Syria: Withdrawal of US Troops

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Wherever the Kurdish community is, we have continued to campaign and advocate for its important inclusion in any future settlement, whether in Iraq or Syria, which have made, as we have seen, certain gains— although recent events in Iraq have caused concern. We continue to ensure that all minority communities, whatever country they are in, including the Kurdish community, continue to receive vital rights of representation and are fully engaged and involved in all processes. As for immediate support, as I have indicated, the SDF has been part of the global fight against Daesh and remains an important coalition partner.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I understand every word of the question, but I do not understand the answer. What is our policy towards the Kurds? Do we have no shame about betraying them now? Have we made any representations to the United States? Will we be making any representation to the Turks?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I challenge the noble Lord; I do not agree with him. It is not we who have made any declarations; it is the United States. It is entitled to make decisions of its own. The United Kingdom remains a committed partner to ensuring that we bring peace and stability to Syria. As I have said, we stand by the SDF and our Kurdish partners, in both in Syria and Iraq. That position is clear and I am not sure why the noble Lord is so confused.

UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, who speaks with great authority. It is also a great pleasure to join the chorus of congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on this excellent report and his tenure as chairman of the committee. And it is a great pleasure to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and to see that he has walked back into our debates in cracking form, no longer having to try to answer people like me. It is a pleasure to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on dialogue with Russia, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on conflict prevention, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on how to handle Iran.

John Bolton, United States national security adviser, famously said that if the UN building in New York lost its top 10 storeys, it would not make a blind bit of difference. Bolton rejects the concept of international law and that of international organisations, which he sees as a threat to US national stability. He does not agree with me and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about Iran; he has advocated the pre-emptive bombing of Iran and wants regime change there, as well as in Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen and North Korea. His is a rather Hobbesian world where national sovereignty rules; he is a bit like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on speed.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am sorry. If the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was here, I would have said that, but since he is not in his place, I did not say it.

Bolton is his President’s man: the President’s views are very close to Bolton’s. The problem with the President is not the one discussed by two or three noble Lords in this debate—his unpredictability. He is all too predictable. Read the inaugural speech. The report from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, helpfully reminds us of the General Assembly speech last year, in which the President said:

“We reject the ideology of globalism … Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance”,


but other threats as well. Global governance is a threat to the nation state. No wonder Orbán was warmly received in the White House last week. No wonder Bolsonaro is the poster boy. No wonder Mrs Merkel is so disliked. No wonder Trump’s America is out of the Paris accords, the Iran nuclear deal, the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. No wonder the President is seeking to destroy the WTO body, and is very close to succeeding. It is all too predictable; he told us what to expect from the start.

I used to think there were two pre-eminent threats to the rules-based system—the Bretton Woods system, or the UN system. The one that worried me most in my Foreign Office days was the reluctance of the transatlantic partners—our side of the Atlantic just as much as the Americans—to accept the need to take proper account of the rise of Asia and the Pacific and acknowledge that our weighting in these institutions must decline as our share of the world economy shrank. We were very reluctant to accept that and did so far too slowly. We have not yet really fully accepted it.

More recently, I worried more about whether the system might break down because the ethos of the institutions, rooted so firmly in our ideas about liberal democracy, might come to seem inimical and interfering in regions of the world such as Africa, which are possibly more attracted to a more authoritarian alternative model such as the Chinese model. That is a real risk today.

However, I missed the biggest threat. I did not spot that the greatest challenge to the rules-based system would come from its greatest beneficiary, America. President Trump does not want to reform the institutions. He does not like them; he does not like rules—not if they might bind America. With respect, the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report seems to be in denial about this. The committee said, I thought uncontroversially:

“In the context of the … Administration’s hostility to multilateralism, the UK will need to work with like-minded nations to move ahead on some global issues without US participation or support”.


However, the Government are not so sure about that. Their reply says:

“The Government will always seek close cooperation with the US on a full range of issues”.


Of course, but the Foreign Secretary told the committee that,

“the way that … large multilateral organisations work at present does not work”,

for the US, and that it is,

“seeking to change that … But I firmly believe that if we can get the … reforms”,

to the institutions,

“we want … President Trump would be a big supporter of that system”.

Yes, like working with the Luftwaffe in 1941 to restructure London’s built environment. The President of the United States wants to bring down the system, not reform it. I wonder how well the Foreign Secretary knows Mr Bolton. It sounds to me as if he might be closer to Dr Pangloss.

I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Anderson, about the need to be courteous when the President comes to London, but I hope we will not pull our punches. I served in Washington and I understand the importance of the relationship, but like the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, I think that it has to be based on honesty. I watched Margaret Thatcher handle Ronald Reagan. He respected her because of her insistence on tackling the difficult issues and on plain speaking. If we believe in multilateralism and the rules-based system we must defend them even when the attack comes from our closest ally. We must tell him why and tell him straight. Fudging it, as in the Government’s reply to the committee’s report, would mean forfeiting America’s respect—not just America’s.

But it is not only on transatlantic relations that the Government’s response comes across as a little bland and Panglossian. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was absolutely right to send a rather sharp reply to the response in his letter of 3 April. For me the clock struck 13 times when I got to page 20 of the response and read that post-Brexit global Britain will be,

“using soft power to project our values and demonstrating that the UK is open, outward facing and confident on the world stage. The UK will lead on issues that matter”—

presumably we will leave the unimportant ones to the Chinese and the Americans—

“be an innovative and inviting economy; and a normative power setting global standards that uphold our values”.

A trace of hubris? The tone rang a bell with me. It was in Pravda in 1968 when I was in Moscow. The Soviet Union was the world leader—the “normative power”—with the world communist movement applauding and the grateful Czechs cheering the Red Army’s tanks taking away Dubček. No one who read Pravda believed it; no one who wrote Pravda believed it.

Yes, soft power is a huge UK strength, but for its optimal exercise it is best not to be an international laughing stock. Do we honestly think that the Brexit process and paralysis makes us look,

“open, outward facing and confident”?

Do we honestly think that the world sees us as the next global leader on the issues that matter—the “normative power” setting global standards? Perhaps the world has not noticed the humiliations of the backstop, condemning us to follow standards set outside our frontiers while no longer having any say. Perhaps no one has spotted how our influence on global rules will shrink when we leave the Union, which is currently setting the pace in global regulatory standard setting. Is it not a little incongruous to preach the virtues of rules-based free trading systems while planning to leave the world’s largest? I feel sorry for my FCO successors who have to write such stuff. I was luckier.

Twenty years ago, the Commonwealth countries took us seriously because through the Lomé Convention process we were fighting their corner in Brussels and winning. The Americans took us seriously because more enlightened Administrations then supported the EU enlargement process, on which we were leading in Brussels and succeeding. Brussels took us seriously because it was believed that we could bring the Americans along, and sometimes we did. My successors must know that if one pillar of the mutually reinforcing tripod collapses, the others crack too. John Bolton cheers and the Kremlin smirks, but global Britain shrinks. It is not too late to stop the march of self-marginalisation and I hope that we will.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I cannot help noticing that while the cat was away, time has slipped a bit. We are slipping back again and I respectfully remind all your Lordships of the advisory time limit of seven minutes. Some have been very good at observing that and, in fairness, perhaps your Lordships could all attempt to do the same.

