European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts
Monday 18th June 2018

(6 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend’s second question was whether I am seeking to frustrate Brexit. I do not believe in Brexit, that is perfectly true. I think it is a national calamity. But I believe above all that the House of Commons should have a decisive say one way or another.

Moving on from that point, which I had the pleasure of making to my noble friend—

Lord Garel-Jones Portrait Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
- Hansard - -

Is it not the case that the point my noble friend is making about Parliament has already been made with great clarity by the Supreme Court—that Parliament approved the referendum but did not approve the outcome?

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend Lord Garel-Jones was one of the best Deputy Chief Whips I have ever met—better even than my noble friend. Of course, he is right. But the point is that this Government have sought to prevent a meaningful vote in every possible way. I want to ensure, if I can, that Parliament in fact has a meaningful vote. I do not want to see it left to chance.

I need to turn briefly to what the amendments before your Lordships’ House say. I commented on Grieve I, which is not before the House. I have already summarised it and I acknowledge that it was directional and mandatory. That caused serious problems for the Government, which Mr Grieve understood. It was for that reason that Mr Grieve was negotiating with the Solicitor-General. Grieve II—that is the Motion before your Lordships’ House, and here I am referring effectively to subsection (5F)—requires the Government, in the absence of any political agreement having been made by the end of 21 January next year, to make a statement setting out how they propose to proceed and to make arrangements for the House of Commons to approve the statement by way of a Motion.

I have taken the best advice available to me. I believe that the Motion in the House of Commons would be amendable but not justiciable—that is to say, the Motion could not be enforced by legal action. However, the political consequences for a Government who sought to act differently from the Motion, whether amended or not, would be very grave. In that respect, Grieve II gives Parliament and, in particular, the House of Commons a meaningful vote.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Portrait Lord Lamont of Lerwick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Parliament held a debate, Parliament voted, and Parliament decided to hold a referendum on this issue and to be bound by that referendum. Whatever the theoretical constitutional position of a referendum, many statements were made on both sides that we would be bound by the result of that referendum.

Lord Garel-Jones Portrait Lord Garel-Jones
- Hansard - -

Parliament authorised the referendum but it did not authorise the outcome of the discussions. That is what the Supreme Court has ruled.

None Portrait Noble Lords
- Hansard -

Article 50!