07/03/2017

:24:53. > :24:58.That is Labour Party policy and I speak in favour of that policy. I

:24:59. > :25:04.noticed in her welcome that in her speech on committee, my noble

:25:05. > :25:13.friend, the opposition leader, the noble Baroness Basildon, said. This

:25:14. > :25:16.was not, I wish you was the opposition leader by the way as

:25:17. > :25:23.opposed to our opposing opposition -- current opposition leader but

:25:24. > :25:26.that is a different matter. What she said was that she disagreed with

:25:27. > :25:29.pressing a referendum at this date but left open the question that if

:25:30. > :25:35.there was a final demand, come the final situation following clarity on

:25:36. > :25:39.what Britain's future would hold and a deal that had or had not been

:25:40. > :25:44.negotiated, a referendum could be called at that stage. She left the

:25:45. > :25:49.door open and I welcome that. I understand the front bench and her

:25:50. > :25:56.position. The country was split down the middle on June 23 last year.

:25:57. > :26:00.Yes, leave won, there is no disputing that, I'm not disputing

:26:01. > :26:04.that. But it is split down the middle, perhaps even more so now.

:26:05. > :26:10.This is the most divisive issue of my political generation. And it is

:26:11. > :26:16.going to continue to be divisive in the future. I believe a referendum

:26:17. > :26:21.that allows people to have the final say is a way of bringing the country

:26:22. > :26:38.together in deciding on that final say. That is why I support this

:26:39. > :26:43.amendment. I would like to remind him about the Welsh devolution

:26:44. > :26:47.referendum. I was the lead the Welsh Liberal Democrats in 1992 to 1997

:26:48. > :26:54.and strongly supported, as he did, the idea of devolution for Wales.

:26:55. > :26:57.And it has worked extremely well. But I would remind him, and

:26:58. > :27:03.certainly no Liberal Democrat I knew in Wales envisaged that if we did

:27:04. > :27:10.not like the way devolution was set up, that we would have a second

:27:11. > :27:15.referendum. We would have considered that view completely idiotic and

:27:16. > :27:19.unconstitutional. I have only been on this side of the House for the

:27:20. > :27:26.last two or three months so my memory of being Liberal Democrat is

:27:27. > :27:32.reasonably fresh. At the time of the European referendum last year, it is

:27:33. > :27:38.clear in my mind that the starting point for the Liberal Democrats was

:27:39. > :27:42.as follows. There would be one referendum. It was not suggested for

:27:43. > :27:47.one moment that there would be two or even three or four referenda. I

:27:48. > :27:55.see the logic of what the noble Lord said earlier and thought he was

:27:56. > :27:58.rather wrongly put down by the noble Lord, Lord Newby because he made a

:27:59. > :28:01.perfectly fair point. It was envisaged by the Democrats that

:28:02. > :28:06.there would be one referendum and that that referendum would be in

:28:07. > :28:12.accordance with the law. The law provides that referenda are

:28:13. > :28:17.advisory. And are subject to parliamentary procedure thereafter.

:28:18. > :28:22.If a referendum result for good reason, is rejected by Parliament,

:28:23. > :28:29.then the result is rejected by Parliament. And that is what Liberal

:28:30. > :28:35.Democrats expected. Namely, the normal process. And we would have

:28:36. > :28:38.heard, had it been otherwise. I wanted to make two particular

:28:39. > :28:47.points, one tactical and the other constitutional. First, the tactical

:28:48. > :28:52.point. The noble Lords, as our member to my cost, every call on

:28:53. > :28:59.what positions the Liberal Democrats took in the past has not always been

:29:00. > :29:02.entirely accurate as I recall. But on this issue, the differences

:29:03. > :29:08.surely this. When the Wales referendum was put, it was put on a

:29:09. > :29:15.specific proposition. Fully backed up with policy and detail. On this

:29:16. > :29:19.occasion, the question put to the British people was to leave or not,

:29:20. > :29:24.the government is entitled to an act that mandate. There is no mandate,

:29:25. > :29:29.and the noble Lord may wish to suggest the form of mandate for the

:29:30. > :29:32.particular form of exit that the government chooses. There is no

:29:33. > :29:39.mandate to leave the single market, nor to leave the common customs

:29:40. > :29:44.union. So if there is no mandate for that, why is it that the government

:29:45. > :29:49.have chosen to use that as the most hardline Brexit possible? If he

:29:50. > :29:52.believes there is a mandate for that, we describe what it is given

:29:53. > :30:00.the majority of people in this country, in opinion polls, have made

:30:01. > :30:12.it clear they do not support this. And the, if you allow me order,

:30:13. > :30:19.order. I don't wish to stifle debate but the noble Lords should know that

:30:20. > :30:22.we are an report stage. It is not the opportunity to interrupt the

:30:23. > :30:30.Speaker, it is not an opportunity to make a speech. Lord, as I think the

:30:31. > :30:34.noble Lord Ashdown knows, I have enormous and racial for his skill

:30:35. > :30:38.and ability. He is at his best when he makes points with simplicity.

:30:39. > :30:44.That point was not made with simplicity. I'm totally confused by

:30:45. > :30:48.what he was seeking to say. And I reject his argument completely. He

:30:49. > :30:53.knows perfectly well, as the whole of the Liberal Democrats know, that

:30:54. > :30:59.what was put to the country was a referendum, in the normal

:31:00. > :31:03.constitutional and legal form. No Liberal Democrat, no Liberal

:31:04. > :31:07.Democrat, no. No Liberal Democrat, least of all, Lord Ashdown,

:31:08. > :31:12.suggested for one moment, perhaps he was too busy eating his hat as a

:31:13. > :31:17.result of his comments on television during the general election. But no

:31:18. > :31:22.Liberal Democrat, least of all he, suggested that there was something

:31:23. > :31:28.different about the referendum that we faced last June. But my Lords I

:31:29. > :31:33.am sure will want me to get on. My lords, the truth of this matter is

:31:34. > :31:36.we are facing this proposal for the second time. Now rather better

:31:37. > :31:42.crafted thanks to the intervention of the noble Lords, because

:31:43. > :31:45.unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats do not like the result of the

:31:46. > :31:54.referendum that took place last June. My lords, nor did I. But my

:31:55. > :32:01.advice to your lordship's House is to be careful for what you wish for.

:32:02. > :32:05.The Liberal Democrats record on referenda ain't so good my lord. You

:32:06. > :32:10.will return the alternative vote referendum and you will recall of

:32:11. > :32:14.course what happened in June. And indeed, I would say that the

:32:15. > :32:22.amendment set out in amendment one aims to compress a huge quantity of

:32:23. > :32:28.extremely complicated issues into a simplistic binary question. It just

:32:29. > :32:33.won't work. And the government doesn't need this kind of

:32:34. > :32:37.patronising advice in order to get on with the negotiations. I now turn

:32:38. > :32:46.briefly to the constitutional issues. The noble Lord, Lord Newby,

:32:47. > :32:53.failed to answer the challenge from the other noble Lord, whether there

:32:54. > :32:56.would be a binding referendum or an advisory referendum. He sought to

:32:57. > :33:01.answer it by saying he thought that on balance, that there would be a

:33:02. > :33:05.binding referendum. If that is the basis for this amendment, it is

:33:06. > :33:10.ridiculous. Because there is no provision in the law for a binding

:33:11. > :33:15.referendum. The whole debate we have been having in your lordship's House

:33:16. > :33:19.has been about how much respect we should pay to the referendum that

:33:20. > :33:23.took place last June. My answer is that we should pay a lot of respect

:33:24. > :33:28.to the referendum that took place last June. I don't want to leave the

:33:29. > :33:33.European Union but I recognise that the referendum has taken us to

:33:34. > :33:38.article 50. We must get on with triggering as soon as possible. The

:33:39. > :33:43.government knows perfectly well what it has to do. It knows that if it

:33:44. > :33:46.produces a completely unsatisfactory result, it will face a motion of no

:33:47. > :33:54.confidence in the other place. And it will fall. And we can well do

:33:55. > :34:06.without messing around with the arrangements which should now be in

:34:07. > :34:09.action. I have no wish to get involved in Liberal Democrat warfare

:34:10. > :34:14.but I did put my name to this amendment and I support many of

:34:15. > :34:20.those speeches given in support of it. My noble friend, the minister,

:34:21. > :34:25.has done a very skilful job in getting this bill to this stage in

:34:26. > :34:31.this House. But that committee stage, he told us to be in no doubt

:34:32. > :34:42.that this country was leaving the EU. No ifs, no buts. No idea on what

:34:43. > :34:46.terms. My lords, I admire determination but not when it is

:34:47. > :34:52.blind to changing circumstances. I cannot see why any government would

:34:53. > :34:57.be so adamant about the course of action, with no knowledge of the

:34:58. > :35:05.circumstances in which it might take that course. We do not know what the

:35:06. > :35:12.world will look like in two years' time. Both economically and

:35:13. > :35:18.politically. It is of the most uncertain stages I have seen in my

:35:19. > :35:23.lifetime. In two years' time, the EU could look very different. The world

:35:24. > :35:28.could look very different. Our economy could look very different

:35:29. > :35:33.and I suspect not for the better. At that stage, we will be able to look

:35:34. > :35:37.at the deal our government has negotiated, or as others have

:35:38. > :35:43.pointed out, the no Deal that it was handed. My lords, although I am not

:35:44. > :35:47.an advocate of government by referenda, in this situation, having

:35:48. > :35:52.started the process with a referendum, as the noble Lord Hain

:35:53. > :35:57.pointed out, it seems the only sensible way to bring the process to

:35:58. > :36:03.an end is to put the terms to the public. I have listened to the

:36:04. > :36:09.arguments, of the noble Lord Carlile, and I don't dismiss the

:36:10. > :36:15.patronising advice he gave to the Liberal Democrats or to those

:36:16. > :36:20.supporting this amendment. But I do believe that the public need to see

:36:21. > :36:24.what is on offer. We have heard during the course of this bill that

:36:25. > :36:31.whatever they voted for on June 23 last year, it was not to get poorer.

:36:32. > :36:34.My lords, I cannot see that the government in the end will be

:36:35. > :36:40.presenting them with a deal which does not mean they will get poorer.

:36:41. > :36:45.And I believed at that stage, they should have the chance to vote on

:36:46. > :36:54.whether having seen the future that it is the future they really want.

:36:55. > :37:00.There was a referendum previously on Europe in 1975. On that occasion, it

:37:01. > :37:04.was not taken as holy writ and something that it was almost obscene

:37:05. > :37:12.to vote against. On the contrary. In 1979, the Labour Party said it would

:37:13. > :37:16.ignore and vote against the referendum result. No difficulties

:37:17. > :37:23.there. So did a very large number of conservatives headed by Mr Enoch

:37:24. > :37:32.Powell. So I cannot see why the and visor in referendum of 1975, where

:37:33. > :37:39.the majority was 33%, should somehow be treated so casually where is this

:37:40. > :37:45.referendum, with a majority of I think 3.8%, is somehow treated

:37:46. > :37:52.reverentially and we should all genuflect before the will of the

:37:53. > :37:56.people. I link this amendment with amendment three which I shall also

:37:57. > :38:04.support. Amendment three confirms the views widely put by the Supreme

:38:05. > :38:10.Court that the sovereignty in this country resides in Parliament in the

:38:11. > :38:16.two Houses of Parliament. That was the view that was taken and that is

:38:17. > :38:24.the view that will be proclaimed in amendment three. Referenda are

:38:25. > :38:34.always advisory. They are to help Parliament in reaching a view. Best

:38:35. > :38:37.to have an informed referendum, the it the last referendum was not the

:38:38. > :38:43.least informed. It was a process of serial lying and deception which

:38:44. > :38:47.added nothing to public understanding and as the facts

:38:48. > :38:52.emerged, I think public understanding will change very

:38:53. > :38:57.substantially. What we need, I think, is another view of the people

:38:58. > :39:04.to assist Parliament when the facts are known. When the car workers at

:39:05. > :39:10.Vauxhall, the steelworkers in portal but, when the car workers in

:39:11. > :39:14.Sunderland will be forming a view on employment, on trade and on

:39:15. > :39:20.Britain's economic relationships with a wider world. And when also,

:39:21. > :39:25.hopefully, as one or two noble Lords have mentioned, young people,

:39:26. > :39:32.deprived of voting this time, his future is being imperilled and being

:39:33. > :39:37.put at risk in the future by this ill informed, almost non-informed

:39:38. > :39:42.decision. When we will have perhaps their views. The final point I

:39:43. > :39:52.think, is that another referendum will not be taken in a one world

:39:53. > :39:59.universe. It will be taken when the views of those other 27 countries,

:40:00. > :40:04.whose views are quite important in reaching a decision on Brexit, when

:40:05. > :40:13.they are also known. So I am in favour, as I believe the Labour

:40:14. > :40:17.Party was, in 1979 and 1983, many conservatives and the growing number

:40:18. > :40:24.of conservatives were to regard this referendum, that we had in June last

:40:25. > :40:29.year as ill informed and almost uninformed guidance. I would prefer

:40:30. > :40:37.informed guidance and that is why I should vote for this amendment.