Brexit: Sanctions Policy (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, particularly his last point. I also very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said. It will come as a huge surprise to the House, I should think, that he and I agree—he is coming on quite nicely. My worry is that we ourselves, as far as I know, have not yet put forward any proposal to our European Union partners in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, ended by asking the Minister to flesh out the tailored arrangement that Sir Alan Duncan had in mind. All we get in the report is that the Government’s ambition is for an “unprecedented” level of co-operation, which is an “untested” approach. That seems to me a slightly tautologous statement: if it is unprecedented, probably it is a little bit untested.

The report goes on to say:

“If participation in the Common Foreign and Security Policy after Brexit is not possible—or not sought by the UK”—


well, participation in the common foreign and security policy will not be possible after Brexit: the CFSP is for members of the European Union—

“then the Government should propose that a political forum be established between the UK and the EU, for regular discussion and co-ordination of sanctions policy”.

I entirely agree. It sounds very mechanistic, but you need to have a structure, with regular meetings. We will not be in the room, having a voice in the decision taken on sanctions in the European Union, but we need to have the room next door. We need to be there regularly, the day before they decide or the morning of the day they are going to decide, able to influence the decision they take. Putting forward a proposal for that kind of consultative architecture would be well worth doing in itself, for the reasons I have just given. It would also be extremely helpful to the atmosphere of the ongoing negotiation with the European Union.

United States: Foreign Policy

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate, in which I have the unusual pleasure of agreeing with every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick.

I will make two quick points. First, this is a brilliantly timed debate, one year after the inauguration. I am less worried than I was then about the threat to NATO. The investigations into possible collusion and certain Russian involvement in the election campaign in America have neutralised what I saw as the biggest risk to NATO: candidate Trump’s openly avowed admiration for President Putin. If that is still in his head he cannot act on it, given the investigations taking place on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in Washington, so I am slightly less worried about that.

One point that perhaps was not brought out in the debate, and about which I am more worried about than I was a year ago, is the threat to the rules-based trade system. The open insistence that the United States will no longer be bound by WTO rulings, and the attempt to subvert the WTO system from within by refusing to make appointments to panels—refusing to appoint judges in the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures—is an existential threat to a central element of a rules-based system that originated here in London. We invented the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The WTO was run for a very long time on British expertise. When we joined the European Union we imported the old Board of Trade expertise into it and we saw great commissioners such as Leon Brittan and Peter Sutherland. We should pay tribute to Peter Sutherland for all his work, not just in Brussels but also in Geneva, in all our interests.

It is very important if we are to leave the European Union that we remain in very close touch with it in support of the WTO system. To my mind, a sweetheart trade deal with the United States is a mirage. It clearly has an “America first” policy. We remember the inaugural speech. We must not let pursuit of close contacts with America, which are very important, blind us to the fact that the rules-based system is particularly important to an open trading country such as the United Kingdom.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I follow that intervention with regard to the position of the Electoral Commission. I understand from what the noble Baroness said that it agrees with the content of what the Government are doing. Is it also entirely happy with the timing implications? If I understand it correctly, the commission has said that, in practice, it needs a minimum of 16 weeks’ notice after the last regulations have been approved. Is there an implication in the Minister’s statement for that timescale? If that is the case, is the Electoral Commission relaxed that it can work within those implications on the overall timescale arising from the amendments?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 12 and 22, which, as the Minister said, were made in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I have to say, although it may increase the paranoia of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is abroad today—indeed, I am sorry to have to say, in France.

The concern that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was speaking to is in my view, although I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, at least half met by the changes that the Government have made. My understanding is that the Electoral Commission recognises that that is as far as it is possible to go. As I read its briefing, it is saying that, in addition to the amendments, it will use its guidance for referendum campaigners strongly to encourage them only to accept donations from permissible sources prior to registering with the commission. That is very good advice, and the House should encourage that. I welcome the government amendments, as at least they will have the effect of increasing transparency and, backed by such guidance from the Electoral Commission, should discourage inappropriate donations.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

25: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union in the event of withdrawal from the European Union
(1) The Secretary of State shall report on the relationship with the European Union which the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union.
(2) The report provided for by subsection (1) must be published and laid before each House of Parliament, no later than 12 weeks prior to the appointment date of the referendum.”

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 25 stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. Before I speak to it, I should perhaps comment on an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who, sadly, is not in his place. I was secretary-general of a small institution in Brussels throughout its brief life. It paid me expenses. Having clearly got a good judgment of my qualifications and qualities, it neither paid me a salary nor pays me a pension. I should put that on record. It was good to have a guest star appearance from the noble Lord, who seemed to have missed Committee but made a very interesting contribution on Report.

I should perhaps also comment on an important speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. We were privileged to have him with us on Report, although not before. I found one point in what he said with which I strongly agreed, which I will come to in a moment. One point with which I did not entirely agree was his concern that we should not get too big for our boots in legislative scrutiny. The way that this House has scrutinised the Bill is a good example of constructive work. I think the Bill is better today than it was, partly because of the amendments with which the Minister has come forward, including Amendment 24B, which we debated earlier. As she fairly said in introducing it, it contains a provision, proposed new subsection (1)(b), designed to pick up a point that some of us had been making and which is encapsulated in Amendment 25.

Amendment 25 goes a little further than proposed new subsection (1)(b) in Amendment 24B, because some of us not only believe that the country does not need to see examples of other people’s relationship with the European Union but would like to know in advance of the referendum what the Government would do in the event a vote to leave: what immediate steps they would take and what permanent relationship with the European Union they would seek. Listing the arrangements of the Norwegians, the Swiss or the Turks does not quite do that. We would want to know what would actually happen.

In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Stoddart, criticised me for my description of others’ arrangements. They did not find others’ arrangements very relevant; they were sure that, being bigger, we could do better—I paraphrase the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. Several of us were not so sure about that, because in an Article 50 negotiation, if that is what we would be in, the Commission would be across the table from us and no other member state would be in the room. The Commission would be acting on guidelines laid down by the European Council by unanimity: everybody will have had to agree. The outcome of the negotiation, assuming there was one, would need qualified majority approval in Council and a simple majority in the European Parliament. That is quite a high hurdle. It was the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who made the point in Committee that what we would seek,

“in exit negotiations, if that is where we get to, are not a fait accompli. They are not ours to demand. We cannot assume that all the other 27 states will agree. It will be for the 27 to decide and agree, and we do not have a vote in that”.—[Official Report, 2/11/15; col. 1441.]

