Further Discussions with the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I have not seen read-outs from all those conversations, but I know from speaking to other Europe Ministers at various gatherings that there is considerable sympathy for many of our arguments.

It is imperative that the British people are able to trust in the Government to respect democratic processes and deliver effective outcomes for them. For that reason, it is our firm belief that even to consider holding a second people’s vote would set a damaging precedent for our democracy and the principles that underpin our constitutional order.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Would my noble friend give way?

[Lord Callanan]

I thought that might prompt some interventions.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

My noble friend will no doubt be aware of the ruling by the Supreme Court following the 2016 referendum. It stated that the,

“legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences. The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation”.


Consequently, if Parliament is unable to reach a consensus on any particular deal, is not the logic then that the people should be consulted again?

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid I do not follow my noble friend’s argument. Parliament agreed to respect the outcome of the referendum in tabling the notification of withdrawal Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garel-Jones]

But the Supreme Court has made it clear that under the British constitution, while Parliament agreed to hold the referendum, it did not agree on the outcome, and that outcome must be agreed by Parliament. If Parliament cannot agree, the people must be consulted.

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid that I do not follow the noble Lord’s logic on this. Parliament did support the outcome of the referendum. The Government made it clear at the time that they would abide by the result and spent £9 million putting a leaflet into every house in the country saying, “It’s your decision—we will respect the outcome”. Parliament then voted for the notification of withdrawal Bill, which gave notification of our intention to leave the European Union. Parliament then confirmed our exit date in the EU withdrawal Bill, passed in the summer. So it is not true that Parliament has not supported the result of the referendum.

Brexit: Article 50

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

That is a slightly strange question from the noble Lord, because of course if we withdrew our notice under Article 50 we would remain members of the EU—which the last time I looked at it, was not the policy of his party. Therefore his other options do not really hold water. We do not unilaterally abrogate treaties in this country. We are a law-abiding nation, we abide by our legal agreements and commitments; and the proper and correct legal way to withdraw from the EU is under Article 50, and that is the process that we are following.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that the Question from the noble Lord seems to be opening the way to a departure from the European Union with no deal at all? Is it not clear that that is not supported not only by your Lordships’ House but by Her Majesty’s Government either?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord’s Question would result in us remaining in the EU, if we withdrew our notification under Article 50. Of course the Government do not support a no-deal exit. We are preparing for that unlikely eventuality, as is the responsible thing to do, but we hope to negotiate a good and ambitious deal with the European Union.

Brexit: EU Commission

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

It is sensible contingency planning by a responsible Government. As I have said on numerous occasions, we do not want no deal. We hope to negotiate a deal and are working hard to do so, but if we are unsuccessful there will be no deal and we need to make the appropriate preparations. That is presumably why we are advertising these posts and why we published our technical notices.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that in the world of grown-up politics, difficult compromises have to be made on both sides of the table? Does it not increasingly look as if those compromises are being made and that we may end up with a deal that will be in the interests of the European Union and this country, while not satisfying the extreme views in the world of childish politics?

[Lord Callanan]

I agree with my noble friend that compromise is necessary, which is what led to our White Paper proposals. The UK’s position has evolved and we have put forward a compromise. It is only right and reasonable to expect that the EU compromises in exchange for that.

Brexit: No Deal

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I cannot comment on the document referred to by the noble Baroness because I have not read it. However, as I have said repeatedly in this House, we do not want no deal. We are negotiating to get a good deal, but a responsible Government will prepare for every eventuality, and we are preparing for no deal through the issuing of technical notices.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, while of course it is the case that at this stage no one knows what the outcome of these discussions will be, can the Minister confirm that, just as it was parliamentary statute which authorised the Brexit referendum, as the Supreme Court has ruled, whatever the outcome may be, it must be laid before Parliament?

[Lord Callanan]

Yes. The withdrawal agreement—about which we spent many a happy hour debating in this House—enshrined that in statute. When we have negotiated a deal, it will be put to a so-called meaningful vote in the House of Commons and it will also be debated in this House.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham]

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 (Con)]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Noble Lords]

Article 50!

Brexit Transition: European Parliament Membership

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the Supreme Court has ruled that while Parliament did indeed authorise the referendum, it has yet to authorise the outcome of these discussions?

[Lord Callanan]

Well, Parliament will get the opportunity to do so when we have negotiated the withdrawal. We have said that we will put it to a meaningful vote in both Houses.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, this amendment standing in my name seeks to introduce a new clause to enable a confirmatory referendum to be held to indicate that the terms of the Brexit negotiated by the Government are acceptable to the people of these islands. I also support very much the objectives of other amendments coupled with mine in this group.