:40:38. > :40:45.My Lords, I apologise for not having been present at early stages of the

:40:46. > :40:50.Bill for medical reasons. The benefit is I will not be on my feet

:40:51. > :40:57.for long! I was disappointed to miss the excellent debate's early stages.

:40:58. > :41:01.What unites us in this House is how seriously we take our roles. On our

:41:02. > :41:05.best days we approach each question not on the basis of tribal loyalty

:41:06. > :41:10.but on the strength of the argument and how it might work for the common

:41:11. > :41:16.good of the whole country. On these benches, we are not a party, nor do

:41:17. > :41:21.we follow a whip. Today you will see a significant number of bishops

:41:22. > :41:26.appearing, not because we hold ourselves out as constitutional

:41:27. > :41:30.experts, but because we are deeply embedded in every local community in

:41:31. > :41:35.England. We may dress the same but we have independent minds, as anyone

:41:36. > :41:40.observing church politics recently will be well aware! I speak today

:41:41. > :41:44.not in a corporate but a personal capacity. The referendum campaign

:41:45. > :41:51.and its aftermath revealed deep divisions in our societies. This

:41:52. > :41:57.feels like the most divided country that I've lived in in my lifetime.

:41:58. > :42:00.Whatever the outcome of the next two years, our nation 's future

:42:01. > :42:05.particularly for the most vulnerable, will be profoundly

:42:06. > :42:08.damaged if we arrived in 2019 even more divided. Without a common

:42:09. > :42:13.vision to confront the opportunities and challenges before us. To meet

:42:14. > :42:19.these challenges in every aspect of policy and every level of society,

:42:20. > :42:23.we must find a level of national reconciliation. How we conduct this

:42:24. > :42:28.process is as important as the outcome itself. I believe it would

:42:29. > :42:35.be both dangerous and an wise and wrong to reduce the substance of the

:42:36. > :42:40.terms on which we exit the European Union to the result of a binary

:42:41. > :42:44.choice taken last summer. The government should avoid any

:42:45. > :42:50.inclination to oversimplify the outcome of the most complex piece

:42:51. > :42:54.time negotiations probably ever. But neither is the complexity of a

:42:55. > :43:00.further referendum a good way of dealing with the process, at the end

:43:01. > :43:05.of negotiation. It will add to our divisions, it will deepen the

:43:06. > :43:13.bitterness. It is not democratic, it is an wise. Even if circumstances

:43:14. > :43:19.change as the baroness quite rightly said they are likely to, even if

:43:20. > :43:23.they change drastically, a dangerous and over complicated process is the

:43:24. > :43:27.result of a referendum. It is beyond doubt that those bringing this

:43:28. > :43:31.amendment and the others before this House today and last week in

:43:32. > :43:36.committee are moved by legitimate and deeply principled concerns for

:43:37. > :43:41.our country, to challenge that, as has been done in the press is

:43:42. > :43:46.entirely wrong. Similarly, those who have argued against amending this

:43:47. > :43:50.Bill have done so not from a deficit of care but from a concern for

:43:51. > :43:55.process and a legitimate desire to reach the best outcome. Division of

:43:56. > :44:02.our country is not a mere fact to be navigated around. But something to

:44:03. > :44:06.be healed, to be challenged and changed. In many years in which I've

:44:07. > :44:14.worked in countries in the midst of deep division, sometimes sometimes

:44:15. > :44:20.civil division, seeking to build common vision, both here and abroad,

:44:21. > :44:25.there are two cardinal errors. The first is to complicate process, the

:44:26. > :44:31.second is artificially to simplify complicated substance. On this

:44:32. > :44:37.amendment, I fear I believe we risk making the process too complex and

:44:38. > :44:42.the substance too simple. Although I fully understand the good intentions

:44:43. > :44:49.of those who move this amendment, for these reasons I will personally

:44:50. > :44:53.be unable to support it. My Lords, I support amendment one but I believe

:44:54. > :44:58.we have amendment one and amendment three being debated in the wrong

:44:59. > :45:03.order. If we pass amendment three, as I suspect may happen later today,

:45:04. > :45:07.that gives Parliament the final say, which is certainly better than

:45:08. > :45:12.allowing government to walk roughshod over Parliament and decide

:45:13. > :45:17.for themselves. But we can't ignore the fact that the people,

:45:18. > :45:21.regrettably to my view, voted to leave the EU. Though in doing so

:45:22. > :45:27.they didn't have a clear view as to the alternative which they were

:45:28. > :45:32.backing. If Parliament or government has the final say, and the people

:45:33. > :45:38.who voted out don't like it, we could easily escalate the situation

:45:39. > :45:43.into an almighty crisis. That could be avoided I believe by a

:45:44. > :45:46.confirmatory referendum. Let's imagine over the next two years, if

:45:47. > :45:54.negotiations get nowhere and the government resorts to the WTO basis

:45:55. > :46:00.and no preferential access to the single market, and then car

:46:01. > :46:04.factories start closing, financial services moved to Paris or

:46:05. > :46:11.Frankfurt, the EU insists on a 30 billion year road payment from the

:46:12. > :46:19.UK, EU nationals start quitting key posts in the NHS and expats find

:46:20. > :46:23.they made need to start paying for health care or lose pension

:46:24. > :46:28.increments from the UK. At that point, many who voted out will start

:46:29. > :46:33.bleating. This isn't what we voted for. It's at that point, the only

:46:34. > :46:42.way of holding the government in line is to be able to tell them, OK,

:46:43. > :46:47.you'll get the final say, so let's see what happens with the final

:46:48. > :46:52.package. My Lords, it is therefore in the government's best interest to

:46:53. > :46:59.have a confirmatory referendum, and I believe that that is a very good

:47:00. > :47:06.reason for backing this amendment. I arrived in this House today...

:47:07. > :47:11.Sorry. My Lords, I also rise because I am unable to support this

:47:12. > :47:17.amendment. I say so with a heavy heart but extremely conscious of the

:47:18. > :47:22.economic consequences, not least all the other is the noble lord has just

:47:23. > :47:27.mentioned, the economic consequences of prolonged uncertainty. I will

:47:28. > :47:30.briefly sum up why. We've had uncertainty in this country from

:47:31. > :47:35.when the Prime Minister made his speech, but more so since he

:47:36. > :47:40.actually started negotiation. The negotiation itself took 14 months.

:47:41. > :47:44.We have had the referendum, that took four months to organise. So are

:47:45. > :47:49.their noble Lords who believe it can be done in the space of an election

:47:50. > :47:54.campaign. The Electoral Commission's role is such it needs to take its

:47:55. > :48:00.time to do that. We would probably run into a referendum in October 20

:48:01. > :48:05.19. If the referendum result was that the country didn't like what it

:48:06. > :48:10.got, then there would have to be another negotiation. Either to

:48:11. > :48:13.revoke Article 50 or change the terms. But would bring us up into

:48:14. > :48:18.the general election. If there is going to be a general election in

:48:19. > :48:24.2020 there seems to me little value in having the referendum in early

:48:25. > :48:31.2020 all 820 19. That's just the chronology. The idea of imagining

:48:32. > :48:39.that the EU partners would hang around from 2015 to 2020 without

:48:40. > :48:47.making provisional plans for a 12.5% hole their budget, for a seizing

:48:48. > :48:55.automatic change in relationship of a single market of 65 million

:48:56. > :48:59.people, is somehow not even to understand the EU's position. We

:49:00. > :49:05.have seen HSBC moving 1000 jobs, we have heard that Europe clearing

:49:06. > :49:10.would have to move. We've heard the Irish government telling us they are

:49:11. > :49:15.preparing space for companies to move their office space. We know

:49:16. > :49:20.that 1.1 million people are dependent on the financial services

:49:21. > :49:22.sector, and their jobs are in line at the moment. The idea that

:49:23. > :49:29.business will hang around for a further four years was rebutted in

:49:30. > :49:35.the evidence we take in the report of the financial affairs

:49:36. > :49:40.subcommittee on the impact on financial services. We were told in

:49:41. > :49:44.terms that uncertainty was extremely damaging to the sector and they

:49:45. > :49:47.wished therefore to have a transition period. Let me conclude

:49:48. > :49:53.with one or two points to deal directly with some of the things

:49:54. > :49:59.speakers have said. The noble lord said a process started by referendum

:50:00. > :50:05.should end with one. The logic of 40 says I accept. The process started

:50:06. > :50:09.with a referendum in 1975, there are people in this country who are 60

:50:10. > :50:14.years old and over who have not had a say in the future direction of the

:50:15. > :50:17.country until last year. With a heavy heart I have to admit they

:50:18. > :50:22.didn't go in the direction I wanted them to go in which was to remain,

:50:23. > :50:28.but they chose not to. So the process started with a referendum

:50:29. > :50:34.and it will end with a referendum. I suspect what he leads to is a third,

:50:35. > :50:37.potentially a fourth one. The noble lady Wheatcroft says, we don't know

:50:38. > :50:43.what the world would look like in a couple of years' time. I completely

:50:44. > :50:46.agree. That's why I look forward to debating the amendment still to come

:50:47. > :50:52.about is whether Parliament should make an assessment or not. My Lords,

:50:53. > :50:58.I am in a place where I think referenda are a dangerous tool,

:50:59. > :51:03.direct democracy is dangerous in my opinion and referenda should be used

:51:04. > :51:08.with great care and with clarity, because we cannot explain a

:51:09. > :51:14.complicated negotiation result in a referendum as Mr Cameron found out.

:51:15. > :51:19.I agree entirely with the noble lady who just said referenda are a bad

:51:20. > :51:23.idea. I'm surprised others in the chamber don't agree especially those

:51:24. > :51:30.on the Liberal Democrat benches. My Lords, nevertheless, we had a

:51:31. > :51:34.referendum. It was a binary choice, yes or no. People knew what they

:51:35. > :51:41.were voting for, they voted to leave the EU. My Lords, it is unbecoming

:51:42. > :51:45.and patronising of people to a tribute to the individuals in this

:51:46. > :51:52.nation the reasons for which they voted. Personally I voted to stay in

:51:53. > :51:55.1975, 40 years later I had experienced the EU and I've voted to

:51:56. > :52:00.take back control of this country in the hands of British people. That is

:52:01. > :52:04.what I have done and that is what I suspect most people are expecting

:52:05. > :52:07.from us. I must say it is patronising to suggest that people

:52:08. > :52:13.did not know what they were voting for. The logic to which the noble

:52:14. > :52:20.lord referred is what would happen if the people in this country in a

:52:21. > :52:23.second referendum rejected the government's negotiating position.

:52:24. > :52:26.Nobody has an answer to that and I would say there must be a third

:52:27. > :52:33.referendum. I wouldn't particularly want to get into that. Finally, to

:52:34. > :52:36.my friends on the Liberal Democrat benches, I hope they count me a

:52:37. > :52:40.friend from time to time, there was an article in The Times yesterday

:52:41. > :52:50.suggesting the Liberal Democrats fortunes are rising by Michael

:52:51. > :52:53.Lucas, he suggested this was part of reinvigorating Liberal Democrat

:52:54. > :52:59.fortunes. If I may say so, I would say the country. As the noble lord

:53:00. > :53:02.suggested, there might be corrosive and justifiable anger but I think

:53:03. > :53:06.the great British people have had their referendum, they don't want

:53:07. > :53:12.another one, I suggest we should ignore this amendment and carry on.