That is correct; that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

There is a rumour that the noble Lord is the author not just of Article 50 but of the entire treaty. Can he therefore explain to us what happens if the two-year period permitted under Article 50 expires and we cease to be a member? What happens then?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

There are probably greater experts on Article 50 than me; but, as the noble Lord undoubtedly knows, paragraph 3 makes it clear that the two years is extendable, if all parties agree. I believe that, if we were in an Article 50 negotiation, it would almost certainly be necessary to extend it. I beg to move.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, do I understand Mr Redwood’s position to be that, if we repeal the 1972 Act, all the other treaties that come after that Act—the Single European Act, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon—are all amendments to the original 1972 Act? If we repeal the 1972 Act, the other 27 member states may start getting difficult with us, but it is unlikely. We should be in the driving seat, not least because of the amount of money we give them, which of course we need not decide to axe overnight. We could say that if they behave themselves, we will taper the £20 billion a year we give them nice and slowly. Likewise, it is in their interests to go along with us and our free trade with them, the single market and all the rest of it, because we are their largest clients—as I said earlier. We have a certain amount of pressure with the non-EU free trade agreements, some of which have been organised entirely by the Commission and some by the European Commission and us in our sovereign right, as I am sure the noble Lord knows. It is a boggy area, but surely it depends on the political will of the Government of this country, and the political will of the Prime Minister.

Therefore I put it to the noble Lord that he is seeking to gaze into a crystal ball that is somewhat clouded. If the Prime Minister has negotiated a reform and comes back from Brussels with a piece of white paper saying “Reform in our time”, but the British people do not like it—if the British Prime Minister wants to stay in the European Union on those terms but the British people throw it out and vote against him—surely it is unlikely that he would survive as Prime Minister. Therefore, we would be dealing with a new Conservative Prime Minister, presumably somewhat less Europhile than the present one, and the whole ball game would change in the negotiations over Article 50, if we decided to go down the Article 50 route. Surely, though, we are in a position to say that we are not going to do that. Our position is so strong that we require our own free trade agreement. I do not want to follow the Norwegian/European Economic Area red herring anymore, because none of us has ever wanted to do that. How does the noble Lord react to that position, with a Prime Minister who has gone, a new Conservative leader who wants to get on with it, and a European Union that perhaps will not be as recalcitrant as the noble Lord hopes?

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Green, for telling us that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, drafted all this legislation. I think he should have declared an interest, because the last thing he will want to admit is that the EU is going to completely override everything that he drafted. When the eurozone was set up, I remember it was thought that there would be a big problem if Governments borrowed excessively and cumulative debt built up to very high levels of GDP, so limits were put in on how much Governments should borrow in the eurozone. The Germans found that too inconvenient, so they just overrode it. Then the French followed, and everybody else said, “If they are not going to follow the rules, why should we bother?”. So why are we obsessed with the legislative integrity of Article 50? It has never been tested; no one has ever left the EU. If we were to leave, it would be a unique situation. They would be losing their second biggest economy, and they would have to accommodate us.

Let us remember another thing that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, omitted to tell us. This referendum will be advisory, not mandatory, and that is very significant.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I shall give way in a moment. All we have to do in response to a leave vote is repeal the 1972 Act. After that we have to enter negotiations, and we can apply for Article 50 at the end of the negotiation.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I think it is not for me, but for lawyers, to discuss what would ensue were we immediately to repeal the 1972 Act. I do not think it is a pretty picture, but it is not for me to depict it. On the noble Lord’s argument that we would have all these cards in our hand, I was trying to extend an olive branch to him earlier. There is a point that nobody would want us to go—that is correct. The Germans would want to go on selling cars, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, reminds us almost daily.

My argument is that it might prove difficult to get 27 member states, many of which have a negative trade balance with us and not all of which are as friendly to us as our friends in Germany, to agree all the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Green, is right: the process could be prolonged and quite tricky, and the country should know before the referendum that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the colour of a herring may be, but all I can say is that I am sure that my right honourable friend could fillet it quite nicely.

However, the problem is that the result would not be predictable. This is the picture that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has carefully teased out. Clearly, there could be unpredictable consequences; that is why I am not in a position tonight to accept the amendment. There is also an issue about timing. It is simply not feasible, or indeed in the national interest, to tie the Government’s hands in legislation by setting out our preferred, almost negotiable, alternative before we have had the referendum, let alone before we know the consequences of the vote. We are focused on delivering a successful renegotiation. This debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has teased out the implications of the process. I hope therefore that I have put on the record more clearly the Government’s view of how those processes would be engaged. Although I am not able to accept the noble Lord’s amendment tonight, I hope that I have put on record sufficient information to enable him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Baroness and all those who took part in this debate, particularly those who supported me. However, I am left worrying what the Scots have against me. When you think about it, everybody who spoke in support of my amendment was not a Scot and everybody who attacked it was a Scot—the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lamont. I believe that the Stoddart family hailed from Scotland. Anyway, we Scots are a cantankerous lot.

I wish to comment on only three points from the debate. First, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and indeed with the Minister, that the fact that the referendum is advisory, not mandatory, is a distinction without a difference. If the country votes to leave, we leave—that is for sure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that I thought we had an agreement that we both were clear that any free trade agreement was perfectly possible. I am sure that it is perfectly possible although, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, reminded us, there are free trade agreements and free trade agreements. Saying that it is possible does not guarantee that it is perfect. Where I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is that I do not believe that it would be possible to secure full voting membership of the single market with no concomitant obligations on expenditure commitments. I do not believe that that is on offer or that it could be offered. That is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I am very grateful to my only Scottish ally in this matter—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—for confirming that my understanding of the law, although amateur, was in this case, by great good luck, correct.

The noble Baroness has moved a long way, for which I am very grateful. She has listened to what has been said in non-Scottish accents in various parts of the House during this debate. I think she is saying that, in the event that the country voted to leave, the Government would invoke Article 50—that that is the process that would be followed. I think she is also saying that the country would need to know before the referendum that, because we would be in an Article 50 negotiation, we would be unable to dictate the terms of our withdrawal—that that would be a matter for negotiation and that there could be, in her words, unpredictable consequences. I think she is saying that that is factual information, not speculative, which it would be the duty of the Government to make clear. The leave campaign will assert that we can dictate whatever terms we like. The stay campaign will assert that an Article 50 negotiation would, indeed, be a bear trap, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. But what is important is that the Government should say what in their view would be the—

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but does he agree that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

He was asking a question.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord, Lord Green, and I are diplomats. We do this stuff all the time.

I shall look very carefully at what the noble Baroness has said. It seems to me she is saying that the country would be entitled to know in advance whether Article 50 would be invoked; that that article is not a fait accompli, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said; that we would be unable to dictate our terms; and that there would be unpredictable consequences. If that is what the noble Baroness is saying, I see no need to press my amendment now. If that is not what she is saying and I have misheard her, we might refer to the matter again at Third Reading, but I hope that we shall not have to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 25 withdrawn.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, my party would like to spend as much money on this campaign as it can. I was looking at the suggestion that we should have 12.6%’s worth, that being our share of the votes cast in the last election. Personally, I am in favour of that, of course.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I want to lower the temperature with a deeply nerdy amendment, Amendment 55, which concerns purdah. I apologise for not following the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—

[Noble Lords]

Wrong group!

