07/03/2017 House of Lords

That is Labour Party policy and I speak in favour of that policy. I

noticed in her welcome that in her speech on committee, my noble

friend, the opposition leader, the noble Baroness Basildon, said. This

was not, I wish you was the opposition leader by the way as

opposed to our opposing opposition -- current opposition leader but

that is a different matter. What she said was that she disagreed with

pressing a referendum at this date but left open the question that if

there was a final demand, come the final situation following clarity on

what Britain's future would hold and a deal that had or had not been

negotiated, a referendum could be called at that stage. She left the

door open and I welcome that. I understand the front bench and her

position. The country was split down the middle on June 23 last year.

Yes, leave won, there is no disputing that, I'm not disputing

that. But it is split down the middle, perhaps even more so now.

This is the most divisive issue of my political generation. And it is

going to continue to be divisive in the future. I believe a referendum

that allows people to have the final say is a way of bringing the country

together in deciding on that final say. That is why I support this

amendment. I would like to remind him about the Welsh devolution

referendum. I was the lead the Welsh Liberal Democrats in 1992 to 1997

and strongly supported, as he did, the idea of devolution for Wales.

And it has worked extremely well. But I would remind him, and

certainly no Liberal Democrat I knew in Wales envisaged that if we did

not like the way devolution was set up, that we would have a second

referendum. We would have considered that view completely idiotic and

unconstitutional. I have only been on this side of the House for the

last two or three months so my memory of being Liberal Democrat is

reasonably fresh. At the time of the European referendum last year, it is

clear in my mind that the starting point for the Liberal Democrats was

as follows. There would be one referendum. It was not suggested for

one moment that there would be two or even three or four referenda. I

see the logic of what the noble Lord said earlier and thought he was

rather wrongly put down by the noble Lord, Lord Newby because he made a

perfectly fair point. It was envisaged by the Democrats that

there would be one referendum and that that referendum would be in

accordance with the law. The law provides that referenda are

advisory. And are subject to parliamentary procedure thereafter.

If a referendum result for good reason, is rejected by Parliament,

then the result is rejected by Parliament. And that is what Liberal

Democrats expected. Namely, the normal process. And we would have

heard, had it been otherwise. I wanted to make two particular

points, one tactical and the other constitutional. First, the tactical

point. The noble Lords, as our member to my cost, every call on

what positions the Liberal Democrats took in the past has not always been

entirely accurate as I recall. But on this issue, the differences

surely this. When the Wales referendum was put, it was put on a

specific proposition. Fully backed up with policy and detail. On this

occasion, the question put to the British people was to leave or not,

the government is entitled to an act that mandate. There is no mandate,

and the noble Lord may wish to suggest the form of mandate for the

particular form of exit that the government chooses. There is no

mandate to leave the single market, nor to leave the common customs

union. So if there is no mandate for that, why is it that the government

have chosen to use that as the most hardline Brexit possible? If he

believes there is a mandate for that, we describe what it is given

the majority of people in this country, in opinion polls, have made

it clear they do not support this. And the, if you allow me order,

order. I don't wish to stifle debate but the noble Lords should know that

we are an report stage. It is not the opportunity to interrupt the

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

noble Lord Ashdown knows, I have enormous and racial for his skill

and ability. He is at his best when he makes points with simplicity.

That point was not made with simplicity. I'm totally confused by

what he was seeking to say. And I reject his argument completely. He

knows perfectly well, as the whole of the Liberal Democrats know, that

what was put to the country was a referendum, in the normal

constitutional and legal form. No Liberal Democrat, no Liberal

Democrat, no. No Liberal Democrat, least of all, Lord Ashdown,

suggested for one moment, perhaps he was too busy eating his hat as a

result of his comments on television during the general election. But no

Liberal Democrat, least of all he, suggested that there was something

different about the referendum that we faced last June. But my Lords I

am sure will want me to get on. My lords, the truth of this matter is

we are facing this proposal for the second time. Now rather better

crafted thanks to the intervention of the noble Lords, because

unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats do not like the result of the

referendum that took place last June. My lords, nor did I. But my

advice to your lordship's House is to be careful for what you wish for.

The Liberal Democrats record on referenda ain't so good my lord. You

will return the alternative vote referendum and you will recall of

course what happened in June. And indeed, I would say that the

amendment set out in amendment one aims to compress a huge quantity of

extremely complicated issues into a simplistic binary question. It just

won't work. And the government doesn't need this kind of

patronising advice in order to get on with the negotiations. I now turn

briefly to the constitutional issues. The noble Lord, Lord Newby,

failed to answer the challenge from the other noble Lord, whether there

would be a binding referendum or an advisory referendum. He sought to

answer it by saying he thought that on balance, that there would be a

binding referendum. If that is the basis for this amendment, it is

ridiculous. Because there is no provision in the law for a binding

referendum. The whole debate we have been having in your lordship's House

has been about how much respect we should pay to the referendum that

took place last June. My answer is that we should pay a lot of respect

to the referendum that took place last June. I don't want to leave the

European Union but I recognise that the referendum has taken us to

article 50. We must get on with triggering as soon as possible. The

government knows perfectly well what it has to do. It knows that if it

produces a completely unsatisfactory result, it will face a motion of no

confidence in the other place. And it will fall. And we can well do

without messing around with the arrangements which should now be in

action. I have no wish to get involved in Liberal Democrat warfare

but I did put my name to this amendment and I support many of

those speeches given in support of it. My noble friend, the minister,

has done a very skilful job in getting this bill to this stage in

this House. But that committee stage, he told us to be in no doubt

that this country was leaving the EU. No ifs, no buts. No idea on what

terms. My lords, I admire determination but not when it is

blind to changing circumstances. I cannot see why any government would

be so adamant about the course of action, with no knowledge of the

circumstances in which it might take that course. We do not know what the

world will look like in two years' time. Both economically and

politically. It is of the most uncertain stages I have seen in my

lifetime. In two years' time, the EU could look very different. The world

could look very different. Our economy could look very different

and I suspect not for the better. At that stage, we will be able to look

at the deal our government has negotiated, or as others have

pointed out, the no Deal that it was handed. My lords, although I am not

an advocate of government by referenda, in this situation, having

started the process with a referendum, as the noble Lord Hain

pointed out, it seems the only sensible way to bring the process to

an end is to put the terms to the public. I have listened to the

arguments, of the noble Lord Carlile, and I don't dismiss the

patronising advice he gave to the Liberal Democrats or to those

supporting this amendment. But I do believe that the public need to see

what is on offer. We have heard during the course of this bill that

whatever they voted for on June 23 last year, it was not to get poorer.

My lords, I cannot see that the government in the end will be

presenting them with a deal which does not mean they will get poorer.

And I believed at that stage, they should have the chance to vote on

whether having seen the future that it is the future they really want.

There was a referendum previously on Europe in 1975. On that occasion, it

was not taken as holy writ and something that it was almost obscene

to vote against. On the contrary. In 1979, the Labour Party said it would

ignore and vote against the referendum result. No difficulties

there. So did a very large number of conservatives headed by Mr Enoch

Powell. So I cannot see why the and visor in referendum of 1975, where

the majority was 33%, should somehow be treated so casually where is this

referendum, with a majority of I think 3.8%, is somehow treated

reverentially and we should all genuflect before the will of the

people. I link this amendment with amendment three which I shall also

support. Amendment three confirms the views widely put by the Supreme

Court that the sovereignty in this country resides in Parliament in the

two Houses of Parliament. That was the view that was taken and that is

the view that will be proclaimed in amendment three. Referenda are

always advisory. They are to help Parliament in reaching a view. Best

to have an informed referendum, the it the last referendum was not the

least informed. It was a process of serial lying and deception which

added nothing to public understanding and as the facts

emerged, I think public understanding will change very

substantially. What we need, I think, is another view of the people

to assist Parliament when the facts are known. When the car workers at

Vauxhall, the steelworkers in portal but, when the car workers in

Sunderland will be forming a view on employment, on trade and on

Britain's economic relationships with a wider world. And when also,

hopefully, as one or two noble Lords have mentioned, young people,

deprived of voting this time, his future is being imperilled and being

put at risk in the future by this ill informed, almost non-informed

decision. When we will have perhaps their views. The final point I

think, is that another referendum will not be taken in a one world

universe. It will be taken when the views of those other 27 countries,

whose views are quite important in reaching a decision on Brexit, when

they are also known. So I am in favour, as I believe the Labour

Party was, in 1979 and 1983, many conservatives and the growing number

of conservatives were to regard this referendum, that we had in June last

year as ill informed and almost uninformed guidance. I would prefer

informed guidance and that is why I should vote for this amendment.