:53:13. > :53:17.I came into this chamber genuinely unsure about which way to vote,

:53:18. > :53:33.whether to support the amendment or not. This is genuine. In relation to

:53:34. > :53:37.this particular amendment. I support amendment three very strongly

:53:38. > :53:48.indeed. I'm not sure the debate has helped me, there have been eloquent

:53:49. > :53:54.speeches on both sides. My reservation, and I intervened, it is

:53:55. > :54:00.because of my reservations I had about the referendum itself. The

:54:01. > :54:03.fact 16 and 17-year-olds weren't allowed to vote, that EU citizens

:54:04. > :54:12.weren't allowed to vote, there wasn't a threshold, there was

:54:13. > :54:19.uncertainty whether it was advisory, or mandatory. That created a huge

:54:20. > :54:23.problem in relation to that. My noble friend, it was an advisory

:54:24. > :54:33.referendum, there is no doubt at all about that. I agree, that is my view

:54:34. > :54:38.as well. Some people tried to sow confusion and indicate that it had

:54:39. > :54:42.to be accepted. So I do think therefore, and this is what I said

:54:43. > :54:46.to my noble friend, that we need to look carefully at what happened at

:54:47. > :54:56.the end of this very long and complicated process.

:54:57. > :55:03.I am now convinced, Lord Newby answered my question. That is the

:55:04. > :55:07.form of the referendum, the timing of it, the question and the

:55:08. > :55:10.franchise, and all of these other things will be dealt with in a bill

:55:11. > :55:21.that will come before this Parliament. Amendment three,

:55:22. > :55:26.parliamentary approval of any deal that is agreed. I envisage and I

:55:27. > :55:31.don't know if my colleagues agree, I envisage that Parliament would then

:55:32. > :55:38.put its agreement and the proposal to the referendum. That would be the

:55:39. > :55:41.question. So in this referendum, we would actually know what we were

:55:42. > :55:49.voting for. Unlike the last referendum. That has convinced me

:55:50. > :55:53.that the way forward is to combine the parliamentary consideration of

:55:54. > :55:56.the deal that is reached, to come to some conclusion and put it to the

:55:57. > :56:01.people because the people have considered it already. That is the

:56:02. > :56:10.first thing to convince me to support this amendment. I have

:56:11. > :56:16.become increasingly concerned with how I would discover, the tribalism

:56:17. > :56:27.of the Tories on this issue. Sitting there, some kind of concerted

:56:28. > :56:32.campaign to push through the hard kind of Brexit that they want at any

:56:33. > :56:39.cost. And I mean at any cost. The more they do that and the more they

:56:40. > :56:43.sit there jeering at our party with -- partners in Europe, dismissing

:56:44. > :56:47.them as if they are irrelevant in this, the more I am convinced we

:56:48. > :56:57.need to make sure that they're kind of hard Brexit... Would my noble

:56:58. > :57:03.friend agree that the referendum in Scotland, what happens if a second

:57:04. > :57:10.referendum is closer than the last one. Do we have a third or fourth?

:57:11. > :57:16.As my noble friend rightly said, in Scotland and in Wales what was put

:57:17. > :57:24.to the people was absolutely clear and was a specific proposal. In two

:57:25. > :57:30.sets up a parliament for Scotland and for Wales. What we put to the

:57:31. > :57:35.last referendum was not as clear. We did not know the options before us.

:57:36. > :57:43.All previous referenda have always been confirm a tree. They actually

:57:44. > :57:47.agreed to what Parliament has said before the nation. That was not the

:57:48. > :57:55.case in June last year. I find myself unusually agreeing with him

:57:56. > :58:00.completely. It has taken me by surprise. And that is why I think

:58:01. > :58:05.what we are talking about in this referendum, that this is a confirm a

:58:06. > :58:09.true referendum after Parliament has agreed or otherwise with a proposal

:58:10. > :58:18.that comes from the government in relation to Europe. On that basis, I

:58:19. > :58:25.will back his amendment. My Lords, there are two scenarios regarding

:58:26. > :58:28.the EU attitude to us leaving the European Union. One is that they are

:58:29. > :58:34.absolutely delighted that we should be going, a Thorn has come out of

:58:35. > :58:38.their side. They will be able to proceed with the federal dream they

:58:39. > :58:43.have always had. And therefore, they will want to quickly get on with an

:58:44. > :58:51.agreement and say goodbye to us. The other scenario is that actually they

:58:52. > :59:00.regard the UK leaving the EU like a hole in the head. It would give them

:59:01. > :59:04.an enormous budgetary problem and it will probably be contagious and lead

:59:05. > :59:09.to other countries in the EU wanting to leave as well. And of course, the

:59:10. > :59:15.noble Lord, Lord Newby says we must trust them. Hold on. They are not

:59:16. > :59:23.feature that -- they are not renowned for being overtly Emma

:59:24. > :59:34.cracked it. They put the whole objective of the federal dream above

:59:35. > :59:39.all else. -- being overtly democratic. We

:59:40. > :59:49.you offer the most appalling deal known to man. And then knowing that

:59:50. > :59:55.there is going to be a referendum, if this amendment is passed, you can

:59:56. > :59:58.confidently reckoned that the British people will vote against

:59:59. > :00:04.that deal and the United Kingdom will stay in the EU. My Lords, does

:00:05. > :00:09.that not completely undermined the government's negotiating position

:00:10. > :00:12.once article 50 has been passed? This amendment should be opposed

:00:13. > :00:29.absolutely ruthlessly. My Lords, there is one of the

:00:30. > :00:32.important reason why the final decision on Brexit should be a

:00:33. > :00:38.national referendum and not the approval of parliament. It is that

:00:39. > :00:40.Parliament has changed. We have abandoned the main principle of our

:00:41. > :00:47.democracy, that we are a parliamentary democracy and that MPs

:00:48. > :00:49.are representatives, not delegates. Instead we have adopted the doctrine

:00:50. > :00:54.that the will of the people must always prevail, the favourite

:00:55. > :01:00.doctrine dictators and autocrats throughout history. The second

:01:01. > :01:06.reading had the samples which I will not now repeat. As one Lord pointed

:01:07. > :01:11.out in that debate, four fits of the MPs voted to trigger Article 50 had

:01:12. > :01:18.voted remain and believed Brexit would be against the national

:01:19. > :01:22.interest. The exercising of their own judgment weighing up the

:01:23. > :01:28.evidence and debate has given way to the new fashion for populist

:01:29. > :01:34.political correctness. And the inescapable logic of this approach

:01:35. > :01:44.means that if MPs at the end of the negotiations came to the conclusion

:01:45. > :01:49.that the result the -- be equivalent to falling off a cliff, they would

:01:50. > :01:57.still feel duty bound because of June 23 referendum, to act like

:01:58. > :02:03.lemmings. My Lords, I have always been a devotee of Burke, I once

:02:04. > :02:09.fought a by-election on his principles. In 1972, I was one of 69

:02:10. > :02:14.Labour members of Parliament led by Roy Jenkins who voted for British

:02:15. > :02:23.entry into the European Community, against the three line whip. My

:02:24. > :02:27.local left-wing Labour Party in Lincoln was fashionably anti-Europe.

:02:28. > :02:32.And they told me that if I voted with the Tories against the party 's

:02:33. > :02:41.three line whip, they would deselect me. I did and they did. And so I

:02:42. > :02:47.resigned and fought a by-election in March 1973 as an independent social

:02:48. > :02:54.democrat. And the real issue in that by-election was not Europe but

:02:55. > :03:01.Burke. I explained my reasons at a mass meeting in Lincoln that I had

:03:02. > :03:07.always been pro-Europe and as an 18 year or June, some 70 years ago, I

:03:08. > :03:12.joined the Strasberg club which asked Britain to share some of its

:03:13. > :03:15.sovereignty with other European countries for peace and prosperity.

:03:16. > :03:20.I was not going to change my view because my party told me to. I was

:03:21. > :03:24.supported at a mass meeting we held by a famous journalist at the time,

:03:25. > :03:31.Bernard Levin. He put the issue quite simply, the choice in Lincoln,

:03:32. > :03:37.he said was between me and a dictaphone. I won with an

:03:38. > :03:50.overwhelming majority of Labour and Conservatives. And it was Burke what

:03:51. > :03:58.one it. My Lords, Burke is popular because people like those who stick

:03:59. > :04:01.to their guns. And his championship MPs as representatives, not

:04:02. > :04:07.delegates, has been a basic part of the strength of our parliamentary

:04:08. > :04:10.system. If referendum determined our laws, we would probably still have

:04:11. > :04:15.the death penalty and flopping in prisons. And what would be the point

:04:16. > :04:24.of parliamentary debate if MPs had already pledged their vote

:04:25. > :04:27.irrespective of all arguments. My Lords may ask why I support the

:04:28. > :04:35.Liberal Democrat amendment in favour of a new referendum? I think my

:04:36. > :04:46.noble friend, Lord Newby, gave a very good answer to that. But in

:04:47. > :04:51.fact, a referendum is one way in which people would have a chance to

:04:52. > :04:57.change their mind. If the government process was followed, it would be a

:04:58. > :05:03.completely no real choice because the only choice would be either to

:05:04. > :05:09.accept or reject the end of the negotiations, whatever its results.

:05:10. > :05:13.I believe that the decision to leave the single market and customs union

:05:14. > :05:19.makes a hard Brexit almost inevitable. That we will not get a

:05:20. > :05:23.special deal from industries or the right of service companies to

:05:24. > :05:28.operate their biggest market. I believe Mr Trump will not abandon

:05:29. > :05:34.his claim, America first, and that we will face a more protectionist

:05:35. > :05:39.world, not a free-trade bonanza. We face a very real danger of a return

:05:40. > :05:47.to the nationalism and protectionism of the 1930s. And if we leave

:05:48. > :05:53.Europe, we may find an increasing need to rely on Mr Trump's America.

:05:54. > :06:01.The future of Mrs May and Donald Trump, walking hand in hand. My

:06:02. > :06:12.Lords, we should not travel one miserable inch along that fearsome

:06:13. > :06:16.road. My Lords, at second reading, I argued for a second referendum based

:06:17. > :06:22.on the principle of informed consent. A standard by which

:06:23. > :06:25.individuals can agree to eventually asked their opinion. I will not

:06:26. > :06:30.repeat that argument now but it remains my primary reason for

:06:31. > :06:35.supporting this amendment. Much of what I was going to say has been

:06:36. > :06:41.said that there is one very small point that I wish to make. Which is

:06:42. > :06:45.that we are asked to have faith in this government and its offices to

:06:46. > :06:50.secure this deal but the reason given last week for not securing the

:06:51. > :06:55.fate of EU nationals was not that the government was not willing, but

:06:56. > :07:00.that small number of the remaining 27 would not play ball. Just as we

:07:01. > :07:05.have already been asked to accept, they cannot deliver the single

:07:06. > :07:11.market because the 27 have a red line on free movement. My Lords, as

:07:12. > :07:15.this negotiation goes from the visible red lines to the hundreds of

:07:16. > :07:21.thousands of detours that constitute this divorce settlement, the 27 are

:07:22. > :07:26.going to find a multitude of issues over which they do not wish to play

:07:27. > :07:34.ball. Yet by the government's own admission, they have to accept

:07:35. > :07:40.whatever the least interested of those 27 nations offer. Having

:07:41. > :07:46.meaningful parliamentary oversight and a mechanism by which the much

:07:47. > :07:51.quoted will of the people can be tested, are not automatic roadblocks

:07:52. > :08:00.to withdraw, they are merely an insurance policy against a lousy

:08:01. > :08:11.deal. I have one simple point to make. It is this. My Lords,. Gray we

:08:12. > :08:15.will hear from the Conservative benches and then from the Labour

:08:16. > :08:23.benches and then indeed for Lord Pearson. My simple point is this,

:08:24. > :08:27.Parliament will pronounce for or against the result of the government

:08:28. > :08:34.negotiations to withdraw from the European Union in good course. It

:08:35. > :08:37.may possibly be that Parliament will feel in 2019 or wherever the

:08:38. > :08:42.negotiations are completed, that it will be wise to test the country

:08:43. > :08:45.with another referendum but it should be determined at that final

:08:46. > :08:50.stage in those circumstances, not now. It would be wholly contrary to

:08:51. > :08:57.our constitutional conditions to make a binding aspect for a future

:08:58. > :09:02.referendum at this point. If I may, it seems to run counter to the

:09:03. > :09:08.position of government who seem confident they can get a good deal.

