European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Willoughby de Broke

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 4th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My noble friend, as always, has taken the best parts of my speech. However, he is right.

We are in the gravest political and constitutional crisis that this country has seen since the Second World War. I am troubled by the tone of the debate this afternoon. There seems to be—certainly on one side of the argument—little realisation of how serious the crisis is. This might be a flawed Bill, brought here by an extraordinary process, but nevertheless it is part of the solution to the crisis in which we find ourselves, and that is why it should be supported.

The idea that Britain could leave the European Union credibly with no deal has always been a fantasy. The popular view was that coming out of Europe would be like bargaining about buying a house or a second-hand car and that unless you are prepared to walk away you will never get anything. This is a complete fallacy about the nature of our relationship with the European Union.

We have been in the European Union for 45 years and in that period the depth of integration across whole fields of our national life has been huge. It started mainly as a customs union, developed into a single market and in recent times there have been important developments in the security field which are vital to the safety of people on the streets in this country. The idea that we could simply walk away from all of this without any consequences or massive disruption is a complete nonsense.

I say with a heavy heart that I blame the Prime Minister for the fact that this argument has gained strength. I greatly admire—perhaps it is a false view—her sense of dogged public duty, but she made a terrible mistake in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017 when she allowed her chief-of-staff, Nick Timothy, to insert into that speech the populist line that,

“no deal … is better than a bad deal”.

That has been the driving force for the argument that has grown about no deal being a credible alternative for coming out of the European Union.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

Does the noble Lord therefore support a bad deal? Is that what he is saying?

[Lord Liddle]

I am certainly not saying that. I am saying that you have to recognise the realities of the 45 years of the relationship. It is almost certainly impossible to walk away from that relationship—which is what no deal involves—without massive disruption in all kinds of spheres.

We have heard a lot tonight of evidence from the association of entrepreneurs—or something—that no deal will not do us any harm, but every respectable business organisation takes the view that no deal would be very damaging. We have heard a lot about the views of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury. We have heard very little about the views of Mark Carney, the current Governor of the Bank of England, who was devastating in the Financial Times today in what he said about his predecessor and the rank foolishness of what he was proposing.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Willoughby de Broke

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I will make two quick points in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was rhetorically brilliant, as his contributions in this House so often are. However, his brilliance displayed a weakness on the part of those who want to leave the EU: they are frightened of the argument about what the alternatives to membership really are. That is why he is so reluctant to support the amendment.

There are two points which have not been made in this debate about the wrong assumption, made by many people who favour leaving the EU, that the UK would be able to retain most of the advantages of EU membership without actually being a member of it. That is what one hears from UKIP and the leave campaign. I question this on two grounds. The first ground is the politics of us voting to leave. In the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, which I want to succeed, many member states will make concessions to Britain that they do not actually want but make because they want to keep Britain in the EU. The politics of this is that there will be a great deal of bitterness if they have gone a mile to help the UK and we then vote to leave.

What is more, there is a significant—20% to 30%—anti-European element in the politics of many EU countries today. The last thing in the world that the leaders of other EU countries are going to want to see is Britain able to negotiate a good deal from being out, because that will just strengthen the voices of the right and left populists in their own countries who are arguing to get out of the EU. So the politics will be extremely difficult for us if we vote to leave.

My second point is about free trade. I agree with all the arguments that our bargaining position is not as strong as is often claimed. However, a lot of this debate ignores the modern facts of free trade. It is not about tariffs and access, as it used to be. It is about sharing the same rules as the people with whom you are trading. That is why most banks in the City of London want to remain in the EU: if they do not share the rulebook with people on the continent, they will not be able to trade in euro business. I do not know how big an element of their business that is, but it is certainly substantial. A friend of mine in Brussels told me what happened in the recent fracas about Volkswagen. The initial proposals to deal with the problem of diesel engines, which the French and Germans had cooked up together, would actually have meant that half of Ford engines could not have been exported to the continent because the British methods of production would not have been compliant. It was only because we were in the room and making the arguments that we could do a deal with our partners to make sure that the rules would not disadvantage British-based manufacturing.