Earlier in our Committee deliberations, I spoke of the need for MPs to have the right to a meaningful vote on the outcome of the Government’s negotiations, and for that vote to include provision for returning to the status quo if the negotiated package was unacceptable to Parliament. In his response, the Minister refused to give that undertaking. In these circumstances, it makes it even more important to build into the Bill a provision for the people to be allowed to endorse or reject the final negotiated outcome.

If the Government fail to come to an understanding with the EU on a negotiated Brexit package, which they may well not, and have to recommend quitting the EU on a no deal basis, the argument for a referendum is irrefutable. People were promised a new arrangement with the EU and voted to leave on that basis. They did not vote to quit the EU with no arrangement at all. Had that been the proposition put to them in the referendum in 2016, I am convinced that the outcome would have been very different indeed. In fact, the 2016 referendum gave the Government a mandate for entering into negotiations and other preparations for Brexit. Once we know what Brexit actually means, the time will come for the Government to report back to the people for a decision on whether to go ahead with it or not on the terms available. That will not be a wishy-washy Brexit which tries to mean everything to everybody, pandering to populist wishful thinking—

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Has not the Supreme Court confirmed in a ruling precisely what the noble Lord is saying: that while Parliament authorised the referendum, it has yet to authorise, or have the authority to authorise, the outcome of that negotiation?

[Lord Wigley]

Yes indeed; it is of course finally a matter for Parliament to decide what should happen. The process we are going through in Committee, and later on Report, in particular, will enable MPs to have the appropriate pegs on which to hang the questions that then need to be decided in the light of the information that will be available to them at that stage. That is why I feel it is important that we give them this option, particularly given that they will not have the opportunity to have a meaningful vote if the outcome of the negotiations is no deal. We have had it confirmed that there will be no meaningful vote of MPs or of this House in those circumstances. That must stress and underline the logic of putting the question back to the people in those circumstances. It would not be a rerun of the 2016 referendum. It would be a new confirmatory vote conducted with much fuller information available, and would be a far fairer test of the public’s will than the last referendum, carried out with very limited available information.

A whole series of issues were not foreseen at the time of the 2016 “in principle” referendum, or, at the very least, were not drawn to the attention of the voters by either campaign or by the media. These include the significance of the Irish border question, the loss of EU citizens’ rights, the crisis facing Gibraltar, chemicals and medical testing, customs logistics at ports, the extreme uncertainty for business during negotiation periods—and not least the fact that Mr Trump had not then become US President, casting doubt on whether the UK could get an acceptable trade deal with the US following Brexit.

It would, I believe, be perfectly honourable and credible if Mrs May now said something along these lines: “We pursued Brexit in good faith, believing it was the will of the people. We have explored it thoroughly and discovered a whole series of unforeseen consequences. I now believe that it is my duty to ask the people whether this was really what they wanted when they voted and to give them the final word on the outcome of the negotiations”. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Well then, I will speak to it.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

May I say something?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

All right.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

One of the interesting aspects of our country is that, unlike almost every other country in the world, we do not have a written constitution. Britain’s unwritten constitution could be summed up in one sentence—Parliament is supreme. I myself take the Thatcherite view on referendums, as indeed does my noble friend Lord Patten, but since this particular referendum was approved by Parliament, like it or not, I have to accept it. However, I remind the House of the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter, of which quite by chance I happen to have a copy in my pocket:

“The 2016 referendum is of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences. The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation”.


That means that the outcome of these discussions must be laid before Parliament, and given that our unwritten constitution gives that right to Parliament, I have no doubt whatever that Her Majesty’s Government will abide by our unwritten constitution—the supremacy of Parliament.

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may put one point to my noble friend. Is he, as I am, mildly amused by the fact that so many of our noble friends seem particularly keen to quote the views of present and former leaders of the Liberal party but do not seem keen to remember what the most distinguished leader of the Conservative Party over the past few years said explicitly about the danger of referendums being an example of the worst sort of plebiscitary democracy?

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Indeed, I agree with my noble friend. What they are saying in fact could possibly mean that were the outcome of the deal to involve the killing of the firstborn child of every family in Britain, we would have to accept that.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Baroness Thatcher’s last vote in the House of Commons made in February 1992 was in favour of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? She was nothing if not inconsistent on these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I know that my noble friend does not think much of referendums, and neither do I. I think that referendums are a shocking idea. I hear around this House a lot of people who frightfully disapprove of the last referendum we had because it came up with a rotten result, as far as they are concerned. So will my noble friend please explain to me, because he is an extremely clever man, the logic for why on earth, having not liked the last referendum, we would want another one?