:09:09. > :09:11.Or and that not been the case, getting a bad, that they can walk

:09:12. > :09:15.away and the WTO trading arrangements will be good enough for

:09:16. > :09:20.us to operate effectively in the world. If that is the position of

:09:21. > :09:24.confidence the government has, why should they be in any doubt that a

:09:25. > :09:31.referendum would in fact give them an even greater majority in support

:09:32. > :09:34.of what they finally resolve. I will be supporting this amendment and I

:09:35. > :09:40.do so for a number of reasons. The most pressing reason is that I, as

:09:41. > :09:46.others in this House, have some regret about our greater use of

:09:47. > :09:52.referenda. I think the strength of representative democracy is that it

:09:53. > :09:56.gives you the opportunity of a greater understanding of issues.

:09:57. > :09:57.That is why we delegate to our representatives in matter of

:09:58. > :10:08.governing on our behalf. Once we decided on having a

:10:09. > :10:13.referendum, if at the end of all of this is the sense in Parliament was

:10:14. > :10:18.that in fact the deal on offer was not good and that the WTO

:10:19. > :10:23.alternative was actually not good at all, and then decided that we really

:10:24. > :10:26.wanted to look again at whether the remaining might be an option, it

:10:27. > :10:30.would be quite difficult for us to say that the people shouldn't have

:10:31. > :10:34.their voice, given that they started the process. That's why I'm

:10:35. > :10:38.persuaded that having a referendum is the only thing you can do at the

:10:39. > :10:45.end but again, it would be advisory, and Parliament would say we have to

:10:46. > :10:49.listen to the people. I'm concerned because I take the view that a lot

:10:50. > :10:54.is going to happen in the next two years. Not least that people are

:10:55. > :10:59.going to start seeing what the implications of this art. I want to

:11:00. > :11:05.remind us of the stage of an National Health Service, and the

:11:06. > :11:09.fact we have people on the street saying this can't go on, and that

:11:10. > :11:14.the need for resource is essential. The fact we have a complete crisis

:11:15. > :11:18.when it comes to the care of our elderly which needs money, and yet

:11:19. > :11:24.we are going to be seen huge amounts of money spent on trade negotiators,

:11:25. > :11:29.seeking to reinstate immigration processes and any number of things

:11:30. > :11:32.that this is going to cost us. I think has people recognise that in

:11:33. > :11:36.fact our public services are going to see greater and greater depletion

:11:37. > :11:41.in the shadows of this Brexit movement, people are going to say is

:11:42. > :11:46.this really what we wanted? It goes back to that thing, did people vote

:11:47. > :11:50.to become poorer? I sat with two distinguished businessmen whose

:11:51. > :11:56.names would be on all of your lips the other night who said that by

:11:57. > :12:01.2025, the people of Great Britain, the middle classes as well as the

:12:02. > :12:06.working classes, would be 30% poorer. Just think about that. 30%

:12:07. > :12:10.less well off. And we are lying to people of we don't tell them the

:12:11. > :12:14.truth about it. People have to be given the opportunity of seeing, and

:12:15. > :12:18.I won't have lectures from anybody whose business interests are all in

:12:19. > :12:28.South Africa. I really do press on this House... I hope the baroness

:12:29. > :12:34.will give way but she is drifting to a second reading speech. There is a

:12:35. > :12:38.specific proposal before this House, the amendment proposed by Lord

:12:39. > :12:42.Newby. I'd be grateful if noble Lords could be brief. A lot of

:12:43. > :12:49.people want to speak and address the substance of that motion and not the

:12:50. > :12:54.other aspects they may wish to draw attention to. I certainly will not

:12:55. > :12:59.continue to make a speech but what I want to say is that the reason why

:13:00. > :13:03.people are asking this eventually goes back to the people, is because

:13:04. > :13:06.we started with the people. Parliament has been saying we are

:13:07. > :13:10.bound by the fact people have given us a direction of travel. When it

:13:11. > :13:17.comes to the end of that journey they have the right to be heard too.

:13:18. > :13:23.My Lords, I regret I didn't speak at second reading or in committee, I

:13:24. > :13:28.had previous engagements. I would like to speak briefly on this

:13:29. > :13:36.amendment is it reveals what the noble remain campaign is really

:13:37. > :13:43.want. They want a second referendum in the hope that people will change

:13:44. > :13:48.their mind. My Lords, I hope to spend a minute or two trying to

:13:49. > :13:53.persuade noble supporters of this amendment why'd they are wrong to do

:13:54. > :14:04.so. To do that you have to look at the picture. What I can't understand

:14:05. > :14:07.at all... I am sorry. The noble lord could have been able to make a

:14:08. > :14:12.second reading speech at second reading. I would be grateful if he

:14:13. > :14:16.would address the substance of the amendment. If the noble lord wants

:14:17. > :14:20.me to deal with that, I thought I had advice as it was a two-day

:14:21. > :14:25.debate, that since I wasn't able to be here for the opening speeches on

:14:26. > :14:32.the first day, I could speak on the second. I make no complaint, owing

:14:33. > :14:38.to a prior engagement I couldn't get to the opening speeches. It's not

:14:39. > :14:45.important or relevant to this debate. I was saying that what beats

:14:46. > :14:49.me is why so many of your Lordships still fervently believe that the

:14:50. > :14:55.European Union, the project of European integration and its single

:14:56. > :14:58.market, are somehow good things. That's why they support this

:14:59. > :15:04.amendment, when clearly they aren't good things. They have clearly

:15:05. > :15:11.become bad things. As I've said many times over the last 26 years, the

:15:12. > :15:15.project of European integration was honourable when it started. It was

:15:16. > :15:29.to get rid of war in Europe and all the rest of it. As was said in

:15:30. > :15:34.1956... The noble lord is very courteous and he listens to what I

:15:35. > :15:38.say but he chooses to ignore it. LAUGHTER I would be grateful if he

:15:39. > :15:44.would address the substance of the amendment and then let other people

:15:45. > :15:48.have a say. I'm quite happy to sit down but I'm trying to persuade

:15:49. > :15:54.supporters of this amendment that they are wrong to do so because the

:15:55. > :16:09.whole project has gone wrong. Is that not something your Lordships

:16:10. > :16:17.wish to hear? No. LAUGHTER OK, I'll skip over. CHEERING

:16:18. > :16:23.Skip over why the single market is a bad thing. Skip over the strength of

:16:24. > :16:30.the hand we have because they have so many more jobs selling things to

:16:31. > :16:34.us than we do to them. And I'll skip over the fact that noble Remainers

:16:35. > :16:42.who support this amendment still think that somehow EU money exists,

:16:43. > :16:48.when it doesn't. When every penny that the European Union gives us...

:16:49. > :16:58.And, my Lords, we are still left with 10 billion a year net. I'll

:16:59. > :17:06.give you a new statistic. GROANS. It is the salary of 1000 nurses every

:17:07. > :17:10.day. Whatever happens, my Lords, we are going to go on trading with our

:17:11. > :17:17.friends in Europe because they need it more than we do. Perhaps I will

:17:18. > :17:26.just end. CHEERING I'll end with a word of advice to

:17:27. > :17:30.the Liberal Democrats. If they are considering supporting this

:17:31. > :17:34.amendment which I fancy they are, my Lords, if the Liberal Democrats take

:17:35. > :17:39.their very own policy at the election before last, and I don't

:17:40. > :17:43.know where it is now because it's difficult to follow Liberal Democrat

:17:44. > :17:49.policy, but that policy was that membership of your Lordships house

:17:50. > :17:55.should grow to represent and reflect the votes cast in the previous

:17:56. > :17:59.general election. And my Lords, in the last election the Liberal

:18:00. > :18:10.Democrats got 5% of the vote. That should give them 43 seats. Instead,

:18:11. > :18:15.my Lords, they have 102. I obviously will pass in silence over the fact

:18:16. > :18:22.that we got 8% of the votes which should give us a 69 seats and we've

:18:23. > :18:30.got precisely three. More seriously to the Liberal Democrats, if they

:18:31. > :18:37.use this dishonest advantage, by their own standard, if they use this

:18:38. > :18:40.dishonest advantage to vote down the will of the British people, to vote

:18:41. > :18:45.down the will of the House of Commons, then I think they will

:18:46. > :18:58.reveal their contempt for democracy. And, my Lords, it will do your

:18:59. > :19:02.Lordships house no good at all. I disagree with this amendment because

:19:03. > :19:06.I see two defects. One highlighted a moment ago, it it purports to tie

:19:07. > :19:11.the hand of Parliament which we should not be doing, unlike

:19:12. > :19:15.amendment three coming up later today, which gives Parliament more

:19:16. > :19:20.options and the certainty of having more options. Secondly, I see a

:19:21. > :19:27.defect in this amendment because it doesn't address the possibility, the

:19:28. > :19:34.increasing possibility, that there will be no settlement, no agreement,

:19:35. > :19:39.and we fall out. What I don't like in this debate, and I haven't liked

:19:40. > :19:42.at second reading or committee, is the suggestion that in some ways it

:19:43. > :19:48.would be illegitimate for the country to think again. There is a

:19:49. > :20:00.frog chorus behind the minister every time he says it was the chorus

:20:01. > :20:04.behind says decided, decided. This is the lemming position. No matter

:20:05. > :20:11.how awful the deal turns out to be, no matter how unlike the promises of

:20:12. > :20:16.the Leavers the deal turns out to be, no matter how steep the cliff,

:20:17. > :20:22.we must go over. There is no chance of turning back on a decision. I

:20:23. > :20:32.find that strangely reminiscent of the Moscow I worked in in 1968, when

:20:33. > :20:41.Soviet foreign policy run on the doctrine. It said once you have

:20:42. > :20:51.voted communists in, you cannot vote communists out. Brezhnev Doctrine

:20:52. > :20:57.--. That seems to be the position of most of the backbenchers of the

:20:58. > :21:02.government today. I hope he will consult his right honourable friend

:21:03. > :21:05.David Davis the Secretary of State for leaving the EU, and will come to

:21:06. > :21:16.the conclusion that Mr David was right when he said "If a democracy

:21:17. > :21:26.cannot think again, cannot change its mind, it is no longer a

:21:27. > :21:31.democracy. I rather agree. My Lords, I don't think I'm a frog or a lemon

:21:32. > :21:35.but I was one of the ministers who stood at the dispatch box when we

:21:36. > :21:39.took the euro referendum Bill through this House. I think we

:21:40. > :21:44.should have regard to what we decided in Parliament in that act.

