European Union: Trading Arrangements

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

No, our commitment is that we will not be entering into a process of dynamic alignment; we think that decisions on future laws governing this country should be made in this Parliament, and we will not be subcontracting that job to the European Union.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I understand the Government’s position on dynamic alignment, but have they made an assessment of the cost to exporters of the additional controls and checks that will be required once we are no longer committed to such dynamic alignment?

[Lord Callanan]

We have not concluded the future relationship yet, so we do not know what impediments or otherwise there will be to free trade. Our aim and ambition is to make sure that there are as few impediments as possible. We want unfettered access to EU markets, as indeed the EU will want access to our markets—that is the whole point of having the discussions. We will be seeking to secure an agreement without any tariffs or quotas and with as ambitious a relationship as possible, and I hope we will have the support of the Liberal Democrats in doing that.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

Removing this Clause would prevent the prohibition on extending the implementation period.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 33 amends the withdrawal Bill to debar any Minister from agreeing to an extension of the implementation period beyond 31 December this year. Such a possible extension is provided for in article 132 of the withdrawal agreement, which says that

“the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the”

implementation,

“period for up to 1 or 2 years.”

My co-signatories and I object to this clause standing part because we believe that ruling out an extension of the implementation period in all circumstances is impractical and against the national interest. We do not believe that it will be possible to negotiate a comprehensive agreement covering trade, security and the other issues covered by the political declaration by the end of the year and, this being so, the logical and sensible thing to do is to allow for the possibility of an extension.

Why do we believe that such an extension will be necessary? I will concentrate on trade, although reaching agreement on other matters such as security will be equally contentious and time-consuming. What is the evidence that it will be impossible to conclude an agreement on time? Let us first be clear about what we mean by “on time”. The EU will decide on its negotiating mandate next month, so no talks will be possible at all until towards the end of February. The withdrawal agreement makes it clear in article 184 not only that the negotiations have to be concluded by the end of December but that ratification has to take place before the end of the year, so that the negotiated agreement can come into force, as far as practically possible, by 1 January next year.

Any comprehensive agreement will be a so-called mixed agreement, which will require it to be ratified not only by the EU Council and the European Parliament but by all national Parliaments and a number of regional assemblies. In the case of the Canadian trade agreement, the one we are told is closest to what the Government now have in mind, ratification itself took over five years. But to be very generous, let us assume that it might be possible within two months. This would mean that the agreement must be concluded by mid-October, giving a maximum of eight months for the negotiations.

It is well known that all trade negotiations, so far in human history, normally take years to complete. The Canadian agreement took more than five years, for example. The Government rightly claim that these negotiations will be different because we are already in full trade and regulatory alignment with the EU, so it will be easier than starting from scratch. While this may be true, it is absolutely clear that the negotiations will not be straightforward.

The head of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said last week in London that it would be impossible to reach a comprehensive deal within the timetable. Even the Prime Minister yesterday said that, while he thought reaching a deal would be “epically likely”, he did not rule out the possibility of a failure to do so because of, as he put it, a possible

“complete failure of common sense.”

I looked up “epically” because, when I first read it, I thought it was a spelling mistake—it is a word that I have neither seen nor used before. It does not mean what the Prime Minister thinks it means. It means

“in a lengthy, grand or important way”.

He is in fact more correct than he probably realises, because this will definitely be done “in a lengthy way”.

What evidence is there to support the Commission’s view and to doubt the Prime Minister’s breezy optimism? It is worth looking at the Canadian deal to get some clues. First, despite the fact that that deal took many years of negotiation, it does not even give full tariff and quota-free access, something that the Government say is absolutely the first building block of what they are looking for. In the case of Canada, there remain quotas on poultry, eggs and meat and tariffs on beef, pork and wheat. This difficulty over agriculture is before we get to the even more difficult issue of fishing rights. The idea that we can easily reach agreement is simply false.

Secondly, on services, according to the Government’s own estimate produced in the document that we were allowed to read only by submitting our phones and going into a windowless room in January 2018, the Canada deal includes over 550 individual restrictions on the trade in services. Yet the Prime Minister says he wants the deal to cover all services. It might be possible in some areas, but the idea that there is a possibility of agreeing 550 concessions that were impossible to reach with Canada within the period that he is discussing is wholly implausible.