My Lords, I apologise for not having been present at early stages of the

Bill for medical reasons. The benefit is I will not be on my feet

for long! I was disappointed to miss the excellent debate's early stages.

What unites us in this House is how seriously we take our roles. On our

best days we approach each question not on the basis of tribal loyalty

but on the strength of the argument and how it might work for the common

good of the whole country. On these benches, we are not a party, nor do

we follow a whip. Today you will see a significant number of bishops

appearing, not because we hold ourselves out as constitutional

experts, but because we are deeply embedded in every local community in

England. We may dress the same but we have independent minds, as anyone

observing church politics recently will be well aware! I speak today

not in a corporate but a personal capacity. The referendum campaign

and its aftermath revealed deep divisions in our societies. This

feels like the most divided country that I've lived in in my lifetime.

Whatever the outcome of the next two years, our nation 's future

particularly for the most vulnerable, will be profoundly

damaged if we arrived in 2019 even more divided. Without a common

vision to confront the opportunities and challenges before us. To meet

these challenges in every aspect of policy and every level of society,

we must find a level of national reconciliation. How we conduct this

process is as important as the outcome itself. I believe it would

be both dangerous and an wise and wrong to reduce the substance of the

terms on which we exit the European Union to the result of a binary

choice taken last summer. The government should avoid any

inclination to oversimplify the outcome of the most complex piece

time negotiations probably ever. But neither is the complexity of a

further referendum a good way of dealing with the process, at the end

of negotiation. It will add to our divisions, it will deepen the

bitterness. It is not democratic, it is an wise. Even if circumstances

change as the baroness quite rightly said they are likely to, even if

they change drastically, a dangerous and over complicated process is the

result of a referendum. It is beyond doubt that those bringing this

amendment and the others before this House today and last week in

committee are moved by legitimate and deeply principled concerns for

our country, to challenge that, as has been done in the press is

entirely wrong. Similarly, those who have argued against amending this

Bill have done so not from a deficit of care but from a concern for

process and a legitimate desire to reach the best outcome. Division of

our country is not a mere fact to be navigated around. But something to

be healed, to be challenged and changed. In many years in which I've

worked in countries in the midst of deep division, sometimes sometimes

civil division, seeking to build common vision, both here and abroad,

there are two cardinal errors. The first is to complicate process, the

second is artificially to simplify complicated substance. On this

amendment, I fear I believe we risk making the process too complex and

the substance too simple. Although I fully understand the good intentions

of those who move this amendment, for these reasons I will personally

be unable to support it. My Lords, I support amendment one but I believe

we have amendment one and amendment three being debated in the wrong

order. If we pass amendment three, as I suspect may happen later today,

that gives Parliament the final say, which is certainly better than

allowing government to walk roughshod over Parliament and decide

for themselves. But we can't ignore the fact that the people,

regrettably to my view, voted to leave the EU. Though in doing so

they didn't have a clear view as to the alternative which they were

backing. If Parliament or government has the final say, and the people

who voted out don't like it, we could easily escalate the situation

into an almighty crisis. That could be avoided I believe by a

confirmatory referendum. Let's imagine over the next two years, if

negotiations get nowhere and the government resorts to the WTO basis

and no preferential access to the single market, and then car

factories start closing, financial services moved to Paris or

Frankfurt, the EU insists on a 30 billion year road payment from the

UK, EU nationals start quitting key posts in the NHS and expats find

they made need to start paying for health care or lose pension

increments from the UK. At that point, many who voted out will start

bleating. This isn't what we voted for. It's at that point, the only

way of holding the government in line is to be able to tell them, OK,

you'll get the final say, so let's see what happens with the final

package. My Lords, it is therefore in the government's best interest to

have a confirmatory referendum, and I believe that that is a very good

reason for backing this amendment. I arrived in this House today...

Sorry. My Lords, I also rise because I am unable to support this

amendment. I say so with a heavy heart but extremely conscious of the

economic consequences, not least all the other is the noble lord has just

mentioned, the economic consequences of prolonged uncertainty. I will

briefly sum up why. We've had uncertainty in this country from

when the Prime Minister made his speech, but more so since he

actually started negotiation. The negotiation itself took 14 months.

We have had the referendum, that took four months to organise. So are

their noble Lords who believe it can be done in the space of an election

campaign. The Electoral Commission's role is such it needs to take its

time to do that. We would probably run into a referendum in October 20

19. If the referendum result was that the country didn't like what it

got, then there would have to be another negotiation. Either to

revoke Article 50 or change the terms. But would bring us up into

the general election. If there is going to be a general election in

2020 there seems to me little value in having the referendum in early

2020 all 820 19. That's just the chronology. The idea of imagining

that the EU partners would hang around from 2015 to 2020 without

making provisional plans for a 12.5% hole their budget, for a seizing

automatic change in relationship of a single market of 65 million

people, is somehow not even to understand the EU's position. We

have seen HSBC moving 1000 jobs, we have heard that Europe clearing

would have to move. We've heard the Irish government telling us they are

preparing space for companies to move their office space. We know

that 1.1 million people are dependent on the financial services

sector, and their jobs are in line at the moment. The idea that

business will hang around for a further four years was rebutted in

the evidence we take in the report of the financial affairs

subcommittee on the impact on financial services. We were told in

terms that uncertainty was extremely damaging to the sector and they

wished therefore to have a transition period. Let me conclude

with one or two points to deal directly with some of the things

speakers have said. The noble lord said a process started by referendum

should end with one. The logic of 40 says I accept. The process started

with a referendum in 1975, there are people in this country who are 60

years old and over who have not had a say in the future direction of the

country until last year. With a heavy heart I have to admit they

didn't go in the direction I wanted them to go in which was to remain,

but they chose not to. So the process started with a referendum

and it will end with a referendum. I suspect what he leads to is a third,

potentially a fourth one. The noble lady Wheatcroft says, we don't know

what the world would look like in a couple of years' time. I completely

agree. That's why I look forward to debating the amendment still to come

about is whether Parliament should make an assessment or not. My Lords,

I am in a place where I think referenda are a dangerous tool,

direct democracy is dangerous in my opinion and referenda should be used

with great care and with clarity, because we cannot explain a

complicated negotiation result in a referendum as Mr Cameron found out.

I agree entirely with the noble lady who just said referenda are a bad

idea. I'm surprised others in the chamber don't agree especially those

on the Liberal Democrat benches. My Lords, nevertheless, we had a

referendum. It was a binary choice, yes or no. People knew what they

were voting for, they voted to leave the EU. My Lords, it is unbecoming

and patronising of people to a tribute to the individuals in this

nation the reasons for which they voted. Personally I voted to stay in

1975, 40 years later I had experienced the EU and I've voted to

take back control of this country in the hands of British people. That is

what I have done and that is what I suspect most people are expecting

from us. I must say it is patronising to suggest that people

did not know what they were voting for. The logic to which the noble

lord referred is what would happen if the people in this country in a

second referendum rejected the government's negotiating position.

Nobody has an answer to that and I would say there must be a third

referendum. I wouldn't particularly want to get into that. Finally, to

my friends on the Liberal Democrat benches, I hope they count me a

friend from time to time, there was an article in The Times yesterday

suggesting the Liberal Democrats fortunes are rising by Michael

Lucas, he suggested this was part of reinvigorating Liberal Democrat

fortunes. If I may say so, I would say the country. As the noble lord

suggested, there might be corrosive and justifiable anger but I think

the great British people have had their referendum, they don't want

another one, I suggest we should ignore this amendment and carry on.