:21:45. > :21:51.There were a number of amendments put down. There was no amendment put

:21:52. > :21:59.down about thresholds. There was no amendment put down to new -- to

:22:00. > :22:07.nuance the question, no amendment to put down to say we would stay within

:22:08. > :22:14.the single market, and no amendment put down to said there would be a

:22:15. > :22:17.second referendum. Why not? Was it because the alternatives were too

:22:18. > :22:20.complicated? There were only two outcomes of the referendum, either

:22:21. > :22:25.we remained or we left. Was it political negligence by

:22:26. > :22:29.parliamentarians not to put down these amendments. Or were they in

:22:30. > :22:37.fact content with the Bill and its binary question, and in fact we are

:22:38. > :22:40.having this debate contrary, I think, to what was generally

:22:41. > :22:44.considered to be the law, which is that it was the right of the

:22:45. > :22:52.government exercising the Royal prerogative. In the amendments put

:22:53. > :22:56.down in the previous Bill introduced by Lord Dobbs is a sorry get for the

:22:57. > :23:00.government, because these amendments were tabled on that occasion, and if

:23:01. > :23:04.they were tabled or withdrawn on that occasion, I think some people

:23:05. > :23:10.felt there was no point in raising them at a later stage. I find that

:23:11. > :23:16.remarkably unpersuasive. The fact is that most people as a result of the

:23:17. > :23:20.decision of the people thought that there was power on the part of the

:23:21. > :23:26.government to then negotiate to do the best deal possible. We then had

:23:27. > :23:32.the Gina Miller case. Nothing about the Supreme Court judgment, in my

:23:33. > :23:38.view, either expressly or implied, advances the amendment. This is

:23:39. > :23:42.opportunism, understandable opportunism. It is motivated by the

:23:43. > :23:48.understandable view which I share which is that we should not have

:23:49. > :23:54.voted to leave the EU. But, if we vote with this amendment, we will be

:23:55. > :23:59.ignoring what we decided in the euro referendum act, we will be ignoring

:24:00. > :24:04.the vote, we will be ignoring the House of Commons. Its type for a

:24:05. > :24:11.little constitutional modesty on our part. -- it's time. It is a pleasure

:24:12. > :24:16.to follow the Lords because he liked me sat through most of the debate,

:24:17. > :24:19.which resulted in this House without opposition, deciding that we should

:24:20. > :24:24.have a referendum in order to determine whether we should remain

:24:25. > :24:29.in the European Union or leave. I say that particularly to the Lord

:24:30. > :24:34.who expressed its strong opposition to referendums and I respectfully

:24:35. > :24:40.say to him, that if that is the case, he should have opposed the

:24:41. > :24:45.Bill in this House which established the referendum mechanism in order to

:24:46. > :24:51.decide leave or remain. I want to make an observation and I will bend

:24:52. > :24:55.specifically address the referendum. There's been an awful lot of free

:24:56. > :25:01.running of the referendum argument in this discussion so far. The bit

:25:02. > :25:03.that I always want to urge this House above all institutions that

:25:04. > :25:11.I've been able to be involved in more than any other, is to ascribe

:25:12. > :25:13.motives to people in elections, and to assume that we understand

:25:14. > :25:24.precisely why they voted the way they did.

:25:25. > :25:29.Perhaps I have a considerable qualification in this regard in that

:25:30. > :25:33.I have lost an awful lot of elections over the course of my

:25:34. > :25:40.career. And while the motive is always the same that my opponents

:25:41. > :25:43.lied or misled people, or they were bright enough to make the decision.

:25:44. > :25:48.When they eventually do elect you, my advice is to acknowledge that

:25:49. > :25:55.they are a pretty shrewd electorate. That is the way we all reacts to

:25:56. > :25:59.success and failure in elections. But specifically as far as the

:26:00. > :26:04.amendment is concerned, we still haven't had a reply on the question

:26:05. > :26:09.as to whether it is an advisory or not? One or two mistakes I need to

:26:10. > :26:15.respectfully point out to members who have spoken, have been made in

:26:16. > :26:20.arguing this particular case. I think it was my noble friend, Lord

:26:21. > :26:24.Morgan, who said all referenda are advisory and that simply isn't

:26:25. > :26:29.right. The referendum that we held on whether or not we should have AV

:26:30. > :26:35.or first past the post was a referendum which was based on

:26:36. > :26:41.legislation this House had passed in the referendum bill for the AV

:26:42. > :26:45.referendum. Which precisely laid out what the system would be that the

:26:46. > :26:55.electorate would look into place if the referendum passed. With regard

:26:56. > :26:59.to that particular referendum, all referenda, this is a constitution

:27:00. > :27:07.based on parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike France, it is not based on

:27:08. > :27:11.popular sovereignty. In this particular case, the act of

:27:12. > :27:15.Parliament that this House passed in order to establish the referendum

:27:16. > :27:22.was an act of Parliament which included precisely the mechanism for

:27:23. > :27:33.the full alternative vote election that would come into place be

:27:34. > :27:37.carried. It was technically an advisory referendum. But the leaders

:27:38. > :27:43.of the campaign is made it absolutely clear that the government

:27:44. > :27:48.would implement the findings of the referendum without qualification. It

:27:49. > :27:57.also featured in the governing party's manifesto in the last

:27:58. > :28:00.general election. The passage of the referendum debate when the

:28:01. > :28:04.referendum was underway was quite clearly on the basis that it was a

:28:05. > :28:12.once-in-a-lifetime decision. We need to add knowledge that as well. But

:28:13. > :28:17.the main points I wanted to make art in respect of the validity of the

:28:18. > :28:21.decision as to whether or not it should be replaced with a second

:28:22. > :28:27.referendum. Again, as said, it was never said at the time of the

:28:28. > :28:32.passage of the referendum that there would be a second referendum. And I

:28:33. > :28:40.hate disagreeing with my noble friend, Lord Vokes, strictly not on

:28:41. > :28:51.matters related on Scotland. He did say, he will no doubt interrupt me

:28:52. > :28:54.and I will be happy to taxi, the choice in the Scottish referendum

:28:55. > :28:59.was clear. It didn't come over that way in the way it was reported in

:29:00. > :29:04.England. There appeared to be a great lack of clarity about what

:29:05. > :29:09.currency would be used as to whether or not an independent Scotland could

:29:10. > :29:14.reapply to join forward successfully be able to reapply to join the

:29:15. > :29:20.European Union. A whole host of uncertainties. There has not been an

:29:21. > :29:25.election I have heard of where there were no uncertainties or

:29:26. > :29:28.difficulties to address. That brings me to the only really substantial

:29:29. > :29:35.point that I think hasn't been made so far and it is this. That somehow

:29:36. > :29:40.or other, this is the whole basis of having a second referendum according

:29:41. > :29:43.to its proponents. Some way or other, circumstances will change in

:29:44. > :29:46.a very fundamental way which makes it absolutely essential that we

:29:47. > :29:51.should test the opinion with the British people again. I cannot avoid

:29:52. > :29:55.a little trip down memory lane at this point. This is not the first

:29:56. > :29:59.referendum on whether or not we should be members of the European

:30:00. > :30:07.Union, it is the second. The first was held in 1975. The decision was

:30:08. > :30:13.to remain in the European Union. Overwhelming decision, my noble

:30:14. > :30:22.friend makes a helpful intervention. It was an overwhelming decision to

:30:23. > :30:29.remain. Please just finished? A lot of people said afterwards that maybe

:30:30. > :30:33.we should have another referendum and of course we did have a second

:30:34. > :30:37.referendum. The only problem from the perspective who voted no in the

:30:38. > :30:43.first one in 1975 was that we had to wait 41 years to have a choice when

:30:44. > :30:48.several generations of 17 and 18-year-olds would become

:30:49. > :30:55.pensioners, so there was a long gap between the decision of the first

:30:56. > :30:59.and second referendum. Where is proposed that two years between the

:31:00. > :31:11.two referendum on it is -- on this occasion. The point I want to make

:31:12. > :31:14.is this. No one in 1975 referendum could possibly have anticipated the

:31:15. > :31:20.consequences of a yes vote in that referendum. It was not the European

:31:21. > :31:24.Union, it has changed its name several times since then. It was the

:31:25. > :31:33.common market which people voted for or against. Correction, the European

:31:34. > :31:43.Community. It will be something else in due course. The idea that people

:31:44. > :31:48.who voted yes in the 1975 referendum new that it would triple in size

:31:49. > :31:54.over the ensuing 41 years, that qualified majority voting in all of

:31:55. > :32:00.matters would develop in the remaining 41 years or that we would

:32:01. > :32:07.get a European Foreign Ministry. Over 150 offices of the European

:32:08. > :32:12.Union around the country. A European foreign affairs spokesman and the

:32:13. > :32:19.rest of it. I am not necessarily criticising the but no one who voted

:32:20. > :32:25.yes in 1975 could conceivably have thought that that would be how the

:32:26. > :32:31.European Union with develop. Do I recall anyone suggesting, who voted

:32:32. > :32:36.yes in 1975, to say no, the circumstances have changed

:32:37. > :32:46.dramatically we need to have another referendum to see if people agreed

:32:47. > :32:49.with what was voted for. We waited 41 years between the first and

:32:50. > :32:53.second referendum. If we adopt the same principle, we shall have

:32:54. > :32:58.another referendum and it will be in the year 2057. I'm a generous man

:32:59. > :33:02.looking for, rises and I think that would be an unreasonable gap between

:33:03. > :33:10.this referendum and any subsequent one. I do say, inevitably, after any

:33:11. > :33:12.decision, referendum general election, there are people who will

:33:13. > :33:19.be dissatisfied with the result you want to have it checked. In the

:33:20. > :33:24.correction, that they want to have it reverse. That is the motive

:33:25. > :33:30.behind this proposal for a second referendum. Unacknowledged during

:33:31. > :33:35.the actual referendum debate that which is now being demanded as an

:33:36. > :33:39.entirely novel proposal. And I do hope the House will agree with me

:33:40. > :33:46.that it is not an acceptable proposal. My Lords, I think it is

:33:47. > :34:00.probably sensible now to hear from front benches. We might hear from

:34:01. > :34:03.the Labour and then the Minister. My Lords, this has been an interesting

:34:04. > :34:09.and long debate on a very short amendment to a short bill. I

:34:10. > :34:17.appreciate the amendment itself talks about ratification referendum.

:34:18. > :34:22.In the noble Lord's comments, he took that people changing their

:34:23. > :34:25.minds and very much an issue about people being able to change their

:34:26. > :34:29.minds. But it has been a much broader discussion than just this

:34:30. > :34:36.particular amendment. I have to say my Lords, as someone who campaigned

:34:37. > :34:41.strongly to remain and remains bitterly disappointed at the

:34:42. > :34:46.results, I agree with many of the comments made in the debate but I am

:34:47. > :34:50.not sure they bring much to bear on whether a second referendum is

:34:51. > :34:56.appropriate at this time. Demands for second referendum started even

:34:57. > :35:03.before the ink was dry on the papers of the first referendum. It is rare

:35:04. > :35:09.for us to have referendum, imagines and five, the incredible minister

:35:10. > :35:14.Wilson held a referendum on whether we should remain in the European

:35:15. > :35:17.Community or leave. I think I am in an analogy in your lordship is my

:35:18. > :35:28.cows in that I was not able to vote in the referendum. -- in your

:35:29. > :35:31.lordship's House. In 2011, we had the referendum from the coalition

:35:32. > :35:39.government on whether to change the voting system in which Parliament,

:35:40. > :35:45.by legislation, ceded sovereignty to the public on that referendum. And

:35:46. > :35:50.in 2016, we had the EU referendum. On the EU, there is clearly public

:35:51. > :35:53.interest, both at high turnouts. A bit lower than 1975 but I do think

:35:54. > :36:01.anyone really thought we would leave. The margin of difference was

:36:02. > :36:08.significant at 33%. But lasted, the polls were so close that it probably

:36:09. > :36:16.encourage the high turnout of 72%. Yet the referendum on changing the

:36:17. > :36:21.voting system, and a turnout of just 42%. There was never any real public

:36:22. > :36:28.demand for such a change and to most people, it appeared to be led by

:36:29. > :36:34.politicians. So when we debated this amendment in committee, I expressed

:36:35. > :36:37.my national -- natural caution about politicians calling for a referendum

:36:38. > :36:46.on any issue. It is usually because we think it will endorse the result

:36:47. > :36:49.we want. I accept it some is today, some Lords have made cases for

:36:50. > :36:53.popular democracy but the noble Lord Newby made it clear why he was

:36:54. > :36:57.bringing this proposal forward. There is a difference between a

:36:58. > :37:01.public demand for a referendum, as we have seen, but I think

:37:02. > :37:09.politicians have to take care in how we respond to that of Lake demand. I

:37:10. > :37:12.listened carefully to Lord Newby when he opened this debate, and

:37:13. > :37:18.others, and I read his article in the House magazine on this issue. He

:37:19. > :37:25.was totally honest about his amendment for a further referendum.

