All 3 Debates between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Green of Deddington

Mon 30th Apr 2018
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Lords Chamber

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wed 1st Mar 2017
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Green of Deddington
Lord Green of Deddington Portrait Lord Green of Deddington
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, would we still be members of the European Union for the period of the extension and therefore have all the rights of a member?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Green of Deddington

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Green of Deddington
Monday 23rd November 2015

(8 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Green of Deddington Portrait Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
- Hansard - -

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.

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
- Hansard - -

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 Portrait Lord Green of Deddington
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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