 and till you know what the end destination is going to be.


Similarly I cannot believe it's a good idea to leave the European


economic area which is governed by different areas and different


instruments until you know what the alternative is going to be. Instead


of giving these points away and putting all of the negotiating power


into the hands of those you are negotiating with and they are our


partners now but any negotiation is a tension between two parties. Any


negotiation depends on a card you will have in your hand and if the


other side know that after two years the sword of Damocles comes down it


puts them in a much more powerful position in terms of the


negotiation. That is why we try... I give way. I thank you forgiving way,


I agree with most of what he said which is why it is important we get


an amendment on this so the house and the public know exactly where we


are going. Why don't we put the government front bench on a course


with the TUC to learn how to negotiate. And astute point, I think


a lot could be learnt in terms of negotiating position and the prying


point is to not put yourself in a position of weakness. Do not put


yourself in a position of weakness with the European Union who are on


the whole honourable people and want what is in the interest of the


continent of Europe and it's not a good idea for the government to put


themselves in a position of weakness with the new president of the United


States who will take every possible advantage from an opponent he senses


as he will sense is negotiating from a position of weakness. In


conclusion, I would argue strongly for the new clause and the


amendments we put down. To secure the position at the end of the


negotiations before we embark on something which is going to leave


this house not just with a bad Deal or no Deal, but with the


metaphorical gun pointed at its head when it comes to address these


serious questions. We have to know the end position before we embark on


the fundamentally dangerous course. John Redwood. Thank you, I agree


fully with the right honourable member for Gordon that we should not


wish to do anything which weakens or undermines the British are


bargaining position and that all the efforts of this house as we try to


knit together should be designed to maximise the leverage as a newly


independent nation and securing the best possible future relationship


with our partners in the European Union which is why I find myself in


disagreement with many of the well-intentioned amendments before


us today. I think they are all trying to undermine or damage the UK


negotiating position, maybe inadvertently. One of my honourable


friend says nonsense, let me explain why it is dangerous if some of these


amendments were adopted. We are invited to believe that if the House


of Commons decided it did not like the deal which the government had


negotiated for our future relationship with the EU and voted


it down the rest of the EU would turn around and say sorry and offer


us a better deal. I just don't think it's practical politics, I don't


understand how they believe that is going to happen. What could happen


is that those in the rest of the EU who want to keep the EU and her


contributions in the EU might think it was a good idea to offer a very


poor deal to try to tempt Parliament into voting the deal down so that


then there was no Deal at all which might suit their particular agenda.


Why is he so worried about the House of Commons INAUDIBLE


? Isn't it right and proper we have a choice, informed or otherwise? I


am supporting the government offering the house vote and the


government cannot neither house a vote of the house wants to vote, the


house will vote. But it's important that those who want to go further


and press the government even more should understand it could be, let


me deal with one point at a time, it could be deeply damaging to the


United Kingdom negotiating position and is based on a completely unreal


view of how multinational negotiations go when a country is


leaving the European Union. I find it disappointing that those


passionate advocates of the European Union in this house who have many


fine contacts and networks across the continent and access to the


councils and wisdom of our European partners make no contribution to


these debates at all in the form of explaining to us more about the


attitudes of the other member states, what the weaknesses of their


negotiating position is and what their aims are in the negotiation,


to better inform the government position so we can do better for


them and for us. I give way. Making an articulate case as ever about the


dangers of a vote at the end of the process but could he explain why on


November 20, 2012 in a very interesting blogger post entitled


the double referendum on the EU, he advocated a second referendum with


the following question, do you want to accept the new negotiated


relationship with the EU or not? How on earth and why on earth has he


changed his mind since then? I do not disagree with that at all, I am


happy to have a vote on whether the new Deal is worth accepting or not


but that is within the context of leaving the European Union. I agree


with the Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal and if the


best the government can do is a bad deal and might well want to vote


against that deal in favour of leaving without a deal and that is


exactly the choice which government ministers are offering this house.


It's a realistic choice, a democratic choice. It is no choice


to pretend that the house can rerun the referendum in this pulpit and


fought to stay in the EU. We will send the article 50 letter, the


public have voted to leave so if this house voted to stay in what


significance does that have and why should the member states turn around


and agree? I give way. Wouldn't it be better to delay


Article 50 until after the new German Government is elected in


October and the French in May because we've only got two years and


then we would have the power of time of the negotiation and the power of


being a member rather than giving it in and finally going back to his


former position, if we offered a referendum of the people before


Article 50 was triggered they would think perhaps we may stay in and


therefore, would come to the table before Article 50 was triggered. The


issue is the future relationship and I think this House is capable of


dealing with whether we accept the future relationship with the


Government which has negotiated or not, but the point that the


Opposition amendments and many of the Opposition MPs are missing is


that it is the case that once you have sent the Article 50 letter you


have notified your intention to leave and after two years if there


is no agreement we are out of the European Union. And the Right


Honourable gentleman raised the issue of is it irrevocable? He


didn't give his own answer to that. I find it disappointing that the SNP


who take a strong interest in these proceedings have no party view on


whether it is irry vokcable or not? I accept the testimony of the


Attorney-General and the noble lord who was the advocate for the remain


side in the Supreme Court case that it is irry vokcable and the House


has to take its decision in the light of that. And as far as I'm


concerned, it is irrevocable for another democratic reason and that


is that the public was told they were making the decision about


whether we stay in or leave the European Union. And 52% of the


public, if not others, are expecting this House to deliver their wishes.


That was what ministers told this House when we passed the referendum


Act. That is what every voter in the country was told by a leaflet at our


expense sent by the Government to that you the people are making the


decision and so this House rightly, when it was under the Supreme


Court's guidance given the opportunity to have a specific vote


on this matter, over whether we send the letter to leave the European


Union, it voted by a majority of 384 with just the SNP and a few others


in disagreement because it fully understood that this was a decision


the British people had already taken and it fully understood this House


of Commons has to do their bidding. I give way. I thank the Right


Honourable member. Isn't he assuming that all of the people in Europe


that we have been negotiating with are add var series which is perhaps


the wrong standing point to take. Isn't it the case that a vote, a


meaningful vote on the substance of any deal my equally focus the


Government's mind on what it can sell to this House and unite this


House and the people we represent in a very divided country.


Well, he has won that argue. We are going to have a vote on whether we


accept the deal or not. I hope it works out well. My criticism is not


of the Government decision to make that offer. I think it was a very


good offer to make in the circumstances the my criticism was


and is of those members who do not understand that constantly seeking


to undermine expose alleged weaknesses and do damage to the


United Kingdom case is not helpful and it would be very helpful because


many of them have talent and expertise from their many links with


the EU to do more talking about how we can meet the reasonable


objectives of the EU and deal with the unreasonable objectives that


some in the Commission and some member states hold. I give way to


the former leader of the SNP. The position is, despite the right hon


Raja's certainty about irrevok kabletity. The Right Honourable


member to his right-hand side former Attorney-General is not sure, but


doesn't agree with the honourable gentleman and the minister, the


Brexit minister doesn't know. Does this remind you of a certain


question in European history where one mass mad and one was dead and


the other had forgotten. Is that the basis on which the Right Honourable


gentleman wants to take us over a cliff edge? I note that the SNP


hasn't a clue and doesn't want to specify whether it is irrevocable or


not. Can I just remind him that the


Supreme Court did not rule on the matter.


It clearly did rule on the matter because the reason it found against


the Government was because they deemed it to be irrevocable.


On this supreme red herring it doesn't matter whether the ECJ think


Article 50 is irrevocable or not, the British people have determined


that it is an irrevocable decision. I think that was a helpful


intervention. This legal wrangle is fascinating how those who wish to


resist or delay or cancel our departure from the EU are now


flipping their legal arguments since three or four weeks ago when they


were clear it was irrevocable. He is a man of coverage and he has a


long fine history of supporting sovereignty of this place. He says


that the Government is going to give us a vote in the event of a deal.


But why doesn't he agree with us, me, whoever, over here and indeed


over there, who want the same vote, sovereignty of this place in the


event of no deal being struck by the Government despite their finalest


efforts? That's the vote we have on second reading of this Bill. If you


are at all worried about leaving the EU, you should clearly not have


voted for this Bill on second reading. And that's the point of the


irrevocable debate. I give way. Can I just clarify and take him back


to his comments on his blog post in November 2012 when he argued in


favour of a referendum at the beginning of the process and at the


end. He just said he didn't think there should be a referendum on


whether we should leave the European Union. However, he did not


therefore, exclude his view perhaps still being that there should be a


referendum on the terms of the deal. Will he clarify whether he thinks


the people should have the final say?


No, I don't think on this occasion, 2012 is 2012 and we were trying all


sorts of things to try and get us out of the European Union and we


found one that worked and I'm grateful that we found one that


worked and now is now and you have to speak to the current conditions


and the state of the argument. It depends on what the two options


are. The honourable gentleman over to the other side of the House is


clear, his choices are you accept the deal or you stay in the European


Union. Although I was on the Remain side of the argument, there was an


unconditional question on that ballot paper. It said leave or


remain. My side of the argument lost. I accept that. We are leaving.


He really wants to re-run the referendum all over again and I


don't think that's acceptable. My final point is I do think people


are trying to make the negotiations far more complicated and long-winded


than we need. Because of the Prime Minister's admirable clarity and the


12 points we don't need to negotiate borders, money, taking back control


and sorting out our own laws and getting rid of ECJ jurisdiction.


That's mandated by the British people and that's something we do.


What we are going to be negotiating is just two things. One is there any


Bill at the end of it when we leave that we have to pay? May answer is


simply no, of course, there isn't. There is no legal power in the


treaties to charge Britain by bill and there is no legal power for any


minister to make a payment to the EU over and above the legal payment of


our contributions up to the date of our exit and the other thing that


the Government needs to sort out is, our future trading relationship with


the European Union where we will offer them the generous offer let's


carry on as we are and register it as a Free Trade Agreement. If they


don't like that, most favoured nation terms under the WTO is fine.


That's how we trade with the rest of the world. Very successfully at a


profit, at the moment, and so they should relax understand it could be


a lot easer why and there will not be economic damage. The Government


has taken an admirable position and it made wonderful concessions to the


other side and I hope they will accept them because they have had an


impact on this issue. I'd like to speak to new clauses 28,


54 and 99 standing in my name and that of other honourable and Right


Honourable colleagues. New clause 28 is about the sequencing of votes on


final terms. It's the issue on which we've had a concession this


afternoon from the minister. New clause 54 is about how to secure


extra time if we need it in our negotiations with the EU and new


clause 99 embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the process. I was


disappointed, I'm pleased to follow the honourable member for Wokingham,


but I was disappointed that he didn't come clean to the House on


the fact that he has alternative an alternative Parliamentary process


which he hopes to use to secure the kind of Brexit he wants. He has not


referred to another blog which he has written recently in which he


wrote, "Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a college.


All the time you belong to the college you have to pay fees. When


you depart, you have no further financial obligations. ." ." Putting


that to one side, he has not read the excellent paper by Alex Barker


of the Financial Times which points out the obligations that we will


fall into three categories, legally binding budget commitments and


contingent liabilities which indeed are arguable. I'm going to make a


little bit more progress. What the honourable member for Wokingham has


also pointed out and he's right about this, ministers can only


authorise spending and sign cheques with Parliamentary approval. He's


right about that. And it's right that we should have that say, but,


of course, what it means is that he's hoping that he can use that


moment to veto the withdrawal arrangements and scupper the kind of


future relationship which might be more constructive and more


productive. In second reading, the honourable member said like all


divorces it will be a trade off between access and money, but for


the honourable member for Wokingham and his friends, there isn't a trade


off, he doesn't want access and he doesn't want money either. Now, if I


can just return to new clause 54 which calls for extra time.


Honourable members have raised the need for extra time if Parliament


has declined the final terms. One in which the Government has not managed


to complete the negotiations within 24 hours specified in Article 50.


This is more likely than not. Almost everyone who has looked at this


matter in detail is incredulous at the idea that we can complete the


negotiations in 24 months. The record for completing trade deals is


not good and there are many more strands to this negotiation. It


would be patently absurd to flip to a damaging situation without an


agreement if we could see once we got into the negotiations and we


have the detailed work schedule that a further six or 12 months would


bring us to a successful conclusion. Similarly, it's possible that the


minister's optimism is well founded, but the while the negotiation have


been completed the Parliamentary process hasn't and in that instance


too we ought to have extra time. New clause 99 addresses a different


matter. It embeds Parliamentary sovereignty in the approval of the


final terms of withdrawal. It ensures that the UK with draws on


terms approved by Parliament. This was a major plank of the Brexit


campaign bringing back control and restoring Parliamentary sovereignty.


New clause 99 is the fulfilment of that promise, the working out in


practise of what was promised. The Prime Minister has already said that


Parliament should have a vote at the end of the process. New clause 99


strengthens that promise by requiring primary legislation to


give effect to any agreement on arrangements for withdrawal and even


more importantly, on the future relationship. This is important as


it means Parliament does not just have to give a metaphorical


thumbs-up which as my Right Honourable friend the member has


said could be meaningless. Instead, Parliament can undertake line by


line scrutiny. Brexit has major constitutional political economic


and social consequences. It is right that Parliament approves the way it


is done. Article 50 paragraph one states that


a member state may decide to withdraw from the union in


accordance with its own constitutional requirements. The


Supreme Court said in their judgment withdrawal makes a fundamental


change to the UK's constitutional arrangements. The UK constitution


requires such changes to be affected by Parliamentary legislation. In


line with the Supreme Court judgment new clause 99 in Parliamentary


approval as a constitutional requirement which the EU must


respect. New clause 99 also deals with the issue raised by the


Honourable member at the beginning of the debate, what we do in the


absence of any agreement. Either the Prime Minister's negotiations will


succeed in reaching a satisfactory conclusion or they will not. New


clause 99 provides for both scenarios. Legislation in the second


as well as the first. So that Parliament is in control and decides


the basis for leaving. The new clause does not block Brexit, it


does not slow down the negotiations, I voted to give the Bill a second


reading, my constituents are Leave voters, this is about Parliament


having sovereign control over the process. I am grateful for tabling


and speaking to this amendment, I think it's very important in terms


of the concerns expressed on all sides of the house about the


so-called concession offered early, can she confirmed she will push her


amendment to the vote? I may wish to test the will of the house on this


new clause when we come to the end of the debate. I think most rational


people would say the new relationship is more important than


the terms of withdrawal. She said a moment ago that new clause 99 does


not seek to delay our derail the leaving process. In the event of


section B of her new clause coming about, namely no deal, if Parliament


voted against it doesn't be effective new clause 99 clearly mean


that we would actually stop the process of leaving and thereby deny


the effect of the referendum? I do not think it does mean that and I


think that depends on whether extra time had been agreed with the


European Union or not. I think if he refers back to article 50 he will


see that we may get an extension of the other member states agree to


give us that unanimously. They may, they may not. As we stand here today


it's quite difficult to project ourselves forward into the situation


we will find in two years' time. Doubly grateful, but doesn't she


agree that in the event they do not give us extra time by mutual


agreement and in the event that Parliament has rejected withdraw


without an agreement, then the effect of section B of her new


clause is very clearly that the referendum result will be negated by


Parliament and doesn't that go against what she is voting for? I


don't think it does because it allows open the possibility of the


government going back to the drawing board and making a further new


arrangement. But as I say, I think for us now, when we have not


embarked on this, when we don't know what the deals are, it's extremely


difficult... Isn't it the case and that she agree with me that many of


the other 27 countries will be going to their Parliament's for approval,


for their approach to these negotiations and surely it would


strengthen our government's hand if the government involved themselves


in a process within this Parliament that could maximise the support


coming on all sides of the house for the government's approach and why


isn't that seen as a strength? I could not agree more, we know Angela


Merkel has to get parliamentary mandate for the way she conducts


herself in all her negotiations in the European Union and some of us


have tried over the years to improve the quality of our European


scrutiny. But it seems we are now only focusing it when we are about


to leave. I am grateful, assuming the house agrees this amendment, and


we do trickle Article 50 on the 31st of March and we do vote against the


deal and the commission and the European Parliament say sorry that


the deal you have, like it or lump it, what can we do about it? They


don't care, we haven't got these powers to stop them imposing the


deal they want to put on us once we've triggered Article 50. I think


what the Honourable gentleman is arguing is the same as the


Honourable member for walking, that Article 50 is irrevocable. If you


look at Article 50 paragraph three you will see it says unless the


European Council in agreement with the member states unanimously decide


to extend the period, this can happen. It will depend on how the


negotiations are undertaken, where we have got to and on the torn. --


on the torn. The Treaty of Lisbon sets out the term, whether it is


irrevocable or not is down to the weakness of the Treaty of Lisbon.


But some of the best deals reached in the EU have been at the 11th hour


and the one thing which will concentrate the minds of all


involved in these negotiations are the fact they had to happen by March


2019 or it will go on and on and on? Well, I don't think the threat of


the cliff edge is a positive in these negotiations. And I note the


Chancellor of the Exchequer has described this as a second-best


option and the white paper also says that crashing out is a second-best


option. Actually I think it's the worst option. What new clause 99


does is to level up the playing field so as well as having the vote


on the withdrawal terms and the money we will also be able to have


detailed scrutiny for this house on the future relationship. I have


consulted my constituents on the Brexit they want. They do not want


the cliff edge option, there are all sorts of things about Europe which


they light even though it was a majority leave voting constituency.


They like the customs union, the social chapter, cooperation and


collaboration. They particularly like the arrest warrant. Indeed. She


says she would like collaboration and supporting the government is


negotiation, does she think it's a good idea in a negotiation to say we


think we owe you a lot of money, tell us how much or is it better to


say I don't think we owe you anything. My experience of


negotiating is that one of the most important thing is that we


understand what the people on the other side of the table thank and I


think that's absolutely profound to making a success of this. It's not


to say we are going to give the person on the other side of the


table everything they want but we do need to be open to listening to what


they want as we go forward. Going back to a point about the different


approaches the European states adopted a negotiation, my


understanding, I am not a lawyer so I hesitate in the face of such


eminent legal presence in this chamber, but isn't it because in


countries like Germany where they have a legal culture where when they


make treaties they are directly applicable without further


legislation, but we have to legislate things into effect so is


that why they take a tougher approach for the authorise things


because once the government has signed up to the treaty it


automatically becomes law? I don't think this is an opportunity for a


seminar on the political institutions of the Federal


Republic. What I think is that new clause 99 is about embedding what is


basic to the British constitution as bound by the Supreme Court which is


parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process. In the end the


referendum was about trust. It was about the kind of settlement that


most voters want. I know what kind of Brexit deal my voters want, I


think new clause 99 is the best way to give it to them. Thank you ladies


and gentlemen. I hope the house will allow me to just mention the fact


that today is indeed the 7th of February which is 25 years to the


day from the signing of that fateful Maastricht Treaty and I am glad, I


see my right honourable friend looking over at me with a wry smile


on his face because of course I don't doubt for a minute he will


recall he once said, I hope I am not mistaken, that he had not read the


treaty but maybe he never said anything of the kind. I would be


more than happy to accept that. But I did eventually put down that


something like a or so amendments and I voted against it 47 or 50


times. I have to say I am not going to vote against this under any


circumstances whatsoever and indeed it's the first occasion in relation


to any European legislation since 1986 which included the single


European act where I put down a sovereignty amendment and I was not


even allowed to have it selected for debate which I found very difficult


to accept that the time. But the reality is we are now, we have moved


well ahead, we have now had a referendum which was accepted by 6-1


in this house. We have also had a vote on this very bill which was


passed by 498, 500 if you include the tellers, to 114 to agree the


principal of this bill. That is why I now move onto the next question, I


would like to make this other point that when I look at these new


clauses and I think in deference to other people who wish to speak,


going through the intricacies of these vast number of new clauses is


not going to help us very much. For a very simple reason that the bottom


line is that it would effectively give a veto to override the result


of a referendum. It's as simple as that. I would be happy to. Did he


not just say he had put down 150 amendments of his own back? Surely


he is diffusing his own argument? The whole point of this places to


challenge other point of principle things we don't believe in and that


is what we are trying to do and he should be supporting us. I am so


glad that the honourable lady has made that point because of course


the difference between what I was doing in those days and what is


happening now is that we were actually arguing against the


government's policy to implement European government which is what


the Maastricht treaty said and which by the way the electorate in the


referendum have now accepted. And the second point is that we were


arguing for a referendum which we've now got. So my amendments were


moving in the right direction in line with what the government have


now agreed and what the people themselves have also agreed. I will


give way. Clearly enjoying his day in the sun. I did not vote for the


referendum legislation like the right honourable member, but could


he tell us of his 40 years of campaigning what regard he has had


to the two thirds of people who when he started actually voted for the UK


to remain in the European Union? I can only say that in our democratic


system when 6-1 of this house and the House of Lords as well vote in


favour of a referendum by sovereign act of Parliament and give the


people in his constituency as well as in mine, not to mention


Stoke-on-Trent on which there is going to be quite an interesting


test in a few days' time, that the fact is that the decision was given


to those people by act of Parliament and they made that choice to leave.