:37:26. > :37:29.Despite the comments by a number of people in your lordship's House, he

:37:30. > :37:35.was very clear, he thinks the public would change their mind. He said "It

:37:36. > :37:41.is important not to grant the second referendum if public opinion shifts

:37:42. > :37:46.in favour of the EU. But my Lords, there is no significant public

:37:47. > :37:51.demand for a second referendum and there is most significant shift in

:37:52. > :37:56.public opinion. It is being seen by many as millet a campaign to

:37:57. > :38:00.challenge the result of the first. And that was reinforced last week

:38:01. > :38:05.when the noble Lord spoke about the purpose behind his amendment. My

:38:06. > :38:09.Lords, it is exactly the point, a second referendum would not be on

:38:10. > :38:18.the deal or the arrangement but yet again on a principle of how people

:38:19. > :38:23.felt about the EU. Before the last referendum, indeed before the last

:38:24. > :38:26.election, the noble Lord and Liberal Democrats campaign for what they

:38:27. > :38:33.called a real referendum. And that is an in or out referendum. On

:38:34. > :38:37.principle, and they criticised my party and the Conservative Party for

:38:38. > :38:44.not going far enough in agreeing with them. And I have a copy of that

:38:45. > :38:50.leaflet with me today. It has a petition, sign up, it is time for

:38:51. > :38:56.real referendum on Europe. But nowhere on this leaflet, calling for

:38:57. > :39:02.this real referendum, does it say that if you don't agree with us, we

:39:03. > :39:07.will try and have another one. My understanding from those who were

:39:08. > :39:12.there at the time, they were considered, absolutely crucial to

:39:13. > :39:15.this, they considered that although their policy was to have a

:39:16. > :39:22.referendum limited to the Lisbon Treaty, their campaign literature

:39:23. > :39:28.didn't because they felt that it would not be clearly understood. And

:39:29. > :39:34.any referendum would inevitably turn into you like the EU or not. I think

:39:35. > :39:42.that is right. That is what we saw last year. It is also why the noble

:39:43. > :39:46.Lord had his confidence in having a referendum to show that people have

:39:47. > :39:50.changed their minds is flawed. After two years of what could be a very

:39:51. > :39:55.difficult negotiation, it could well become a referendum in effect a

:39:56. > :40:02.whether we like or are happy with our European neighbours.

:40:03. > :40:07.We are pressing the government in that Parliament is kept fully

:40:08. > :40:13.engaged and informed throughout the process and has an opportunity for

:40:14. > :40:17.final say and meaningful vote on the exit arrangements or deal.

:40:18. > :40:22.Parliament is going to have to make a judgment on that and MPs are

:40:23. > :40:27.accountable to their constituents, which is why the final say, the

:40:28. > :40:32.responsibility and the authority must always remain with the House of

:40:33. > :40:36.Commons. That is what Parliamentary Southern tree means, it means taking

:40:37. > :40:41.responsibility. It also means that the government must keep Parliament

:40:42. > :40:46.involved and informed, using the committees of Parliament for support

:40:47. > :40:54.and for advice, and ensuring that as we move closer towards closing a

:40:55. > :41:00.deal, a judgment can be made in an informed way. I find it hard, having

:41:01. > :41:04.gone through that first referendum, to see circumstances in which a

:41:05. > :41:10.second referendum, when the press, the politicians, there will be

:41:11. > :41:14.campaigning on this issue, can deal with all the details required, with

:41:15. > :41:22.all the information gained and not just be a referendum on principle.

:41:23. > :41:27.That final judgment has to be a very measured judgment. Dealing with the

:41:28. > :41:32.forensic detail, not an appeal to the emotions without hard accurate

:41:33. > :41:36.facts, not to see vehicles running around the country saying you'll get

:41:37. > :41:41.?350 million extra for the NHS if you vote to leave the EU. The first

:41:42. > :41:45.referendum was one on which different sides campaigned and

:41:46. > :41:50.lobbied around the principle of staying in or leaving. I'm on record

:41:51. > :41:54.as saying I was unimpressed with the campaigning. I've not yet been

:41:55. > :41:59.convinced that approach works. I made a plea, we were dealing with

:42:00. > :42:03.this issue prior to the referendum, that it should have been for

:42:04. > :42:07.Parliament as a whole to provide factual information to the public

:42:08. > :42:13.and not leave it to campaigns to see who could shout the loudest. I'm not

:42:14. > :42:17.convinced that approach works when dealing with the detail of the

:42:18. > :42:21.negotiations that have taken place over the last two years any more

:42:22. > :42:28.than it worked in the last referendum. And my Lords, as we've

:42:29. > :42:34.heard today, it's quite clear that a second referendum is being pushed by

:42:35. > :42:39.some as a way to unite a seriously divided country on this issue. I've

:42:40. > :42:45.looked to see where the evidence is to support that. Why would a second

:42:46. > :42:50.referendum be different in tone, in mood and arguments to a first? I

:42:51. > :43:00.take comfort from the words of the most Reverend the Archbishop of

:43:01. > :43:06.Canterbury in what I thought was a wise intervention. He made it clear

:43:07. > :43:14.that, a referendum, it will be down to a binary choice. It will be yes

:43:15. > :43:22.or no. But never unites, it only ever divides. My Lords, I can hear

:43:23. > :43:28.the noble lord... Bear with me, please. My Lords, the noble lord

:43:29. > :43:33.Newby was asked a question and I remain puzzled by his answer which I

:43:34. > :43:39.thought was unclear. Is the referendum, if this House chooses to

:43:40. > :43:43.recommend to the Other Place to have a second referendum, will it be

:43:44. > :43:48.advisory or binding? We heard from others that unless Parliament

:43:49. > :43:54.specifically says so, all referendums should be advisory. His

:43:55. > :43:58.party... Bayard, unless in the legislation it says otherwise. My

:43:59. > :44:03.Lords, his party says they respect the result but they voted against

:44:04. > :44:07.the second reading of the Bill in the Other Place. What happens if a

:44:08. > :44:11.second referendum comes back and there are those in his party who

:44:12. > :44:18.don't like that second referendum results? I'm not sure if that takes

:44:19. > :44:23.us further forward. My Lords, I think we need to go into a second

:44:24. > :44:28.referendum without that clarity, and to look at it today without such

:44:29. > :44:34.clarity, I think would not be democratic. It doesn't seem to me to

:44:35. > :44:37.be thought through. But my Lords, I always say, I don't think the

:44:38. > :44:42.government can shut the door completely on this issue or shut the

:44:43. > :44:47.door on public opinion. Throughout the process the government has to

:44:48. > :44:51.take note of the public mood, it has to keep Parliament informed and it

:44:52. > :44:55.has to keep the public informed, it must not allow room and

:44:56. > :45:04.misinformation to circulate and it must be honest. I felt the last

:45:05. > :45:12.campaign rarely got down to the details that Parliament has

:45:13. > :45:17.discussed during the passage of this Bill. I think it does Parliament

:45:18. > :45:21.credit, particularly our debate last week on EU nationals, the detail we

:45:22. > :45:26.were able to debate in this House that never got an airing during the

:45:27. > :45:31.referendum. I say our priority is to date amendment three, to ensure

:45:32. > :45:38.Parliament has a meaningful vote, to ensure me -- we maintain

:45:39. > :45:47.Parliamentary sovereignty but also to make sure Parliament remain fully

:45:48. > :45:58.engaged in this process. I can't support this amendment. We will not

:45:59. > :46:03.take part in this vote. My Lords, this has been another good debate. I

:46:04. > :46:07.suspect it confirms what many of us already know. Namely that there are

:46:08. > :46:10.a number of your Lordships who passionately believe that the people

:46:11. > :46:14.have made a grave mistake by voting to leave the European Union and

:46:15. > :46:18.there needs to be a referendum at the end of the negotiations. As I

:46:19. > :46:21.said before I respect their views and I repeat my wish to bring

:46:22. > :46:27.together those who were on both sides of the argument, as we

:46:28. > :46:34.continue. But the government is very clear that the amendment before us

:46:35. > :46:38.is misguided. Both in practice and in principle. Our reasons are clear

:46:39. > :46:44.and they start with the Democratic path we have borrowed so far. On the

:46:45. > :46:48.7th of May 2015 the Conservative government was elected by 11.3

:46:49. > :46:51.million people committed to a referendum on the UK's membership of

:46:52. > :46:57.the EU and committed to honouring the outcome. On the 7th of May 2015

:46:58. > :47:05.316 members of the Other Place voted in favour of holding a referendum,

:47:06. > :47:12.by a majority of 6-1. There was no condition or caveat attached to the

:47:13. > :47:19.referendum. Parliament agreed on the question, it was a simple question,

:47:20. > :47:23.leave or remain. On the 23rd of June, 17.4 million people voted to

:47:24. > :47:29.leave the European Union. On the 8th of February this year, the Other

:47:30. > :47:35.Place past this Bill, unamended, a simple Bill to trigger the process

:47:36. > :47:39.of leaving the EU by a majority of 372. This, my Lords, is the

:47:40. > :47:43.Democratic path that has been followed. A path that will lead this

:47:44. > :47:48.country to leaving the European Union. And now some argue that we

:47:49. > :47:53.need another referendum, on what I consider to be somewhat peculiar and

:47:54. > :47:59.weak arguments. However it is dressed up, it will be seen as a

:48:00. > :48:03.second referendum, I cannot support that, our people have already

:48:04. > :48:12.spoken. The wise words of the noble lord and how right he is, and listen

:48:13. > :48:16.to Mr Norman Lamb who said that the second referendum would indeed

:48:17. > :48:22."Raise the question as to whether we would remain in the European Union".

:48:23. > :48:26.But my Lords, it was made abundantly clear, abundantly clear, that the

:48:27. > :48:31.referendum in June was, to quite the leaflet sent to all households in

:48:32. > :48:34.the UK, a once in a generation decision. There was nothing on the

:48:35. > :48:39.ballot and no suggestion from Parliament that there would have to

:48:40. > :48:44.be another referendum if the UK were to vote to leave. The then Prime

:48:45. > :48:49.Minister said during the campaign, "I am absolutely clear a referendum

:48:50. > :48:51.is a referendum, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and

:48:52. > :49:03.the result determines the outcome, you can't have neverendums, you have

:49:04. > :49:11.referendums". I personally don't see the argument that the people didn't

:49:12. > :49:17.have enough information to form an opinion, I see it as patronising. My

:49:18. > :49:20.Lords, that government leaflet spelt out the consequences, and on many

:49:21. > :49:24.occasions during the campaign those on both sides of the argument made

:49:25. > :49:30.it clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. For

:49:31. > :49:34.example, Mr David Cameron, "The British public would be voting to

:49:35. > :49:39.leave the EU and leave the single market". Mr George Osborne, we would

:49:40. > :49:43.be out of the single market. Mr Michael Gove, we should be outside

:49:44. > :49:46.the single market. Lord Darling, those wanting to leave the EU want

:49:47. > :49:52.to pull Britain out of the single market. My noble friend, the Leave

:49:53. > :49:56.Campaign has been clear what leave means, it means leaving the single

:49:57. > :50:00.market. These politicians were quite right to point this out, for if we

:50:01. > :50:03.were to remain in the single market it would mean complying with rules

:50:04. > :50:07.and regulations without having a vote on what those rules and

:50:08. > :50:10.regulations are, it would mean accepting a role for the European

:50:11. > :50:14.Court of Justice that would see it having direct legal authority in our

:50:15. > :50:21.country, and it would mean not having control our borders. It would

:50:22. > :50:26.mean not leaving the EU at all. The second peculiar argument, the next

:50:27. > :50:29.peculiar argument is that a second referendum is needed to bring the

:50:30. > :50:36.nation together. I agree entirely with the words of a noble Baroness.