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Parliament is supreme.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My noble friend Lord Garel-Jones says that Parliament is supreme and he is entirely right. My noble friend Lord Robathan was here on Wednesday when I gave him and this Committee my answer to that. I do not think that the last referendum was an authority to leave on any terms or no terms. I think that it was an instruction to the Government to negotiate the best terms that could be negotiated, leaving open the question: who then decides whether the terms or the absence of terms are acceptable? I have always believed that the final decision rests with Parliament and, if Parliament so requires, the British electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Is my noble friend saying that the Supreme Court is mistaken in this matter?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I thought I heard my noble friend argue not a few moments ago about the supremacy of Parliament. I believe in the supremacy of Parliament and that judicial interference is one of the worst aspects of our membership of the European Union, and another reason why we should get out of it. I give way to my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid that I was not old enough to vote in that referendum, but my father tells me that he voted to join a Common Market at the time and nobody ever asked him whether he wanted to join a European Union. But that is a separate argument.

We in the Government believe it to be our solemn duty to deliver on the instructions of the people.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Lord Callanan]

I will make a little progress, if I may. I will take interventions later. I am on only the third paragraph of my speech.

I will not embarrass the Liberal Democrats further by quoting their leader, the right honourable Member for Twickenham, Vince Cable. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that that was years ago. It was not; it was in September 2016; it was only 18 months ago that he said that we should not have another referendum. Again, he is entitled to change his mind, but I hope that the Liberals will have the good grace to be a little embarrassed about it.

The Government never hesitated in accepting the verdict and, in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Government than put the question of the power to notify Article 50 to Parliament. In passing it, this House and the other place voted with a clear majority to authorise the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50. The clue was in the name: it was the Article 50 notification of withdrawal Act, passed in the other place and in this House with large majorities. It was to give our notice to withdraw from the European Union, authorised by Parliament.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Is my noble friend saying that he disagrees with the ruling of the Supreme Court that although it was indeed the case, Parliament did not authorise the outcome of those discussions? That is what the Supreme Court has ruled.

European Free Trade Association

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I am tempted to make a comment about a basket case but that is probably not a good idea. The noble Baroness is referring to the point that when we leave the EU, we will start off with identical rules and regulations, as she well knows. The issue then is how we diverge in the future and how that divergence should be managed, should the EU want to adopt different regulations or should we want to do so. If we do and it does not affect the functioning of the ambitious free trade we want between us and the EU, why should we not be able to? Clearly, there needs to be a mechanism to manage that.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, now that the leader of the Labour Party does not seem to believe any longer that the European Union is a capitalist conspiracy against working people, does my noble friend the Minister agree that his support for the single market can serve only to undermine the standing of this rather successful organisation?

[Lord Callanan]

I am slightly confused about what the Labour Party’s position is this week. Last week, they were against the customs union; this week, they seem in favour of it. Perhaps next week they will be in favour of a single market, then against it again the following week. I can say only that I agree with Barry Gardiner, their international trade spokesman, who said in another place that,

“in voting to leave the EU the British people voted to leave both the single market and the customs union”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/16; col. 47-48WH.]

He then went on to write an article in the Guardian—a well-known journal of record—saying that retaining membership of a customs union would be “deeply unattractive” because it would stop us negotiating our own trade deals. He is supposed to be their trade spokesman.

Brexit: Economic Analyses

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

Well, this Government are pro-business and pro-jobs, and I can only assume that the noble Baroness has missed the unemployment figures this morning, which show that unemployment under this Government is at a 42-year low.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, if we are quick, we have time for both noble Lords, but I think that it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

As the Minister has stated, is it not a simple matter of common sense that, while these negotiations are ongoing, anything that seeks to reveal the Government’s position on any issue whatever can only undermine the Government’s position?

[Lord Callanan]

My noble friend speaks great sense. It is a matter of common sense—but, apparently, it is not a common sense shared by the Liberal Democrats.

Brexit: Deal or No Deal (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Does the noble Lord agree that one of the characteristics of this country is that we do not have a written constitution, that the non-constitution is summed up by the words “Parliament is supreme”, that therefore the Supreme Court was right to rule that the referendum has taken place because it was authorised by Parliament and that Parliament has not authorised the outcome, which is, at the moment, unknown?

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not, in my limited capacity tonight, going to argue with the Supreme Court or, indeed, the noble Lord. Clearly, there is a parliamentary process which, no doubt, noble Lords in the course of this debate may well refer to, and which I may refer to in my final remarks. However, the position of Parliament and how binding the role of Parliament in the final vote would be—a meaningful vote, which is now being debated in the other place on the withdrawal Bill—did not form part of this report.

What businesses and people across the country now need is an absolute assurance that there will indeed be a deal at the end of this process, and both sides need to realise that tone is as important as substance. As we say, government statements that no deal is better than a bad deal are not helpful. Last week’s spat between the Secretary of State, Mr Davis, and the Commission over the EU’s preparations for a no deal outcome was a case in point. Once the Government raise the possibility of no deal, of course the Commission is equally justified in advising those who will be affected by such an outcome of how it will affect them. In fact, our report attempts to do the same thing.