That is definitive and I do not see any purpose I have to say and I am


not going to waste time on some of the intricate arguments we have


heard so far, many of which I think are going round in circles. The


question is do we implement the decision of the United Kingdom or


not, the answer is that we do and we must and that was conceded by this


house and all, almost everybody, I say with great respect to my right


honourable friend who did not, but the bottom line is we are giving


effect to the decision of the United Kingdom electorate.


He himself was one of these two-thirds back in 1975 when he


voted for the European Community. So all of these years he was


campaigning against the sovereignty against that decision and indeed he


was campaigning against his own sovereignty and against his own


decision! That's politics! As the honourable


gentleman knows only too well because he has a similar experience


with respect to his position with regard to Scotland. So the bottom


line is this, we are faced with a simple decision which is going to be


decided at a vote later today. I imagine. It maybe it will be p nart


tomorrow as well and then there will be a third reading and all these


attempts in my judgment to produce different versions of delay will


effectively, I hope, be overridden by the vote that's taken by this


House as a whole in line with a decision that was taken by the


British people which is the right way to proceed. I would just like to


add one other point though with respect to the Bill itself. I'm in


no way criticising the selection of amendments because I think it is


entirely right that we should have an opportunity to look at a variety


of perm tass before that vote is cast, but I have to remind the House


that this Bill, which was passed by 498 to 114 simply says to confer


power on the Prime Minister to notify under Article 50 of the


treaty and European Union, the United Kingdom's intention as


expressed by the referendum itself, to withdraw from the EU. And clause


1 simply says and no more, "The Prime Minister may notify under


Article 50 (2) on the treaty of the European Union the United Kingdom's


intention to withdraw interest the EU. It goes on to say to put this


matter to bed in case anyone tries to argue this could be overridden by


some other European Union gambit. This section which we've passed


already in principle has effect despite any provision made by or


under the community Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment. In


other words nothing is to stand in its way about which emulates from


the European Union and that's a very simple proposition and this Bill is


short because it should be short. I would like to make this last point


and that's to look back at what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme


Court made a judgment on one simple question - should it be by


prerogative that we express this intention to withdraw and notify


under Article 50 or should it be Bill? There was a big battle. Many


people took differing views. We respect the outcome of the Supreme


Court's decision and that is why we've got this Bill. The fact is


that that is final. But in paragraphs 2 and 3 of that very


judgment the court itself made it clear what this Bill was meant to be


about and it was whether it should be by Bill or prerogative and they


said by Bill. What they also added and these are my last words for the


moment on this subject and it's this - they said it was about one


particular issue and that's the one I mentioned. They then said it has


nothing to do with the terms of withdrawal. It has nothing to do


with the method. It has nothing to do the timing and it has nothing to


do with the relationship between ourselves and the European Union. A


new clause 1 spends its entire wordage going into the very


questions the Supreme Court said this decision was not about. So this


new clause and the other ones are all inconsistent both with the


Supreme Court decision, also with the decisions that were taken on the


second reading of the Bill, of course... Point of order. Surely new


clause 1 which we're debating is in order or we wouldn't be debating it?


This is a matter for the chair. I'm sure it is in order, the problem is


whether we vote for it or not of the and there is extremely good reasons


for not doing so. In addition, every single element of new clause 1 and


the other amendments are all designed and these are all


honourable people, all honourable gentlemen on both sides of the


House, some of them are Right Honourable. I simply make this point


that they know perfectly well what they're doing. They're trying to


delay, obstruct and prevent this Bill from going through and I say


shame on you. Thank you very much. An honour to


follow the honourable gentleman who has fought his corner for 40 odd


years. I intend to fight mine, but not for as long as that. I beg to


move in the name of my Right Honourable. Amendment 43 concerns


democracy at the end of this process as well as the beginning of it. It


would require the Prime Minister to look at the overwhelming case for a


people's vote on the final exit package that this Government


neglects with Brussels after triggering Article 50. On 23rd June


last year, a narrow majority voted to leave the European Union although


I deeply regret that outcome, I am a democrat, I accept it, but voting


for departure is not the same as voting for destination. So now, the


Government should give the British people a decision referendum to be


held when the EU negotiation is concluded. Now, I will admit that


mandate referendum and decision referendums are not phrases that I


have used before in this context. Because they're not really my words


at all. They are the words used by the current Secretary of State for


Exiting the European Union who himself made the case very


eloquently in 2012 for the Liberal Democrat policy today for there to


be a referendum on the deal at the end of the process. I will happily


give way. On 11th May of last year, that this


was a once in a generation decision, was he doing straightforward with


voters? The Government is intending it to be a once in a generation


opportunity as the honourable peb has proved. Sometimes you have to


fight for two generations or the thing thaw believe in. If you have


the courage of your convictions then you keep going. Can I quote the


Brexit Secretary directly? I would not want to para phrase or risk


misquoting him. To quote him directly, the aim of this strategy a


strategy of two referendums on a mandate referendum and a decision


referendum is to give the British people the final say. But it is also


to massively reinforce the legitimacy and negotiating power of


the British negotiating team. I don't think I'll say this all that


often during this process, but I completely and utterly agree with


the Brexit Secretary and indeed as we have learned earlier on, that


those words were endorsed the following day on his blog by the


member for Wokingham who we have discovered didn't really mean it. He


was just saying it at the time as a ruse.


Can I tell him why he's wrong in this matter? If we were to give on


the face of the Bill a second referendum at this stage that would


tie the hands of negotiators. We could only be offered a bad deal


because it would be in the hands of the people we were negotiating with


to drive the British people to reject it and it would be a failed


policy from the start. I'm grateful to him for his intervention. I have


to say though that the logic of his argument is that the minister


shouldn't have made the offer for this House to have a say either at


the end of the deal. And if you are in a position where you're about to


go over a cliff to not give yourself the opportunity to not go over the


cliff that's the ultimate negotiating weakness as the Brexit


Secretary rightly pointed outed four and a bit years ago.


He really must correct the record. I did not make the offer flippantly or


not intending to see it through in 2012. It was a fair offer which was


not taken up. I with all my colleagues then made a different


offer in 2015 which was accepted and we are pursuing.


We would no way which to impune the Right Honourable's integrity. It was


a method to get the outcome. He is therefore, I guess, the hard Brexit


equivalent of Malcolm X by any means necessary. If I can make a little


bit of progress I would be grateful. I would be very grateful. I think it


is true that this is an argument that absolutely began with


democracy. It cannot now in all honesty end with a stitch-up. This


it was especially true given that the Lee campaign offered no plans,


no instructions, no prospectus, no vision of what out would look like.


I was a Remainor as well. I regret the result. Does the honourable


gentleman agree with Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary, that


a second referendum raises a lot of fundamental problems? We are dealing


with a lot of fundamental problems in any event. The bottom line is


this - the reality is we are not talking about a second referendum.


One would argue that the referendum on 23rd June was a second


referendumment we are arguing for a referendum on the terms of the deal.


Something that has not been put to the British people even once.


I'm grateful for the honourable member giving way. He says we'll get


to a cliff edge. His offer of a referendum is no choice. He would


either have to vote for it or vote for against it. If you voted against


it, you would have that cliff edge that people are trying to avoid? We


are offering an opportunity for them not only to have the final say of


the deal, but having looked over that cliff edge to say no thanks and


to remain in the European Union. That's aly jt mat and democratic


offer for a party to make. Whilst it is legitimate to take an alternative


point of view, it is fully democratic. I want to make a clear


point here and I'll make progress if colleagues do not mind. You see I


want to give credit here, there is a few of them here now. A little bit


of credit to our SNP colleagues in this House here today. Because


during the Scottish independence referendum they were able to produce


a 670 page paper, a White Paper, on exactly what leaving the United


Kingdom would look like. Now, of course, I didn't agree with them,


but at least the people of Scotland knew what it was they were voting


for and what it was they would be rejecting. If that vote had gone the


other way in 2014, there would have been no need for a second vote then


on the independence deal away from the United Kingdom. Now, this


Government is going to take some monumental decisions over the next


two years. I still believe that it will be impossible for them to


negotiate a deal that is better than the one we currently have inside the


European Union. But these negotiations will happen and a deal


will be reached. And when all is said and done, someone will have to


decide whether the deal is good enough for the people of Britain.


Surely the only right and logical step is to allow the people to


decide whether it is the right deal for them, their families, their


jobs, and our country, not politicians in Whitehall or


Brussels, not even this House, but the people. No one in this


Government, no one in this House, no one in this country has any idea


what the deal the Prime Minister will agree. It is completely


unknown. I'll give way. Does he share my surprise at the resistance


to his perfectly sensible suggestion of a ratification referendum given


that the whole hallmark of a leave campaign was about taking back


control? Surely that means control for the British people, not just


control for the MPs? That's an excellent point. It seems bizarre


that having tried to claim, take back control, that very effective


slogan that was used, they now wish to seed control to those occupying


the 21st century of smoke filled rooms in Brussels and Whitehall to


have a stitch-up imposed on the British people. He will remember his


predecessor produced a leaflet saying only the Liberal Democrats


will offer a real referendum. I presume they had no idea of the


implications if the people voted to come out at that stage he said it


was a once in a generation vote. He is saying we should have a mandate


referendum and a terms referendum. So when will he be saying if those


two go through, we should have a are you really sure about that


referendum? He seems to be under the impression


that democracy is a one-hit game. Somehow if you believe passionately


in what you believe in, you have to do give in. He and I both sat on


this side of the chamber during the last five years of the Labour


administration. When the Labour Party won its big majorities in 97,


2001 and 2005, did he give in and say it would be frustrating for


people to stop fighting the Conservative cause? He didn't. It's


right to respect the will of the people, but it's to disrespect the


will of democracy when you give in. I have said before, his approach is


Hotel California, you can check out but never leave. He wants people to


vote and vote again until he gets a result he agrees with. The British


people have voted and we have to leave the European Union and


implement the will of the British people. I will come onto that in a


moment. I don't think it is in any enacting the will of the British


people to consistently refused the British people to have the right to


have the say on the deal that will affect generations to come and which


none of us here know what it will look like. He will know that I


support the position that he is articulate in in amendment 43, but


in light of the concession we have heard from the government today,


does he share my concern that at the end of this negotiation the choice


this Parliament will have is between accepting the deal that the


government offers, possibly a bad deal, or falling out of the European


Union on WTO terms at a cost of ?45 billion of our GDP. Do you not think


the British people might be worried about that and might want to have a


say about it? He continues to make a very strong case and be bold and


putting it across, not just today. There is no doubt whatsoever that


whatever the British people voted for on the 23rd of June, for


certain, they did not vote to make themselves poorer and it would be


absolutely wrong for that game of poker to end up as a consequence, a


dropping off the cliff edge without the British people having the right


to have their say. I will give way. His argument would have force if the


question on the 23rd of June had been, to give the government a


mandate to negotiate bring back a deal. It wasn't. It was a


conditional question, do you want to leave or remain. People listened to


the arguments about the risks and they decided to leave. He can't


accept that and I think a Democrat should be able to. I think he's


quite wrong. Undoubtedly, I have said clearly, the majority of people


voted to leave the European Union on the 23rd June. The government has a


mandate to go along at that point. What they didn't do, because they


were not asked, was to decide that the destination. As the current


Brexit secretary quite rightly said in his speech four years ago,


destination and departure are different things. It's right for


Democrats to make the case of the British people not to have their


world taken from them and have a stitch up imposed upon them. I will


give way one more time. What would happen if we did have a second


referendum and the British people rejected that offer. Where would


that leave us? The wording on that ballot paper would be up for


discussion. Our vision is we would accept the terms of the governments


negotiation, or the United Kingdom would remain in the European Union.


I will give way last time. We have no problem in supporting his new


cause, if as the UK Government believes in the White Paper, that


they have 65 million people behind their negotiating position, what are


they afraid of? It seems to me people who have been arguing for the


sovereignty of Parliament in this country, and to enforce the will of


the people and all of that, to now be so scared of the people troubles


me and it makes me worried they don't have the courage of their


convictions. Looking forward, and I want to make some progress now


because others need to get in, the deal must be put to the British


people for them to have their say because that's the only way to hold


the government to account. We already know in all likelihood that


48% of the British people will not like the outcome of the deal, and we


now know the kind of Brexit this Prime Minister intends to pursue,


you can pretty much bet that perhaps half of the 52% will not like it


either. They will feel betrayed and ignored. The only way to achieve


democracy and closure for both leave and remain voters is for there to be


a vote at the end. The government claims to be enforcing the will of


the people, but I would put you that is nonsense. If I was being very


generous, the best you could say is that the government is interpreting


the will of the people. Some would say they are taking a result and


twisting it to mean something quite different. The Conservatives won a


mandate in the mate with teeth -- in the May 2015 general election. In a


manifesto they pledged a referendum but also to keep Britain in the


single market. That second pledge, to keep us in the single market was


not caveat it, not contingent on the outcome of any referendum. It was a


clear pledge. The government are now breaking that pledge. They are


making a choice. I have given way an awful lot. They are making a choice.


They choice that the British people have not given them permission to


make. And a choice that isn't just damaging to our country, but also


divisive. The Prime Minister had the opportunity to pursue a form of


Brexit that United our country, that achieved consensus and reflected the


closeness of the vote, that sought to deal with and heal the divisions


between Leave and Remain. Instead, she chose to pursue the hardest and


most divisive and destructive form of Brexit. I would say she is


tearing us out of the single market and leaving us isolated against the


might of world superpowers. I passionately believe that ending our


membership of the world's biggest free market will do untold damage to


this country, to the prospect and opportunities, especially for young


people who voted heavily to remain in this country. It's vital for our


economy, and that's why my party refuses to stop making the case that


this deal must include membership of the single market. Those who settle


for access to the single market rather than membership, are, I


respectfully suggest, waving the white flag to this assault on


British business and the cost of living for every family in the


country. But giving the government is making a set of extreme and


arbitrary choices that were not on the ballot paper last June, the only


thing a democrat can do is to give the people the final say. If the


Prime Minister is so confident that what she is planning is what people


voted for, then why would she not give them a vote on the final deal?


I won't give way, I have given away plenty of times and will bring my


remarks to an end for everyone else's say. The final deal will not


be legitimate. It will not be consented to, and our country will


not be achieving closure if it is imposed on the British people


through a stitch up in the corridors of power in Brussels and Whitehall.


Democracy does mean accepting the will of the people at the beginning


of the process and at the end of the process. Democracy means respecting


the majority and democracy also means not giving up on your beliefs,


rolling over and conceding when the going gets tough. You keep fighting


for what you believe is right and that is what Liberal Democrats will


do. We agree with the Brexit secretary, let's let the people have


their say, let's let them take back control. Oliver Letwin. May I just


start by correcting the record. I had something to do with the


production of the manifesto the Right Honourable gentleman was


clearly unable to read in the time available to him. It made no such


assertion. It was perfectly clear that what it said about the single


market was to be superseded where a referendum results, which we didn't


anticipate, but the British people would take is out of the EU as a


whole. And I regret that. I voted to remain, I campaigned to remain. But


the fact is the British people voted to leave. What is interesting, I


think, about this debate, and it has been very interesting, is that it is


one of those moments in which the cloak of obscurity is lifted from an


issue and it becomes clear what is actually the dynamic going on. And


what is actually going on here, is we have reached the crunch issue. We


have reached the point at which we are discussing whether the effect of


the Supreme Court judgment should be that Parliament has the option at


some date in the future of overruling the British people and


cancelling the leaving of the EU, or whether it should not have that


ability. My right honourable friend, the minister, has made it perfectly


clear that there will be a vote. But the vote, he has also made it


perfectly clear is the vote between the option of accepting it


particular set of arrangements negotiated by Her


Majesty'sgovernment, and not excepting those arrangements and


thereby leaving the EU without either in the one case a withdrawal


agreement, or in the other case, an arrangement for the future. My right


honourable friend is right. I think we can be optimistic we can reach


such agreements, but we don't know if we will. Following the logic of


the referendum decision, that the judgment of this house should simply


be about whether the deal is good enough. To warrant doing a deal, or


whether, on the contrary, we should leave without a deal. That is a


completely different... To the proposition which, in various


guises, some are exempt entirely from this the opposition front


bench, but some on the opposition benches are putting, which is that


Parliament should instead by one means or another be given the


ability to countermand the British people's decision to leave your Mac


by giving a vote on whether we should leave or shouldn't leave, or


in the proposition of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, whether the


people should have a second referendum on whether we should


leave or not to leave. Either of those propositions is a clear


determination to undo the effect of the referendum. And we have now


reached the point at which that has come out into the open. I will give


way to the former leader of the SNP. Can we just instruct the government


to negotiate a better deal? The phrase in the Conservative manifesto


which he didn't write was, we say yes to the single market. That


sounds pretty unequivocal. We were at that moment a member of the EU


and we said yes to the single market and I campaigned for the single


marketing campaign to remain part of the EU. That was the government's


position in the referendum. But we'll is committed to a referendum


and the point of committing to the referendum, and we made that


perfectly clear in able range of speeches and the manifesto, was that


if the British people voted to leave, we would leave. It seems to


me perfectly clear that the word leave means leave. It does not mean


remain. And what the right honourable gentleman, who is an


expert parliamentarian has been arguing, in many ways over a long


time, more explicitly the leader of the Liberal Democrats has been


arguing, is that leave ought to be translated as remain. I deny this is


a translation that fits the in the site which is susceptible. It seems


to me perfectly clear that those of us who campaign to leave and those


who campaigned to remain have a choice, we can either accept the


referendum result rejected. I accept it. The gentleman opposite, maybe


some honourable members who are not gentleman, but winning, opposite,


also take that view. It may be that some take the view we should reject


the referendum result. It's a perfectly honourable view. The


leader of the Liberal Democrats was in effect offering that we should


reject the result openly. I don't decry his ability to argue that, but


everybody arguing that should come out openly, as he did, and not


pretend they are trying to present some method of parliamentary


scrutiny. It's nothing of the kind. They are trying to present a means


of undoing the result of the referendum. This house has actually


voted conclusively not to undo the result of the referendum and I think


the house was right to do that. Whether it was right not to do that


with its eyes open, and should not be dialled by anyone into passing


amendments that have an effect that it has not been signed up to buy


anybody. Can I just point out to him that it is absolutely clear, and I


want to clarify from my point of view, that this place, and indeed


Parliament as a whole, and indeed the courts, have no right whatsoever


to bar the will of the people. It would be absolutely wrong to


overturn the outcome of the referendum last June. I am merely


asking for the British people to have a final say on the deal and


should they reject the deal, to stay in the EU. And voting to say you


vote to leave the EU does not mean voting to leave the single market.