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, I am very relieved that my noble friend Lord Hamilton did not say that his amendments were nonsense this time, because I support them. I do so because I am concerned about a situation where the prospectus being put to the country is not exactly false but uncertain—where, not necessarily through any fault of their own, the Government have reached an agreement which all sides think is fine but where there is an endemic structure within it that makes it unstable. I can best illustrate the situation by very briefly going through what I understand to be the four objectives of the Government in their negotiations.

The first objective is to stop the ever-closer union. One has to say that although all sides might be able to agree to that in words, there is the acquis communautaire —the acquis communautaire is endemic within the treaty. It is there to self-implode in this context, particularly as it has always supported the move towards a centralised Europe, the European Union, by the court.

The second objective is more competition. The European Union is a trade bloc. Trade blocs exist to protect themselves against foreign competition outside the trade bloc, otherwise there is no point in having a trade bloc in the first place. A trade bloc is and always will be anti-competitive.

The multicurrency objective—that we should be allowed to have lots of currencies—is next. When we were discussing the Maastricht treaty in the other place I always felt that an endemic feature of a single European Union is that there will eventually have to be a single currency. That is always put the other way round—that a single currency means that you will have to have a single Government—but the converse is also true: that to have a single union you will ultimately have to have, if the union is to mean anything at all, a single currency. The fourth objective is to deal with immigration. I cannot think of any union, market or trade bloc that does not ultimately have freedom of movement of the people within it.

I have to say that, through no fault of the Government’s own—the various countries may well establish an agreement in the negotiations—the agreement will be unstable for the reasons I have just given. We therefore need the kind of spending restrictions implied in my noble friend’s amendments.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 55, which stands in my name. It seems to me that the problem that we are facing comes from the very wide language of the PPERA, which clearly was not intended to deal with the problem that I am drawing attention to. No Minister or servant of the Crown can publish any information which deals with any of the issues raised by the question during the 28 days—and “publish” is defined very widely as making,

“available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means”.

My worry is whether that might prove obstructive to the conduct of government business in Brussels. Ministers will continue to go there, European Union committees and the Council will continue to meet, and the myriad working groups will continue their work. It seems to me that it would be possible to construe that everything said—such as a document or briefing note passed to Members of the European Parliament, a document sent to the Commission or a pleading before the court—could be said to be relevant to the issue of the question of the referendum and could be caught by this 28-day ban.

I am sure that that was nobody’s intention, and I quite understand why the Minister does not wish to go back and reopen the language that we are confronted with. I am sure that people such as Mr Bernard Jenkin, who spoke on the purdah issue in the Commons, had no intention of making it impossible for the Government to carry out their business in Brussels. These are honourable people making a completely different point.

I am puzzled by the noble Baroness saying that she is confident that the Government would have a sufficient defence if challenged during the 28-day period. I am concerned about that. It seems to me that a judicial review—a challenge in court—could be disruptive to business, even if that challenge was successfully resisted in court. It seems to me that the possibility of the challenge might be an inhibition on our people in Brussels who are working in the national interest, doing the job they are meant to do. I am therefore very puzzled by what I think I heard the noble Baroness say—that she did not envisage making any regulations on this issue. I do not know whether we can be sure. If I were the Permanent Representative, I would be very uncertain whether I would be able to do what I am paid to do with the threat of legal challenge.

I may be exaggerating the problem but it is certainly a real one. Mr Lidington, Minister of State in the Foreign Office, told the European Union Committee in evidence in July that Section 125 of the PPERA would make it,

“very difficult if not impossible for us to undertake a whole range of routine EU business in the four weeks leading up to the referendum date”.

I admit that Mr Lidington said that in the context of the presidency. The hypothetical question was: “Suppose that the referendum date and the 28 days fell within the second half of 2017, during the UK presidency of the EU”. He was talking about how very difficult if not impossible it would be to undertake a whole range of routine EU business as the presidency. However, it seems to me that if it would be difficult to advance and defend the EU interest, as the presidency is meant to do, it would be just as difficult to advance and defend the UK interest, which is the daily business of our representatives in Brussels.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick]

I am listening very carefully to what the noble Lord is saying—and of course he has huge knowledge of this—but Section 125 refers to “promotional material”. That is what it talks about. It says that it specifically excludes material which is requested by a member of the public. If the Scotch Whisky Association or somebody wanted a particular copy of something that had been discussed, they would still be able to do that. What this prohibits is promotional material. Surely that is wholly right—that promotional material should not be allowed in this way.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

If the noble Lord is right, I am delighted. If the meaning of Section 125 of the PPERA is that only material of a particular kind defined as “promotional” is caught, my problem is much smaller; in fact; it disappears. But it seems to me that the language of the Act says that any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority may not “publish”, which,

“means make available to the public at large, or any section of the public, in whatever form and by whatever means”—

for 28 days, any material bearing on the issue that is in the question. If that is to be the case, then for 28 days we are going to be saying, “Stop the world while we consider whether we want to get off”. I worry that the answer to that is to say, “Don’t be silly; we would defend ourselves in court”. The atmosphere might be quite febrile. There might be legal challenges brought. I think there would be a considerable inhibition on the public service doing its job.

I ask the Minister to look at my amendment, which would not require the making of any regulations. It would simply create a small carve-out, an exemption, for the normal business of the Government with the European Union, in and with the Council, with the Commission, with the Court and with the Parliament. It seems to me that that is much safer ground on which to rest than the thought of defending challenges in court. I am quite sure that when they drafted the PPERA nobody intended Section 125 to have effect on the pursuit of government interests and policies abroad. I am sure that that was not what they had in mind. I am sure that nobody in the other place, in the great debates that took place there over purdah, had it in mind to make it more difficult for the Government to defend the national interest in Brussels. I would argue for my amendment as the simplest way in which to deal with that problem.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I deeply regret that I have not read the noble Lord’s debate from 2002 and I shall, of course, try to dig it out before I go to bed.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am fascinated by these two amendments and by the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, being on both of them. They seem to call for completely different courses of action. I am reminded of the story of a crash between two Concordes in mid-Atlantic, with Henry Kissinger being found in both. The noble Lord should make up his mind. Is he in favour of an impartiality authority and a criminal offence, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra? I am particularly against that one: the creation of a new criminal offence requires a fair amount of thought. Or does he prefer, as I do, his own amendment? Actually, I am not really in favour of either of them. This is all a bit over the top.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments are not so much probing as having a go. Their purpose is clear: this is a warning shot. I was stunned by the telling possibility that, instead of the campaigns themselves determining the issues, we should leave it to the BBC to decide which campaigns were admitted. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord once again rated the Electoral Commission highly. However, the commission has looked at the amendments and said they are unnecessary. Ofcom believes they are overkill and the BBC has also set out how it will develop its own specific guidelines. I have no doubt that the issue of bias will draw attention from both sides during the campaign. Listening to the “Today” programme may annoy me on some occasions and make the noble Lord just as annoyed on others, but we may have heard completely different arguments. It is in the nature of things that we do not approach these issues without bias ourselves. Clearly, we are all committed. The important thing is that provisions to ensure fair reporting of the campaign do exist. The BBC will also set up specific guidelines for the referendum and will constantly run impartiality reviews during the campaign so that it can ensure delivery against its editorial standards. That all happened during the Scottish referendum. These amendments are having a go rather than probing. I hope the Minister will support that view.