I came into this chamber genuinely unsure about which way to vote,

whether to support the amendment or not. This is genuine. In relation to

this particular amendment. I support amendment three very strongly

indeed. I'm not sure the debate has helped me, there have been eloquent

speeches on both sides. My reservation, and I intervened, it is

because of my reservations I had about the referendum itself. The

fact 16 and 17-year-olds weren't allowed to vote, that EU citizens

weren't allowed to vote, there wasn't a threshold, there was

uncertainty whether it was advisory, or mandatory. That created a huge

problem in relation to that. My noble friend, it was an advisory

referendum, there is no doubt at all about that. I agree, that is my view

as well. Some people tried to sow confusion and indicate that it had

to be accepted. So I do think therefore, and this is what I said

to my noble friend, that we need to look carefully at what happened at

the end of this very long and complicated process.

I am now convinced, Lord Newby answered my question. That is the

form of the referendum, the timing of it, the question and the

franchise, and all of these other things will be dealt with in a bill

that will come before this Parliament. Amendment three,

parliamentary approval of any deal that is agreed. I envisage and I

don't know if my colleagues agree, I envisage that Parliament would then

put its agreement and the proposal to the referendum. That would be the

question. So in this referendum, we would actually know what we were

voting for. Unlike the last referendum. That has convinced me

that the way forward is to combine the parliamentary consideration of

the deal that is reached, to come to some conclusion and put it to the

people because the people have considered it already. That is the

first thing to convince me to support this amendment. I have

become increasingly concerned with how I would discover, the tribalism

of the Tories on this issue. Sitting there, some kind of concerted

campaign to push through the hard kind of Brexit that they want at any

cost. And I mean at any cost. The more they do that and the more they

sit there jeering at our party with -- partners in Europe, dismissing

them as if they are irrelevant in this, the more I am convinced we

need to make sure that they're kind of hard Brexit... Would my noble

friend agree that the referendum in Scotland, what happens if a second

referendum is closer than the last one. Do we have a third or fourth?

As my noble friend rightly said, in Scotland and in Wales what was put

to the people was absolutely clear and was a specific proposal. In two

sets up a parliament for Scotland and for Wales. What we put to the

last referendum was not as clear. We did not know the options before us.

All previous referenda have always been confirm a tree. They actually

agreed to what Parliament has said before the nation. That was not the

case in June last year. I find myself unusually agreeing with him

completely. It has taken me by surprise. And that is why I think

what we are talking about in this referendum, that this is a confirm a

true referendum after Parliament has agreed or otherwise with a proposal

that comes from the government in relation to Europe. On that basis, I

will back his amendment. My Lords, there are two scenarios regarding

the EU attitude to us leaving the European Union. One is that they are

absolutely delighted that we should be going, a Thorn has come out of

their side. They will be able to proceed with the federal dream they

have always had. And therefore, they will want to quickly get on with an

agreement and say goodbye to us. The other scenario is that actually they

regard the UK leaving the EU like a hole in the head. It would give them

an enormous budgetary problem and it will probably be contagious and lead

to other countries in the EU wanting to leave as well. And of course, the

noble Lord, Lord Newby says we must trust them. Hold on. They are not

feature that -- they are not renowned for being overtly Emma

cracked it. They put the whole objective of the federal dream above

all else. -- being overtly democratic. We

you offer the most appalling deal known to man. And then knowing that

there is going to be a referendum, if this amendment is passed, you can

confidently reckoned that the British people will vote against

that deal and the United Kingdom will stay in the EU. My Lords, does

that not completely undermined the government's negotiating position

once article 50 has been passed? This amendment should be opposed

absolutely ruthlessly. My Lords, there is one of the

important reason why the final decision on Brexit should be a

national referendum and not the approval of parliament. It is that

Parliament has changed. We have abandoned the main principle of our

democracy, that we are a parliamentary democracy and that MPs

are representatives, not delegates. Instead we have adopted the doctrine

that the will of the people must always prevail, the favourite

doctrine dictators and autocrats throughout history. The second

reading had the samples which I will not now repeat. As one Lord pointed

out in that debate, four fits of the MPs voted to trigger Article 50 had

voted remain and believed Brexit would be against the national

interest. The exercising of their own judgment weighing up the

evidence and debate has given way to the new fashion for populist

political correctness. And the inescapable logic of this approach

means that if MPs at the end of the negotiations came to the conclusion

that the result the -- be equivalent to falling off a cliff, they would

still feel duty bound because of June 23 referendum, to act like

lemmings. My Lords, I have always been a devotee of Burke, I once

fought a by-election on his principles. In 1972, I was one of 69

Labour members of Parliament led by Roy Jenkins who voted for British

entry into the European Community, against the three line whip. My

local left-wing Labour Party in Lincoln was fashionably anti-Europe.

And they told me that if I voted with the Tories against the party 's

three line whip, they would deselect me. I did and they did. And so I

resigned and fought a by-election in March 1973 as an independent social

democrat. And the real issue in that by-election was not Europe but

Burke. I explained my reasons at a mass meeting in Lincoln that I had

always been pro-Europe and as an 18 year or June, some 70 years ago, I

joined the Strasberg club which asked Britain to share some of its

sovereignty with other European countries for peace and prosperity.

I was not going to change my view because my party told me to. I was

supported at a mass meeting we held by a famous journalist at the time,

Bernard Levin. He put the issue quite simply, the choice in Lincoln,

he said was between me and a dictaphone. I won with an

overwhelming majority of Labour and Conservatives. And it was Burke what

one it. My Lords, Burke is popular because people like those who stick

to their guns. And his championship MPs as representatives, not

delegates, has been a basic part of the strength of our parliamentary

system. If referendum determined our laws, we would probably still have

the death penalty and flopping in prisons. And what would be the point

of parliamentary debate if MPs had already pledged their vote

irrespective of all arguments. My Lords may ask why I support the

Liberal Democrat amendment in favour of a new referendum? I think my

noble friend, Lord Newby, gave a very good answer to that. But in

fact, a referendum is one way in which people would have a chance to

change their mind. If the government process was followed, it would be a

completely no real choice because the only choice would be either to

accept or reject the end of the negotiations, whatever its results.

I believe that the decision to leave the single market and customs union

makes a hard Brexit almost inevitable. That we will not get a

special deal from industries or the right of service companies to

operate their biggest market. I believe Mr Trump will not abandon

his claim, America first, and that we will face a more protectionist

world, not a free-trade bonanza. We face a very real danger of a return

to the nationalism and protectionism of the 1930s. And if we leave

Europe, we may find an increasing need to rely on Mr Trump's America.

The future of Mrs May and Donald Trump, walking hand in hand. My

Lords, we should not travel one miserable inch along that fearsome

road. My Lords, at second reading, I argued for a second referendum based

on the principle of informed consent. A standard by which

individuals can agree to eventually asked their opinion. I will not

repeat that argument now but it remains my primary reason for

supporting this amendment. Much of what I was going to say has been

said that there is one very small point that I wish to make. Which is

that we are asked to have faith in this government and its offices to

secure this deal but the reason given last week for not securing the

fate of EU nationals was not that the government was not willing, but

that small number of the remaining 27 would not play ball. Just as we

have already been asked to accept, they cannot deliver the single

market because the 27 have a red line on free movement. My Lords, as

this negotiation goes from the visible red lines to the hundreds of

thousands of detours that constitute this divorce settlement, the 27 are

going to find a multitude of issues over which they do not wish to play

ball. Yet by the government's own admission, they have to accept

whatever the least interested of those 27 nations offer. Having

meaningful parliamentary oversight and a mechanism by which the much

quoted will of the people can be tested, are not automatic roadblocks

to withdraw, they are merely an insurance policy against a lousy

deal. I have one simple point to make. It is this. My Lords,. Gray we

will hear from the Conservative benches and then from the Labour

benches and then indeed for Lord Pearson. My simple point is this,

Parliament will pronounce for or against the result of the government

negotiations to withdraw from the European Union in good course. It

may possibly be that Parliament will feel in 2019 or wherever the

negotiations are completed, that it will be wise to test the country

with another referendum but it should be determined at that final

stage in those circumstances, not now. It would be wholly contrary to

our constitutional conditions to make a binding aspect for a future

referendum at this point. If I may, it seems to run counter to the

position of government who seem confident they can get a good deal.