It didn't for Norway or Switzerland. There are two issues here. One is


whether the question of leaving the EU means leaving the single market.


It doesn't. I argued in a referendum when I was persuading those to


remain, I continue to take the view and of all is taken the view that


leaving the EU does entail leaving the single market, which I regret,


but in my view it doesn't tail it. Leaving that aside, I accept that


the proposition of the Liberal Democrats is that it should not be


this house directly that countermand is the referendum, but there should


be a second referendum to countermand it. One of the points


made is right. The proposition The Right Honourable made, a Beverley


decent proposition, however many times it takes, the British people


should go on being asked to reverse their original decision, because one


should never go on giving up to do so because the right answer is to


remain. As a Beverley respectable proposition but not the proposition


of a Democrat. It's the proposition of eight Kwarasey that knows the


answer and believes the people that vote otherwise are misguided and


they need to be misled time after time to revise their opinion by


whatever means until at last they give the answer which is required.


That is unfortunately, I point out to the right honourable gentleman,


the very dynamic that has given rise to this whole problem. We are at


this juncture today because there was a government that passed the


Maastricht Treaty against the will of the British people without


consulting them, that took us into a form of the European Union to which


they had never consented, that has led to a set of results that have


eventually produced a democratic result that the right honourable


gentleman and I both dislike, and his answer to that is to go on with


that logic until at last the British people totally lose faith in any


semblance of democracy in this country. I personally cannot accept


that proposition. In the end, much as I would have preferred to remain,


I prefer to be in a country run as a democracy, and which has faith in


its governance and we can only achieve that today by fulfilling the


terms of the referendum. It is a minor point, but I want to


come just braefl to the question of the various knew clauses that are


before us. And they do seem to me to differ. New clause 1 actually is a


fairly innocuous item. I'm delighted that my Right Honourable friend seem


to be indicating that we won't actually be accepting new clause 1


and I'm delighted we won't be accepting it because there is doubt


about whether it is just issuable. It states in it that what has to be


accepted is the statement of the proposed terms of the agreement. If


that's written into the law I suppose that a very clever lawyer


and Lord Pannick and others are very clever lawyers might be able to


mount some kind of judicial review of the question whether the


Government had in fact brought forward a statement of the proposed


terms of the agreement that it was adequate to the intent of the Bill


or the Act. I doubt that that would acurd and therefore, I don't


personally have any very strong feelings about new clause 1. New


clause 99 and new clause 110 about which some honourable members


opposite have spoken are entirely different in character because each


of them actually makes it perfectly clear in two different ways that the


House of Commons would actually be called upon to make a set of


decisions which are both issuable and undermine the leaving of the EU.


In the case of new clause 99, I think notwithstanding the exchange I


had with the honourable lady that it is perfectly clear that if


Parliament found itself in a position in which it had not


approved in her section B the withdrawal without agreement, then


Parliament would have created an appalling conflict of laws because


Article 50 is very explicit. It says the treaty has seize to apply to the


state in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal


agreement or failing that two years after notification. If the EU by


consensus had not extended the period, then the treaties would


seize it apply, but Parliament would prospectively have voted not to


leave. Now, if Parliament has voted not to leave and the treaties don't


apply I'd like to know who in this House could say which of the laws is


superior to the other? So I think new clause 99 is clearly deficient


as a piece of legislation and I hope therefore that those who are


proposing it will take that point and not press it. New clause 110 is


not as bad as 99, though it is very odd, it is very odd because it says


that any new treaty or relationship with the EU mustn't not be concluded


unless the proposed terms have been subject to approval by resolution of


each House of Parliament. Now, it is possible to be subject to approval


without being approved. It seems entirely unclear on the face of new


clause 110 whether it is referring to approval or to the process that


might have led to approval and that itself, of course, would be just


issuable. Quite apart from that bad drafting it is a legal minefield


that it creates because it makes it clear that it is any knew treaty or


relationship request the EU which mustn't be concluded. One possible


relationship is the relationship of not being in the EU and therefore,


it itself arguably at least and this could be contested in court, is


again an opportunity for Parliament to reverse the intent of the


referendum and deny leaving. So what we have in new clauses 99 and 110


which look on the face as if they are as innocuous as new clause 1 are


measures which are neither innocuous and well drafted. They fulfil the


purposes which I have been referring to in the earlier part of my remarks


namely to put Parliament in the position of potentially reversing


the decision of the British people. And therefore, I very much hope that


if my Right Honourable friend is at any time remotely tempted to accept


new clause 1, he will never accept new clause 99 or 110 and we will


resist such amendment should they appear here or in the other place. I


I have two concerns with new clause 1. It is clear the Government needs


to involve Parliament throughout the whole process. The second is we


cannot know all the permutations around which agreement and exit


maybe affected and therefore to legislate for it now before we know


how it is going to end up is premature and would end up risking


binding the hands of the negotiators and the Government. I share my


honourable friend's preference for not legislating in that respect.


There are good reasons why over a very, very long historical evolution


the House of Commons has always resisted legislation that governs


its own proceedings. We have a number of authorities about our


constitution written that the nearest proxmation is the standing


orders of the House of Commons. And that is not a frivolous remarks by


those authorities, it is a true remark and the reason it has arisen


is because we have resisted having legislation that governs the House


of Commons and the reason we've resisted it so avoid the judges


becoming the judges of what should happen in the House of Commons. And


we have in fact invented over a very long period the principle that the


judges don't intervene in the legislature and the legislature


doesn't intervene in the decisions of the judiciary and to legislate


about how the House of Commons proceeds is therefore moving over a


very dangerous line and I'm therefore with my honourable friend


in hoping that we won't accept new clause 1. I'm just saying that if we


were tempted at all to introduce any piece of new legislation at any


stage, it should certainly look like new clause 1 and not new clauses 99


and 110. Those would be to subvert the referendum and that, we cannot


allow. I do have some respect for the


honourable member for West Dorset and I have been in enough Bill


committees to hear some of the arguments. When I hear honourable


members resorting to the oh well, the drafting of this particular


phrase particularly when it came to this question about subject to the


approval of both Houses is somehow an alien concept and something that


we must resist in all circumstances. I hear the last refuge of the


Parliamentary barrel scraper, I think if the honourable member has


arguments against new clause 110 which I would like to move, it is


the amendment in my name, if he has substantive arguments against it,


better engage with those rather than dance around and find second or


third order against. It has been a very interesting debate so far.


There was a moment of excitement I suppose, well in Parliamentary terms


excitement at the beginning when the Brexit minister stood up and said


well, let me in a breathless way give you a concession, I'll indicate


that there is something here that is substantively different and he did


come to the dispatch box and did clarify a little bit further, not


much further than the Prime Minister had done in her speech to Lancaster


House, something about the timing of the vote that Parliament will have,


but of course, the Right Honourable member for Rushcliffe quickly


spotted in the definitions of when a negotiation is concluded, when it is


signed off, there is still a bit of a grey area there when that timing


would come and so, for some small mercies I suppose, many honourable


members might say well, this is some level of progress. However, having


marched us up to the hill in expectation this was a great


concession, I'm afraid as the time has ticked by, as the machines have


gone past, we've kind of marched back done the hill again because


through the probing of many honourable members on both sides of


the House we have since discovered a number of things about that


particular vote. Don't forget what we're trying to do today in this


whole section is secure a meaningful vote, a properly meaningful vote so


Parliamentry sovereignty can come first as the Supreme Court


emphasised in their particular judgment. First of all, when


pressed, the ministers did have to admit that if we ended up in a


situation of no deal the House wouldn't be getting a vote on that


circumstance. That is deeply regrettable because new clause 110


is deliberately drafted to talk about new treat quay or a


relationship and a relationship talks about the connection between


two entities, that connection can be a positive and new one, it can also


be one which has a disjoint within it and so we should have a vote if


that relationship is to include the circumstance of no deal. The


minister said, I will give way in a moment, but the minister said that


we wouldn't be what having a vote on no deal. That's extremely


disappointing of the it is not what I would regard as in the spirit of


the concession that should be sought because we were lobing not just for


a concession on the timing of that Parliamentary vote, but on the scope


of that vote. In other words, the circumstances in which having gone


through the negotiations we would find ourselves being able to vote.


It is a little bit as though you could imagine two years of travel,


journey down the road of negotiation, we get to the edge of


the canyon and we have a point of decision. Are we going to have that


bridge across the cash which might be the new treaty? It might take us


to the new future or are we going to decide to jump off into the unknown,


into the abyss and Parliament should have the right to decide that point.


This is the concession that I think many honourable members were seeking


and it is not the concession that we received. I'll give way to the


honourable gentleman. He made an extraordinarily important


clarification of his amendment and it is as I suspected and expected


relationship includes the potential of no relationship and therefore, he


is, is he not, putting forward the proposition that Parliament should


be able to reverse the effect of the referendum and seize the United


Kingdom being able to leave the EU? No, it is quite clear that as we saw


in second reading and it is quite clear I think to all concerned that


we will be leaving the European Union. The referendum made that


judgment. That was the question on the ballot paper. The House came to


that particular point of view, but it is important that Parliament


verves that right as the Prime Minister has sort of indicated that


we should be able to have a say on the final deal. Now, this is our


opportunity, this is our final opportunity, our final opportunity


to legislate on the face of the Bill precisely what circumstances those


would be and I have to say, no, I won't give way because I know there


is a lot of honourable members wanting to get in. What was


deplating in the minister's so-called concession which actually


now feels quite hollow was the fact that he then went on to say that if


Parliament did decide to reject or to vote against a draft deal he


wouldn't go back into negotiations. The Government would feel that this


was, "A sign of weakness" Of somehow or another. Personally, I think


that's entirely wrong. If Parliament says with respect to the Government,


this isn't quite good enough, please go back and seek further points of


clarification and further points. That should be a source of strength.


I believe it strengthens the arm of Government for them to be able to


say, "We'd like to do this, but Parliament are keen for a better


deal." It is useful to have that for the Prime Minister. So new clause


110, I believe, is a helpful amendment for the Government and for


the Prime Minister and what was disappointing was that the minister


didn't just say this in response to, you know, pressure from honourable


members. He had it in his script, in his piece of paper, from which he


was reading his remarks. He had pre-prepared the circumstances where


he was going to say that he was not prepared to go back into


negotiations if Parliament declined to give support to those new


arrangements. So we can see that the concession is not quite all that it


is meant to be. One of the things troubling me is


the principle of equivalents. As I understand it, the European


Parliament has the opportunity to vote on the deal before presented to


the European Council and it in effect has the right of veto. My


interpretation is that the deal is therefore sent back to the


negotiating team for further negotiation. Does he agree with me


that one of the strong points here, we have to ensure that those who


voted to leave the EU, have at least the same equivalents of what their


parliament can do with that of the European Parliament? She absolutely


makes an incredibly important point. And one that is in defence of the


sovereignty of our Parliament. It is about putting Britain first and


making sure we do defend and safeguard the rights of our


constituents and make sure that the European Parliament doesn't have an


advantage that we would not. And if the European Parliament has the


opportunity to reject the new relationship, the new arrangements,


then so should we. It's a very simple point. With respect, even if


the Minister were to personally come here and make that verbal


concession. He's a very able minister, but ministers can be here


today and gone tomorrow. Ministers come and go. Having such clarity on


the face of the bill enshrined in the legislation is really important


for honourable members. This is a question that transcends party


political issues. I think he should hear the voice of members from all


sides on this particular issue. We recognise we are going to be leaving


the European Union but we want the best possible deal for Britain.


Parliament is sovereign here. Yes, we have ministers who lead on the


negotiations, but he can't cut Parliament out altogether. It should


be a source of strength for them. A very final intervention. The thing I


really don't understand, and I have been thinking about this since the


point was made by the Right Honourable member for Ponty cracked


and Castleford. When he says can we have a vote in the situation of not


having a deal, the Liberal Democrat leader has been clear in this case


that he would either say yes to the deal, sorry, you if you said no to


the deal you would remain in the European Union. When he says there


would be a vote on a no deal situation, what are the two choices?


Would one of them be remaining in the European Union? My understanding


is that we remain in the European Union until such time as the Article


50 two-year period expires, after which time there is the famous cliff


edge. I'm hoping now we had a partial acceptance from the


government that the vote needs to take place in Parliament


sufficiently early on the draft arrangements, that Parliament would


then have a sick fish and period of time to say to ministers, perhaps we


like 90% of the deal done but we would like to go back to get a


slightly better deal. -- have a significant period. To take


Parliament out of that process altogether would be a great shame. I


would like to move on because honourable members want to get into


this discussion. The question, the wording in New Clause 110 is very


deliberate. We need to take the opportunity the Supreme Court has


given us and also listen to the entreaties of the Prime Minister


herself in her own white paper where I think the 12th of 12 points was to


say that we would not aspire to a cliff edge, that we would try to get


a deal, and this new clause 110 simply seeks to facilitate in many


ways the role Parliament could have in achieving the very thing the


Prime Minister has said she wants. I'm afraid to say to the Minister,


Hobson 's choice, take it or leave it. Source style votes are not


acceptable and not good enough for Parliament. We have to do have a


continued say in this and I would urge the house across the parties to


consider the role that new clause 110 could play in making it a


meaningful vote. Dominic Grieve. It's a pleasure to participate in


this debate. I agree with one comment made by the Honourable


member for Nottingham East in moving his amendment to 110, the problem


that the Devils this debate is that we are in a completely grey and


murky environment. When it comes to ascertaining how this process will


or should unfold. Someone who campaigned for the Remain campaign,


this worried me at the time. But I have to accept the electorate has


spoken. For me, the key issue is, how can I help the government never


get some of the reefs that seem to be present so we can achieve a


satisfactory outcome and try to give effect to the expressed will of the


electorate. The problem we have is that we cannot predict what the


situation is going to be in two years' time. We have no idea what


the political landscape is going to be here in terms of the economic


condition, whether in fact we are doing very well in the run-up to


Brexit or very badly. We cannot predict what the landscape will be


on the European continent and the state of the current union itself


and how it would impact on the negotiations. Nor could we predict


the wider security situation that may exist for our continent. That's


why, it has always seemed to me, that the idea that this house in


some way forgoes its responsibility to safeguard the electorate's


interest because a referendum has taken place, is simply not a view to


which I am prepared to subscribe. And in those circumstances, we have


to do have regard to what the situation might be. We have to do


have regard to the difficulties the government undoubtedly faces also in


its unpredictability, but also to rule nothing out. And to pick up the


point that has been made, I repeat it, because it's my position and I


will hold to it to the end. The public opinion on this matter might


change radically. And this house would be entitled to take that into


account. Equally, I accept that at the moment there is no such


evidence, and it is our duty to get on with the business of trying to


operate with Brexit. How do we introduce safeguards into this


process? There is an ultimate safeguard, this house has the power


to stop the government in its tracks. But that tends to be a


rather chaotic process and leads usually two governments falling from


office. It's an option that one can never entirely rule out in 1's


career in politics, but it's not one I would wish to visit my colleagues


on the front bench. But I have to say it's an important matter and one


of the risks they undoubtedly run in this process is that could happen to


them. We can't exclude it. But actually, it's very much better that


we should have some process by which Parliament can provide input and


influence the matter in a way that facilitates debate and enables us


collectively to come to outcomes which at least we can accept and


which may be in the national interest as we do it. I give away.


On a point of clarification, will my right honourable friend indicate


whether he perceives New Clause 110 as potentially being a vehicle which


if invoked could block Brexit and keep us within the European Union?


Because at the moment, it's not clear to me. I will come clause 110,


the amendment, in just a moment. It's certainly very well-meaning,


but I happen to think there are problems with it and I will explain


what they are in a moment. One of the points that has been made, or


should be made, is that it is usual for government to bring important


treaties to this house for approval before they sign it. It's quite


common is a phenomenon. It's not unusual. Not normally ratified it


signed. There is a long history of doing this on important treaties. In


an ideal world, the obvious course of action, sequentially, is the


white paper, and I'm delighted we succeeded in securing it because it


sets out a plan. The government getting on with the treaty


negotiations. And in our ideal world, I would like to see the


government come back before anything is concluded to ask this house for


its approval. And to indicate what it has succeeded in achieving. The


house would then have to make judgments at that time in relation


to the situation overall. I'm grateful to the Honourable member


for giving way as he takes us through the sequence of this. The


minister indicated that the beginning of the debate that there


was a concession that would make this more meaningful. I don't expect


him to comment, but it appears number ten on our briefing that this


is exactly the same as what the Prime Minister offered in her


Lancaster house speech, and therefore nothing has changed. I


have to say, I don't think I agree with that. I don't know what number


ten may or may not be doing. I had some role in trying to secure the


concession that was read out by the Minister. It is by no means a


perfect concession as far as I am concerned, but I will come on in a


moment to explain some of the difficulties I think that house has.


I give way to the Honourable Lady. The daily Mirror is reporting that


number ten has said that all the concession does is give clarity


around the timing of the vote and nothing else. The timing, it is


absolutely right that there had been indications from the government on a


number of occasions previously that they would allow this house to have


a say. Indeed, I have to say, looking at the matter logically, the


idea we would be deprived of having a say, that is lighting a blue touch


paper and retiring. If a government wishes to bring its self down, then


denying Parliament a say on some really important issue is just not


feasible. I will give way in just a moment. I had some role in trying to


look and see how the government could provide some assurance on the


process. Not perfect, and the Minister has read out what he has. I


have to say to the Honourable Lady, I think it's a significant step


forward, as was said by the Honourable and learn it gentlemen,


the member for Holborn and St Pancras, a significant step forward


on what had been said previously. It has provided to my mind helpful


clarification. Number ten is briefing that there is no real


change. The concession is not a concession. That is number ten it's


self. I can read what's on the paper. I take the view that it is a


significant step forward. I will say no more about it at this time. I


will give way. The house will have its say, the question is the


circumstances under which it has that say, and what is the default


position if it doesn't agree? Can we adjudicate between the daily Mirror,


number ten, the minister in the front bench and the interpretation


of the right honourable gentleman by having something on paper in the


bill so we can all then have an interpretation crystallised around a


central truth. The right honourable gentleman, with characteristic


sagacity goes to the heart and snub of the problem. Is it readily


probable to put on the face of this bill, the intention is set out by


the minister when he read it out at the dispatch box? There are, I'm


afraid, it seems to me, some really good reasons, in fairness to the


Minister and government, why it presents difficulties. The most


obvious difficulty is the finite nature of the negotiating period


under Article 50 will stop one of the things I was interested in is


whether we could secure from the government an undertaking that we


would have a vote at the end of the process before, in fact, the signing


of the deal with the commission. Contrary to what is in amendment


110, the Council of ministers and the commission are not two separate


processes. The commission will sign the initial agreement when the


Council of ministers gives them authority to do it. Then it goes to


the European Parliament for a ratification or approval process,


call you what it will. These are not two separate things. The problem we


run is that if this negotiation follows a pattern, which we have


often had in the course of EU negotiations in running into the


11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second and we are about to drop off


the edge, I confess that I don't particularly wish to fetter the


government's discretion in saying that at that precise moment they


have to say, we are sorry, we have to give a decision until 48 hours


after we have dropped off because we have to get approval from both


houses of parliament. That is a real problem. It's a real problem


inherent in the ghastly labyrinth, from my point of view, into which we


have been plunged. And we have to try to work our way through with


common sense. Was his understanding that what the minister said was that


the deal would be presented to Parliament after it had been agreed


by the commission and the Council, but before it had been agreed by


Parliament. If so, that seems like a really late stage in the process.