:50:37. > :50:39.My Lords, is the argument is that the first referendum divided the

:50:40. > :50:44.nation, a second referendum is hardly likely to United. Quite the

:50:45. > :50:48.reverse, rather than bring people together it would merely encourage

:50:49. > :50:52.divisions to fester. Let me say a word about the need to come

:50:53. > :50:56.together. The Archbishop of Canterbury made what was indeed a

:50:57. > :51:00.very thoughtful and powerful speech. The Archbishop is right about the

:51:01. > :51:04.need to heal our divisions and to work together to tackle the

:51:05. > :51:09.challenges we face. And like to put on the record once again my thanks

:51:10. > :51:13.to the Church of England for hosting round tables to do just that. My

:51:14. > :51:19.Lords, others agree that we need to come together, that "If we have to

:51:20. > :51:26.be out then, let's make the best addict". These are the words of Lord

:51:27. > :51:30.Ashdown, on the question of the second referendum said politicians

:51:31. > :51:38.should stay out of that -- lets make the best of it. Lord Ashdown did not

:51:39. > :51:47.call for a second referendum, saying it would be foolish and wrong for

:51:48. > :51:54.Parliament to do that. Let me see if I can make a better hash of it this

:51:55. > :51:57.time. Is the minister embarrassed by the fact he keeps on answering the

:51:58. > :52:03.question by referring to an issue that is not addressed. We aren't

:52:04. > :52:07.saying there has to be a second referendum on the European Union

:52:08. > :52:10.membership. That is done. The government has its mandate, we

:52:11. > :52:14.accept that. What we don't believe the government has a mandate for is

:52:15. > :52:18.a brutal Brexit that will take us out of the single market. Can he

:52:19. > :52:21.explain why he believes he has that mandate given that it was in the

:52:22. > :52:26.Conservative Party manifesto that they would not do this? The

:52:27. > :52:30.Conservative Party manifesto is clear that we would respect the

:52:31. > :52:38.outcome, a position unable Lord took on the night of the referendum, and

:52:39. > :52:42.it is -- a position the noble lord took. I know the noble lord is

:52:43. > :52:49.eating his own words but I'm sorry to say he is long wrong on this

:52:50. > :52:53.point. There are other consequences on another referendum. Will it bring

:52:54. > :52:57.certainty? Will businesses that their hands with glee at the thought

:52:58. > :53:00.of a referendum, the bases of it would be unclear and the

:53:01. > :53:05.consequences of which would be to throw the settlement up in the air?

:53:06. > :53:09.We know the answer. The Institute of directors have called for a

:53:10. > :53:14.commitment across all political parties not to undertake a second

:53:15. > :53:18.referendum on either EU membership or the Brexit deal to reduce

:53:19. > :53:23.uncertainty. But what would happen even after all of this is the result

:53:24. > :53:28.of the second referendum is still to leave? Some noble Lords have pointed

:53:29. > :53:31.out, would we once again be subjected to people saying actually

:53:32. > :53:35.we don't like this answer, please try again? Where does this end? Will

:53:36. > :53:38.we continue to hold the same referendum until we get the result

:53:39. > :53:48.that those who support this amendment prefer? If, as the Prime

:53:49. > :53:55.Minister said in her Lancaster house speech, that no deal would be better

:53:56. > :54:00.than a bad deal, is the Minister is really telling us that in these

:54:01. > :54:06.circumstances of a no deal, he would absolutely rule out a referendum on

:54:07. > :54:11.the future? My Lords, it's very clear. We are leaving the European

:54:12. > :54:19.Union. That is the pure and simple answer... I'm going to finish. My

:54:20. > :54:24.Lords, my Lords, my Lords, I'm not giving way. We are going to have a

:54:25. > :54:27.lot of debate after lunch about the meaningful vote. I'm sure the noble

:54:28. > :54:34.lord will have a chance then to say this. Would people... As the noble

:54:35. > :54:40.lord said on Wednesday, that the rejection of a second referendum is

:54:41. > :54:44.the antithesis of democracy. With respect, I totally disagree. The

:54:45. > :54:49.referendum itself was democracy in action. So, my Lords, a second

:54:50. > :54:53.referendum entails risks for which the prices too high. A further vote

:54:54. > :54:58.will prolong the uncertainty and cause uproar in the country or

:54:59. > :55:04.worse. These are the words the noble Baroness and the noble lord. I

:55:05. > :55:07.entirely agree with them. To call a second referendum as this amendment

:55:08. > :55:09.seeks to do undermines the will of the people as expressed in the EU

:55:10. > :55:30.referendum. I thank all the noble Lord to have

:55:31. > :55:33.taken part in this debate. It comes down to simple question, is it

:55:34. > :55:39.people or Parliament that take the final decision on our future with

:55:40. > :55:45.Europe? The noble Lord Carlile said it should be Parliament but if

:55:46. > :55:50.Parliament rejected the deal, there might be a confidence vote. There

:55:51. > :55:55.would then be a general election. But my Lords, a general election is

:55:56. > :56:04.a single issue. I think my Lords, a single issue. I think my Lords,

:56:05. > :56:10.all parties have found this. I think Mr Heath found that. The noble Lord

:56:11. > :56:14.Forsyth says the Liberal Democrats might have found it. With the

:56:15. > :56:17.currently Bishop of the two political parties, does he believe

:56:18. > :56:23.that a general election would be solely or even mainly on the issue

:56:24. > :56:29.of Brexit? A general election is a very imperfect tool for dealing with

:56:30. > :56:36.such a specific question. My Lords, I have the highest regard for the

:56:37. > :56:42.most reverend, but when he says that a further referendum is not

:56:43. > :56:51.democratic, I simply cannot agree. I cannot see the logic and I'm sorry

:56:52. > :56:57.to have to say it, but I really cannot follow that argument at all.

:56:58. > :57:00.It has been argued that the people can't take a decision in the

:57:01. > :57:04.circumstances because it would be a binary choice. It is quite unclear

:57:05. > :57:09.to me why it is perfectly with reasonable for Parliament to take a

:57:10. > :57:13.binary choice but not the people. It has been argued by a number of noble

:57:14. > :57:17.Lords that it is all to config waited for the people to take a

:57:18. > :57:24.final choice and decision on this matter. My Lords, this is the

:57:25. > :57:29.antithesis of democracy. I ended my second reading speech by quoting

:57:30. > :57:34.Gladstone and the Brexit secretary. Trust the people. My lord, that was

:57:35. > :57:41.our stance of fortnight ago, that is our stance today and I beg to test

:57:42. > :57:45.the opinion of the House. Won the question is that amendment one B

:57:46. > :57:47.agreed to, as many of that agreement, say content, the country

:57:48. > :00:57.not content, clear. The question is that amendment one B

:00:58. > :01:04.agreed to. As many of that opinion say content, contrary, not content.

:01:05. > :06:15.The content's will go to the right, the not content to the left.

:06:16. > :13:20.The question is that amendment one B agreed to.

:13:21. > :19:34.My Lords have voted content is 131, not content 's 336. The not content

:19:35. > :19:47.'s 336. The knot contends habit. -- the not contents have it. In clause

:19:48. > :19:52.one amendment to. I wonder whether it would help the noble Lords if I

:19:53. > :19:59.explained that we hope to complete this before we adjourn report stage

:20:00. > :20:06.for questions, so that noble Lords might have some refreshment before

:20:07. > :20:12.we get to 2:30pm. I apologise. I've always thought the government Chief

:20:13. > :20:16.Whip was a very nice man! I don't think he was offering us lunch today

:20:17. > :20:23.but he was offering us time for lunch today. My Lords, this is a

:20:24. > :20:33.short and very sweet amendment. What it is about in a sense is the cement

:20:34. > :20:38.between Amendment 1 and Amendment 3. Amendment 1 has been defeated and

:20:39. > :20:43.therefore we are not talking about a referendum at the end. But Amendment

:20:44. > :20:47.3 which I'd trust is going to be carried, is about putting the

:20:48. > :20:55.decision at the end to Parliament. Therefore what amendment two does is

:20:56. > :20:59.saying in order to make that as good a way of moving forward as possible,

:21:00. > :21:06.we will need to have from the government, not a running

:21:07. > :21:10.commentary, not even as a walking commentary, but as a dialogue with

:21:11. > :21:15.Parliament some feedback about how the negotiations are going. And it

:21:16. > :21:20.isn't just about what we are offering as a government, as a

:21:21. > :21:25.country, but what's happening in the other side. Because we think we will

:21:26. > :21:32.be negotiating just with one block in the European Union, but of course

:21:33. > :21:37.there are 27 on that side. There will be ups and downs, elections,

:21:38. > :21:44.change of personnel, all sorts of things happening within those 27

:21:45. > :21:53.countries. The other issue is that, as Charles Grant has said, in all of

:21:54. > :21:58.this politics matters more than economics. Having some feedback from

:21:59. > :22:05.the government about how the other countries and how the European Union

:22:06. > :22:09.is responding, I think will help us understand the negotiations. Because

:22:10. > :22:16.the one thing I said in committee that I think it would be terrible if

:22:17. > :22:19.we come to that final vote in this House, and there are surprises. If

:22:20. > :22:24.we do not know how things have been happening, how the discussions have

:22:25. > :22:28.been going, and even more, if the government hasn't taken the time to

:22:29. > :22:37.listen to our EU committees, so there is a real feeling about what

:22:38. > :22:46.the House and the other side... What would be the provision. -- but would

:22:47. > :22:51.be the provision of both houses about the expression of opinion on

:22:52. > :22:55.those negotiations? If people wanted to express an opinion it might be

:22:56. > :23:00.legitimate for them to do so with a formal vote. I will leave those up

:23:01. > :23:05.to the formal channels. I deal with content not process, which is why

:23:06. > :23:11.I'm pleased when this Bill will be over and we get into the meat of the

:23:12. > :23:16.negotiations. I wish the Minister 's luck in this, I think the task will

:23:17. > :23:20.be extremely hard, but that is why they could benefit from discussions

:23:21. > :23:25.in the House. I think the important thing of this is that we should hear

:23:26. > :23:30.back almost the mood music of what's going on. We should hear some

:23:31. > :23:35.detail, and it won't be any surprise. If people think this is

:23:36. > :23:38.going to be secret they haven't worked in Brussels very long. It's

:23:39. > :23:43.as leaky as a sieve and I think we'll be reading about a lot of it

:23:44. > :23:49.which will be more like a colander than a bucket. The idea of taking

:23:50. > :23:58.stock on that is important. It will also be important for the devolved

:23:59. > :24:02.authorities to just check they are involved and that we can talk on

:24:03. > :24:08.this. With a nod to this afternoon's debate and what I hope will be the

:24:09. > :24:12.outcome, which is that Parliament will get the final vote, then I

:24:13. > :24:17.think if that final deal is to win the consent of Parliament, there

:24:18. > :24:22.should be no surprises, that it should have been a very grown-up

:24:23. > :24:27.conversation that goes on. I'm sure the government point veer off in

:24:28. > :24:31.ways that would surprise us, because we don't want to be able to break

:24:32. > :24:35.down something for that reason, because it's been a surprise. We

:24:36. > :24:40.want to be able to have a proper vote at that time. My Lords, this is

:24:41. > :24:46.to say, in order to make the final vote a proper one, we would ask for

:24:47. > :24:51.these quarterly. If the Minister thinks it means only quarterly, I

:24:52. > :24:52.think he has to think again. But a minimum of quarterly reports so we

:24:53. > :25:11.can discuss how it's going. Rise very briefly to support the

:25:12. > :25:17.noble lady. I think it is important to have a structured schedule and

:25:18. > :25:22.framework for reporting back to Parliament as part of the whole

:25:23. > :25:23.scheme that we are trying to setup, including a meaningful vote that

:25:24. > :25:40.will be this afternoon. Those of us like myself who were in

:25:41. > :25:45.the European Parliament will no that one of the incentives for making

:25:46. > :25:53.sure the European Parliament was kept informed throughout the process

:25:54. > :25:59.of negotiating external agreements, was that they had the power to

:26:00. > :26:03.reject it at the end. After the European Parliament had rejected

:26:04. > :26:07.several international agreements, finally the Council of ministers and

:26:08. > :26:13.commission came to their senses and thought it was much better to front

:26:14. > :26:19.load the system so the European Parliament is kept informed along

:26:20. > :26:24.the way. Instead of us, the Council, the commission in getting a nasty

:26:25. > :26:31.surprise at the end. That accounts for the institutional arrangements