Or and that not been the case, getting a bad, that they can walk

away and the WTO trading arrangements will be good enough for

us to operate effectively in the world. If that is the position of

confidence the government has, why should they be in any doubt that a

referendum would in fact give them an even greater majority in support

of what they finally resolve. I will be supporting this amendment and I

do so for a number of reasons. The most pressing reason is that I, as

others in this House, have some regret about our greater use of

referenda. I think the strength of representative democracy is that it

gives you the opportunity of a greater understanding of issues.

That is why we delegate to our representatives in matter of

governing on our behalf. Once we decided on having a

referendum, if at the end of all of this is the sense in Parliament was

that in fact the deal on offer was not good and that the WTO

alternative was actually not good at all, and then decided that we really

wanted to look again at whether the remaining might be an option, it

would be quite difficult for us to say that the people shouldn't have

their voice, given that they started the process. That's why I'm

persuaded that having a referendum is the only thing you can do at the

end but again, it would be advisory, and Parliament would say we have to

listen to the people. I'm concerned because I take the view that a lot

is going to happen in the next two years. Not least that people are

going to start seeing what the implications of this art. I want to

remind us of the stage of an National Health Service, and the

fact we have people on the street saying this can't go on, and that

the need for resource is essential. The fact we have a complete crisis

when it comes to the care of our elderly which needs money, and yet

we are going to be seen huge amounts of money spent on trade negotiators,

seeking to reinstate immigration processes and any number of things

that this is going to cost us. I think has people recognise that in

fact our public services are going to see greater and greater depletion

in the shadows of this Brexit movement, people are going to say is

this really what we wanted? It goes back to that thing, did people vote

to become poorer? I sat with two distinguished businessmen whose

names would be on all of your lips the other night who said that by

2025, the people of Great Britain, the middle classes as well as the

working classes, would be 30% poorer. Just think about that. 30%

less well off. And we are lying to people of we don't tell them the

truth about it. People have to be given the opportunity of seeing, and

I won't have lectures from anybody whose business interests are all in

South Africa. I really do press on this House... I hope the baroness

will give way but she is drifting to a second reading speech. There is a

specific proposal before this House, the amendment proposed by Lord

Newby. I'd be grateful if noble Lords could be brief. A lot of

people want to speak and address the substance of that motion and not the

other aspects they may wish to draw attention to. I certainly will not

continue to make a speech but what I want to say is that the reason why

people are asking this eventually goes back to the people, is because

we started with the people. Parliament has been saying we are

bound by the fact people have given us a direction of travel. When it

comes to the end of that journey they have the right to be heard too.

My Lords, I regret I didn't speak at second reading or in committee, I

had previous engagements. I would like to speak briefly on this

amendment is it reveals what the noble remain campaign is really

want. They want a second referendum in the hope that people will change

their mind. My Lords, I hope to spend a minute or two trying to

persuade noble supporters of this amendment why'd they are wrong to do

so. To do that you have to look at the picture. What I can't understand

at all... I am sorry. The noble lord could have been able to make a

second reading speech at second reading. I would be grateful if he

would address the substance of the amendment. If the noble lord wants

me to deal with that, I thought I had advice as it was a two-day

debate, that since I wasn't able to be here for the opening speeches on

the first day, I could speak on the second. I make no complaint, owing

to a prior engagement I couldn't get to the opening speeches. It's not

important or relevant to this debate. I was saying that what beats

me is why so many of your Lordships still fervently believe that the

European Union, the project of European integration and its single

market, are somehow good things. That's why they support this

amendment, when clearly they aren't good things. They have clearly

become bad things. As I've said many times over the last 26 years, the

project of European integration was honourable when it started. It was

to get rid of war in Europe and all the rest of it. As was said in

1956... The noble lord is very courteous and he listens to what I

say but he chooses to ignore it. LAUGHTER I would be grateful if he

would address the substance of the amendment and then let other people

have a say. I'm quite happy to sit down but I'm trying to persuade

supporters of this amendment that they are wrong to do so because the

whole project has gone wrong. Is that not something your Lordships

wish to hear? No. LAUGHTER OK, I'll skip over. CHEERING

Skip over why the single market is a bad thing. Skip over the strength of

the hand we have because they have so many more jobs selling things to

us than we do to them. And I'll skip over the fact that noble Remainers

who support this amendment still think that somehow EU money exists,

when it doesn't. When every penny that the European Union gives us...

And, my Lords, we are still left with 10 billion a year net. I'll

give you a new statistic. GROANS. It is the salary of 1000 nurses every

day. Whatever happens, my Lords, we are going to go on trading with our

friends in Europe because they need it more than we do. Perhaps I will

just end. CHEERING I'll end with a word of advice to

the Liberal Democrats. If they are considering supporting this

amendment which I fancy they are, my Lords, if the Liberal Democrats take

their very own policy at the election before last, and I don't

know where it is now because it's difficult to follow Liberal Democrat

policy, but that policy was that membership of your Lordships house

should grow to represent and reflect the votes cast in the previous

general election. And my Lords, in the last election the Liberal

Democrats got 5% of the vote. That should give them 43 seats. Instead,

my Lords, they have 102. I obviously will pass in silence over the fact

that we got 8% of the votes which should give us a 69 seats and we've

got precisely three. More seriously to the Liberal Democrats, if they

use this dishonest advantage, by their own standard, if they use this

dishonest advantage to vote down the will of the British people, to vote

down the will of the House of Commons, then I think they will

reveal their contempt for democracy. And, my Lords, it will do your

Lordships house no good at all. I disagree with this amendment because

I see two defects. One highlighted a moment ago, it it purports to tie

the hand of Parliament which we should not be doing, unlike

amendment three coming up later today, which gives Parliament more

options and the certainty of having more options. Secondly, I see a

defect in this amendment because it doesn't address the possibility, the

increasing possibility, that there will be no settlement, no agreement,

and we fall out. What I don't like in this debate, and I haven't liked

at second reading or committee, is the suggestion that in some ways it

would be illegitimate for the country to think again. There is a

frog chorus behind the minister every time he says it was the chorus

behind says decided, decided. This is the lemming position. No matter

how awful the deal turns out to be, no matter how unlike the promises of

the Leavers the deal turns out to be, no matter how steep the cliff,

we must go over. There is no chance of turning back on a decision. I

find that strangely reminiscent of the Moscow I worked in in 1968, when

Soviet foreign policy run on the doctrine. It said once you have

voted communists in, you cannot vote communists out. Brezhnev Doctrine

--. That seems to be the position of most of the backbenchers of the

government today. I hope he will consult his right honourable friend

David Davis the Secretary of State for leaving the EU, and will come to

the conclusion that Mr David was right when he said "If a democracy

cannot think again, cannot change its mind, it is no longer a

democracy. I rather agree. My Lords, I don't think I'm a frog or a lemon

but I was one of the ministers who stood at the dispatch box when we

took the euro referendum Bill through this House. I think we

should have regard to what we decided in Parliament in that act.