--- Later in debate ---

I just wonder what the reaction would have been if, prior to the referendum in Scotland, I had argued that because we are a family, the English ought to have their referendum and they ought to say what they think about Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, and that as a family we all have to agree upon this. The Scots would have been absolutely outraged. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In this case it is absolutely a United Kingdom decision and it will be the votes in the United Kingdom as a whole that will decide whether or not we remain in the European Union. Anything less than that is striking at the heart of the United Kingdom and breaking up this family, which the people of Scotland voted—not narrowly but overwhelmingly—to reject. So I suggest, if I may, that the nationalists should get on with the job of persuading people in Scotland that they can deal with health, education, housing and all the other issues on which both Wales and Scotland are now falling way behind England in terms of performance, and stop trying to create division within our country, especially on an issue as important as this.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

As so often, I wish that we had a Scottish nationalist in this Chamber to respond to the noble Lord’s points, with most of which I agree. I bow to no one in my respect for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. His was a very moving speech and I agree with his description of the difficulties that could arise were different results to occur in the different parts of the kingdom. I think he is correct about that. I think his solution is absolutely wrong. I cannot support his amendment.

The amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Liddle, is probably unnecessary because I suspect that the votes will be counted separately in any case; I would hope so because there will certainly be rumours about what the result has been if it is close and it would be far better that there should be something on the record. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, it is a little harsh to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, of being a violent Scottish nationalist because he has put his name to that amendment.

There is a fundamental issue with Amendment 61C. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, proposes a quadruple lock in the situation in which, say, England has voted to leave the European Union and Northern Ireland has, by a very narrow majority, voted to stay in. If the noble Lord’s amendment was carried and became the law, we would stay in. That seems an unacceptable situation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: it is a United Kingdom decision.

It is important to note that we have no threshold requirements in this referendum and we have had no amendment in Committee proposing that there should be a threshold. That is constitutionally quite surprising for a decision as big as this. The precedent would lead one to think about a threshold. I would not have wanted a threshold. I would not have wanted a supermajority, as in the precedent in Scotland in the 1970s. I do not like referenda but the essence of a referendum is that you win or lose. It is clean; it is 51% to 49%, for example. If 51% are in favour of our leaving the European Union, we will leave, and we should not create any fudge round that. This is a yes/no decision, and if you decide to go, you go. The double referenda theory attributed to Boris Johnson, which he appears to have come off—that if the decision was to go, there would be another negotiation in which the foreigners, astonished and timorous, would come creeping, offering us far better terms to stay in—is nonsense. If the country votes to leave the Government will be required to invoke Article 50 and start the process of coming out. It has to be clean. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that I think he is correct in his description of the difficulties that would arise, but the difficulties which would arise if his amendment were the law of the land would be much greater.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord said that if the country voted to leave the Government would invoke Article 50, but surely that does not follow. It would be possible for us to remain in negotiations having voted to leave and then subsequently invoke Article 50, would it not? He is the expert.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not know what form these negotiations would take. I think that the position of a Government who said, “Okay, we have heard the nation speak, but now we are going to go and negotiate something else with Brussels. We are not acting on the decision the country has taken”—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My point is that if you invoke Article 50 you are then no longer a member and it does not necessarily follow that that would be the most appropriate way of dealing with it. You could remain as a member and negotiate our withdrawal and then use Article 50.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Actually, you are a member while the Article 50 negotiations are proceeding. You are a member of every council. Your MEPs do not leave the European Parliament, your judges do not leave the court and your Commissioners do not go home. The only difference is that in the Article 50 negotiations you do not have a vote on the position of the EU—the position that it has in its negotiation with you. That is all. You remain a member throughout the period of the Article 50 negotiations unless you decide unilaterally to go home. You do not have to do Article 50 at all. If you want you can just stop paying the bills, stop turning up at meeting and in due course it will be recognised that you have gone. It is not the case that once you invoke Article 50 you are no longer a member of the European Union.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Surely the key to the decision taken in the referendum is that it is advisory and not mandatory, so therefore it would not be necessary at once for the United Kingdom to apply for Article 50. We could merely carry on with the negotiations with absolutely nothing changing whatever.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Technically, that is correct. It is advisory. But it seems to me that anybody who thinks that the Government could do other than act fairly quickly on the advice they had received from the entire country is in cloud-cuckoo-land. The noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hamilton, are right in a sense in that our influence in the councils of the European Union would go into very rapid decline. We would still be there but we would not be listened to a great deal if we were heading for the exit door. That is certainly true. However, we would be members, and the idea—with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—that the Government might consider whether they were going to act on the advice of the country or going to try some form of new negotiation is nonsense. If the country votes to come out, we come out.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, it seems to me that this is a piece of nonsense. Wales is not a member of the European Union, nor is England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is the member of the European Union. Therefore, it does not matter a damn whether some region or another—whether it is Wales, London, Ponders End or wherever—votes one way or another. The only thing that matters is which way the United Kingdom votes.

I do not intend to be provocative at this time of night—good lord, I never intend to be provocative—but it is worth remembering that there is considerable doubt over whether, if Scotland had voted to leave the United Kingdom, either it or the remainder of the United Kingdom would have continued to be a member of the European Union. The state which entered the European Union was the United Kingdom; if the United Kingdom had ceased to exist, then probably neither Scotland nor the remainder of the United Kingdom would have been a member of the European Union. It would have been up to the Scottish— and possibly the Welsh at some time or another—to negotiate entry into the European Union. We could all have a bit of a chuckle about how that would have gone, but essentially this is just a piece of nonsense which is not even worth discussing at this time of the evening.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

24: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union in the event of withdrawal from the European Union
(1) The Secretary of State shall report on the relationship with the European Union which the Government envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave the European Union, and on the acceptability of this arrangement to every European Union member state.
(2) The report provided for by subsection (1) must be published and laid before each House of Parliament, no later than 12 weeks prior to the appointed date of the referendum.”

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Amendment 24 is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham—a perfectly balanced ticket.

I begin by saying:

“Those campaigning for Britain to leave the EU and choose the Norwegian way can … correctly claim that a country can retain access to the single market from outside the EU”.