:26:32. > :26:40.which include reports and making documents available throughout the

:26:41. > :26:50.process. It is a much better way of managing it and making sure the EU,

:26:51. > :26:56.the council's negotiation demands are discussed in an orderly way. A

:26:57. > :27:06.phrase often used by the government about exit. There are good practical

:27:07. > :27:11.reasons -- about Brexit. -- there are very good reasons for having

:27:12. > :27:16.this amendment. She talks about things moving at a smooth and

:27:17. > :27:23.orderly way. I agree with Lady hater, I think what will happen is

:27:24. > :27:27.that everything is going to leak. The EU commission is under an

:27:28. > :27:32.obligation to report to the European Parliament. The whole idea of the

:27:33. > :27:35.European Parliament saying that it is all secret information and they

:27:36. > :27:41.shouldn't let any of this out seems to be for the birds. So everything

:27:42. > :27:44.will leak and we will hear these rumours about how far the

:27:45. > :27:50.negotiations have got and what has happened. At that point, Parliament

:27:51. > :27:53.will command that there is a debate. And the government will get up, if

:27:54. > :27:59.this amendment is passed, saying that they must wait for the

:28:00. > :28:04.quarterly review which is coming up in two months' time. I den think so

:28:05. > :28:08.my Lords. I think the House of Commons will say come on, get on

:28:09. > :28:13.with it, they want a response. Why have they heard rumours and the

:28:14. > :28:17.government has put them straight on all of this. I then think this

:28:18. > :28:22.amendment achieves anything to be quite honest. I think everything

:28:23. > :28:26.that goes on in of negotiations will leak. And when things of substance

:28:27. > :28:31.leak, at that point, Parliament will remand debate were particularly the

:28:32. > :28:41.Commons and we will no doubt do the same in your lordship's House as

:28:42. > :28:43.well. I made the point at the committee stage that if it was the

:28:44. > :28:48.sovereignty of Parliament, committee should vote as quickly as possible

:28:49. > :28:54.for the built to get us out of this bill and subsequent bills of the

:28:55. > :29:02.European Union. I make the point now, similar to my noble friend's

:29:03. > :29:08.point, that it is highly unlikely the government to accept this. So we

:29:09. > :29:18.head into a potential constitutional issue. If this motion prevails

:29:19. > :29:24.today. Therefore one has to ask the question what are the options that

:29:25. > :29:33.are likely to occur in the event of the House passing this amendment and

:29:34. > :29:38.the other House passed it back to us and the government would stay firm?

:29:39. > :29:42.Those are the three options. The woman would do nothing and can see

:29:43. > :29:46.the situation, I think that is highly unlikely. I think to lose

:29:47. > :29:52.control of this bill at this stage on this issue would be very

:29:53. > :29:58.questionable wisdom on the part of the government. Second it could

:29:59. > :30:10.create 100 peers, I think that is unlikely as well. Thirdly, it could

:30:11. > :30:17.call a general election. And I think that is the option that should be

:30:18. > :30:21.under strong consideration by the government at the moment. I

:30:22. > :30:24.personally think they should call a general election, or a vote of

:30:25. > :30:30.confidence or whatever it is in the House of Commons and have it out in

:30:31. > :30:34.the well-known democratic way of doing things at a general election.

:30:35. > :30:42.I personally think that the thing we should call a general election, have

:30:43. > :30:48.won round of ping-pong and then have a general election. I wish to speak

:30:49. > :30:53.in support of this amendment, I had a similar amendment in committee

:30:54. > :30:58.which was actually rather less demanding than this particular

:30:59. > :31:03.amendment. The government dispatched that extremely briskly. I want to

:31:04. > :31:06.make a point which would suggest that this amendment might actually

:31:07. > :31:13.be helpful to the government. The idea that all these special interest

:31:14. > :31:16.groups that are affected by these negotiations, the different sectors

:31:17. > :31:22.and companies, the different pressure groups, the idea that they

:31:23. > :31:28.will sit still while stuff is coming out of the EU about the

:31:29. > :31:34.possibilities for doing damage to their particular set of interests

:31:35. > :31:37.and concerns, is fanciful. If the Minister and the government do not

:31:38. > :31:42.have any kind of structured way for reporting back to Parliament, I

:31:43. > :31:46.think what you will find is that many of these people are certainly

:31:47. > :31:52.going to lobby your lordship's House. There will be a demand for a

:31:53. > :31:57.huge number of parliamentary questions. Demands for debates to

:31:58. > :32:01.deal with the greatest set of rumours about one particular sector

:32:02. > :32:06.or industry. One particular agency which may be transferred back to

:32:07. > :32:14.Europe. The DMA would be a good example. The government might find

:32:15. > :32:18.that their life is made a bit easier if there was a structured way of

:32:19. > :32:23.reporting back to Parliament about what progress is being made. And

:32:24. > :32:28.that it was reasonably detailed and able to tell some of these interest

:32:29. > :32:35.groups what was actually going on in these negotiations. Do you think the

:32:36. > :32:39.Parliament is going to be happy if they are given the response that

:32:40. > :32:43.because the quarterly review is coming up and it is two months away,

:32:44. > :32:51.a question could be answered today and would have to be answered in two

:32:52. > :32:54.months' time. The noble Baroness's amendment is actually flexible. It

:32:55. > :32:58.says at least three months, it does nothing in this amendment to stop

:32:59. > :33:01.the government serving its own interest by being more forthcoming

:33:02. > :33:09.more frequently. I'm sure she wouldn't mind having reports on a

:33:10. > :33:14.more frequent basis. I am sure the government shares the sentiments

:33:15. > :33:22.from the front bench opposite, indeed both front benches opposite.

:33:23. > :33:28.In that it is entirely in the interest of a smooth policy in this

:33:29. > :33:32.area, which I'm sure we all understand is extremely difficult

:33:33. > :33:39.and the more help they can get, the better. I think the government is

:33:40. > :33:47.sufficiently humble to know that. What I want to save, is that we have

:33:48. > :33:51.in this Parliament, plenty of means to get to the government to respond

:33:52. > :33:55.if there is any slackness on their part. What I doing degree with is

:33:56. > :34:02.putting this into an act of Parliament. The reason for that is

:34:03. > :34:06.simple. If you have the thing in a general act of Parliament is that

:34:07. > :34:11.the idea is the court should be the enforcer. One of the things the

:34:12. > :34:17.court can't do because of the Bill of Rights is to interfere in

:34:18. > :34:21.proceedings in Parliament. Therefore this is useless as a formal

:34:22. > :34:27.amendment but the spirit of the amendment is first class. And I feel

:34:28. > :34:31.almost certain that my noble and learned friend will be able to

:34:32. > :34:37.accept that. Because the minister in the Commons has said just as much in

:34:38. > :34:44.the passage I may be referring to later. My Lords, I am obliged for

:34:45. > :34:50.the contributions that have been made to the debate. This is a short

:34:51. > :34:55.bill which has already invoked many hours of debate and I intend to keep

:34:56. > :35:02.my remarks very brief indeed. I endorse the art of the stations of

:35:03. > :35:10.the honourable -- be noble Lord Mackay. But also to the spirit it is

:35:11. > :35:15.received by the government. The promise because a statement to the

:35:16. > :35:18.other place following European councils. We know they will be a

:35:19. > :35:22.council this month and quarterly thereafter. That means a statement

:35:23. > :35:27.will be made to Parliament at least once every quarter on European

:35:28. > :35:30.issues and such a statement would be repeated in this House. Of course,

:35:31. > :35:34.that is just the beginning of a much wider process of which this

:35:35. > :35:40.Parliament has control at the end of the day. Ministers have responded to

:35:41. > :35:42.over 600 parliamentary written questions appeared at 13 Senate

:35:43. > :35:51.committees and given oral statements to their House regarding

:35:52. > :35:55.developments regarding our exit. The Secretary of State has agreed to

:35:56. > :36:00.give evidence to the EU select committee on 15th of March alongside

:36:01. > :36:05.the permanent secretary of the Department. It would shortly after

:36:06. > :36:10.give evidence to the Lords EU committee. The government is

:36:11. > :36:13.committed to parliamentary scrutiny and Parliament will play a key role

:36:14. > :36:18.in scrutinising and shaping our withdrawal. As my noble friend Lord

:36:19. > :36:23.Bridges observed last week, we have had take note debates, debates on

:36:24. > :36:29.government time, select committees, all of this will continue in order

:36:30. > :36:35.that Parliament can scrutinise the development of negotiations. In as

:36:36. > :36:41.far as it is possible to put those in the public domain and as they

:36:42. > :36:45.come into the public domain. The noble Baroness, Lady Hater, referred

:36:46. > :36:53.to secrets. The noble Baroness, Lady luck

:36:54. > :36:59.-- there will not be a secret, you cannot conduct such a process in

:37:00. > :37:05.secret ultimately. And you cannot then expect Parliament to consider

:37:06. > :37:12.that it has been properly informed, if you do have seekers. We are

:37:13. > :37:14.committed to keep Parliament at least as well informed as the

:37:15. > :37:20.European Parliament as negotiations progress. A bill to repeal the

:37:21. > :37:26.European Community at would follow, there will be primary legislation on

:37:27. > :37:32.migrations and customs and a vote at the end in regards to the process on

:37:33. > :37:36.the final deal to exit. With all of that in mind, can I pose one or two

:37:37. > :37:40.questions. Is a Prime Minister already bound to give a statement to

:37:41. > :37:44.parliament after every quarterly European Council? The answer is yes.

:37:45. > :37:49.Has the government been willing to give frequent statements to

:37:50. > :37:54.Parliament? The answer is yes. Other ministers have appeared in front of

:37:55. > :37:58.committees. As the government listen to select committee reports? The

:37:59. > :38:06.answer is yes. They published a White Paper in February this year.

:38:07. > :38:10.As the government said it would give more information to Parliament so

:38:11. > :38:14.long as it does not undermine our negotiating position? The answer is

:38:15. > :38:19.yes. And then there is the core question, what is the present bill

:38:20. > :38:22.about? It is about giving the Prime Minister the authority to give

:38:23. > :38:29.notice of withdrawal from the European Union. With great respect

:38:30. > :38:36.to the House and to honourable Lord, let us pass this bill. It will

:38:37. > :38:44.as it has been observed, it is not appropriate that this amendment

:38:45. > :38:49.should proceed and I believe all members of the House have spoken

:38:50. > :38:56.would acknowledge that it is not necessarily that this amendment

:38:57. > :39:01.should proceed and I invite the noble Lords to withdraw this

:39:02. > :39:07.amendment. Your macro I thank the noble Lord to have contributed,

:39:08. > :39:11.which I think is the most helpful but change and no disrespect to the

:39:12. > :39:19.others was to hear Lord Mackay's support of the spirit of it. I think

:39:20. > :39:28.if I can just bottle that, that will do me nicely. I only want to make

:39:29. > :39:33.two other points. One is that although there are reports that

:39:34. > :39:37.after the European Council, for when the European Council discusses our

:39:38. > :39:40.departure, the UK won't be there so it is the other meetings we are

:39:41. > :39:45.interested in. The only other comment I want to make is in

:39:46. > :39:50.response to the noble Lord Spicer with the suggestion that if we dare

:39:51. > :39:56.to suggest that Parliament rather than the Crown should take the final

:39:57. > :40:02.decision, that Mrs May might call an election.

:40:03. > :40:12.Not only did I vote in 1975 but I remember the February 1974 election

:40:13. > :40:16.very well, when Edward Heath basically had an election on who

:40:17. > :40:21.governs Britain. I think Mrs May would not be well advised to go to

:40:22. > :40:24.the country on do you want the government or Parliament to govern

:40:25. > :40:33.Britain. But that really is beside the point and I think the tone of

:40:34. > :40:37.the ministers response and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the

:40:38. > :40:45.amendment. The amendment is withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move

:40:46. > :40:52.but further consideration on the report be adjourned until after oral

:40:53. > :41:05.questions. As many as of that opinion say content. The country

:41:06. > :41:10.safe not content. The contents have it.

:41:11. > :41:14.As many as of that opinion say content.