There were a number of amendments put down. There was no amendment put

down about thresholds. There was no amendment put down to new -- to

nuance the question, no amendment to put down to say we would stay within

the single market, and no amendment put down to said there would be a

second referendum. Why not? Was it because the alternatives were too

complicated? There were only two outcomes of the referendum, either

we remained or we left. Was it political negligence by

parliamentarians not to put down these amendments. Or were they in

fact content with the Bill and its binary question, and in fact we are

having this debate contrary, I think, to what was generally

considered to be the law, which is that it was the right of the

government exercising the Royal prerogative. In the amendments put

down in the previous Bill introduced by Lord Dobbs is a sorry get for the

government, because these amendments were tabled on that occasion, and if

they were tabled or withdrawn on that occasion, I think some people

felt there was no point in raising them at a later stage. I find that

remarkably unpersuasive. The fact is that most people as a result of the

decision of the people thought that there was power on the part of the

government to then negotiate to do the best deal possible. We then had

the Gina Miller case. Nothing about the Supreme Court judgment, in my

view, either expressly or implied, advances the amendment. This is

opportunism, understandable opportunism. It is motivated by the

understandable view which I share which is that we should not have

voted to leave the EU. But, if we vote with this amendment, we will be

ignoring what we decided in the euro referendum act, we will be ignoring

the vote, we will be ignoring the House of Commons. Its type for a

little constitutional modesty on our part. -- it's time. It is a pleasure

to follow the Lords because he liked me sat through most of the debate,

which resulted in this House without opposition, deciding that we should

have a referendum in order to determine whether we should remain

in the European Union or leave. I say that particularly to the Lord

who expressed its strong opposition to referendums and I respectfully

say to him, that if that is the case, he should have opposed the

Bill in this House which established the referendum mechanism in order to

decide leave or remain. I want to make an observation and I will bend

specifically address the referendum. There's been an awful lot of free

running of the referendum argument in this discussion so far. The bit

that I always want to urge this House above all institutions that

I've been able to be involved in more than any other, is to ascribe

motives to people in elections, and to assume that we understand

precisely why they voted the way they did.

Perhaps I have a considerable qualification in this regard in that

I have lost an awful lot of elections over the course of my

career. And while the motive is always the same that my opponents

lied or misled people, or they were bright enough to make the decision.

When they eventually do elect you, my advice is to acknowledge that

they are a pretty shrewd electorate. That is the way we all reacts to

success and failure in elections. But specifically as far as the

amendment is concerned, we still haven't had a reply on the question

as to whether it is an advisory or not? One or two mistakes I need to

respectfully point out to members who have spoken, have been made in

arguing this particular case. I think it was my noble friend, Lord

Morgan, who said all referenda are advisory and that simply isn't

right. The referendum that we held on whether or not we should have AV

or first past the post was a referendum which was based on

legislation this House had passed in the referendum bill for the AV

referendum. Which precisely laid out what the system would be that the

electorate would look into place if the referendum passed. With regard

to that particular referendum, all referenda, this is a constitution

based on parliamentary sovereignty. Unlike France, it is not based on

popular sovereignty. In this particular case, the act of

Parliament that this House passed in order to establish the referendum

was an act of Parliament which included precisely the mechanism for

the full alternative vote election that would come into place be

carried. It was technically an advisory referendum. But the leaders

of the campaign is made it absolutely clear that the government

would implement the findings of the referendum without qualification. It

also featured in the governing party's manifesto in the last

general election. The passage of the referendum debate when the

referendum was underway was quite clearly on the basis that it was a

once-in-a-lifetime decision. We need to add knowledge that as well. But

the main points I wanted to make art in respect of the validity of the

decision as to whether or not it should be replaced with a second

referendum. Again, as said, it was never said at the time of the

passage of the referendum that there would be a second referendum. And I

hate disagreeing with my noble friend, Lord Vokes, strictly not on

matters related on Scotland. He did say, he will no doubt interrupt me

and I will be happy to taxi, the choice in the Scottish referendum

was clear. It didn't come over that way in the way it was reported in

England. There appeared to be a great lack of clarity about what

currency would be used as to whether or not an independent Scotland could

reapply to join forward successfully be able to reapply to join the

European Union. A whole host of uncertainties. There has not been an

election I have heard of where there were no uncertainties or

difficulties to address. That brings me to the only really substantial

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

or other, this is the whole basis of having a second referendum according

to its proponents. Some way or other, circumstances will change in

a very fundamental way which makes it absolutely essential that we

should test the opinion with the British people again. I cannot avoid

a little trip down memory lane at this point. This is not the first

referendum on whether or not we should be members of the European

Union, it is the second. The first was held in 1975. The decision was

to remain in the European Union. Overwhelming decision, my noble

friend makes a helpful intervention. It was an overwhelming decision to

remain. Please just finished? A lot of people said afterwards that maybe

we should have another referendum and of course we did have a second

referendum. The only problem from the perspective who voted no in the

first one in 1975 was that we had to wait 41 years to have a choice when

several generations of 17 and 18-year-olds would become

pensioners, so there was a long gap between the decision of the first

and second referendum. Where is proposed that two years between the

two referendum on it is -- on this occasion. The point I want to make

is this. No one in 1975 referendum could possibly have anticipated the

consequences of a yes vote in that referendum. It was not the European

Union, it has changed its name several times since then. It was the

common market which people voted for or against. Correction, the European

Community. It will be something else in due course. The idea that people

who voted yes in the 1975 referendum new that it would triple in size

over the ensuing 41 years, that qualified majority voting in all of

matters would develop in the remaining 41 years or that we would

get a European Foreign Ministry. Over 150 offices of the European

Union around the country. A European foreign affairs spokesman and the

rest of it. I am not necessarily criticising the but no one who voted

yes in 1975 could conceivably have thought that that would be how the

European Union with develop. Do I recall anyone suggesting, who voted

yes in 1975, to say no, the circumstances have changed

dramatically we need to have another referendum to see if people agreed

with what was voted for. We waited 41 years between the first and

second referendum. If we adopt the same principle, we shall have

another referendum and it will be in the year 2057. I'm a generous man

looking for, rises and I think that would be an unreasonable gap between

this referendum and any subsequent one. I do say, inevitably, after any

decision, referendum general election, there are people who will

be dissatisfied with the result you want to have it checked. In the

correction, that they want to have it reverse. That is the motive

behind this proposal for a second referendum. Unacknowledged during

the actual referendum debate that which is now being demanded as an

entirely novel proposal. And I do hope the House will agree with me

that it is not an acceptable proposal. My Lords, I think it is

probably sensible now to hear from front benches. We might hear from

the Labour and then the Minister. My Lords, this has been an interesting

and long debate on a very short amendment to a short bill. I

appreciate the amendment itself talks about ratification referendum.

In the noble Lord's comments, he took that people changing their

minds and very much an issue about people being able to change their

minds. But it has been a much broader discussion than just this

particular amendment. I have to say my Lords, as someone who campaigned

strongly to remain and remains bitterly disappointed at the

results, I agree with many of the comments made in the debate but I am

not sure they bring much to bear on whether a second referendum is

appropriate at this time. Demands for second referendum started even

before the ink was dry on the papers of the first referendum. It is rare

for us to have referendum, imagines and five, the incredible minister

Wilson held a referendum on whether we should remain in the European

Community or leave. I think I am in an analogy in your lordship is my

cows in that I was not able to vote in the referendum. -- in your

lordship's House. In 2011, we had the referendum from the coalition

government on whether to change the voting system in which Parliament,

by legislation, ceded sovereignty to the public on that referendum. And

in 2016, we had the EU referendum. On the EU, there is clearly public

interest, both at high turnouts. A bit lower than 1975 but I do think

anyone really thought we would leave. The margin of difference was

significant at 33%. But lasted, the polls were so close that it probably

encourage the high turnout of 72%. Yet the referendum on changing the

voting system, and a turnout of just 42%. There was never any real public

demand for such a change and to most people, it appeared to be led by

politicians. So when we debated this amendment in committee, I expressed

my national -- natural caution about politicians calling for a referendum

on any issue. It is usually because we think it will endorse the result

we want. I accept it some is today, some Lords have made cases for

popular democracy but the noble Lord Newby made it clear why he was

bringing this proposal forward. There is a difference between a

public demand for a referendum, as we have seen, but I think

politicians have to take care in how we respond to that of Lake demand. I

listened carefully to Lord Newby when he opened this debate, and

others, and I read his article in the House magazine on this issue. He

was totally honest about his amendment for a further referendum.