And does he think there's a problem if the EU Parliament can send it


back to negotiations, but the UK Parliament can't. There are bound to


be difficulties in this because the whole process of negotiation, as she


is aware from Article 50, is rather one-sided. This is an inherent


difficulty. Let's suppose for a moment that these negotiations are


concluded in 18 months. I would hope in those circumstances the Minister


would say, thank you, but we will not do the first agreement, we want


to go back to both houses of parliament before we agree with the


commission because we have time to do so. But if it is the 11th hour, I


accept the government has a problem. And that problem is not taken into


account in New Clause 110. The preference is for Parliament to


be asked its opinion before any agreement has been signed with the


council on the, the commission on the authority of the council. Does


he accept this 11th hour problem, can easily be got round in the


torturous process of European negotiations stopping the clock is


hardly unknown and if all the member states were agreed that the British


Government had to be given time to get the approval of Parliament they


would allow two or three weeks to' lapse. Now would he also agree that


what we need is something on paper to clarify these highly important


poin? So would he agree with me in inviting the minister to table an


amendment in the House of Lords giving precise effect to whatever


the concession is meant to mean. If we pass new clause 99 or new clause


110 today, it can be replaced with that Government amendment. If they


come up with a better clarification, but what we can't do is leave this


debate continuing for the next two years on what the minister did or


did not mean when he made his statement to the House today.


The Right Honourable gentleman had a very long career. So long in fact


that I think he is capable of recognising the difference between


an intervention and a speech. Dominic Grieve... It would be


helpful if the Government were in a position to amplify on the brief


statement, but also acknowledge and my honourable friend knows this that


just as he expressed it, doing this by means of an amendment is, I


think, going to be difficult. I know Government drafts men have extreme


inagain uity and this maybe an issue which might be taken up, but I think


there are some difficulties because there is a whole series of


conditionalities in it and I don't wish at the moment to fetter the


Government in it's ability to carry out this negotiation. It would seem


a greateror if we do this, because we will undermine the ultimate


outcome to our own detriment. This has been something which worried me


throughout. So for those reasons, it don't want to take up more of the


House's time, for those reasons, my inclination, although I have had


great difficulty over this today and indeed in the days that led up to it


is so accept the assurance that's been given by honourable friend the


minister to be a constructive step forward, but I think he will have to


face up to the fact that this issue isn't going to go away. Even when we


have enacted the legislation and triggered Article 50 this will be a


recurrent theme throughout the whole of the negotiating process and it


will come back much, much harder as we get closer to the outcome and it


becomes clearer from all the leaks that will come from Brussels what


sort of deal or non deal they're going to have. So the Government had


better have a strategy because if the strategy is to avoid this House,


isle afraid I have to say to my honourable friend the Government is


going to fail miserably and I don't want that to happen. I want to try


and guide this process as best I can as a previous law officer towards a


satisfactory conclusion. I'm grateful to my Right Honourable


friend who played a considerable part in this. What the remarks that


the minister do is put an onus on the Government to make sure that a


reporting process of the negotiation is also meaningful because you can't


have a vote at the end of this after 18 months of radio silence so the


negotiating process can be sensible and can be relevant and can give the


House a real feel of what's to happen, if that's not there, the


vote at the end would mean very little. I agree entirely with my


honourable friend and I hope the Government will listen because this


issue is not going to go away and it will keep con coming back whilst


this issue dominates our politics until we have satisfactorily


resolved it. I just want to say as he thanked the


minister, the House ought to thank him. He set out the responsible


version about how to deal with this issue.


I'm grateful. I listened to his speech and some of the things I


might have said he had already said and he approached it from a similar


angle. I will just say this in conclusion at the risk of repeating


myself. Yes, I give way. His speech seems to be predicated on the idea


that the Government can go to and from to Europe and negotiate


something that Parliament might be happy with. Isn't this I don't know


and I actually think that none of us know. You can make some broad


assumptions and there appears to be goodwill to reach a sensible


agreement. You can see how that could be easily derailed by


political pressures and considerations within other EU


states and you can also see and I have to say that the United Kingdom


is at a disadvantage of these negotiations for reasons that are


plainly obvious. But seeing as we have embarked on this course, what


we have got to do collectively is try to apply common sense. I often


don't hear common sense on this issue and frequently I don't seem to


hear it from some members on my own benches who seem fixated on


ideological considerations that will reduce this country to beggary if we


continue with them, but I do consider we have to be rational in


trying to respond to the clearly stated wishes of the electorate.


Until such time we they show they might do as they did between 197 and


a last year that they changed their mind on the subject and even then it


might be a different future and not a return to the past. I will do my


best to support the Government. I welcome the minister's comments and


in the circumstances therefore, I think that they are looking at the


amachinedments the best solution we have this evening and as I say, that


doesn't mean to say that the Government is not going to have to


continue thinking about how it involves this House and otherwise


this House is simply going to involve itself. It is a pleasure to


follow the excellent speech from the member. A chrkically shrewd speech.


I agree wholeheartedly with one of the things he said towards the


beginning of his speech. We cannot allow the fact that there has been a


referendum to absolve this House of Its duty to scrutinise the


Government's progress through these negotiation and to act in the


national interest. I wholeheartedly agree with him about that and it is


that view which is conditioning the entire which in which I'm


approaching this debate. I disagreed with him however about the other


substantive thing he said was in respect of the concession made by


the member for clued, the Brexit minister. I agree that it is a


substantive concession that the Government has made here today. I'm


less Angwin I confess than some of my honourable and Right Honourable


friends about that. It doesn't feel that we have moved much beyond where


we are in the Lancaster House speech. Inasmuch as what is being


offered to the House is a debate right at the end of the process, at


a point we don't know exactly, but seemingly right at the dog days of


the process and a choice at that point between the deal that is on


offer which in my view is likely to be a bad deal because it is


predicated itself on our leaving the single market, and leaving the


customs union and the hard hard Brexit we feared and no deal and if


there is no deal then as the minister has confirmed here today,


what the country will face is exiting the European Union on WTO


terms. Now what does that mean for the country? Well, according to the


Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, it would mean a


reduction of around ?9 billion worth of trade per annum for the United


Kingdom. That's the view of the WTO. What does it mean according to the


Treasury? Well, before the referendum the Treasury said that


they thought it would mean an annual reduction in the receipts for this


country of ?45 billion per year. That's the reduction in GDP that


they saw. It is an eye watering sum. It would be equivalent to putting


ten pence on the basic rate of income tax in this country and


that's why above all else, we have to consider incredibly carefully


where we're going because if we end up at that point, it will be


disaster for Britain the I said I wanted to speak in favour of


amendment 43 by the honourable member for west moorland and


Lonsdale. I would have liked to have been able to speak in respect of my


amendment, new clause 52 or new clause 131 by the Liberal Democrats


which would have gone further and insisted on there being a second


referendum. Apparently we can't have those amendments because they would


mean a money commitment that there isn't in respect of this Bill, but


it seem to me to be ironic when the potential cost of falling out of the


European Union is ?45 billion, not to spend ?100 million on making sure


we don't do that is a pretty good deal. On the particular point, there


is amendment 44 to be voted on on Wednesday which does have a


provision for a referendum evaluation that doesn't therefore


need to be costed and therefore, it is in order and people who want a


second referendum on the film say can vote for that amendment. I'm


pleased with that. I hope we will vote on that tomorrow. The reason I


am insistent that we need to consider once more a second


referendum, a con fir matetry ratify katetry referendum, whatever you


want to call it, I believe that Brexit is going to be a disaster for


our country. One that is going to cost us and future generations in


lost trade, in lost revenues, and in lost opportunities. I believe that


it is a disaster for us to be dividing the country as we have done


on this issue. On our values and on the crucial things we hold in


concert and I won't give way because the honourable member has spoken a


lot in this debate. I also think it is destructive for us to have


engaged in Brexit and unleashed a catalytic force of destructive


politics, not just in this country, but across the west. And it is to my


eternal regret that we launch down this route with this Parliament in


my view not being sufficiently vigilant on diligent as to the risks


that we face in this referendum or to the nature of the referendum that


we were offering to the country because I believe that it was a


profoundly flawed referendum. Flawed in many regards and one which could


I'm sure many people would feel right across this House, could have


been dramatically improved with greater scrutiny, and with greater


care. Why did we not offer that scrutiny? Because I do not think


that many members in this House on either side of the debate seriously


thought that the referendum was going to be lost. There was a


widespread view that this was a referendum being agreed upon for


ideological reasons to solve the culture wars that have raged in the


Tory Party for 30 odd years and it wasn't really considered carefully


enough. But we have an opportunity in this House now to make aid


mendments for the mistake that we made -- amends for the mistake that


we made, not the people, they voted on the question we offered them,


they voted with the information that we provided, they voted with the 50%


plus one margin that we put in statute. We have an opportunity to


rectify some of those mistakes and I feel that we should. I feel we


should follow the view that the Brexit Secretary had when he was on


the back benches in this House and it is the honourable member for west


moorland said have a final con fir matetry referendum. We had a mandate


referendum which said we should leave the European Union, but we do


not know what the terms of that leaving will be and it is legitimate


for us to consider that. It wouldn't be denying democracy to do that. It


would in my view be doubling down on it. The problem with simply pushing


for a vote in this place on the terms of that deal is that I feel we


run the risk of leaving the people doubly dissatisfied because it is


perfectly possible that this House could reject the prospect of us


falling out of the European Union on WTO terms because of the costs that


will become apparent when we see the extra cost for our production of


cars, for chemicals, for financial services, for all of the other


things that would see their tariff price rise for export out of this


country. It is perfectly possible that as the honourable member said,


we start to see a change in the views of the country in respect of


Brexit when those things happen. I will give way in a moment. Why do


I ask for that? Because I hope the country does change its mind. I'm


not shy about saying that. I feel Brexit is a mistake. I think it will


damage the future of our children. It is not in our national interest


and although the people have voted for it, I think we have a duty to


scrutinise the Government's management of this process to give


clarity to the people as to what it's really going to mean to them,


not the projections and not the promises and not the ?350 million


lies that were scrawled on a bus, nor some of the so-called threats


from project fear, but the reality of what Brexit is going to mean in


pounds, shillings and pence for my children, for all of our children


and at that point we will be doing our duty if we not only scrutinise


and vote in this place, but use that vote to give the people the final


say on the final terms of the deal. Can I say from the outset, it is


really important for all of us just step back from the way we have done


politics for too long and to the detriment of British politics? The


idea there are concessions to be made, whether there are briefings


from Number 10 that say no concessions can be made, whether we


say they have been given and the abyss and that, and isn't it


wonderful, and something is triumphant over another? Whether you


have seen of the Brexiteer 's or remain as, it is not only tedious


and inaccurate, it does not do us or our constituents any favours. I for


1am sick and tired of it. It was back in September or October for a


number of people on these benches said the what now happened, as we


leave the EU, we have accepted the referendum result. Transcend normal


party political divide because it is so important, not for my generation


but for my children and grandchildren that are to come. As


others have said, I will give credit, these are the most important


negotiations we have entered for decades and it is critical we get it


right because of the consequences for generations to come. So can we


in effect stop the sort of... It is not acceptable any more. Let us try


to come together, to heal the divide, because we need to say this,


he was not just in my constituency. I look to Nottingham in Ashfield,


because the results of the borough are bigger than my constituency and


excludes eastward, and I will not go into the demography of them, but in


my constituency, the vote for Leave was about the national average, 51%,


maybe up to 52%. Some of my voters, as indeed across this country, voted


to leave the European Union because they wanted to and they were adamant


they wanted this place to have true sovereignty, true Parliamentary


sovereignty. And yet the awful irony of it is, since this vote, there are


many people who feel that Parliament has been completely excluded. The


government had to be brought in. This bill had to come because of


some brave citizens that went to court to say, Parliamentary


sovereignty must mean that, it must be sovereign and it must exceed the


powers of the government. And then it has failed to say if this place


has been excluded. And so it has been that we are leaving the single


market, we have abandoned free movement, long held beliefs on all


sides that people are against, in some instances, everything we have


ever believed in the decades, and those we have in effect, last week


when we voted to put into action the result of the referendum, we did not


vote according to a conscience all our long-held beliefs. I did not


vote with my conscience. If I am truthful about it, I am actually not


sure I voted in the best interests of my constituents. That upsets me


because when I came here, I have not come here for a career, I came here


because I wanted to represent my constituents and did a very best for


them, and I genuinely do not know if I did not last week, but I was true


to the promise I made to my constituents. I promise them that if


they voted Leave, they would get Leave, and that is what drove me


with a heavy heart through the lobbies and against my conscience


but I do believe I did the right thing and I look myself in the


mirror every morning, believing I have been true to the promise made


to my constituents. But if I will not now be true to my belief in


Parliamentary sovereignty, I do not want to vote against my government,


I have never been to slaughter my government, even though at times...


I have always been true and loyal to my government. In this instance, I


think that Newport one 110 and bodies admirable objectives. And


goodness me, anyone would think this is revolutionary. Whatever happens,


be a deal, and I support my government and Prime Minister in all


their efforts to get that deal, and I thank the Minister for the


concession he has given, and if people do not like the word


concession, I will abandon that, for what the Minister has said has been


the right thing to say. The excellent speech from my right


honourable learn a friend, it is progress and the right thing to do.


But what concerns me is what happens if, despite its best efforts, the


government fails to no-fault of its own and we have no deal. And how


revolutionary is it to say, in the event of no deal and in a writing


meaningful time, as we go to that new relationship, please could we


have a say, not on by Harper Parliament, on behalf of all our


constituents? That is why I come to this place. She has got to the nub


of the issue. What my constituents fear is that they have seen


throughout this process Parliament being sidelined and been presented


with this deal or no Deal option with the horror of ending up in


limbo, giving the difficulties of negotiating terms. That will put our


country in a bigger mess than we are an already. That's what they fear


that is why they want Parliament to have a say. I agree with much of the


content of what the right honourable gentleman says but I am also


reminded of what the member for Beaconsfield said, who knows where


we may be in 2-mac reduced time? Nobody seems to have thought of in


these terms. We may not have our Prime Minister. It may be another


Prime Minister. We might not have the same Secretary of State. Even my


right honourable friend, the minister. That is a circumstance


that could change. Another circumstance that could change as


the economy, the mood in Europe and it might actually be... Those


hardline Brexiteers, there may be circumstances that they want to


protect themselves from and they may want this debate and it may also be


the case that actually WTO tariffs and those other things that we fear


actually might be in our best interest. That is the point of this.


We do not know where the we should be in two years' time, it is right


we keep our options open and it is right we debate on it. She is making


her points with the usual eloquence. Does she agree with me that one of


the other contexts that has clearly changed since the 23rd of June is


the geopolitics of the world? We have a new leader in the United


States, we have some very serious concerns that have been raised about


Putin in Russia, all of that changes the context. We do not know in two


years' time where we might be. I absolutely agree with the right


honourable gentleman. That is exactly the point that many members


across this House are now making. In conclusion, could it gently say to


the government, of course give way. The honourable lady has given a very


honest speech and I must commend her for her honesty and decency. We have


just had the pre-excellent, calm, rational speeches, explaining the


things that are tearing this country apart. Is it not time now for us all


to understand that not only are we talking to our own constituents, but


this House has been listened to across the world? The people who


will be deciding on Brexit are also listening, and the more


triumphalist, the more aggressive, the more rebellious are actually the


worst enemies to get us to where we need to be. I completely agree and


can I say, it is part of this bringing together, this forming and


building of the consensus, not just in this place, but the country at


large, families, friends, communities remain divided and we


must come together. People have put their trust as I have in my Prime


Minister and government. I have said to them, as somebody who was always


believed in our continuing membership of the European Union, we


lost that debate, I now trust the Prime Minister and government when


it comes to the abandoning of the single market, freedom of movement


and even leaving the customs union, but I will continue to fight for all


of those things because I believe in them but I trust them to get the


best deal for our country and all I ask is, rather than have to vote for


an amendment when this bill, which is a good vehicle to deliver the


result, and should not be amended, but all we are asking is that this


place, in the event of no deal, actually has a voice and a vote. Mr


Howarth, if the government cannot see the profound logic and sense of


that, it will put people like me with no alternative in order to make


my voice clear and heard, on behalf of all my constituents and to


support the right honourable gentleman in this amendment, it is


reasonable and fair but it encompasses in what it seeks to


achieve the right thing, and I will give way... In the case of there


being a deal, it is very clear that ministers made a commitment that the


House will vote on it. In the case of there not being a deal, I do not


know whether the honourable lady can answer the question any better than


the honourable gentleman, but my reading of new clause 110 is it only


deals with cases where there is a new treaty or relationship being


proposed, it does not deal with the case of there not being a deal. I am


very grateful for the intervention. I am sure you could explain it if it


needs any further clarity. The relationship has been exactly that.


If we do not have a deal, we then have a new deal on new relationship


with the European Union. I congratulate him on putting the word


relationship into that clause because it perfectly encompasses no


deal, it encompasses all eventualities. It is not rocket


science, it is not revolutionary, it is the right thing to do and I make


it clear... I will give way once more. I want to take the lady back


to the remarks about a bad deal or no Deal. How does she see the WTO?


How does she see, if the UK does not get a deal, dishes see that as a


sign of failure by the UK Government? It is a language I want


to abandon, failure and success. I will not play that game. I want us


to come together, I want is now to get the best deal and in the


eventuality that we do not get a deal to make sure that this place


absolutely gets that vote. On that basis, I will listen to the debate


but I have to say, I will vote in favour of this amendment and make it


clear, not for any design, but to stand up for what is right for all


my constituents. Can I commend the honourable member on her speech,


much of which I agree with because, like her, I voted this week to


trigger Article 50 as part of the second reading because I think we


should respect the referendum result and I campaigned for us to remain


but like her, I think we have a cross Parliament a responsibility to


get the best possible Brexit deal, and that means all of us should be


involved in that because we know there is so much yet to be decided


about what kind of Brexit do we get, what kind of terms we have as part


of leaving the EU. That is why I stand to support new clauses one, 99


and 110 because everyone today has said that they agreed that the


Parliamentary vote should be meaningful but in fact what the


minister said does not provide that assurance at all.


First of all the government is not prepared to put that on the face of


the bill. If the government changes, if things change, what reassurance


do we have if this boat is not on the face of the bill that it will


happen at the right time, that it will be respected in the right way.


Secondly, if there is no deal, then there is no match report and that


matters because what it means is that it is possible for the


executive with power concentrated in its hands to decide to reject a deal


from the EU that maybe parliament might have accepted. It gives the


executive the power to decide. Actually it's going to go down the


WTO route without going for any of the many alternatives that there


might have been with no say for parliament. There is no opportunity


for Parliament to say there was a better deal on offer and actually


the government should be working with the EU to get that better deal


that might be in the interests of all our constituents. I do think we


should give the executive the concentration of power in their


hands to simply be able to choose the WTO route with no possible


debate or discussion or vote. There should be devoted on an alternative.