But this means also,

“retaining all the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget. A Britain choosing this track would, in other words, keep paying, it would be ‘run by Brussels’, and … remain committed to the four freedoms, including free movement”,

of persons. It would, however,

“have given up on having a say over EU policies. Like Norway, it would have no vote and no presence when crucial decisions that affect the daily lives of its citizens are made”.

These are not my words but those of Espen Barth Eide, a former Europe Minister in Norway, last week. On his financial point, it is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, correctly pointed out that we are now the ninth largest contributor to the EU budget in per capita terms. The 10th largest is Norway.

If noble Lords do not believe Mr Eide, they might try the Norwegian Conservative Party’s current EU spokesman, Mr Nikolai Astrup. His advice is simple: “If you want to run the EU, stay in; if you want to be run by the EU, feel free to join us in the EEA”.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Could the noble Lord tell us on how many occasions in the last five years we have expressed a view in opposition to a particular EU policy and on how many occasions we have been defeated in percentage terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am afraid I do not work in the British Government and do not have the statistics to hand. However, it is the case that a large member state such as the United Kingdom, with a voting weight proportionate to its population, has a considerable say in EU legislation. An EEA but non-EU member state, such as Norway, has none whatever.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can the noble Lord explain the free trade treaty between the EU and South Korea? Does it bind South Korea to following all EU legislation?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I had assumed that the principal interest of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, was making sure that we managed, as some sort of country member or associate, to remain within the single market. The Koreans have no such rights. They have a very good free trade agreement, which is greatly in the UK’s interest, and has produced a considerable increase in UK exports to South Korea.

There is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU. That is not an issue. But if we want access to the single market, we need more than a free trade agreement. That is why the Norwegians are in what is known as EFTA and the EEA and why they are complaining about their relations with the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, told us that nobody in Norway wants to join the EU. Actually, the entire Norwegian establishment would like to join the EU but has not, as yet, managed to persuade the Norwegian public of that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It sounds just like us. I have read in a newspaper—so it may be wrong—that on the last 77 occasions when Britain has sought to amend a provision that it did not like, it has been defeated. Is the noble Lord aware of that? If that is the case, I question whether, by being in the room, we have influence. We have influence only if we are able to persuade the room. We seem to be singularly unable to do so.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I hope I may leave it to the Minister to deal with the allegation that on the last 77 occasions when we have expressed views and wished to change a piece of legislation we have been overruled. I would be completely astonished if there was any truth in that statement.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I may be able to help. Part of popular opposition to the European Union, particularly in northern Norway, is the belief that it is a Catholic outfit and all part of a Catholic conspiracy. This was the case with much of the anti-European Union efforts when we first applied, but it is slightly below the surface now in Britain and rather more on the surface in Norway.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not think I will follow the noble Lord, although I am grateful to him. The Norwegians are not happy with their relationship with the European Union, and no wonder their Prime Minister told us last week that it would not do for us. I entirely agree with him. Before the electorate are asked to decide whether we should leave the Union, they clearly need to know where we would land if we did, what new relationship with the rest of Europe the Government envisage and how certain they are that it would be obtainable—hence my amendment.

If it is not the Norwegian model, what is it? The Swiss model is clearly worse from our point of view and probably not on offer. The Swiss have individual, sectoral and bilateral agreements with the EU. However, they do not extend to services, our major export, and would take many years to negotiate. Both sides—the EU and Switzerland—agree that the arrangement is unsatisfactory, complex and unwieldy.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

Why do the noble Lord and other people keep referring to the “Swiss model” or the “Norway model”? They are not relevant to this country. What we want is a British model. We are of the size and the importance, including the historic importance, to be quite different from, and to negotiate a much better agreement than, either of those two small—but highly successful—countries.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I must ask the noble Lord not to be carried away by the impetuosity of youth. I will come to his point in a moment. The Council, with the UK concurring, agreed 18 months ago that the relationship with Switzerland should be put on a new institutional basis and be overseen by the Commission under the judicial control of the European Court of Justice—although there would not be a Swiss Commissioner or a Swiss judge in the European Court of Justice. That would be a more onerous regime and even less satisfactory to us than the arrangement agreed 20 years ago for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. One could look at the Turkish model, but there you have no access to the single market at all. There is a customs union, but that means that Turkey has to apply EU customs tariffs against third countries and has no say in setting them. The Turks find the relationship highly unsatisfactory; it would be doubly unsatisfactory for us.

A free trade agreement or an association agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU would certainly be possible, and there are plenty of precedents for it. I do not think it would be particularly difficult to negotiate, so I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, to that extent, but it would not provide the access to the single market that I thought was the object of the exercise from our point of view. Let us bow to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, on this: if the EU were to decide that it needed to make an exception for us—I do not think it would, as so many would want to follow suit if it did—and gave us what we sought, its price would undoubtedly be our agreement to follow its labour market rules, health and safety rules, product standards, consumer protection laws and technical specifications. It will not agree that our goods should freely circulate in its single market if they do not meet EU standards. That is not an unreasonable position, and that is the one the EU would take. We would of course have lost our say in the setting of these standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The impetuosity of youth is spreading all around the Chamber. The point will be addressed in a second.

If we had no structured relationship with the EU and operated purely as WTO members, the damage to our exports and inward investment would come more quickly, since UK exports to the EU would become subject to EU tariffs straightaway—10% on cars, 15% on food products and so on. We would also lose the benefit of the EU’s 200 or so trade agreements with third countries and regional groupings and we would need to negotiate our own.

Maybe there is too much Nordic gloom and doom in my analysis. Maybe the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Stoddart, are correct. Certainly, that great Scottish economist, Peter McKay, writing in today’s Daily Mail, finds my analysis defeatist, but it is possible that the Norwegians know what they are talking about. Maybe we could, to address directly the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, secure a new sui generis deal more generous than any that the EU currently has with anybody. Maybe we could forget all these models and establish the new Union Jack model. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, says, that we would have some cards in our hand. Some 6% of exports from the rest of the EU come to us and we could threaten to cut them off, so pleasing Mr McKay in the Daily Mail, if not the British consumer. However, we need to face facts—four facts. First, 6% of their exports come to us—3% if one excludes the Netherlands, Germany and Ireland—but nearly 50% of ours go to them. In a protectionist showdown, we would be shooting uphill. They would be facing a blip; we would be fighting for our lives.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The noble Lord talks about a blip. We are talking about 4.5 million Europeans losing their jobs, on top of the astronomically high levels of unemployment they have now. If that is a blip, I am very glad that the noble Lord does not advise me on economics.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not recognise the figure of 4.5 million. Maybe the noble Lord is assuming that exports that did not come to Britain, because we erected a protectionist barrier against them, would not go somewhere else in the world. It is a static analysis.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

The noble Lord mentioned that we export 50% to the EU. That is a figure I have not heard before. It is usually 40%. Can he confirm the 50%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

No, I cannot confirm it. I think I said nearly 50%; that is what I understand. It is over 40%; I think it is nearly 50%, but the noble Lord may be right.