Despite the comments by a number of people in your lordship's House, he

was very clear, he thinks the public would change their mind. He said "It

is important not to grant the second referendum if public opinion shifts

in favour of the EU. But my Lords, there is no significant public

demand for a second referendum and there is most significant shift in

public opinion. It is being seen by many as millet a campaign to

challenge the result of the first. And that was reinforced last week

when the noble Lord spoke about the purpose behind his amendment. My

Lords, it is exactly the point, a second referendum would not be on

the deal or the arrangement but yet again on a principle of how people

felt about the EU. Before the last referendum, indeed before the last

election, the noble Lord and Liberal Democrats campaign for what they

called a real referendum. And that is an in or out referendum. On

principle, and they criticised my party and the Conservative Party for

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

leaflet with me today. It has a petition, sign up, it is time for

real referendum on Europe. But nowhere on this leaflet, calling for

this real referendum, does it say that if you don't agree with us, we

will try and have another one. My understanding from those who were

there at the time, they were considered, absolutely crucial to

this, they considered that although their policy was to have a

referendum limited to the Lisbon Treaty, their campaign literature

didn't because they felt that it would not be clearly understood. And

any referendum would inevitably turn into you like the EU or not. I think

that is right. That is what we saw last year. It is also why the noble

Lord had his confidence in having a referendum to show that people have

changed their minds is flawed. After two years of what could be a very

difficult negotiation, it could well become a referendum in effect a

whether we like or are happy with our European neighbours.

We are pressing the government in that Parliament is kept fully

engaged and informed throughout the process and has an opportunity for

final say and meaningful vote on the exit arrangements or deal.

Parliament is going to have to make a judgment on that and MPs are

accountable to their constituents, which is why the final say, the

responsibility and the authority must always remain with the House of

Commons. That is what Parliamentary Southern tree means, it means taking

responsibility. It also means that the government must keep Parliament

involved and informed, using the committees of Parliament for support

and for advice, and ensuring that as we move closer towards closing a

deal, a judgment can be made in an informed way. I find it hard, having

gone through that first referendum, to see circumstances in which a

second referendum, when the press, the politicians, there will be

campaigning on this issue, can deal with all the details required, with

all the information gained and not just be a referendum on principle.

That final judgment has to be a very measured judgment. Dealing with the

forensic detail, not an appeal to the emotions without hard accurate

facts, not to see vehicles running around the country saying you'll get

?350 million extra for the NHS if you vote to leave the EU. The first

referendum was one on which different sides campaigned and

lobbied around the principle of staying in or leaving. I'm on record

as saying I was unimpressed with the campaigning. I've not yet been

convinced that approach works. I made a plea, we were dealing with

this issue prior to the referendum, that it should have been for

Parliament as a whole to provide factual information to the public

and not leave it to campaigns to see who could shout the loudest. I'm not

convinced that approach works when dealing with the detail of the

negotiations that have taken place over the last two years any more

than it worked in the last referendum. And my Lords, as we've

heard today, it's quite clear that a second referendum is being pushed by

some as a way to unite a seriously divided country on this issue. I've

looked to see where the evidence is to support that. Why would a second

referendum be different in tone, in mood and arguments to a first? I

take comfort from the words of the most Reverend the Archbishop of

Canterbury in what I thought was a wise intervention. He made it clear

that, a referendum, it will be down to a binary choice. It will be yes

or no. But never unites, it only ever divides. My Lords, I can hear

the noble lord... Bear with me, please. My Lords, the noble lord

Newby was asked a question and I remain puzzled by his answer which I

thought was unclear. Is the referendum, if this House chooses to

recommend to the Other Place to have a second referendum, will it be

advisory or binding? We heard from others that unless Parliament

specifically says so, all referendums should be advisory. His

party... Bayard, unless in the legislation it says otherwise. My

Lords, his party says they respect the result but they voted against

the second reading of the Bill in the Other Place. What happens if a

second referendum comes back and there are those in his party who

don't like that second referendum results? I'm not sure if that takes

us further forward. My Lords, I think we need to go into a second

referendum without that clarity, and to look at it today without such

clarity, I think would not be democratic. It doesn't seem to me to

be thought through. But my Lords, I always say, I don't think the

government can shut the door completely on this issue or shut the

door on public opinion. Throughout the process the government has to

take note of the public mood, it has to keep Parliament informed and it

has to keep the public informed, it must not allow room and

misinformation to circulate and it must be honest. I felt the last

campaign rarely got down to the details that Parliament has

discussed during the passage of this Bill. I think it does Parliament

credit, particularly our debate last week on EU nationals, the detail we

were able to debate in this House that never got an airing during the

referendum. I say our priority is to date amendment three, to ensure

Parliament has a meaningful vote, to ensure me -- we maintain

Parliamentary sovereignty but also to make sure Parliament remain fully

engaged in this process. I can't support this amendment. We will not

take part in this vote. My Lords, this has been another good debate. I

suspect it confirms what many of us already know. Namely that there are

a number of your Lordships who passionately believe that the people

have made a grave mistake by voting to leave the European Union and

there needs to be a referendum at the end of the negotiations. As I

said before I respect their views and I repeat my wish to bring

together those who were on both sides of the argument, as we

continue. But the government is very clear that the amendment before us

is misguided. Both in practice and in principle. Our reasons are clear

and they start with the Democratic path we have borrowed so far. On the

7th of May 2015 the Conservative government was elected by 11.3

million people committed to a referendum on the UK's membership of

the EU and committed to honouring the outcome. On the 7th of May 2015

316 members of the Other Place voted in favour of holding a referendum,

by a majority of 6-1. There was no condition or caveat attached to the

referendum. Parliament agreed on the question, it was a simple question,

leave or remain. On the 23rd of June, 17.4 million people voted to

leave the European Union. On the 8th of February this year, the Other

Place past this Bill, unamended, a simple Bill to trigger the process

of leaving the EU by a majority of 372. This, my Lords, is the

Democratic path that has been followed. A path that will lead this

country to leaving the European Union. And now some argue that we

need another referendum, on what I consider to be somewhat peculiar and

weak arguments. However it is dressed up, it will be seen as a

second referendum, I cannot support that, our people have already

spoken. The wise words of the noble lord and how right he is, and listen

to Mr Norman Lamb who said that the second referendum would indeed

"Raise the question as to whether we would remain in the European Union".

But my Lords, it was made abundantly clear, abundantly clear, that the

referendum in June was, to quite the leaflet sent to all households in

the UK, a once in a generation decision. There was nothing on the

ballot and no suggestion from Parliament that there would have to

be another referendum if the UK were to vote to leave. The then Prime

Minister said during the campaign, "I am absolutely clear a referendum

is a referendum, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and

the result determines the outcome, you can't have neverendums, you have

referendums". I personally don't see the argument that the people didn't

have enough information to form an opinion, I see it as patronising. My

Lords, that government leaflet spelt out the consequences, and on many

occasions during the campaign those on both sides of the argument made

it clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. For

example, Mr David Cameron, "The British public would be voting to

leave the EU and leave the single market". Mr George Osborne, we would

be out of the single market. Mr Michael Gove, we should be outside

the single market. Lord Darling, those wanting to leave the EU want

to pull Britain out of the single market. My noble friend, the Leave

Campaign has been clear what leave means, it means leaving the single

market. These politicians were quite right to point this out, for if we

were to remain in the single market it would mean complying with rules

and regulations without having a vote on what those rules and

regulations are, it would mean accepting a role for the European

Court of Justice that would see it having direct legal authority in our

country, and it would mean not having control our borders. It would

mean not leaving the EU at all. The second peculiar argument, the next

peculiar argument is that a second referendum is needed to bring the

nation together. I agree entirely with the words of a noble Baroness.