I think to be fair to the honourable lady, she has at least gone some way


to answering her question. What I think she said is that if the


government judges the best available terms on offer are not good in the


government's definition a bad deal, what she is saying is she would let


the government to put that in front of Parliament and ask parliament to


decide whether that is indeed a bad deal. I think that's what she said,


could you confirm that? That would be one way to do to make sure there


was indeed a substantive vote rather than the government simply heading


directly for the WTO alternative without giving Parliament the


alternative option to do so. I think the second challenge with the


government's approach, if there is a deal, actually the timing of the


vote will still make it very difficult for Parliament because the


vote will come after it has been agreed with the 27 countries, after


it's been agreed with the commission but before it goes to the European


Parliament. And again Parliament will only get the choice between the


executive's deal and the WTO terms, even if again we know that there was


a better or fairer deal on offer. Now I hope there will be agreement


across this has, I hope that the government will be able to come up


with the best possible Brexit deal and in fact it will have strong


support and endorsement. But if it doesn't, eventually things unravel


along the way, what is the opportunity for Parliament to have


its say and do try and bring things back together? Again, the timing of


this vote, leaving a dry to the very end of the process makes it very


hard to do. With the honourable lady agree with me that the opportunity


would be for the government to be to request an extension of the article


50 process if we've not been able to conclude up possible deal and the


request for that extension would be greatly enhanced and strengthened if


it had the mandate of Parliament behind it, so this would be a


partnership of the legislature and the executive working together to


strengthen the national interest, vis-a-vis the European partners.


That would certainly be one option. If the EU Parliament votes down the


deal, that is indeed what would happen, the EU parliament would get


the opportunity to save the negotiations should be extended but


currently the UK parliament would not get that opportunity was that I


don't think the purpose of this should be to extend the


negotiations, we should be trying to implement the decision that has been


taken as part of the referendum but we do need the safeguards in place


to prevent the government running hell for leather or an option which


is bad for Britain if it turns out that Parliament judges there is a


better offer on the table that would give us a better Brexit deal. The


honourable lady is very passionate on this subject. My concern is that


once the Article 50 process has been begun, if at the end of this process


parliaments rejects it, nothing happens, then we leave and my


concern is that an undesirable result and that is why binding the


hands of the government with these amendment is not in the interest of


this country. But I don't think these amendments would bind the


hands of the government, I do agree with him that there is a concern,


that we could end up sort of toppling off the edge of the


negotiations without having a deal in place and that means I there's an


incentive on all of us in Parliament to want there to be a deal in place,


both in terms of the Brexit deal but also in terms of what the future


trade arrangements should be on what transitional arrangements should be


in order to do that. That will be the incentive of all of us in


Parliament but my concern is that at the moment but with the government


has set out its arrangements, there isn't an incentive on the executive


to try and get a deal that the whole of Parliament can support because


the executive can simply go down the WTO route and decide to reject


alternatives without any say for Parliament and actually we don't


have the right incentives to get possible deal. With the Right


honourable lady agree that actually everybody in this house on all sides


and the government would like tariff free trade. We're entirely agreed


about that, the only issue is what can be individually and together do


to make it more likely the other 27 states agree it because they will


make that decision. I actually do agree with the honourable member, we


do want tariff free trade and he and I would probably have a difference


of agreement about the customs union. I think there's huge


advantages of staying in, does it affect the decision we might make


about three movement or other aspects of the single market, could


have advantages and he would be outside the customs union but that


is one of the issues that in the end becomes part of the crunch questions


for the deal and then maybe alternative options that the


government could sign up to on things like the customs union that


the government and the executive on its own would be rejecting rather


than having the opportunity for Parliament to have its say if there


was a better deal on offer. Some of this also comes under the timing


because I do except there's an article 50 timescale of two years


and it will be for the EU to decide what happens at the end of that if


there is no deal in place. But that also comes down to the timing of


this vote and at the moment because of what the minister said earlier,


this borders on the very end of the process and could very well end up


being at the end of the two years. The strength of new clause 110 is


that it requires the vote to be before this as gone to the


commission and to the Council as well as before it goes to


Parliament. The advantage of that is that we have a parliamentary debate


on the board at an early on stage in the process so that if it were to


reach the point where there was no agreement, there would still be the


opportunity for further negotiations and debates before we get to the end


of the Article 50 process. I hesitate to say this but sometimes I


think this house fails to realise its own powers. If indeed it's the


case in the course of the two years of the negotiation and becomes clear


the government is rejecting and negotiating opportunity that this


house thinks it's better than the one it's pursuing, there's nothing


to prevent this house from asserting its authority order to make the


government change direction. It's a question of whether we have the will


to do it but the problem the point that she is raising is that it does


come back to this issue. If you write up against the wire you might


be tipping the government into losing an agreement with nothing to


replace it. Where that to be the case, that would be the decision,


the responsibility of Parliament to behave with the common sense that


the honourable member has advocated earlier and I would trust Parliament


to behave with common sense in the circumstances, not to push Britain


into an unnecessary cliff edge because I don't think that is what


Parliament wants to do. I think Parliament has already shown it


wants to respect the decision that was made in the referendum and that


has been important. But I also think Parliament wants to get the best


deal for Britain and Parliament would be pragmatic about what those


options are at that time but the problem with OTS suggested is that


there might be an alternative way for Parliament to exercise its


sovereignty. In practice, what are those ways? You can have a backbench


motion that the government ignores, you could have an opposition day


motion that the government ignores, you could have a no-confidence


motion but I personally do not think that would be the appropriate


response to something very odd to instead be looking at what the


alternative would be in order to simply get a better deal out of the


negotiations. If he was to come up with an alternative way for


Parliament to exorcise its sovereignty that I haven't thought


of, maybe there is an alternative to this vote today. It seems to me, if


we want to be sure that we have something in the legislation to make


sure there is records to Parliament over these important issues that


will affect us for so many years to come down the right thing to do is


to get something onto the face of the bill. I'm going to make some


progress because I know other people want to get in. There are many ways


that the government could do this, the government to come forward with


a manuscript amendment that simply puts into practice the things that


it has said today, that would be immensely helpful, that might


provide reassurance that many need. There is a new class 99 which could


be done through an act of Parliament. -- clause 90 nine. There


is a strong case for these decisions to be taken through acts of


Parliament. We could do so in other similar weighty matters. On new


clause 110, which to be honest much of what it does is simply to put on


the face of the bill the point is that the Minister has already made


and that he has said he will do but provides the reassurance on the face


of the bill with the added benefit that there is the clarity that would


also be a vote if there was no deal and if we were going down the WTO


route and also that the timing of the vote would be early on in the


process to get Parliament the opportunity to have a say before we


get to the final crunch end of the negotiations. The honest truth is,


new clause 110 really isn't that radical, it's simply putting into


practice and embedding in the legislation the things that some


honourable members opposite have said that they would like to


achieve, so pointedly simply put it on the face of the bill to embed


that I do have that reassuring is in place. In the end, there's a reason


why all this is important, we all talked about parliamentary


sovereignty on both sides of the referendum debate, we talked about


the importance parliamentary sovereignty. I think that comes with


it, Parliamentary responsibility. We shown that responsibility by


deciding to respect the results of the referendum already as part of


the second reading vote. With that Parliamentary sovereignty and that


Parliamentary responsibility is also the responsibility to recognise that


we've got to get the best possible Brexit deal for our whole country


and not just to walk away from that process and the deal and the debates


on that deal. I have to say as well, if we end up simply saying we will


walk away and we will have the concentration of power simply in the


hands of the executive, I've never supported concentrations of power in


this way. All of us, everyone of us should be part of making sure we get


the Brexit deal. A pleasure to follow on from the


Right Honourable Lady and indeed I Right Honourable and learned friend.


I agree on the principle Parliament should vote on the final deal, I


argued that during the referendum and I haven't changed my mind now.


On top of that, as people talk about Parliament being stripped of its


rights, it's worth pointing out that any domestic implementing


legislation as a result of any deal is reached at the international


level would of course require Parliamentary approval and the usual


way. The legal effect of Brexit at home would be dealt with through an


act of legislation in advance of the ratification of the international


treaties. In relation to the international element, I think it's


useful to distinguish two key components of the diplomacy, the


terms of exit and the terms of any new relationship agreement on trade


security on the other areas of cooperation that its common


agreement, we all agree we want to preserve that. With that in mind, I


want to just welcome again the White Paper and the Lancaster house speech


which as we talk about all the process and procedures set out a


positive vision for Britain of post-Brexit. As a self-governing


democracy, a strong European neighbour but also a global leader


when it comes to free trade. I confess as a former Foreign Office


lawyer who spent six years advising on both EU law and particularly


treaty interpretation, I find article 50 palpably clear on the


surface, on the face of it. If this applies the EU treaties two years


after article 50 is triggered. The language is mandatory as a matter of


treaty law. If Parliament refuses to approve the terms of any exit


agreement, the UK drops out without one. Before there is general


hysteria across the House and on this side as well, there's a general


principle of customary international law it's true of common law that


where there's a general rule you can have exceptions but the exceptions


must be interpreted narrowly and there are exceptions to this. There


is an exception if the EU unanimously agrees to extend the


period under article 50 paragraph three. If you look at the clear


language used, I think it's only conceivable to imagine that


happening if at all in very exceptional circumstances for a


limited period and in relation to the exit terms.


It is extremely doubtful the paragraph you merit three could be


used to delay departure on those grounds, which means many of those


amendments could be unlawful as well as unwise. He makes a very careful


and interesting analysis but, at the end of the day, if there is no deal,


we were forced to leave on WTO terms, it would be a scandal if this


House did not have a chance to have a say in it and a betrayal. We hope


perhaps in the Lord's people might look more carefully. The government


is on borrowed time. I pay tribute to the chair of the Select Committee


and I agree there should be a vote. I have not heard anyone explain the


alternative negotiation strategy to the one that has been advanced by


the government other than staying in limbo within the EU, which would


create more uncertainty for business, greater frustration for


the public and frankly devastate, paralyse our negotiating hand. There


is a second exception and it is not true to say that triggering Article


50 is irreversible. It can be reversed as I explained earlier, you


have the time of the specific exception envisaged in Article 50,


paragraph 5. You leave and apply to rejoin. That is, the clear language


on the face of Article 50 course is binding as a matter of UK law and of


course it was a previous Labour government with Lib Dem support that


signed us up not just at the Lisbon Treaty but explicitly to the fact is


we now face, that is why I suffered a little bit with some of the


railing against some of the difficult legal confines the


government finds itself on not just as a matter of its own policy but as


a matter of law. The choice on the final deal is clear. The British


Parliament can view to the ex-agreement and all the terms of


the new relationship agreement but in that case, Britain would leave


the EU without agreeing terms. With respect to the new relationship


agreement, the UK Government would of course be free for further


negotiations but that could not delay. Brexit from happening. These


facts will focus our minds quite rightly and quite understandably and


with a sense of trepidation. It will also focus minds on the other side


of the channel amongst our European friends. On the assumption that it


would take at least 18 months to read all the terms of any new


relationship agreement, the idea to Parliament voting down any deal


would set the UK back for further round of meaningful negotiations


before Britain leaves is a odds with the procedure in the Lisbon Treaty


and frankly I find it neither feasible nor credible. He mentioned


earlier Article 50 subsection paragraph three, which provides for


transitional arrangements, for a country to negotiate the


arrangements to continue indifferently until a subsequent


state is provided that the end of the negotiating process for the


implementation. Does he not agree that that should create a window for


the exactly the circumstances he is so concerned about? If you read the


Article 50 paragraph three it explicitly refers to the withdrawal


component of the diplomacy but he is also right to say there is scope for


transitional arrangements to deal with some of the so-called cliff


edge concerns the honourable members are rightly concerned about. Of


course, the ostensible aim of Article 50 in fairness to the


previous government was to facilitate certainty, the focus


minds of the negotiating parties and avoid withdrawal, leaving a


lingering Shadow over the EU but also the departing nation. Many if


the amendments we are considering today are counter-productive because


it would weaken our flexibility and negotiating position and critically


making the risk of no deal more likely. Honourable members


supporting these amendments need to face up to the fact that they are


courting the very scenario that the say we so dearly want to seek to


avoid. Equally, I would say for my part, I could not count on voting


attempts to an act negotiating terms and binding legislation because that


would set the government up to face a blizzard of legal challenges on


the final deal which I would find deeply responsible because it would


seem to me the amount of poison tactics. Would he not agree that the


Prime Minister's approach so far in pandering not so much to the tens of


thousands of immigrants risks the scenario we have just discussed? The


idea is to be done and she needs to admit it. I would gently say to the


honourable member that, between open-door immigration and close to


immigration, it seems to me quite wide scope for sensible reciprocal


arrangements which allow us to retain control over the volume of


immigration, allow us to retain control over things like residency


in welfare and make sure people are self-sufficient and make sure we


have these security checks and deportation powers we need. I am not


sure we disagree on this. Between the approach of cutting off all


immigration and having open-door immigration, there is actually


enormous scope and sensible diplomacy. I will turn briefly to


the specific group of amendments. The government's assurances or would


be enough to satisfy those who might be tempted by the new clause 1. The


government has promised Parliament to have a vote in the final deal I


would also like to pay tribute to the Shadow Minister. The other


cluster of amendments which have attracted attention relate to new


clause 19, 54 and 137, and they would require Parliamentary vote


against the deal to send the UK Government back to renegotiate with


the EU, and I can I totally understand someone who has


negotiated treaties ride that is attractive. The truth is that if


Parliament is not agree with the exit terms, it is theoretically


possible that the UK Government could revert to meaningful


negotiations with the EU if the draft agreement is concluded within


a year. In practice of course it is utterly inconceivable, total


fantasy. Why would the EU give us better terms of the divorce just


because Parliament did not like them? We would not even get the


extension or better terms and would leave without such an agreement. If


on the other hand Parliament does not approve the agreement on the new


relationship, there is no express provision for extension of


negotiations and note clear basis for withdrawal to be delayed so we


would exit within two years and as my honourable friend was pointing


out, the question of implementation being phased would then become far


more salient. Besides these legal considerations, any delay to the


timetable would inject an additional dose of uncertainty into the entire


process, bad for business, frustrating for the public and that


would harm our negotiating position rather than reinforce it. New clause


28, which deals with Parliamentary approval but for the European


Parliament has its say, has been dealt with the reassurances the


minister gave, and I welcome those. I'm not convinced by new clause 110


or 182 about Parliamentary approval before the commission concludes the


agreement. We would not know the date when the commission would


approve a new deal and we would not know the terms until it had done so.


It reinforces in my mind is the concern about honourable members in


good faith trying to dictate what would be a fluid diplomatic process


to the entirely inappropriate vehicle of binding legislation. That


cannot hope to cater for the potential eventualities we need to


be ready to adapt to as a matter of multilateral diplomacy. Finally, on


the specific amendments, amendment 43 by the Liberal Democrats and the


honourable member for Westmorland, in a competitive field, this is


certainly the clear winner for the worst amendment that has been


tabled! It is probably illegal because there is no scope to reverse


its decision and that is clear from Article 50 paragraph 5 and is


clearly designed to reverse Brexit on the clear understanding we would


respect the result. It is beyond undemocratic and illegal, it is just


plain tricksy because it was open to any honourable member to table


amendments at that time to stipulate that there would be a second


referendum. Why not best-of-3? To give the British people the chance


to do the bulky cookie. There is a clear reason why no one tabled such


an amendment, the public would have shuddered at such a prospect. No one


proposed such an amendment and we did not hold the referendum on that


basis. I support a final vote on the deal. I welcome the government's


striving to reassure all honourable members on this but house should not


be under any illusion that such a vote would not frustrate the verdict


of the British people and most honourable members on all sides


recognise that. Many of the amendments we are deliberating in


this cluster of flawed but above all these clauses would attempt to tie


the government up in procedural knots at the crucial moment in the


two years of Brexit negotiation. The public expect all of us to be


focused on securing the very best deal for the whole country, whether


intentionally or inadvertently laying elephant traps that can only


make striving for that deal harder. For that reason, I hope the House or


vote on all of the amendments. There are four honourable members that one


still to get in, who have given the names to amendments. That means...


The government is unlikely to come back at six o'clock so if everyone


takes less than five minutes, I might be able to squeeze at least


four more speakers in. It is a gentle reminder that there is no


time limit. I will try and be brief. I have now been in the House


entering my 17th year and in those 17 years, you strike up


relationships across the House. I want to make a confession. I have a


relationship with the member for Chingford. The member for


Chingford... I am sorry he is not in his seat but he has the unusual


honour of also being a fan of Tottenham Hotspur server had been


occasions where we have been at White Hart Lane and we have been at


White Hart Lane together. They have also been occasions on which he has


mentioned a subject that has been a favourite of his, and that has been


the sovereignty of this Parliament. And the issue of the European Union.


Now, I have to say, there have been occasions where my eyes glazed over


because I have not seen the issue like he has seen it. But in the last


few months, as I have grown increasingly depressed about the


direction of travel we are now set upon, I have looked for the silver


lining. And the silver lining is of course in the 17 years I have been


an MP, we have been in the European Union and so effectively we have


decided to pull some of our sovereignty with Europe and I have


had less power. Well, the power is now coming back. I will be a


powerful Member of Parliament and as a result of all of his work and


others, we're now in a situation where in this important time, where


we need that sovereignty, and the very same people who are asking for


it, now stand up to argue that we should put that power somewhere


else. They argue, backbenchers many of them for many years, that we


should put the power with the Executive, that the Prime Minister


and her Cabinet should make the decisions, huge decisions about our


economy and direction of travel. They argue perversely that we should


have the power Solly with the 27 other countries of the European


Union, that they should determine our direction along with the


European Commission and Council and ultimately the European Parliament,


power everywhere else except here! And who will suffer as a consequence


of this Parliament not acting? Our constituents. And that is why this


is not the time to play party politics and that is why I was happy


to vote against my own party last week.


It is the time to stand up for our constituents and it seems to me that


we must scrutinise the executive with the very detailed negotiations


that we debate. We hear that we'll strike a deal with an two years.


When Greenland left the old EEC it took them three years and that was


Greenland fighting over fish. It's not going to take us two years, so


as has been said, yes, the terms of our withdrawal but our new trading


relationships must come back to this place and if we don't get an


agreement it must absolutely be a decision on which we must vote on


long before. Let me just say, if we were to exit without a proper deal,


this great country would be in the bizarre situation to have no trading


relations with the rest of the world, a situation we will not have


been in since sometime before King Henry VIII and the beginning of


Empire. Ridiculous. Madness. WTO rules. Insane. Of course power must


rest here and that's why I signed a number of causes and they are truly


stand with my honourable friend who has put down clause 110. We must


give this place power. Or we will regret it hugely. I find myself in a


rather strange place in writing this beach. It's very difficult to


countenance voting for an opposition motion for some day my position,


I've always respected pragmatism and politics behind most decisions but


I've always had a sneaking admiration for colleagues who fly to


the government whip with impunity, which is not what I told them when I


was in the Whip's office and I heard and so many cases that this... Our


current Secretary of State for Brexit was the most principled


politician in the last parliament rebelling dozens and dozens of


times. But to me this appears to be very much a point of principle and


there are three principles which have been exorcised by myself and


colleagues now. The first of the thorny issue of what does


Parliamentary sovereignty means. Far be it for me to take exception with


the very blown a gentleman, my honourable friend, but Article 50


was effectively -- with the very learned gentleman.