The evidence we received was that no deal would be deeply damaging to key sectors of the British economy: financial services, the agri-food sector, freight and transportation, higher education and research. Against this overwhelming evidence, it makes no sense for the Government to talk about retaining no deal as an option. We say that in paragraph 57. As last week’s events so clearly demonstrate, this kind of language,

“risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy”.

It does not make any sense to threaten the EU that we will shoot ourselves in the foot if we do not get what we want. It is we who will end up limping.

No deal will affect not just the economy; co-operation on security, counterterrorism, foreign policy—co-operation that is hugely in our interest—would be affected, too. That is no doubt why David Davis spoke to the committee about a so-called bare-bones deal covering some of these non-economic issues, but even if it were possible to negotiate such a deal, the damage to the rest of the economy of not reaching a trade deal would remain, so I hope the Minister will reassure the House, when he replies to this debate, that the Government are wholly and unambiguously focused on achieving the best possible deal, one that will benefit both the United Kingdom and the EU.

The second major theme of our report was transition, or implementation as the Government prefer to call it. This is an altogether more complex, though equally important, issue. Almost everyone, including the Government, agrees that we need a transition period; we cannot simply switch off the system of EU law, which has underpinned so many aspects of our national life for 45 years, at 10.59 pm on 29 March next year. There will have to be a transition, a bridge to lead us safely from where we are today to our as yet unknown final destination.

The Government continue to insist that transition will be merely an implementation phase, a time-limited period that will allow for a phased adjustment to the terms of the new UK-EU relationship, but if that is to be the case, the terms of that new relationship will have to be agreed, in full, before exit day in March next year. The committee agrees, at paragraph 123, that an “early and comprehensive” agreement would be the best outcome, but we have to be realistic, and the fact is that almost no one outside Her Majesty’s Government thinks that achieving agreement on this timescale will be possible, so unless there is extraordinarily rapid progress in the coming weeks, sooner or later the Government will surely have to acknowledge that transition will, in fact, be made up of at least two distinct elements. There will have to be an initial standstill phase, where everything stays pretty much as now, while negotiations to finalise the terms of the future relationship continue, and there will then be a period of adaptation or implementation.

We cannot say much about adaptation or implementation at this stage, since the negotiations on future relations have yet to start, but so far as the initial standstill phase is concerned, we cannot afford to wait. Uncertainty over the terms of UK trade with the EU from 30 March 2019 onwards is already having an impact on many sectors of our economy, for instance in the financial services sector, where insurers will soon be issuing policies which, by their very nature, extend beyond that date. So the forthcoming negotiations on transition really need to be concluded quickly and decisively. We cannot afford any lingering impression that the transition period is contingent upon reaching agreement on the future relationship. That would be damaging for business confidence and the wider economy. Instead, we need a commitment from both sides that, in effect, the legal framework for trade will remain unchanged between 29 and 30 March next year. In other words, we want to confirm that it is the Government’s intention that the transition period will be a standstill period in all respects, save that the UK will no longer be party to EU institutions.

My next point may appear more technical, but it is equally important. Both the Government and the Commission have indicated that they envisage transition forming part of the withdrawal agreement under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The fact that both sides agree on this is welcome, but the ultimate arbiter of EU law is neither the UK Government nor the Commission, but the Court of Justice of the European Union. There is every likelihood that the ECJ will be asked to review the compliance of any proposed withdrawal agreement with EU law before March 2019.

As the report therefore points out, there remains a possibility, however remote, that even if political agreement is reached on transition, the court could strike it down before it comes into force. We recommend that the Government, as a matter of urgency, and if possible in agreement with the Commission, set out their view on the legal basis for transition. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot set out those views tonight, will at least assure the House that the Government will accept that recommendation.

Finally, I touch on the last paragraph of our report. There are two legally watertight ways to achieve a time- limited standstill period to buy more time to finalise the details of the agreement on the future UK-EU relationship. These are clearly set out in Article 50 itself: either to extend the two-year negotiating period or to post-date the withdrawal agreement so that it takes place later than March 2019. I recognise that neither side is currently contemplating such an extension of our EU membership, but the committee suggests that we should not rule it out, if only as a last resort—not to thwart Brexit, but in order to make it as smooth as possible.

We now have 14 months before we leave the European Union. I welcome the agreement the Government reached with the EU in December, although the substance of an agreement on Ireland remains dangerously opaque. The most difficult phases of the negotiations lie ahead. Time is short. The objective must be an orderly and legally certain transition to a new and lasting partnership between the UK and the EU. I beg to move.