Secondly, half the trade surplus of the EU with us is accounted for by the Netherlands and Germany. Among the other 25 member states, a considerable number run a trade deficit with us. They might be less generous in the sort of showdown—dreadful thought—that I am talking about. Their withers might not wrung quite so much by Mr Peter McKay’s threats.

Thirdly, it would be the Commission across the table from us, because what we would be negotiating—if, under Article 50, the withdrawal clause of the treaty, we were negotiating our withdrawal—would be a treaty not between us and the other member states but between us and the EU. The Commission would, I think—it has always said so—attach particular importance to retaining the EU’s decision-taking autonomy, if only to prevent Norway and all the other neighbours, all unhappy with their present, subordinate status, seeking to secure the seat at the table which we would be seeking.

Fourthly, the procedures under Article 50, paragraph 2, become highly relevant. The Commission would need to secure a qualified majority in the Council for any deal that it struck with us. We of course would have no vote. It would also need the approval of the European Parliament and the Commission would be operating on the basis of guidelines laid down by the European Council, which would operate by unanimity. Yes, we would have friends and advocates, and yes, there would be bits of German industry that in practice would be lobbying on our side in this debate, but everyone would have to be on board, and unanimity in the European Council is what we would need to secure. That is why my amendment asks the Government to report to the electorate before the referendum, not just on what form of relationship they would envisage between us if we left, and the EU that we had left, but on its acceptability to every remaining member state. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. It is important that we think about the implications for the UK of its relations with the EU, should there be a vote to leave it. Before dinner, we heard of concerns about fear and claims that the pro-Europeans wanted to talk about withdrawal and its dangers only because we wanted to whip up fear. There is a danger that comes from Eurosceptics such as Dan Hannan, who says, “You pro-Europeans invent things. We don’t want to be Norway”. That is certainly something that was suggested in your Lordships’ House at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has already suggested today that the UK does not want to have a Norwegian model or a Swiss model; it would like its own model. In order for the citizens of the UK, and anyone else who may be enfranchised in the forthcoming referendum, to understand the implications of what they are doing in the vote, it is important that they have an understanding, and that the Government make clear, what the implications of leaving would be for our relationship with the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, intervened earlier on my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire to ask whether arrangements could not just carry on as they are if the UK were to leave the EU. That strikes me as a very strange sort of club. If you say to your golf club, “I’m not going to pay my dues any more; I no longer want to be a member of this club”, it is not going to say, “That’s fine, you can come and play golf again on Sunday”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord must go on because he is making my case for me. He is saying that we do not want politicians and that we need to think of another word for “autonomy”. How about “dictatorship”? If by EU decision-making autonomy you mean, “We don’t want politicians”, then that is dictatorship. Politicians, however much they may be despised or disliked, are accountable to the electorate. These people are accountable to no one, and we are now being told that we cannot possibly go against the EU decision-making autonomy.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is making marvellous campaign speeches; I think that our job is to address the Bill and the amendments. I was trying to give an analytical speech, assessing the various models and the possibility of a sui generis, something-completely-different Stoddart model. When I used the words “decision-making autonomy”, I was using words which are quite common in the Council, in the Parliament and in the court; I was not referring to the Commission.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Yes, you were.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

Yes, I said that the Commission would be the spokesman in the negotiation, but its concern would be to preserve the autonomy of EU decision-making—which the European Council regularly insists on and insisted on in relation to the changes to the arrangement with Switzerland. If you are not a member of the club, you do not have a vote on club decisions. That is all it means.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I will come on to address these points, because I took the opportunity of checking a few facts. For example, just before the dinner break, I did not know why when we were supposed to be discussing what is in Britain’s interest we continued to discuss what is in Norway’s or Iceland’s interest—but, as people have raised it and have said they want facts, I have found the following quote from the Icelandic Prime Minister from June this year. The noble Lord has already read this quote, but he did not put it in his speech. The Icelandic Prime Minister said:

“'For us staying outside of the European Union has been very important, even instrumental in getting us out of the economic crisis so it has affected us in positive ways, giving us control over our own natural resources, but also having control over our own legislation and our own currency, which if we had not had that, we would not be in the situation where we are now with a very fast improving economy”.

When I said earlier that nobody in Norway wanted to join the European Union and I was shot down and told by the noble Lord that the establishment wanted to join the EU, I thought that I had better check what the position was. I found that seven out of 10 Norwegians would reject EU membership and just 19% would like to join. Seventy-four per cent would say no to Norway joining the EU, with 17% wanting to join—these figures are from an opinion poll in 2014.

The noble Lord mentioned Switzerland. According to a 2012 poll for the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, just 6% of Swiss voters favoured joining the EU against 63% who want the present bilateral arrangements preserved, and 11% who want to join the EEA. There does not seem to be any great feeling in either of those countries that they have made some dreadful mistake; on the contrary, they seem very happy. The Norwegians are very happy with their fish, their oil and their prosperity.

Then we have the bogus argument that says that if you are outside, you have to accept a huge amount of legislation which you would have no say over. I do not know whether the figures in the Daily Telegraph—the noble Lord tells me that that is where they were from—that say that the last 74 times we have objected to things we have been defeated are correct, but those people who argue that we need to stay in to have a say should tell us how effective that say is because the evidence is that it is not very effective. The noble Lord, I know, has conspired with me and other Ministers to turn defeat into an apparent victory in drafting the press release after one such defeat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I said, perhaps I can be more helpful. The noble Lord has been patient. I am now getting to the point that he wishes to hear. Noble Lords may recall the Prime Minister’s words last week in the other place, when he said,

“if we do not get what we need in our renegotiation I rule absolutely nothing out. I think that it is important that as we have this debate as a nation we are very clear about the facts and figures and about the alternatives”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/15; col. 345.]

As I mentioned earlier today, if we are to put an obligation on the Government, the Committee would need to think very carefully about the terminology used. That goes to part of the debate we have just had. I have concerns about some of the wording used in these amendments. I can understand the good will behind some of it but there would be uncertainty about what the objective obligation specifically requires. While the Government acknowledge the importance of providing balanced information, this requirement could be an undue source of criticism, as there can often be a surprising—or, rather, unsurprising, I should say, given what we have heard tonight—level of disagreement about what counts as objective.

I think there has been a very fair reflection tonight of the feelings on all sides of the argument and about how fairness and evenness may not be perceived as such by others. It is a very serious matter to which we all need to address our greatest concentration in considering how we make progress on these issues. As I advised the Committee earlier, the Government will now think carefully about the issue of public information and consider what we may be able to bring forward by way of an amendment on Report. I continue to listen with interest to the arguments put forward by the Committee. Each of these groups of amendments has rounded out the debate more fully and started to crystallise some of the areas where there may be some agreement and those where perhaps there is unlikely ever to be agreement.