The expectation that it would never be triggered, it would be


inconceivable that it would be triggered, so it seems to me that


for us to set up what we believe our sovereign Parliamentary process


should be, setting against that rather cruelly drafted aspect of the


treaty is not inconceivable and this is what so many campaigners told me


that they were actually campaigning for. To restore our sovereignty and


that sovereign tray has now been confirmed by the Supreme Court, so I


think it's absolutely right that we had confirmation today that


Parliament will have a vote on the terms of the deal on the timing of


that vote is crucial, it's not a done deal brought back to us, there


is an opportunity to influence and to shape and negotiate and do what


we have done so well over the last four days, is that we were not


intended to have the opportunity to actually get into the nitty-gritty


of what does it mean if we trigger this, what would a vote look like. I


for one feel far better informed than I did at the start of this


process and that is exactly what we're sent you to do. I agree with


her entirely about the role this Parliament has to scrutinise that


but it's vital and funny about the only way we can do that, in


practical terms how can we achieve that scrutiny, what can we actually


do to change it if the deal isn't good enough? We can probe and ask


questions and we can bring our collective knowledge and wisdom of


which there is an enormous amount on these benches and also our


understanding of what alternatives might be. If it is the case that


there is no alternative or no process, well at least we know that


but we have got to date, with a concession from the front bench and


option that was not on the table at the start of this process, an option


when you are negotiating and an uncertain environment is this


usually valuable thing to have. My second point of principle which are


referenced earlier is his point of equivalence. It just seems bizarre


to me that if you look at the negotiation for exit, the European


Parliament has a number of go, no-go decision points upon which it


effectively has a right of veto and we have been scared to give the same


to this Parliament. That does not sit well with me as somebody who


wants to stand up for the sovereign parliament, it's a very perverse


thing and I'm glad we're try to correct it. The third is the


question of representation. I'm still mystified there are those who


think they should be scared of Parliament. How many more votes do


we need to have to demonstrate the overwhelming support in this place


for executing the will of the British people. They gave us a


mandate, we're not going to replay the arguments, we're not going to go


over it, we have a mandate, we have to get on and we have two votes


suggesting that members and Right Honourable members across the House


except that view of the union. This to me, we should not be scared of


bringing these things to Parliament and ultimately isn't this what we


are here to do, to represent our constituents. We don't want a second


referendum, I can fully agree with my honourable friend to say it would


be absurd to go back. We are the next best thing, we have the


opportunity to bring what our constituents passing, many of them


still have lots of questions about what this process looks like to put


them to each other and to the front bench and to represent us that the


principle of rest pronunciation is absolutely vital that


representation. The tone of this debate, sometimes borders on the


hysterical. I feel sometimes I'm sitting along with colleagues who


are like jihadis in their support for a hard Brexit. No Brexit is hard


enough, be gone new evil Europeans, we never want you to darken our


doors again. I'm afraid I heard speeches last week exactly making


that point. The point of this is the more we get this out in the open the


more we are not led by some of the more hysterical tabloid newspapers


out there but actually have an open and frank conversation with each


other about what we want to do the better. On the issues of scrutiny,


representation and Parliamentary sovereignty, I am very interested in


the amendment that was brought forward by the opposition. I have


heard today, I'm pleased to say, some very substantial concessions on


the timing and the detail if you like, although there is a


criticality about the ending which still doesn't sit well with me


because whilst it might be the government and the Prime Minister's


intention not to bring forward a bad deal, we still have not allowed


ourselves to put that to the test. So before I decide which way to


vote, Ambaka when to listen very carefully to what the minister has


to say and I'm hoping to get his assurance that is not the


government's intention to put a no deal, that can be put within the


bounds of what should happen much is a Parliamentary decision on this


vital step for our country. There are two issues at the heart of


today's debate which is about the role of Parliament in judging the


final deal. The first issue is on the timing of any such vote and the


second issue is on how to make that vote meaningful. I want to move new


clause 137 standing in my name and the name of my honourable and Right


Honourable friends. A significant part of the argument for leaving the


European Union was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty for this


house to take the decisions about the country's future. Yet too often,


attempts to assert it have been constantly dismissed, undermining


the government is not undermining the country and the cry over and


over again has been blank cheque, blank cheque, blank check. We


shouldn't give a blank cheque, there is a legitimate role. The amendment


seeks to do two things, first of all to enshrine the Prime Minister's


promise of a parliamentary vote on the final deal in the legislation


and the second part is to assert what can happen if Parliament


declines to approve the final deal. Now the government has set out in


the White Paper and in other statements what its aims are. The


white paper defines the government's name as the freest possible trade in


goods and services between the UK and the EU. The Secretary of State


for Brexit said this would be and I quote, a copper has and the


comprehensive customs agreement will deliver the exact same benefits as


we have. That's the test the government has set itself and I wish


the government well in ensuring that we get the exact same benefits that


we have. This amendment does not seek to time the government's hands


in the negotiations, it doesn't seek to influence the content, what it


focuses on is what happens if Parliament declines to approve the


final deal because the choice that we do not want to be presented with


is, I'm afraid, the one that the minister set out at the beginning,


which is defining as success whatever the government negotiates


or falling back on to the WTO. Now I don't want to go through the WTO


rules in detail, let me just give one example. A 10% tariff on car


exports. Take the Nissan, proudly made in the north-east of England.


That tariff would mean a surcharge of over ?2000 on each car made in


the north-east compared to a competitor vehicle made within the


EU or even another Nissan model made in a planned within the European


Union, on food and drink the tariffs are 20% and on some agricultural


products they are even higher and that's before you even get to the


weakness of enforcement mechanisms within the WTO, where businesses


cannot even take cases and only governments can take enforcement


cases. And the thing about this is that the government itself says it


doesn't want this option it set out 12 points in its White Paper on the


12th of which says that the government wants a smooth mutually


beneficial exit. Paragraph 12 .2 says it's in no 1's interest for


there to be a cliff edge for business or a threat to stability.


Instead we want to have reached an agreement about our future


partnership by the time the two year article 50 process has been


concluded. What this amendment does is it empowers Parliament to avoid


the very outcome that the government itself says its wants to avoid in


the White Paper. And for that reason it's not as do many members have


asserted some attempt to undermine the government. We should be using


the power of Parliament to influence these negotiations and let me just


deal with this five minutes to midnight point that was made by The


Right Honourable member for Beaconsfield. It is hardly unknown


for the European Union to schedule another round of talks, it happens


very frequently and in these circumstances we would be entirely


within our rights to strengthen our government's hand by seeing go back


and renegotiate on this point that point.


I want to emphasise this, all sorts of things are possible. The


commission and the council might decide to extend the period of


negotiation but we have to look at what the legal implications are of


what we pass into law by amendments. If indeed the amendment is


prescriptive in a way that could allow the problem to which has been


identified which is dropping off because you've lost time and you can


come back to this house, we just can't ignore that. We have to find a


way round it or accept the accept the assurances the government give.


The amendment is very simple on this point, it asks that the government


in no circumstances will seek to negotiate an alternative agreement,


that's a perfectly reasonable point. The point of all of this, I don't


have much time so I will conclude. The point of all this is to avoid


the choice between being told we have to define our success on the


first account of it, whatever the government has managed to negotiate


or default to the WTO. To be honest, a concession on timing that doesn't


allow us to ask the government to go back and negotiate a better


agreement is simply holding a gun to Parliament's head a few months


earlier than we'd otherwise have been the case, so this amendment is


about taking all those claims made for decades about Parliamentary


sovereignty and making them real, rather than giving us a choice


between Deal or no Deal, take it or leave it, my way or the highway.


Frankly, Parliament and the country deserves better than that.


I'll confine this to a stew questions to the Minister. The


concession that he gave right at the start this significant, the question


is how significant. What did the Minister mean when he said that the


government would bring forward a motion on the final agreement? He


must mean the proposed agreement. I noticed that he then changed the


wording to the final draft agreement. Is he talking about the


draft agreement or a final agreement? At a point in which it's


The minister said he expects an intense this place will get a say


before the European Parliament. Thirdly, will he answered the


equivalence point made by my honourable friend, that we must be


able to have at least as much say as the European Parliament? And 40, for


he clarified that this WTO cliff edge issue needs to be subdued with


the issue of transitional arrangements? If the government puts


the need to negotiate transitional arrangements as its priority and


succeeds in getting at least a deal on that, that is the deal which can


then trigger Article 50, subsection 3, to enable a extended periods of


discussion. Would he accept that is a reasonable and sensible approach


to taking this debate forward and if he will, I might be considered... I


will listen very carefully to what the Minister will say. Thank you


very much indeed for giving me a second bite of the cherry. May I


deal in the first instance with the points made by my right honourable


friend, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee? He asked direct


questions which have been raised during the course of the debate. I


thought I had answered them with some clarity previously but I am


very happy to clarify further. He asked what in fact this House would


be asked to prove, and it would be the final greed draft of the


agreement before it was submitted to the European Parliament. He


mentioned the points that we had indicated that we expected and


intended that this would happen before the European Parliament


debated it. The reason that formulation is used is of course it


is out of our hands as to what the commission does in connection with


the information it sends to the European Parliament. While we would


do our best to ensure this House voted first, we cannot control what


the commission would do. He raised the issue of equivalence. The


difference is that the European Parliament does have the role


prescribed for it in Article 50. This House does not. But certainly,


in practical terms, I would suggest a boat of this House would be a


matter of significance. He then raised the issue finally of


transitional arrangements which was raised by either honourable members,


and it is indeed, as the Prime Minister has already made clear, the


intention, if necessary, to looked a period of implementation for


whatever arrangement we arrive at with the European Union. This has


been an important debate and I was grateful... I will briefly... My


honourable friend has confirmed that the voters put the Parliament after


the deal has been done with the commission and the council. It is a


done deal, the European Parliament in this House either take it or


leave it. Will he confirm that is exactly what was offered in the


White Paper a few days ago? What we have sought to do today is to


provide clarity, and I hope that by my contribution earlier this


afternoon and now I am providing that clarity, and it is indeed the


case that which it would be the final draft agreement we contemplate


which would be put before this House. As I was saying, this has


been an important debate and the quality of the contributions has


been extremely high. We have to remember, as my right honourable


friend, the point that she made, this will be the most important


negotiation that this country has entered into for at least half a


century and it is therefore entirely right that this House should have an


important part in the process of the negotiation of the agreement we are


to arrive at. But is very far from what this government has in mind. We


have every intention that throughout the process of negotiation, this


House will be kept fully informed consistent with the extent to ensure


that confidentiality is maintained. I do not think that anyone would


regard that as an unreasonable way forward. Indeed, my right honourable


friend, the member for Beaconsfield, highlighted the need for reporting,


and that is something this government intends to do. I would


like to deal however with a number of other amendments I have not dealt


with previously which have attracted some attention this afternoon. New


clause 18 would specify that any new treaty with the EU should not be


ratified except with the express improvement of Parliament. However,


I can only repeat the commitment I have made several times this


afternoon at this dispatch box, there will be a vote on the final


deal. Will he accept that many of us welcome the progress made and the


insurance says he has given? There will be every opportunity for


debate, discussion, questions and votes as is proper in this House.


Indeed that is absolutely right, and I think that the suggestion that


this government would not keep this House informed when we have been


scrupulous in doing so so far is unworthy. New clause 110 is similar


to new clause 18 but also specifies that any new relationship would also


be subject to a resolution of Parliament, and this amendment I


believe is unnecessary, it asks again for a vote of each house on a


new treaty or new agreement reached with the EU, and there will be a


vote on the final draft treaty and any other agreement. In any event,


as my honourable friend pointed out, it calls for a vote before terms are


agreed, leaving it open to the commission to change its mind and


position without any apparent recourse for this place. New clause


137 requires the government to seek to negotiate a new agreement with


the EU Parliament rejects deal and again, I must reject this amendment.


While we are confident that we will achieve a deal that is acceptable to


Parliament, if Parliament were to reject that deal, it would be a sure


sign of weakness to return to the EU and to ask the other terms. We would


be likely to achieve only a worse deal and furthermore there is no


obligation on the EU to continue negotiating with us beyond the


two-year period. New clause 175 words require us to remain an member


of the EU. To do so would be to betray the referendum and this


government is not prepared to accept that. But I must make absolutely


clear, this government wants Parliament to be engaged throughout


this process and we will keep this Parliament... I will give way. Will


he confirm that it is the position of the government to diminish the


status of this House in comparison to that of the European Parliament


in having an oversight of this process? That is absolutely


ludicrous because the European Parliament's row comes at the end of


the process. It has oversight to the extent that it rubber-stamps it or


it does not. New clause is 18 and 19 would require any new treaty agreed


with the EU would be subject to the ratification of Parliament. We have


always said we will observe the Constitution and legal obligations


that apply to the final deal and that remains the case and as we have


already confirmed, the final agreement will be subject to a vote


of this House before it is concluded. Will the Minister also


confirm whether he will abide by the recommendation of the Select


Committee report that when the government brings forward this deal


to Parliament, it should have regard to the requirement for adequate time


to consider the statement before those proposed terms are put forward


for approval? We will consider all the recommendations of the Select


Committee and we walk report formally in June course. We do not


approach these negotiations expecting failure but anticipating


success. But let me remind members that in this bill we are seeking to


do one very simple straightforward thing, we are seeking to follow the


instructions we have received from the British people in the referendum


and remaining a member of the European Union is not an option. The


process for leaving the EU will set up by Article 50 and it is not


within our power to extend the negotiations. New clause 99 and


visages yet another act of Parliament approving the


arrangements for our withdrawal and future relationship with the EU and


would require yet another act of Parliament to withdrawal from the EU


in the absence of a negotiating deal. While we would be ready for


any outcome, and exit without a trade agreement is emphatically not


what we seek, but let me be clear, keeping open the prospect of staying


in the EU as envisaged by that clause would only encourage the EU


to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we would change our


minds. Amendment 43 calls for a referendum on our membership of the


European Union after we have negotiated a final deal. That was


tabled by the Liberal Democrats. This has been an important debate.


We have listened very carefully to the amendments, considered them very


carefully, but for the reasons given, we reject them and invite


them to be withdrawn. I have listened carefully to this debate.


There are inevitable problems. They have been claims and counterclaims


about the nature of the concessions made. Whatever Number 10 may be


briefing or not briefing, until today, there was never a commitment


to a vote on both the Article 50 deal and the future agreement with


the EU. There was never a commitment to a vote before the agreement was


concluded on a final agreed draft and it is simply rewriting history


to suggest that that was the case and there was never a deal, a


commitment there would be about in this House before the European


Parliament vote. Those three things have never been said before and I


gone through all the records book for making that assertion. Anyone to


suggest that is a concession and significant is to be blind to those


developments. I recognised there are a number of unanswered questions,


most importantly as to the consequences and timing of the vote.


As the right honourable member said, to some extent, we just do not know.


From my work in Brussels it is clear the planned the is to have a deal


which is capable of being put to the European Parliament in October 2018


and that should be the ambition because that deal is put to this


House in October 2018, it means there would be a number of


consequences for this House to consider. I accept there are


questions and it is important the others reflect on the concessions


that have been made and consider what amendment might capture them. I


do not push new clause 1. That may allow space for other amendments to


be put to a vote. Is it your pleasure that new clause numeric one


be withdrawn? We will now take new clause 110. It is on page seven of


the Amendment paper. The question is that new clause 110... Sorry. The


question is that new clause 110 B read a second time. As many as are


of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Division. Clear the


lobby. As many of that opinion say IAM


Cycling. On the contrary no. Tellers for the ayes, Jeff Smith. Tellers


for the no. The ayes to the right. 293. The Noes


to the left 326. The ayes to the right, 283. The Noes


to the left, 326. The Noes have it. The Noes have it. Unlock. We now


come to new clause 180 which is on page ten of the amendment paper.


Alex Salmond to move formally. The question is that new clause 180 be


added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye. Of the


contrary, No. Division. Clear the lobby.


The question is that new clause 180 be added to the bill. As many as are


of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Tellers for the ayes


and the noes. Thank you. The ayes to the right, 88. The noes


to the left, 336. The eyes to the right were 88, the noes to the left


were 336, so the noes have it. Unlock. We now continue clause 5,


with which it will be convenient to take the clauses and amendments are


seen on the order paper. I beg to move new clause 5 in my name and in


the name of my right honourable friends. I also intend to speak


briefly the amendment 11 and new clause 90 eight. The bill before us


is straightforward but as many Honourable members have said, it


will set in train a process that will have profound implications for


our country and each of our constituents. Despite the government


resisting new clause 3 yesterday and setting the pace against giving


Parliament an active role in scrutinising the negotiation


process, this House. Need to hold the government to account. The


discharge that duty effectively, it requires adequate information and


robust analysis. As things stand, we do not have it. When it comes to the


crucial issue of the impact the different future trading models with


half an our economy, the government's White Paper for five


short on what is required to ensure we will have informed discussions


and debate in this place. It offers little beyond assurances that the


government will prioritising goods and services. This House, but more


importantly businesses across the country, deserved to be made aware


of the government's evaluation of the likely impact of different


future trading relations. The government can provide them with


that without revealing their hand by publishing any impact assessments


undertaken and that is the purpose of new clause 5. In its intent, new


clause 5 is similar to amendment 11 which stands in the name of my


honourable friend, which concerns the impact of withdrawal on the


public finances. I hope he gets a chance to speak to his amendment


because the public will not quickly forget the ?350 million a week that


though the Leave promised to the NHS and I know he will continue to


Returning to new clause five, we know the analysis we wished to see


published exists. Ministers have made clear from the dispatch box and


in responses to specific Parliamentary questions that the


government is conducting a broad range of analysis and the


macroeconomic and central level to understand the impact of leaving the


EU on all aspects of the UK. If I recall rightly the Secretary of


State said last week the 58 sectors are being assessed. We're not


were not asking the government to carry out undertakings and is not


interpreted as a mechanism to delay or frustrate the triggering of


article 50. The ministers maintained that no impact assessments have been


finalised the new clause is for the Secretary of State to report to both


houses. Does he suspect that any modelling by the Treasury may concur


with the modelling of the ISS which says that EEA membership is far


preferable and terms of economic growth than an FTA. I find the


honourable gentleman, the honest answer is that we don't know but as


I'll come to in my remarks, other organisations are doing this. There


isn't a vacuum out there and the government I think could quite


easily publish its analysis to help informed debate. I hope when the


minister responds that he doesn't simply echo the arguments of those


who have argued and will argue that publishing any information we are


undermining the government's negotiating strategy. We have those


arguments prior to the government's speech and White Paper and will know


that she them in the months ahead but I said to honourable members who


take that view, for genuine reasons of concern possibly because they


want the legislation to shut up shop for 18 months that the detailed


analysis of the kind we are asking to be published is out there. Other


organisations are doing it, not just the government. I listened with


care. His amendment seeks to make the giving of notice of Article 50


as I understand conditional upon an impact assessment being set before


the House of Commons. It seems to me that the giving of the article 50


should be conditional upon a vote of the British people which took place


last year. This is simply an attempt to delay. I think of the on one is


being fair, I dealt with the question earlier on when I said it's


not an attempt to delay because we know that the government have


already carried out these impact assessments and the idea that we're


not bitter any impact assessments published during the course of the


negotiations is farcical, we could have them upfront and we could


debate. Reputable and well-regarded organisations... Does he not agree


with me that if we were to have official produced impact assessments


rather than the impact assessments done by people guessing, Treasury


impact assessments, we wouldn't be able to have a proper debate about


the right kind of Brexit that was best for our country in very


difficult and rapidly changing times. My right honourable friend


expresses the intent of the bill perfectly and I agree with her 100%.


Well-regarded and reputable organisation such as the National


Institute of economic and social research have published detailed


analysis of the costs and benefits of future trading relationships with


the EU at has other less reputable organisations. The quality of the


argument that the government and the Treasury can produce will match if


not surpassed that analysis and we believe honourable members should


have access to it. More importantly, businesses across the country need


to be able to see it so they can help adequately plan for their


futures. He's just asserted that the analysis that he wants to see would


be superior in quality to some of the others that may be available.