My Lords, is the argument is that the first referendum divided the

nation, a second referendum is hardly likely to United. Quite the

reverse, rather than bring people together it would merely encourage

divisions to fester. Let me say a word about the need to come

together. The Archbishop of Canterbury made what was indeed a

very thoughtful and powerful speech. The Archbishop is right about the

need to heal our divisions and to work together to tackle the

challenges we face. And like to put on the record once again my thanks

to the Church of England for hosting round tables to do just that. My

Lords, others agree that we need to come together, that "If we have to

be out then, let's make the best addict". These are the words of Lord

Ashdown, on the question of the second referendum said politicians

should stay out of that -- lets make the best of it. Lord Ashdown did not

call for a second referendum, saying it would be foolish and wrong for

Parliament to do that. Let me see if I can make a better hash of it this

time. Is the minister embarrassed by the fact he keeps on answering the

question by referring to an issue that is not addressed. We aren't

saying there has to be a second referendum on the European Union

membership. That is done. The government has its mandate, we

accept that. What we don't believe the government has a mandate for is

a brutal Brexit that will take us out of the single market. Can he

explain why he believes he has that mandate given that it was in the

Conservative Party manifesto that they would not do this? The

Conservative Party manifesto is clear that we would respect the

outcome, a position unable Lord took on the night of the referendum, and

it is -- a position the noble lord took. I know the noble lord is

eating his own words but I'm sorry to say he is long wrong on this

point. There are other consequences on another referendum. Will it bring

certainty? Will businesses that their hands with glee at the thought

of a referendum, the bases of it would be unclear and the

consequences of which would be to throw the settlement up in the air?

We know the answer. The Institute of directors have called for a

commitment across all political parties not to undertake a second

referendum on either EU membership or the Brexit deal to reduce

uncertainty. But what would happen even after all of this is the result

of the second referendum is still to leave? Some noble Lords have pointed

out, would we once again be subjected to people saying actually

we don't like this answer, please try again? Where does this end? Will

we continue to hold the same referendum until we get the result

that those who support this amendment prefer? If, as the Prime

Minister said in her Lancaster house speech, that no deal would be better

than a bad deal, is the Minister is really telling us that in these

circumstances of a no deal, he would absolutely rule out a referendum on

the future? My Lords, it's very clear. We are leaving the European

Union. That is the pure and simple answer... I'm going to finish. My

Lords, my Lords, my Lords, I'm not giving way. We are going to have a

lot of debate after lunch about the meaningful vote. I'm sure the noble

lord will have a chance then to say this. Would people... As the noble

lord said on Wednesday, that the rejection of a second referendum is

the antithesis of democracy. With respect, I totally disagree. The

referendum itself was democracy in action. So, my Lords, a second

referendum entails risks for which the prices too high. A further vote

will prolong the uncertainty and cause uproar in the country or

worse. These are the words the noble Baroness and the noble lord. I

entirely agree with them. To call a second referendum as this amendment

seeks to do undermines the will of the people as expressed in the EU

referendum. I thank all the noble Lord to have

taken part in this debate. It comes down to simple question, is it

people or Parliament that take the final decision on our future with

Europe? The noble Lord Carlile said it should be Parliament but if

Parliament rejected the deal, there might be a confidence vote. There

would then be a general election. But my Lords, a general election is

a single issue. I think my Lords, a single issue. I think my Lords,

all parties have found this. I think Mr Heath found that. The noble Lord

Forsyth says the Liberal Democrats might have found it. With the

currently Bishop of the two political parties, does he believe

that a general election would be solely or even mainly on the issue

of Brexit? A general election is a very imperfect tool for dealing with

such a specific question. My Lords, I have the highest regard for the

most reverend, but when he says that a further referendum is not

democratic, I simply cannot agree. I cannot see the logic and I'm sorry

to have to say it, but I really cannot follow that argument at all.

It has been argued that the people can't take a decision in the

circumstances because it would be a binary choice. It is quite unclear

to me why it is perfectly with reasonable for Parliament to take a

binary choice but not the people. It has been argued by a number of noble

Lords that it is all to config waited for the people to take a

final choice and decision on this matter. My Lords, this is the

antithesis of democracy. I ended my second reading speech by quoting

Gladstone and the Brexit secretary. Trust the people. My lord, that was

our stance of fortnight ago, that is our stance today and I beg to test

the opinion of the House. Won the question is that amendment one B

agreed to, as many of that agreement, say content, the country

not content, clear. The question is that amendment one B

agreed to. As many of that opinion say content, contrary, not content.

The content's will go to the right, the not content to the left.

The question is that amendment one B agreed to.