More generally, the Government want to minimise the cost of trading with the EU. This assumes a particular importance, because it applies not only to trade between the UK and the EU but also, now, to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We had a fascinating debate last night on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in which he sought assurance that there would be no restrictions on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK— restrictions, incidentally, that are envisaged, and indeed set out, in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, made a valiant attempt to argue, in line with the Conservative election manifesto, that there will be unfettered trade, but could not give a definition of “unfettered” consistent with the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, which clearly provides for customs and other checks. Incidentally, “unfettered” is now the word when it comes to trade. For how many years, and how many hundreds of times, have we heard the Minister talk about “frictionless” trade? How much of a tactical retreat “unfettered” is from “frictionless” is an interesting semantic issue. There is something in it, but the fact that the Government are not even pretending that they are trying to seek frictionless trade says something.

The noble Lord, Lord Duncan, who was masterful—as was his Sir Humphrey-inspired brief—had to admit that achieving even unfettered trade across the Irish Sea would not be straightforward. This means that it will take time. If noble Lords wonder whether the kind of checks that may well be necessary in future between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and between Great Britain and the EU matter, I would direct them to the impact assessment produced by the Government on 21 October last year to coincide with the publication of the withdrawal agreement Bill. On customs declarations alone, HMRC produced estimates of administrative costs—nothing to do with tariffs—of between £15 and £56 per declaration for goods going from the UK to the rest of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, just before the noble Lord sits down, I quickly ask him something on a point of information. He spoke for 10 minutes and did not mention two words: “Salisbury convention”. I am sure he knows that, on page 5 of the Conservative Party manifesto, there is a clear commitment not to extend the implementation period. Does he agree that this amendment is in contradiction to the Salisbury convention?

[Lord Newby]

No, because it does not require the period to be extended at all. If the Prime Minister is correct and we pass this amendment, there is absolutely no let or hindrance to the Tory party manifesto being adhered to. Deleting this clause will, I fear, make the Prime Minister’s life easier. He should welcome it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and indeed with the remarks I suspect will be made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I will not go into the detail of the matter because it has been very eloquently argued by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I will confine myself to three general points.

The first is that the position that the Government are now taking in the Bill is wholly inconsistent with the position that we took before the general election. We are entitled to know why, as a matter of substance rather than political guile, the Government are moving from a position previously expressed to that now expressed in the Bill.

Secondly, following a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I say that this prohibition is bogus because we all know full well that a Government with a majority of 80 in the House of Commons can, if they so choose, reverse a provision in a Bill—as they did, for example, on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. If that is true, then anybody who says that this will help the Government in their negotiations with the European Union is talking nonsense, because the European Union interlocutors will know as well as we do that this provision can simply be set aside.

I come to my final point. I have been involved in negotiations, both as a politician and as a lawyer, for 40 years, and I believe in the importance of flexibility. In the last debate, a number of noble Lords talked about the importance of giving the Government flexibility and not tying hands. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was one; the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was another; and a third was my noble friend Lord Callanan, who made the point that events can overturn outcomes and things can happen which are surprising and destroy timelines. That is going to happen if we impose an arbitrary timetable. What could well happen—indeed, what is likely to happen—is that the Government come back with either weasel words and an amendment of the statutory time; or we get a partial and incomplete agreement, or an unsatisfactory agreement, or no agreement at all. If we had more time, the situation could be perfected.

This is a profoundly unwise provision in the Bill and we would do well without it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

No. As I have just said, we very much hope that both sides will be able to reach an agreement. Both sides have committed to do so. I quoted the section in the political declaration whereby we and the EU have committed to getting the negotiations finalised and coming into force by the end of 2020.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Minister has in a sense just given the game away. They “hope” to reach an agreement. The Commission has said that it is impossible. The Prime Minister said yesterday that it was not inevitable. The key question which this amendment seeks to address is what happens if you cannot get to that point. When asked whether this could mean we leave without a deal, the Minister said no. So what happens if there is no deal? Is he accepting a bare-bones deal? I do not remember seeing that in the Conservative Party manifesto.

The Minister has done nothing to reassure me that there is anything in the Government’s approach that makes reaching a deal in this timetable even vaguely possible. In those circumstances, as I said in my speech, I do not believe that it is in the interests of anyone—neither economically nor in terms of the national interest, given the security and other issues covered by the political declaration—for the Government’s hands to be tied by law in this way. Therefore, I am wholly unpersuaded by the Minister. For today we will not put this issue to a vote, but we will return to it.