What does he based that assertion on given that the people he wants to


report on the situation are giving us the most extraordinary


information before the referendum they were telling us that we were


going to be attended by plagues of frogs and locusts and the sky was


going to fall in. What I would say to the honourable gentleman is that


if he is right, I would not like to be one of the ministers negotiating


the agreement with the EU because they will be relying on that


information when they decide then I negotiating priorities. We on these


benches look forward to healing the thoughts of the Minister on the


matter and I want to now turn to new clause 98 in the name of my


honourable friend. The purpose of new clause 98 is simple. To ensure


the impact of decisions on women and those with protected characteristics


are considered and debated at every stage of the negotiation process. It


may have escaped the attention of some honourable members but the word


equality does not appear once in the government White Paper. Indeed, the


White Paper contains no mention of race, disability, sexuality and


gender identity, which I find quite astonishing. How can we secure a


Brexit that works for everyone as honourable members from both sides


of the chip have repeated ad nauseam in these debates that these


communities are not given due consideration when weighing up the


different negotiating positions. The process and the final deal must have


regard for equalities and the protection and extension of rights


for those with protected characteristics. New clause 9860


ensure that the qualities considerations are at the forefront


of government thinking and that the inform the final deal. Doing so


would help ensure we get the best deal for everyone wherever they are


but crucially whoever they are. It would ensure that any negative


impact on women must be transparently presented and


considered and if there's a risk of disproportionate impact that the


government takes steps to mitigate it. The new clause is in line


recommendations from the cross-party women and equalities committee which


is called for greater transparency on the impact of government


decisions on women and those with protected characteristics and help


improve scrutiny and accountability and look forward and hope the


Minister gives it due consideration when he responds. New clause five


impact assessments. The question is that new clause five


B read a second time. I intend to deliver has very much,


most of these ones are narrow and deal with this very specific point


that the honourable gentleman on the front raised early on. I have a very


simple concern as to why there is such a peculiar sense about the


vital importance of these particular tabled forecasts that really places


huge credit on the Treasury's ability to be able to forecast were


recording in every sector. As so many of these forecasts have in the


past been fundamentally wrong and I asked the library to look at the


Treasury forecast in May 2016 and to concern itself as whether or not how


accurate that turned out to be and I think it's worth actually just silly


to me exactly how accurate that really has turned out to be when


they had in front of them a huge array of figures and possibilities.


It's worth reading this one because it's quite important. In May 2016


the Treasury published forecast for the immediate economic impact of


voting to leave the EU. Its forecast for a recession to occur in the


second half of 2016 quarterly GDP growth of -0.1% in both quarter


three and a quarter four. And its forecast essentially a second severe


shock scenario that was also shown with a deep recession occurring


under this scenario growth of 1% and -0.4% in quarter 420 16. In reality


the economy continue to grow in its pre-referendum pace with quarterly


growth of 0.6% and more and now it's been adjusted again by the governor


of the Bank of England to be just close to it 2% with the prospect of


further adjustments. Just on the point of quarterly growth


statistics, as understand it, I think that even the future


predictions even knowing what is happening right now is often very


difficult for predicting entities. In fact I believe it's about four


times out of 270 quarters they have the numbers correct. In fact, the


range of prediction had nearly and 90 billion margin for error from the


Office for Budget Responsibility over the previous seven years. That


?90 billion was plus or minus 15 on the plus side and 40 billion on the


minus side. -- 50 billion on the plus side. We have a sense that


somehow these forecasts give you any strong real indication of what could


happen in the economy. This particular new clause, and other


amendments relevant to it, actually do make this contingent on this and


other words the triggering of article 50 officially cannot be done


until these forecasts are laid. There's not a of consult on them or


made as a matter of information by the government of contingents, so


other words, this Article 50 letter cannot go until these are laid and


all they do is be inform the debate depending on what the forecasts are.


For example, I happen to be of the general opinion in talking to


economists that we've had seven years of growth and its normal


within the cycle that you would expect at some point after this long


period of growth to have a certain flattening, that would be the normal


prospect. But that e-commerce will tell you it's defined in more


prospects of whether or not we have a natural process of slightly lower


growth directly as a result of this longer period of growth, what


happens at the world economy, what's happening in the European Union is


almost impossible to forecast that and do it with any great accuracy.


My point that are merely making, it does seem to be strange that the new


clause five, it says here and I caught this, the Prime Minister may


not give notice under section one until either HM Treasury has


published any impact assessment and HM Treasury has laid a statement


before both houses of parliament. This is not, with respect to the


honourable gentleman this book for the opposition, this is not just a


helpful attempt to get information to the House. This is exactly what


he said it was not. This is quite clearly a back door attempt to try


and make it almost impossible and difficult for the government to


actually get on and trigger article 59 what what what my honourable


friend Dover said was was that the verdict of the British people and


the referendum was to trigger article 50, they weren't asked


Sharon Wood triple article 50 only after we have laid various reports


and notables who believe the economy is good, bad or indifferent, they


were rashly asked do you want to leave order you want to stay and


they've chosen to leave and we need to get on with it. The idea that


government will go on to a negotiation without any idea about


what may favour and what by a large what the margins will be is


ridiculous and the other point I'd make is that the House has to in a


sense recognise that it's come to be swamped with information of this


sort every single forecasting agency is going to be in the game of


telling us where we are and none will be the wiser. And I'm sure


depending on what their position is, everybody in the House will take the


worst are the best depending on what they want. If you got a margin of


error from the Office for Budget Responsibility of ?90 billion, you


can take with ever petition you want but it doesn't change anything.


Because we are leaving and the nature of the agreement that we get,


if we get an agreement with the European Union, is not to be based


on a budget forecasts, his country based on what ultimately goes


negotiating from the European Union thinkers in their general best


interests and we from the UK managed to persuade them is in our mutual


best interest. That is what a negotiation is about and anybody


who's been engaged in the negotiation business will know that


you start with what you base bottom line is on worst for you and you try


to improve upon that and they do the same. This is not going to be, I


tell you what my forecast comes to women to be better, what is your


sick? We're going to be better off, so which forecast regurgitate? The


Battle of forecasts is a decrease and pointless exercise. I'm grateful


to the Right honourable gentleman forgiving way. Of course, as he


characterised it, it isn't going to be a battle of forecasts. What the


forecasts are based on is the same thing as the assessment that people


make when they're judging what will or will not be in their interest.


They've got a mental model and sometimes those mental models can be


put into mathematical form and sometimes that is useful and surely


that is precisely what the City of London is doing when it says to the


French and the Germans and the Italians, you need us more than we


need you. Yes, but the point is here that we'll be none the wiser and


this is my point, if the House links that forecasts are somehow going to


really inform the view of it, I would after 25 years be astonished.


Debates in this house are freely really informed, they are mostly


based on the judgment of individuals, particularly from some


of my... My right honourable friend is making a very impressive case.


I'm tempted to quote from carry on up the Khyber.


Is it not the case given the candour of one of the most distinguished


economists in this country that those who call for impact


assessments in the way they did attributing. I'm tempted my


predecessor when he said when there's screaming, shouting and


laughing, carry on you must be on the right track. The point I would


make is also the head of the OBE I was seeing in the end of it, almost


all forecasts are wrong. This is not really about being


informed? Is not information its delay. That's what it is all about,


and attend to were not satisfied with that, that doesn't quite confer


with what be passed in this clause, therefore you are not able to


trigger article 50. The honest truth is the government is to go always


with their best will and endeavour and try and arrange to get the best


kind of deal they can. As we look around us and we listen to what


various politicians in Europe, we keep forgetting their position in


this is really what will and upsetting what kind of arrangement


we get. Finance Minister of Germany 24 hours ago has changed his


position and has now said that there is no way on earth that they should


have any concept of trying to punish the United Kingdom, quite con the


contrary. He said we need the City of London to succeed and thrive


because without it we will be poor and went on to say therefore we


absolutely will have to come to an arrangement with the United Kingdom


because it is in all of our interests and that is the best


forecast you can get because it's about what people believe is in


their mutual best interest. Further to that point. Has he seen comments


from the German equivalent of the CBI.


Thomas Ince the Prime Minister made her excellent speech in which she


set out the 12 points that were subsequently fleshed out into a


White Paper she made it clear what the British Government was not going


to be asking for any special pleading about the single market


that the rashly began to say. I engage with a company that turns


over 400 million euros a year. They are in the pre-packaged potato


industry and 39% of their product they sell all over the world but 39%


is sold to the United Kingdom. They do very well.


These things are already nothing to do with forecasts, all to do with


people caring about their futures and jobs. These amendments come


before any such rational intervention by reasonable business


people across Europe. They are designed, they are based on the


presumption that the members opposite genuinely believe in their


doomsday forecasts. They're just waiting for them to occur and that's


the whole point of delaying the process in the hope that when it


does happen and the sky does fall, the British people will change their


minds. I am the most mild-mannered and tolerant of men.


The interventions are becoming slightly overlong. Interventions


should be interventions not speeches. Thank you for that


explanatory intervention. I'm still prepared to take any further


interventions should they wish to foster keep them short. We just


talked a month ago about the City of London, the power of the City of


London. 30 relies as well that other major capitals, Paris and Frankfurt


and they don't have the infrastructure. Frankfurt has won


for a Mike Mitchell and Paris has restricted labour laws. It plays


usually to the government's hands. In Frankfurt in was interesting that


when he was interviewed by the BBC to their horror when they said you


already tried to get people to come to take up their jobs.


We absolutely need the City of London to thrive and prosper because


it's the way we keep our capital cheap. We can't replace it, it will


go somewhere outside of Europe. He said London is the only global city


in Europe and the point he was making was that we always move and


trade jobs are on but the point is the expertise and the ability to


make those capital deals lies in London and they want to make sure


that the kingdom government, the European Union commission and the


Council reach an agreement that is beneficial to both sides with access


to the marketplace. I make no bones about it, I'm an optimist and


nothing in the way of this amendment which is good to help in any way


whatsoever for the government or even more importantly these


amendments for the House to reach any kind of magic to conclusion such


as to let the government then trigger article 50. This I content


in conclusion, somebody wants to intervene but in conclusion I


content. When it comes to forecasts there was another real-life example


which I don't think is mentioned which is the referendum in Scotland


for independence was predicated on the oil price remaining high.


Shortly afterwards the oil price dropped dramatically which would


have left Scotland in dire straits and they voted for independence. I


agree, as the head of the old BR said about forecasts, he was clear.


He said in the end most forecasts are wrong. On that basis it isn't


really good to help the House in any way to suddenly have a Treasury


forecast any other than it will for all the multitude of other forecasts


that are likely to set about seeing where the economy will go. I don't


blame them for being on because there are far too many movable part


in economies as complex as the United Kingdom's.


This is about making sure the government's hands are tied, that


the slow the process down in the vague hope that some how, people's


opinions will change. The honest truth is... He has been very


generous in accepting these interventions. As I understand from


polling and my experience on the doorstep, most people just want us


to get on with the job. Brexit is actually more popular than it was at


the time of the referendum. I just simply want to say that is exactly


the point. The purpose of all of this, if you were trying to mend the


bill on this basis and tied a government's hands, or that will


happen is that, in the end, the British people will get frustrated


and angry about that... I will indeed give way. What if, actually,


everyone in the House, whether they are Brexiteers all remain as, want


the best deal for the country? And in order to make good decisions


about that, they want to see the analysis about what is going on


about the implications of making particular decision so we can have a


good debate? Surely, that is what this is about, not delay? I say to


the honourable lady, if that were the purpose, explicit purpose of


this amendment or new clause, I would agree with her, but the


difference is that it restricts the government from invoking Article 50


until this matter is laid in front of the House. I simply say to her,


that line alone makes it very clear that this is not the full intention.


If however all that was said was we would invoke Article 50 and it would


be good that the government puts forward the various predictions


forecast, I would probably have said the government would not have a


problem with that, but this is not what this says. If the honourable


lady beads, she will realise this is about delay and prevarication. I end


by simply saying... Would he like to make a forecast and say that maybe,


at the end of this process, the vast majority of the people in Scotland


will want Brexit? I will honestly say, as I have just condemned every


forecast, I will not make up forecast. But I will say that once


they get back on the domestic policy in Scotland, the Scottish


Nationalists will be seen for what they are. But let's get back to the


real forecast. In conclusion, I simply say therefore this new clause


and attending amendments that make it very clear that this House would


put another set of shackles around the government's hands, stopping


them from getting on with what the British people voted for last year,


must be rejected because the government at the end of the day


must seek the best deal they can in line with what is good for the EU


and good for the United Kingdom. I am pleased to follow the right


honourable member for Chingford. I have to say, before I come on to the


amendment I am moving, on a subject I noticed was absent from his


contribution just now, I am bemused at what can only be described as a


15 minute diatribe against forecasters, economists, the


experts, that is why I was not surprised to see the member for


Surrey Heath join him in that diatribe, because we have spent the


last five or six years on this side of the House listening to these two


former Cabinet ministers telling us how important economic forecasts


are, how important it is to listen to independent forecasters, which is


why they were telling us how important it was the set up the


offers the budget responsibility that he has just spent the last 15


minutes slapping off. But anyway, I will make progress and come to the


honourable gentleman in a bit. I am bound to say at the start that I


wish we were not here. I campaigned as the two Honourable members know,


very strongly for us to stay in the European Union. I played a role in


the Britain stronger in Europe campaign nationally. But we lost. I


accept that and as a Democrat, I accept the result, which is why I


supported the second reading of this bill. But I respect people who took


a different view on how you interpret the referendum result.


However, whilst we have different views as to whether the trigger


Article 50 or not, we can all agree that, whilst various promises were


made by both sides in that referendum campaign, the key pledge


of the winning side was that, if we leave the European Union, ?350


million extra per week would go to the NHS, which is why I am seeking


to move amendment 11. Dominic Cummings, who worked with the... Who


ran the vote Leave campaign, said on his blog last month that the ?315


million argument was necessary to win. Would we have one without the


?350 million NHS? All our research suggests no. You can go and read on


his blog. So its importance cannot be underestimated or detached from


the triggering of Article 50. It is inextricably linked to why millions


of people voted to leave. It is inextricably linked to our


withdrawal from the European Union and the efforts of this Bill. I am


very grateful to my right honourable friend the giving way. He is


absolutely right. I have had public meetings and I was in one village


where they said it is fantastic that we are leaving the European Union


because we will get ?350 million a week for the NHS and the government


will be able to reopen the A hospital. That is right. And there


are lots of examples that throughout the country. It is not surprising.


Prominent members of this government, the foreign environment


secretaries, all members of the current Cabinet, went around the


country in that big red bus that said, we send the EU ?350 million a


week, let's fund our NHS instead. None of them... None of them


discerned this pledge during the campaign. All they stood by, a big


sign saying, let's give the NHS the ?350 million the EU gets every week.


Does he agree with me that this kind of cynical campaigning gives


politics and politicians are really bad name? And that people who have


seen the pledge on that big red bus now expect this government to


deliver that pledge? That is absolutely right and of course...


They seek to hide behind the wording and claim it was conditional. But


they knew exactly what they were doing when they stood in front of


that big red bus and those signs. The clear message they intended to


convey was that if we leave the European Union, ?350 million a week


will go to the NHS. This story about town hall meetings, I have a huge


amount of time for the honourable gentleman, but I say to him, I have


a number of people come up to me in meeting saying, we would love to


vote to leave the EU but the Chancellor has told us if we do, we


will use 400 ?400 and there will be an emergency budget. It does not


help this country with this House to rehash the campaign of seven months


ago. I am glad the honourable member raised this point. I also have a lot


of respect for him. I'm not tried to re-litigate the referendum campaign


now, I am trying to make sure the policies these people made are


delivered! We know the NHS needs the extra cash so it was not


unreasonable for people to believe them. As members of the health


Select Committee, people on all sides of the House sit on, they


pointed out recently the deficit in NHS foundation trusts in 2015 and 16


was ?3.45 billion alone. We know that claimed increases in NHS


funding by ministers are being funded by reductions in other areas


of health spending. We know the reductions in spending on social


care are having a serious impact translating into increased pay any


attendances, emergency admissions, delays, the people leaving


hospitals. The NHS needs that extra cash so it was not unreasonable for


people who voted to leave the European to think this would be


deliverable. I am very grateful to the honourable gentleman to giving


way. He is complaining about the slogan on the side of the bus and is


implying that his amendment gives money to the NHS but it doesn't. It


merely suggests there is a report on the effect of the withdrawal from


the EU on national finance. So he seems to be falling into exactly the


same trap as he is accusing others of. Notes and beans come to mind. I


do not know about him, but all I will say to the honourable gentleman


is that this amendment has been drafted so it is an offensive to


people like him. And given it is such a reasonable amendment, I


suggest he simply votes for it! Is he aware of change Britain's latest


press release where the ?350 million a week has gone on to ?450 million a


week by the exhortations to scrap such owner is regulations such as


the motor vehicles regulations, the greenhouse gas emissions


regulations, the welfare of animals regulations and the welfare of


farmed animals regulations in this country? That is very interesting


and I note that the member for Surrey Heath are still in his place


because I saw in the Sun newspaper in November that the honourable


member for Surrey Heath was demanding that Theresa May spend ?32


billion Brexit dividend on the NHS. I hope he will be supporting our


amendment today as well. I thank my honourable friend the giving way and


he is making some very important points. It is interesting to hear


the other sides scoffing and laughing at this issue but the thing


I point out is that this was not just one many pledges, it was the


pledge, the key pledge... There are a collection of photographs in front


of me. It was the number one commitment of this country when they


voted to leave the European Union. Does this chamber not have a


responsibility to honour the pledge in which people were voting to leave


the EU? I completely agree with my honourable friend and it is for


these reasons that I have tabled amendment 11. It is a very


reasonable amendment. It requires the Prime Minister to set out how


the UK's withdrawal from the EU will impact on the national finances, in


particular on health spending. She needs to set out how she is going to


make good on that boat Leave pledge to spend ?350 million extra per week


on the NHS. I have been very pleased to support his amendment. Does he


agree with me that this would be a vital part of keeping the public's


confidence in the process as well as we go forward over the next two


years, not least if I reflect on a conversation I had my constituency


on Sunday that this issue still remains top most people's minds as


to the reason why they voted to leave? Absolutely. This issue will


not go away. It will be a major part of the general election campaign,


whenever the next one comes. And I do hope that we will not only have


the opportunity to debate this but the opportunity to vote on this as


well. This is the amendment that has been signed by more members than any


other amendment. It is supported across parties and is the support of


the opposition front bench. In the end, in our democracy, it is in this


House that members of this House are held to account for the promises and


things they say to the people. What better way to test the resolve of


people like the honourable member for Chingford, the Surrey Heath,


what better way to test the resolve than for there to be a vote on this


side the the book and see whether the meant what they said? Another


commitment was they want to make Parliament sovereign again. If you


listen to the government benches today, they say, that would be


delaying tactics, they cannot have it both ways. He is absolutely


right. These people will never be forgiven if they betrayed the trust


of the people by breaking the promised to do with the can to


ensure that the ?350 million extra per week for the NHS is delivered.


They all know this only too well. Mr Cummings, who as I said worked for


the right honourable member for Surrey Heath, disclose this in the


blog I mentioned, but the Foreign Secretary and a member of the member


for Surrey Heath plan to impart deliver on this pledge is part of


the Foreign Secretary's leadership campaign. So when Mr Cummings said


he told the Foreign Secretary, you should start off by being an usual,


a politician who actually delivers what they promise, he says the reply


was from the Foreign Secretary, absolutely, we must do this, no


question. Apparently, the member for Surrey Heath strongly agreed and of


course Mr Cummins goes on to say, if they had not blown up, this would


have all happened. There are a number of reasons no doubt why the


Minister... Will say to us he cannot Firstly, there are those who claim


this wasn't a pledge at all. The transport Secretary has said the


specific proposal by the Vote Leave campaign was to spend ?100 million a


week of the ?350 million on the NHS. And he hoped, and I quote, the


aspiration will be met. I say to the transport secretary who is not here,


the poster they stood by and did not say this was an aspiration or use


the ?100 million figure, it was a pledge. Pure and simple. The poster


did not say, let's aspire to spend ?100 million extra. It gave the


clear impression... I will give way shortly. The clear impression the


money would be spent and it is true the office for National Statistics


said the ?350 million figure was misleading but the Vote Leave


campaign which the right honourable member chaired, they kept on using


that figure regardless and now they will be held to account. I give way.