My Lords have voted content is 131, not content 's 336. The not content

's 336. The knot contends habit. -- the not contents have it. In clause

one amendment to. I wonder whether it would help the noble Lords if I

explained that we hope to complete this before we adjourn report stage

for questions, so that noble Lords might have some refreshment before

we get to 2:30pm. I apologise. I've always thought the government Chief

Whip was a very nice man! I don't think he was offering us lunch today

but he was offering us time for lunch today. My Lords, this is a

short and very sweet amendment. What it is about in a sense is the cement

between Amendment 1 and Amendment 3. Amendment 1 has been defeated and

therefore we are not talking about a referendum at the end. But Amendment

3 which I'd trust is going to be carried, is about putting the

decision at the end to Parliament. Therefore what amendment two does is

saying in order to make that as good a way of moving forward as possible,

we will need to have from the government, not a running

commentary, not even as a walking commentary, but as a dialogue with

Parliament some feedback about how the negotiations are going. And it

isn't just about what we are offering as a government, as a

country, but what's happening in the other side. Because we think we will

be negotiating just with one block in the European Union, but of course

there are 27 on that side. There will be ups and downs, elections,

change of personnel, all sorts of things happening within those 27

countries. The other issue is that, as Charles Grant has said, in all of

this politics matters more than economics. Having some feedback from

the government about how the other countries and how the European Union

is responding, I think will help us understand the negotiations. Because

the one thing I said in committee that I think it would be terrible if

we come to that final vote in this House, and there are surprises. If

we do not know how things have been happening, how the discussions have

been going, and even more, if the government hasn't taken the time to

listen to our EU committees, so there is a real feeling about what

the House and the other side... What would be the provision. -- but would

be the provision of both houses about the expression of opinion on

those negotiations? If people wanted to express an opinion it might be

legitimate for them to do so with a formal vote. I will leave those up

to the formal channels. I deal with content not process, which is why

I'm pleased when this Bill will be over and we get into the meat of the

negotiations. I wish the Minister 's luck in this, I think the task will

be extremely hard, but that is why they could benefit from discussions

in the House. I think the important thing of this is that we should hear

back almost the mood music of what's going on. We should hear some

detail, and it won't be any surprise. If people think this is

going to be secret they haven't worked in Brussels very long. It's

as leaky as a sieve and I think we'll be reading about a lot of it

which will be more like a colander than a bucket. The idea of taking

stock on that is important. It will also be important for the devolved

authorities to just check they are involved and that we can talk on

this. With a nod to this afternoon's debate and what I hope will be the

outcome, which is that Parliament will get the final vote, then I

think if that final deal is to win the consent of Parliament, there

should be no surprises, that it should have been a very grown-up

conversation that goes on. I'm sure the government point veer off in

ways that would surprise us, because we don't want to be able to break

down something for that reason, because it's been a surprise. We

want to be able to have a proper vote at that time. My Lords, this is

to say, in order to make the final vote a proper one, we would ask for

these quarterly. If the Minister thinks it means only quarterly, I

think he has to think again. But a minimum of quarterly reports so we

can discuss how it's going. Rise very briefly to support the

noble lady. I think it is important to have a structured schedule and

framework for reporting back to Parliament as part of the whole

scheme that we are trying to setup, including a meaningful vote that

will be this afternoon. Those of us like myself who were in

the European Parliament will no that one of the incentives for making

sure the European Parliament was kept informed throughout the process

of negotiating external agreements, was that they had the power to

reject it at the end. After the European Parliament had rejected

several international agreements, finally the Council of ministers and

commission came to their senses and thought it was much better to front

load the system so the European Parliament is kept informed along

the way. Instead of us, the Council, the commission in getting a nasty

surprise at the end. That accounts for the institutional arrangements

which include reports and making documents available throughout the

process. It is a much better way of managing it and making sure the EU,

the council's negotiation demands are discussed in an orderly way. A

phrase often used by the government about exit. There are good practical

reasons -- about Brexit. -- there are very good reasons for having

this amendment. She talks about things moving at a smooth and

orderly way. I agree with Lady hater, I think what will happen is

that everything is going to leak. The EU commission is under an

obligation to report to the European Parliament. The whole idea of the

European Parliament saying that it is all secret information and they

shouldn't let any of this out seems to be for the birds. So everything

will leak and we will hear these rumours about how far the

negotiations have got and what has happened. At that point, Parliament

will command that there is a debate. And the government will get up, if

this amendment is passed, saying that they must wait for the

quarterly review which is coming up in two months' time. I den think so

my Lords. I think the House of Commons will say come on, get on

with it, they want a response. Why have they heard rumours and the

government has put them straight on all of this. I then think this

amendment achieves anything to be quite honest. I think everything

that goes on in of negotiations will leak. And when things of substance

leak, at that point, Parliament will remand debate were particularly the

Commons and we will no doubt do the same in your lordship's House as

well. I made the point at the committee stage that if it was the

sovereignty of Parliament, committee should vote as quickly as possible

for the built to get us out of this bill and subsequent bills of the

European Union. I make the point now, similar to my noble friend's

point, that it is highly unlikely the government to accept this. So we

head into a potential constitutional issue. If this motion prevails

today. Therefore one has to ask the question what are the options that

are likely to occur in the event of the House passing this amendment and

the other House passed it back to us and the government would stay firm?

Those are the three options. The woman would do nothing and can see

the situation, I think that is highly unlikely. I think to lose

control of this bill at this stage on this issue would be very

questionable wisdom on the part of the government. Second it could

create 100 peers, I think that is unlikely as well. Thirdly, it could

call a general election. And I think that is the option that should be

under strong consideration by the government at the moment. I

personally think they should call a general election, or a vote of

confidence or whatever it is in the House of Commons and have it out in

the well-known democratic way of doing things at a general election.

I personally think that the thing we should call a general election, have

won round of ping-pong and then have a general election. I wish to speak

in support of this amendment, I had a similar amendment in committee

which was actually rather less demanding than this particular

amendment. The government dispatched that extremely briskly. I want to

make a point which would suggest that this amendment might actually

be helpful to the government. The idea that all these special interest

groups that are affected by these negotiations, the different sectors

and companies, the different pressure groups, the idea that they

will sit still while stuff is coming out of the EU about the

possibilities for doing damage to their particular set of interests

and concerns, is fanciful. If the Minister and the government do not

have any kind of structured way for reporting back to Parliament, I

think what you will find is that many of these people are certainly

going to lobby your lordship's House. There will be a demand for a

huge number of parliamentary questions. Demands for debates to

deal with the greatest set of rumours about one particular sector

or industry. One particular agency which may be transferred back to

Europe. The DMA would be a good example. The government might find

that their life is made a bit easier if there was a structured way of

reporting back to Parliament about what progress is being made. And

that it was reasonably detailed and able to tell some of these interest

groups what was actually going on in these negotiations. Do you think the

Parliament is going to be happy if they are given the response that

because the quarterly review is coming up and it is two months away,

a question could be answered today and would have to be answered in two

months' time. The noble Baroness's amendment is actually flexible. It

says at least three months, it does nothing in this amendment to stop

the government serving its own interest by being more forthcoming

more frequently. I'm sure she wouldn't mind having reports on a

more frequent basis. I am sure the government shares the sentiments

from the front bench opposite, indeed both front benches opposite.

In that it is entirely in the interest of a smooth policy in this

area, which I'm sure we all understand is extremely difficult

and the more help they can get, the better. I think the government is

sufficiently humble to know that. What I want to save, is that we have

in this Parliament, plenty of means to get to the government to respond

if there is any slackness on their part. What I doing degree with is

putting this into an act of Parliament. The reason for that is

simple. If you have the thing in a general act of Parliament is that

the idea is the court should be the enforcer. One of the things the

court can't do because of the Bill of Rights is to interfere in

proceedings in Parliament. Therefore this is useless as a formal

amendment but the spirit of the amendment is first class. And I feel

almost certain that my noble and learned friend will be able to

accept that. Because the minister in the Commons has said just as much in

the passage I may be referring to later. My Lords, I am obliged for

the contributions that have been made to the debate. This is a short

bill which has already invoked many hours of debate and I intend to keep

my remarks very brief indeed. I endorse the art of the stations of

the honourable -- be noble Lord Mackay. But also to the spirit it is

received by the government. The promise because a statement to the

other place following European councils. We know they will be a

council this month and quarterly thereafter. That means a statement

will be made to Parliament at least once every quarter on European

issues and such a statement would be repeated in this House. Of course,

that is just the beginning of a much wider process of which this

Parliament has control at the end of the day. Ministers have responded to

over 600 parliamentary written questions appeared at 13 Senate

committees and given oral statements to their House regarding

developments regarding our exit. The Secretary of State has agreed to

give evidence to the EU select committee on 15th of March alongside

the permanent secretary of the Department. It would shortly after

give evidence to the Lords EU committee. The government is

committed to parliamentary scrutiny and Parliament will play a key role

in scrutinising and shaping our withdrawal. As my noble friend Lord

Bridges observed last week, we have had take note debates, debates on

government time, select committees, all of this will continue in order

that Parliament can scrutinise the development of negotiations. In as

far as it is possible to put those in the public domain and as they

come into the public domain. The noble Baroness, Lady Hater, referred

to secrets. The noble Baroness, Lady luck

-- there will not be a secret, you cannot conduct such a process in

secret ultimately. And you cannot then expect Parliament to consider

that it has been properly informed, if you do have seekers. We are

committed to keep Parliament at least as well informed as the

European Parliament as negotiations progress. A bill to repeal the

European Community at would follow, there will be primary legislation on

migrations and customs and a vote at the end in regards to the process on

the final deal to exit. With all of that in mind, can I pose one or two

questions. Is a Prime Minister already bound to give a statement to

parliament after every quarterly European Council? The answer is yes.

Has the government been willing to give frequent statements to

Parliament? The answer is yes. Other ministers have appeared in front of

committees. As the government listen to select committee reports? The

answer is yes. They published a White Paper in February this year.

As the government said it would give more information to Parliament so

long as it does not undermine our negotiating position? The answer is

yes. And then there is the core question, what is the present bill

about? It is about giving the Prime Minister the authority to give

notice of withdrawal from the European Union. With great respect

to the House and to honourable Lord, let us pass this bill. It will

as it has been observed, it is not appropriate that this amendment

should proceed and I believe all members of the House have spoken

would acknowledge that it is not necessarily that this amendment

should proceed and I invite the noble Lords to withdraw this

amendment. Your macro I thank the noble Lord to have contributed,

which I think is the most helpful but change and no disrespect to the

others was to hear Lord Mackay's support of the spirit of it. I think

if I can just bottle that, that will do me nicely. I only want to make

two other points. One is that although there are reports that

after the European Council, for when the European Council discusses our

departure, the UK won't be there so it is the other meetings we are

interested in. The only other comment I want to make is in

response to the noble Lord Spicer with the suggestion that if we dare

to suggest that Parliament rather than the Crown should take the final

decision, that Mrs May might call an election.

Not only did I vote in 1975 but I remember the February 1974 election

very well, when Edward Heath basically had an election on who

governs Britain. I think Mrs May would not be well advised to go to

the country on do you want the government or Parliament to govern

Britain. But that really is beside the point and I think the tone of

the ministers response and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the

amendment. The amendment is withdrawn. My Lords, I beg to move

but further consideration on the report be adjourned until after oral

questions. As many as of that opinion say content. The country

safe not content. The contents have it.

As many as of that opinion say content.