So it is about rules and, if we want to trade with the EU, either we have got to stick with their rules and all the talk about repealing regulations is complete nonsense, or we abandon the rules and we do not get the trade. That fundamental point is why the British public need to have it objectively explained what the consequences of leaving the EU would be, and what the nature of our future relationship with the EU would be.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I pick up the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for saying that to export to the EU we would have to meet the rules it imposed. Of course we would. It is the same position as America, India, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil or any other country that is not in the EU—or, for that matter, Switzerland, which manages to export more per head to the EU than we do and it is not in the EU. It is not a convincing argument at all. We already meet the rules now with our motor car exports. Why should that change? If change is required we will, of course, have to change—and so will other manufacturers who are outside the EU.

[Lord Liddle]

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, defines British sovereignty as simply having to accept whatever changes in the rules the EU makes without our participation.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Willoughby de Broke

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I do not see the point of that intervention at all. I was going to say that, because there is no reciprocity, there is no reason for us to give European citizens the vote in what is a purely national matter, in spite of what the noble Baroness said. She said herself that we do not know what is going to happen with European citizens if and when we vote to leave. People live here because they like living here, not because we are a member of the EU, so that will not change at all.

[Lord Liddle]

One reason why so many EU citizens who have not become British nationals as a result of marrying British people live here is that we are a member of the EU and they feel that they are treated on the same basis as British citizens. You are dividing people who see themselves as British residents and have committed their lives to this country, and you are wrong.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

I am so sorry if I am wrong.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lord Liddle and Lord Willoughby de Broke

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

Unlike the majority of amendments that we have discussed at some length so far, this amendment is intended to be helpful to the Government, and I hope that they will take it in that spirit. It is in my name as well as that of my noble friend Lord Pearson and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and it is simplicity itself. It would ensure that a future Government, who may be even more Euro-enthusiastic than this one, will not be able to reverse the effect of referendums held under Clause 6 by immediately calling another referendum to try to get a different result.

Noble Lords may say that this is completely unnecessary and that a referendum is a referendum and the result must stand, but we must bear in mind the unsavoury precedents set by the EU when referendums that give the so-called wrong answer are deemed inoperative by the Euro-elite. In 1993, Denmark voted against the Maastricht treaty, for example. It was tossed a few concessions and told to vote again and do better this time. In 2001, Ireland voted against the Nice treaty; similarly, there were more concessions and another referendum. In May 2005, France voted by a large majority against the constitutional treaty, followed three days later by an equally emphatic rejection by the Dutch electorate of that constitutional treaty. So what happened then? Let us bring on the Euro-clowns. First up is President of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, who said after the two referendums:

“I really believe the French and Dutch did not vote no to the Constitutional Treaty. Unfortunately the electorate did not realise that the Constitutional Treaty was specifically aimed at meeting their concerns and that’s why we need to have a period of explanation”—

or perhaps now a period of reprofiling.

Next in the ring is Monsieur Giscard d'Estaing, the ex-President of France, one of the hapless fathers of the constitutional treaty, who said:

“It is not France that has said no. It is 55 per cent of the French people”.

Work that one out. He went on to say:

“The rejection of the Constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected ... It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it”.

In other words, do not use the referendum process and do not ask people what they think—just tell them what is good for them.

Clown number three was the Italian Foreign Minister at the time, Giuliano Amato, whose considered opinion was that the no votes were,

“a request for more Europe not less”.

In the words of one of the most respected correspondents, or columnists, “You couldn’t make it up, could you?”.

[Lord Liddle]

For the sake of accuracy about what happened, is the noble Lord not aware of the fact that in France a major part of the no vote on the constitutional treaty was because of the argument that that treaty was not sufficiently social? People like Laurent Fabius made it part of their campaign that, “It’s not that we’re against Europe, it’s that this isn’t for a sufficiently social Europe”. In that sense, the argument was right; this was a vote not against Europe but against a particular view of Europe.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

My Lords, I am very familiar with that argument, which was wheeled out after the constitutional referendum by numerous pro-Europe commentators—they said that it was about the colour of Monsieur Chirac’s socks or something; it was not about the constitution at all—but I know, because I was in France at the time of the referendum, that people were very engaged in the debate. So whatever the noble Lord on the Front Bench may say, there was a rejection by the French people by a 55 per cent majority of the constitutional treaty. I do not think that his arguments hold water.