I thank him for giving way eventually. I believe he should


listen to the words of my right honourable friend the Chingford who


talked about forecasting, the 350 million will be an issue at the next


election but does he agree the Conservative party was not Vote


Leave for the slogan, not the Conservative party and as he gives


as they toured a force of the Brexit campaign, witty comment on Project


via? I think he was involved with Vote Leave, maybe he wasn't but I


will not take any lectures about peddling fear and/or the rest of it


in any campaign from anyone associated Vote Leave and I will


come onto the point he makes about the Conservative party shortly. I


agree with the points he is making. Having made a complaint to the UK


statistics authority, the response I received was it was a potentially


misleading claim and they kept using it. Surely they kept using it


because they knew they needed to to win the referendum and having done


that, we need to hold them to account. Absolutely right. I


completely agree. I will come to that point that the gentleman was


making about the Conservative party because there are people who talk


about and some people from the Labour Party, there are people who


say these were pledges primarily made by people who may have been


members of the Conservative government but they did not speak


with the authority of that government. Well, the five members


of the Cabinet who took leading roles and led the campaign who I


mentioned, three of them were members of the government at the


time, and the Foreign Secretary attended the political Cabinet. Part


of the reason these key campaigners will put out to do media and


campaign for Vote Leave was because they carried the authority of being


government ministers. You can't attach one from the other. The other


argument connected to this is that this was a commitment given by one


side in a referendum campaign, not a government, so we should leave the


matter alone and get on with things and should shut up. I am sorry, I do


not think this will wash. Whether they were ministers or not, all of


the Vote Leave key campaigners were members of this house and as I said,


if democracy is to be anything, it is that you answer if you are a


member of this house, you answer in this house and are held to account


for the promises you make to the people and after all, and my friend


has made a point, it was in the name of parliamentary sovereignty that


they campaigned and if Parliament is sovereign, it is here they should be


held to account. Either they made this pledge, in the expectation of


delivering on it, in which case they must now show us the money and vote


for this amendment or they made this pledge in the knowledge it would


never be met in which case they will be never forgiven for their betrayal


of those who in good faith relied on this promise. I will give way. I am


wholly in favour of spending 350 colour whatever the figure but I


want to ask him specifically, it is his amendment, the amendment does


not say that, it is publisher reports that, I want to know what is


his position and his party with regards to the spending on the NHS


that would only come as and when we leave the European Union and get


back the money that we give at the moment which is up to 350, whichever


way you take the figure, what is his position, does he want to spend it


on the health service or not? I think I detected a hint of support


for the amendment from the remarks the right honourable gentleman has


made. He seems to except and melting is the word I hear, he seems to be


accepting the premise that the amendment so I am looking forward to


him joining us in the division lobbies and what I would say to the


honourable gentleman about the national Health Service which my


party established and created in the face of opposition from his party,


is that we have a far better record of providing the funding and


providing support to the NHS, we need no lectures or demands from his


party who are in government currently throwing it into chaos. I


finish by saying this, his prime minister goes around saying Brexit


means Brexit, if Brexit means anything, it means that he and all


his colleagues who campaigned to Vote Leave, these people need to


deliver on their promises to put ?350 million extra per week in the


NHS and I look forward to seeing him in a division lobbies. Order, order!


We are about to be faced with a situation of last night, we have a


large number of amendments, a large number of members who wish to speak,


I understand entirely members have been generous taking interventions


and it uses up time but I urge colleagues to shorten their speech


is it possible to enable the maximum number of members to take part in


what is an important debate. I could go. It is a pleasure to serve and


your chairmanship and to follow the member for Streatham who made a


characteristically authoritative and penetrating speech. I congratulate


him on his leadership of the Labour in campaign in London, it is the


case even though the UK voted to leave, some of the strongest


resistance was in London and that is in no small part to his


organisational ability. May I also say that I entirely agree with


him... He said the whole of the UK, it is a union so not all of the


United Kingdom and I hope he acknowledges not all of the UK


because constituent parts were told that we were equal partners in the


UK so not all... I accept the point he makes but it is striking the


northernmost part of his own constituency voted to leave and also


striking BBC striking that so many people in Scotland without any... I


will not. Anyway... We have heard at length last night from the SNP about


how Scotland voted and I would say a million people in Scotland voted to


leave overall and simile people voted to leave and as was pointed


out people want the vote to be expedited and the reason I am


speaking tonight is that I am opposed to every new clause and


amendments because they seek to frustrate the democratic will of the


people. The member for Streatham is right, people do want us to take


back control of the money which is spent on our behalf by the European


Union. But if we accept his amendment, and every single other


amendment and new clause, we will seek only to delay and to


procrastinate and put off the day when we leave the European Union and


can spend the additional money on the NHS or on any other priority.


So, if any member of this house wants to see taxpayers money


currently controlled by the European Union spent on the NHS or on


reducing VAT on fuel or spent four example on improving infrastructure


in the Western Isles, they have a duty to vote down the new clauses


which will frustrate the sovereign will of the people being honoured


and I will give way to gentleman on the frontbencher was first. He is


kind. He bears some responsibility of course for the mess we are in.


One area that he was clear run previously was Scotland should have


more control over immigration, will you join us in campaigning for that?


It is striking when he talks about the mess in which we are in, the Wii


refers to the SNP because they are in a significant mass, support for


independence has fallen, support for a second referendum is falling and


therefore psychological displacement theory explains why they want to


talk about anything else other than their own political failure. The


reason why... I will make progress and then give way. The reason I


oppose all the amendments is as was pointed out every single one of them


is implemented would delay and frustrate the legislation because we


have a huge list of impact assessments that require to be


published and other work to be undertaken before we can trigger


article 50. I know the gentleman from the front bench said it was not


the mission of the Labour Party to delay but he is in the position of


what you organisations took a clean skin. An innocent who has been put


in the way of gunfire by other wilier figures like the Chief Whip


and his position and I am sure the honourable gentleman is sincere in


his belief that these amendments and clauses would not delay legislation


or complicate or frustrate the British people but he is wrong. He


is in a position of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus, the


delay. Everything he is doing, every single one of these new clauses and


amendments seeks to delay. Let me draw attention briefly for example


to new clause 48 in the name of the honourable lady for North West


Durham and look in particular at subsection one, S. We're required to


have an impact assessment of leaving the agency. It may have escaped the


notice of the honourable lady but Britain is an island. He makes a


very good point! The idea that we should spend an inordinate amount of


time and money trying to determine whether or not this country will


suffer or benefit by being free from the bureaucracy of that agency seems


to be a massive misdirection of effort. And more than that, and I


will give way, more than that, if we were to publish impact assessments


on every single one of these areas, we would also be falling prey to a


particular fallacy that politicians and officials for prey to which is


imagining the diligent work of the civil servants can predict the


future, a future where there are simile branching histories and


contingent events and so many unknowns. If we produce an impact


assessment on leaving the European Union how do we no how leaving that


agency might be impacted by some of the proposals... Being brought


forward by my right honourable friend the transport Secretary for


the unification and cohesion of the transport network? We cannot know


unless we have the fact in play but we do not yet know, because he is


consulting, what the policy will be. What will be doing is commissioning


the policy equivalent of a pig in a poke. And with that, I way. I'm


quite surprised to hear him say he does not know because I thought


everything was known after the vote and he will tell us the Berkman


leaving a single market but given he knows what it means, does it mean


the WTO or a deal from Europe because he says he knows, which will


it be? You know. My argument throughout this is in seeking to


find the certainty that he wants from the publication... I am a


humble seeker after truth to recognise in a world where there are


contending versions of it, for the SNP to the green version, the


independent Unionist version the Labour Party version, there is, for


all of us, responsibility to use reason in the face of so many


attractive and is contending versions of the truth. I will, in a


spirit of inclusion, sing to give way...


I am deeply offended by being accused long delay of trying to


frustrate the will of the people of the United Kingdom. I am a unionist


and I would like to address the very serious issue, and that is Sinn Fein


and the Republican party will use a hard Brexit to trigger a border poll


in Northern Ireland, and we may see the United Kingdom by the rhetoric


of the right honourable gentleman and others in this chamber. I wonder


whether he could address that serious point? I do not know if it


is relevant to the new clauses we are discussing but one thing I would


say is that in the future and elsewhere, I will do everything I


can to work with her in order to ensure we honour the whole of the


United Kingdom and at the same time work on the progress she has helped


secure. What we do know is that the people on the 23rd of June did not


vote to deliberately reduce environmental protection but we do


know that Brexit will reduce environmental protection because we


will not be part of the environmental agency. Is it not


rather reckless to be contemptuous to make sure we have in place


adequate safeguards for our environment before we trigger


Article 50? I may not agree with the honourable lady on everything but it


agreed effective environmental protection is a very important


thing. I would say two things in particular in response to her


intervention. It is entirely open to us to maintain the current standards


of environmental protection but it is also open to us to enhance them.


We can if we wish have higher standards of environmental


protection, four example for moving livestock. Her party has campaigned


against Common agricultural policy and against which her honourable


friend on the Other Place has campaigned so brilliantly. We can


replace the common agricultural policy with an approach to


subsidising land use which is more environmentally sensitive and also


more productive. I'm happy to give way. To be fair to the honourable


gentleman, the next person kind enough to it is to intervene was the


honourable member. Just before we proceed, it is customary and


courtesy to allow the right honourable gentleman to respond


before trying to make another intervention. I thank the honourable


member for giving way. He describes himself as the humble seeker of


truth and it does strike me as interesting that he campaigned so


hard for the ?350 million a week for that to be an argument for voting


Leave why you would therefore not support amendment 11 that the Prime


Minister must prepare and publish a report on the effect of the United


Kingdom's withdrawal from the EU on her national finances including the


impact. Surely as a humble seeker of truth, you might want to know the


answer to that? It is very important point but the point I sought to make


earlier and her intervention gives me a chance to underlying the


clarify, if we want more money spent on the NHS or anything else and we


want to take back control of the money the EU controls, we should


seek to expedite the will of the British people and leave the EU as


quickly as possible because then we will have that money back and we can


invest in the NHS more quickly. The honourable lady sought to intervene


earlier but I suspect the point made was very much hers and that was an


example of sisterly collaboration in example of sisterly collaboration


and in the spirit of fraternal humility, I hand over to the member


for hope. There are many members of the public who are also humble


seekers of truth. If we do not get these clauses through, we do not


have impact assessments, how do members of the public judge how


Brexit is going? How will the judge what the impact on the health,


education, transport, environment and the community will be if they


have no information at all? This gets me back to part my argument,


which is if one believes that the only authoritative evidence, the


only view that matters on any issue is that which is produced by the


government, then you are turning your back on 400 years of


enlightened thinking. Is it not the case that there is a single view


which is right in every respect? The whole point as was made clear


earlier is that there is a clarification of use of the impact


of leaving the EU in a number of different areas. And further beyond


that, if we seek to have the government's policy advice in every


area which is the inference behind the question published, that makes


the business of government impossible. He may remember reading


the words of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in his


autobiography in which he talked about the Freedom of Information Act


and the way in which he thought it was the biggest mistake, I think


there were bigger! I think that is one view which commands consensus


around the House. But he handed weapon to his enemies, requiring


confidential advice to be prepared by civil servants and accepted by


ministers and it makes the business of government impossible. I would


also say, however good the advice that any minister receives, and when


I was a minister I received excellent advice, my mistakes were


all my own, nevertheless, civil service advice is only one source of


wisdom. Every minister worth their salt will want to consult widely,


any minister that sought only to steer by civil service advice would


quite rightly be held by this House to be a timid mouse, constrained by


the brief, incapable of ranging more widely, incapable of making a


judgment in the national interest. I thank the honourable member. On the


issue of finance, does he agree with his own Secretary of State for


Brexit, who is prepared to consider to have access to the single market?


To be fair to both the honourable gentleman and my right on boyfriend,


I think that as a mischaracterisation of what he said.


-- right honourable friend. I make no criticism of the honourable


gentleman but my interpretation was different. I think two fair-minded


figures, the fact that we can on the played words reached to different


conclusions, rather proves my point, which as we can ask for evidence but


we cannot have a single definitive view and then tried to make the


argument is these new clauses do we cannot proceed until we have is


single definitive view. Can I just say to my right honourable friend,


the most important word in this debate is accountability? Actually,


we are not accountable to the House but our constituents, and it would


be our constituents in the next General election and the one after


that who would hold us to account in success or failure of Brexit. He


makes a key point. It goes to the heart my argument which is, if by


the time of the next election, we have not left the European Union,


the British people feel that having been asked a decisive question and


given a clear answer, we have dishonoured the mandate they gave


us, we are not respecting the result. That leads directly to my


concern about the amount of work required to, and not just the amount


of work required, but also the tools which this work is to others outside


this House who may wish further to frustrate the will of the people. I


think what most of us campaigning, people just wanted us to get on with


it. There was no way on that ballot paper did it say it should be tied


down in knots for ever and a day. That is what they are seeking to do


on the opposite side of the House in effect. My honourable friend is


absolutely right and look at one of the new clauses standing in the name


of the honourable lady, the Prime Minister must undertake before even


exercising the power, before triggering Article 50, she will


publish an impact assessment. How can we know... I take the lead from


distinguished trade negotiators that actually leaving the customs union


as they have argued, Freudian slip, will lead not just the GDP growth in


the United Kingdom across world. But it is entirely open to others to


take a different view and entirely open to Her Majesty's government to


choose to follow policies which once we had left the customs union either


maximise or minimise our GDP. Once again by insisting on a narrow focus


on what they believe is one truth and holding up advancing this


legislation as a result of it the promoters of this new cause seek


once again to frustrate democracy. I thank my right honourable friend for


giving way. I welcome his conversion to experts and listening to experts.


I certainly welcome that. Does he agree with me but it would be no


good for our British business or constituents if we do for the next


two years is rehashed a result of the referendum or the debate? I am


sure we will disagree on times to come but it will not help in terms


of the outcome in terms of Brexit. I entirely agree. Of course we have


that referendum and of course there were people who will feel so on the


side of Remain, who will feel that somehow the result was not just a


betrayal of the hoax but also one by means they do not endorse. It


absolutely understand that there is a responsibility on those of us who


argued for Leave to listen carefully, to seek to include in the


type of new relationship the very best ambitions and aspirations that


they put forward as reasons for staying. I think that can be done


and I think this House has a critical role in it, but it can only


be done once we have triggered Article 50. The right honourable


member for Streatham spoke powerfully I thought about breaches


of promise but is there no single bigger breach of promise them


blocking Brexit by supporting these wretched amendments? There is one


particular element to it as well. One of the important principles of


our Constitution which I whole heartedly believe in is the


principle of judicial review. It is absolutely right that executive


action should be subject to judicial review. It is the only way, apart


from the exercise of power in this House, that we can be certain that


the Executive is following the rule of law and I'm one of those people


will that I voted for us to leave the European Union that was pleased


that the Supreme Court heard this government to account so that we


have this legislation now. But having said all of that, I support


the legislation and judicial review, if we accept any of these new


clauses or amendments, we will subject the operation of article 52


judicial review, and that would mean that if any single one of these


impact assessments were not prepared in the right way at the right time,


with appropriate care, then it could be the case that the hope process


would be upended. And on this occasion, what different people have


different views on experts, I made a number of mistakes as I said during


my career, too much for us now to run over, given the fact the debate


has to close at 9pm. But one of the things I do remember is that


judicial review on the basis of a relatively small infraction of


equality impact assessment nevertheless resulted in the


paralysis of this government's school Capitol building programme.


If we want to create a feast for lawyers and litigators, accept these


new clauses, bring in these new amendments, and in so doing, see the


tills changing as he hangs bring up and down the country as we have once


again frustrated the will of the people. He makes a very powerful


argument. Does the honourable gentleman remembered that during the


campaign, there was an assessment of the economy given by the former


Chancellor of the Exchequer? And to see remember whether it was accepted


by the opposition party or whether the Leader of the opposition said he


did not accept the assessment and would not implement it? Again, my


honourable friend, who took the forbearance of comments by lawyers,


is absolutely on the bottom. Are we to accept the first time ever


an official government document will be taken by my friends on the SNP


benches or the Labour party benches as holy writ? Will they say thank


heavens, oh, this document bears the name of David Davis, it must be


right. That is the only way I can form a judgment on whether or not we


are leaving the European Union and it will be a success. Can I expect


the member for Scotland and other parts, can expect him to say, the


impact assessment from David Davis said axe and it is satisfied, I will


accept the Secretary of State is right because everything he has done


is in accordance with what he said he would do previously. I'm grateful


to him but he talks about the fact members of government have made


mistakes in the past, this is about the house holding the government to


account. We have to recognise the reality of what has happened and he


talks about the estimates that are out there but the reality is the


currency has fallen substantially against the dollar, we know the


impact on inflation and the impact assessments have to be informed by


the impact. There is no plan to affect trade with Europe. Of course


we need impact assessments to do the job properly. Order! May I again say


there are large numbers, he has been extremely generous in giving way but


I trust he is nearing the end. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman


who compares the roles of crofter and investment banker with skill.


The pound has fallen. One reason many people in our shared country of


birth rejected the SNP referendum promise in 2014 is at least we know


what currency we have in this country, if Scotland were


independent, Scotland would not have the pound, it could not have the


Euro so we do not know what it would be left with, the Groat, a hole in


the air! There was no answer to the question. This is critical. He


argues the only way we can effectively scrutinise backbenchers


and opposition spokesman and the government is through impact


assessments. This is a grotesque misunderstanding of the


opportunities available to us in this house. But a Freedom of


information requests, Parliamentary questions, written or oral, the


diligent use of all of the tools available to us to scrutinise the


executive, the idea we are mute and blind until an impact assessment has


been published, that there is no relevant tool available to us and no


relevant source of information which we can quarry other than an impact


assessment is actually amiss underestimation to use a phrase from


George W Bush is of what each of us as members of this house are capable


of. This brings me to my final point. And I will pause happily and


give way. He is expounding the principle of this house entirely


which is the principle of democracy and rule of law, not for the rule of


lawyers. I could not agree more and this is an opportunity for me to


commence him for the work he has done to draw attention to the way


some lawyers have used some legislation to enrich themselves at


the expense of those who were the Queens uniform and defend our


liberties every day and can I say that his work in this field is


commendable and as an example of what a backbencher can do because he


did that work without any impact assessments having been published or


waiting for the MoD to act, he did so because he believed it holding


the executive to account. And the one thing all of us want to hold the


executive to account for is triggering Article 50. So, if you


want to have perennial judicial review, if you want the scorn of the


public by putting pettifogging delay ahead of mandate... Yes! It is one


of my favourite policy ballot synonyms for prevarication,


procrastination or delay. If you actually want to get on with


scrutinising what the government does, join us on the committee, put


down written and Parliamentary questions, why not conduct a proper


study of what not just this government but other governments,


not as this government but civil society, not just this government


but a variety of industries and enterprises across the country are


saying. The idea that we should seek as these amendments and new clause


is sick to do, to delay the will of the British people, I'm afraid


rather than restoring confidence in this house, we would lower public


confidence and for that reason because it would mean a glorious


liberation was curdled, curdled by Parliamentary delaying tactics of a


discredited kind, it is for that reason I hope the entire house will


vote against these new clauses and all these amendments to uphold the


sovereign will of the British people as freely expressed in June last