In the light of the answer I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, will withdraw his Amendment 24. I urge other noble Lords with amendments in this group not to move them when we reach them.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I thank the noble Baroness for her customary courteous, careful response to my amendment. I accept the criticism she made of its second proposed new subsection. She put it very vividly in saying that I was putting the cart before the horse before the horse had even bolted. I am sure the stable door was there somewhere. She has a point. Of course, the sequence would be, if we voted no, there is the vote, then presumably the Government go to Brussels and invoke Article 50, and there is a discussion from which an arrangement emerges, so she is absolutely right in her logic.

My amendment would have been better if I had asked the Government to report on the relationship with the European Union that they envisage in the event of a referendum vote to leave and on their view of the acceptability of such an arrangement to every European member state. I would be happy to see it adjusted. Maybe the Minister would wish to adjust it a little further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I am very conscious that I must not irritate the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, by making a campaigning speech. Having looked at my amendment, Amendment 25, I am at a loss to think how one could turn this into a campaigning speech. It is clearly an amendment that should be acceptable to all noble Lords in the House, including to my noble friend the Minister.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I do not in any way wish to interrupt his flood. I merely wish to tell him that I support his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am now having doubts. I am not surprised that the noble Lord supports the amendment, because it is a very sensible one. All that it does is seek to ensure that when the Prime Minister has finished his negotiations we have some kind of government publication that tells us what they were about, what their outcome was and what the implications would be for our continued membership of the European Union with those changes, if he so recommends, or the alternative.

The amendment is drafted in neutral terms and I hope that my noble friend might be able to accept the principle. I do not think that it is too much to ask. In my noble friend’s Second Reading speech, he hinted as much. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the early part of the summer that there would have to be some sort of paper. There are none of the issues that we have had to discuss earlier this evening arising from the debates that we had on publications of the benefits of being in and out. This is completely straightforward. What did the Prime Minister want? What did he get? What will be the effect on our relationship with the EU and what is the outcome? I beg to move.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

A referendum is,

“a device of dictators and demagogues”,

said Mrs Thatcher in 1975. Clearly, like the Bishops, she knew her Book. We are, however, where we are. This is not like last time. It is not like the Battle of Balaclava: the gallant charge of the Light Brigade with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, playing Lord Cardigan. The manifesto pledge was clear; the electorate voted; the House of Commons has voted. Our task is to improve this Bill; we cannot possibly oppose it.

I do not want to talk about the negotiations in Brussels. I echo all that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said. I cannot add to that because I do not know what is happening and I understand neither our aims nor our methods. I am baffled, as is Brussels. Instead, I will step back a bit. I have a nasty feeling that we have been here before: a newly elected Government; an intervention in the Middle East, not hugely successful; non-intervention to assist a European neighbour invaded by Russia; and a Government seriously contemplating the possibility of stepping out from the task of forging a stronger, more competitive Europe—this is 1956. We paid for our Suez mistake over a generation in foreign policy.

Our worst mistake, however, was to walk out of the Val Duchesse talks which followed the conference at Messina and led to the Treaty of Rome. We knew almost immediately that it was a mistake. Prime Minister Macmillan tried to prise open the door that we had slammed behind us as we flounced out. However, it took 15 years to get that door open. Meanwhile the rules of the club had been written in our absence and inevitably to our detriment. Once we were in, it took us another 15 years to correct that detriment: to establish, at least in principle, a single market; to bring down external tariffs; and to entrench free trade. It took another 15 years finally to deliver Mrs Thatcher’s vision—the vision of the Bruges speech—of a wider Europe: bringing Budapest, Prague and Warsaw into the Union and to some extent laying to rest the ghosts of 1956.

How ironic that, under another Conservative Government, we are contemplating throwing all that away, renouncing our leading role in the single market—now of 500 million—and reverting to sovereign autarchy and isolation. It was a Conservative Party thinker who pointed out that the lone man lost in the Sahara has absolute sovereignty but is absolutely powerless. You have to be in to win. People have spoken about the Norwegians. To obtain access to the single market they have to accept EU rules, standards and specifications, and have no say in writing them. It was the Norwegian Foreign Minister who reminded us, “Leave, and you will be run by Brussels. Stay, and you can run Brussels”.

Who would like us to leave? Mr Putin, obviously—he thinks only in zero-sum games and the weaker the West is, the better, as far as he is concerned. Our American friends, our Commonwealth friends, our developing country friends, our Asian investor friends: all urge us to stay in their interests and, they believe, ours. They find it baffling that we might want to repeat the Messina mistake; so do I.

I believe we owe it to the electorate to enable them to make a properly informed choice: to heed Mrs Thatcher’s 1975 warning and see through the silly slogans and assertions, which will come from both sides, while realising the historical gravity of the decision. This is not a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Government. It is not an opinion poll on benefit cuts, devolution or austerity. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said this morning, a vote to leave the EU would not be a reversible vote, like a vote in an election. The decision would be one that our children and grandchildren would have to live with, so we have to improve the Bill.

Others have spoken of extending the franchise. I agree with all three suggestions that emerged this morning. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said and agree strongly with the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said about 16 and 17 year-olds.

On Clause 6, I admit that I am baffled. I did not understand this morning’s exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the Minister. The concern I have about Clause 6 is that I would like to be reassured that this additional provision, accepted by the Government in the Commons, would not affect practically the conduct of government business in Brussels to the detriment of the national interest. That is what I will be looking for.

The most important changes, or rather additions, that we need to make to the Bill are those about which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, spoke this morning. How can we ensure that the country is properly informed in advance on the consequences of a vote to leave? When in the last Parliament we in this House looked at the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, we carried by a huge majority an amendment requiring the Government to report, before the referendum, on the economic effects of our leaving. The country really needs to know the legislative and statutory effects of leaving in the areas of responsibility of every government department, central and devolved. The country needs to know the effect on individual citizens resident here and resident elsewhere in the EU.

Above all, the country needs a definition of out. It needs to know what out means. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked, what relationship with our shortly to be former partners would the Government envisage if required to take us out, and on what evidence do they believe that the 27 would agree? The economic consequences of repeating the Messina mistake would clearly be much bigger now, with the Union so much wider and stronger. To what extent, and in what negotiable ways, do the Government intend that they would be mitigated? The country needs to know, so getting the Bill right really matters.

I end with a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, not so much for what he said today—although there was a point in it with which I agreed—and not for the messages of despair about continental Europe and the need for us to escape from it that he has been sending us in recent weeks from his hideout in the maquis of continental Europe, but for the perception and generosity of his wise weekend words about Geoffrey Howe. I add a tribute in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for his contribution to that extremely moving BBC television programme on Denis Healey last week. Healey and Howe were two sparring partners and great statesmen—two very brave men and great Chancellors. I worked for them both, as I worked for their successor, and I know the importance that both would have attached to this referendum. Both campaigned in 1975 with Mrs Thatcher for us to stay in. Both were proud patriots with a sense of history and the knack of bending its arc our way, particularly in Europe—Healey with his link to Schmidt and Howe with his link to Delors. They would not have wished to see us repeat the Messina mistake. I really hope that we will not.