Clause 33 agreed.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Monday 13th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

As your Lordships’ House knows, I and my colleagues on these Benches have spent the last three and a half years arguing that Brexit was not in the best interests of the British people and that they should have the opportunity to have a further say, in the light of the evidence available, on whether they really wished to leave the EU. We reluctantly came to the conclusion last October that, the withdrawal agreement Bill having secured its Second Reading, and in the absence of a majority in the Commons for a confirmatory referendum, a general election was the last and only way in which Brexit by Christmas could be avoided. We knew that this was a second-best way forward—from our perspective, a referendum would have been far preferable—and we knew that it was a risk. We took the risk, but we did not succeed.

I realise that there are many people who fervently believe that we should remain in the EU who would now try to undermine the legitimacy of the current Bill by saying either that the original referendum result itself was flawed or that, given that all the polling shows that the majority of the British people would still like to remain in the EU, there is not a proper democratic mandate for Brexit. I am afraid I disagree. Everybody who voted last month knew that the election was, in reality, a proxy referendum on Brexit. There were of course other factors, notably the quality of the leadership of the Labour Party, but having fought the election on the slogan “Get Brexit done” and having won that election, the Prime Minister has the mandate and the votes in the Commons to take Britain out of the EU.

This does not change my belief that there is no such thing as a good or sensible Brexit. We on these Benches continue to believe that it will damage our economy, our security and our international reputation, but we are now faced with this Bill, which will indeed take us out of the EU. It does not, of course, get Brexit done, but it starts the process—a process which the Prime Minister will oversee with a solid Commons majority behind him. It is his Brexit. He owns it, and he will be judged by its successes and failures. The fact that the Government have a large majority and have indicated that they have no intention of accepting any changes whatever to the Bill is no excuse for your Lordships’ House to fail to scrutinise and challenge its detailed provisions, nor to vote to secure changes which we believe are in the interests of individuals or the country as a whole. This is what we will seek to do.

This is, of course, the second withdrawal agreement Bill presented to Parliament. The first version got its Second Reading in October but was superseded by the election. At that point, the Government lacked a secure majority and were prepared to make sensible concessions to get that Bill through. Now, free from such a constraint, they have removed all these concessions, however sensible or uncontentious they were. They have in their place inserted some new and contentious provisions. Amendments to reverse some of these changes are the principal area in which we will seek to improve the Bill. We will also seek to consider elements of the Government’s negotiating mandate which we believe the Bill should cover.

The removed concessions are, first, the so-called Dubs amendment on allowing unaccompanied refugee children to join family members in the UK. The Bill simply requires the Government to report on their policy in this area and undermines the substance of their earlier commitment. The Government may say, as the Minister has this afternoon, that this will make no practical difference. But if that is so, there is no reason for changing the original provision and we will support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in trying to reinsert it.

Secondly, the original Bill had sensible and detailed provisions for parliamentary oversight of the negotiating process. These have been deleted. They provided for Parliament to consider and approve the Government’s negotiating objectives, to report back to Parliament on the progress made in the negotiations and to require Parliament to approve any negotiated future relationship treaty. The only possible reason for the Government to delete these provisions is that they wish to avoid being held to account by Parliament, and to conduct and conclude negotiations with the EU with as little parliamentary scrutiny as they deem fit. We know that in practice this means as little scrutiny as they can possibly get away with. The original provisions should be reinserted.

Thirdly, the original WAB had provisions to protect workers’ rights. This Bill does not, and they should also be inserted.

Of the new provisions in the Bill compared to its predecessor, the most politically significant is Clause 33, which prohibits any extension of the implementation period beyond the end of 2020. This provision means either that the Government are relaxed about the possibility of having no trade agreement in place and operating on WTO terms from next January, or that the provision is a negotiating ploy which will be ditched if and when it proves impossible to reach a quick agreement. Your Lordships’ House has expressed its view on the undesirability of leaving with no deal on numerous occasions. The Prime Minister’s breezy self-confidence will not make such a course any less damaging. Putting a clause in a Bill as a negotiating ploy is simply not what legislation is for. The clause should be deleted.

A second series of new provisions relates to the ongoing rights of EU citizens in the UK. The Government have put in place a system under which all EU citizens currently resident in the UK can apply for and receive new permanent residence status. This is welcome and uncontroversial. Concerns remain, however, about how the system will be managed; for example, on how to avoid EU citizens being deprived of their current rights by default if they do not register in time and on the provisions for appeals. There remain great concerns among EU citizens in the UK on these and other points, and we should take this opportunity to ease them.

Thirdly, in respect of the powers given to Ministers, there are several respects in which the spectre of Henry VIII hovers over this Bill. For example, in Clause 27, it is proposed that Ministers should be able to amend retained EU legislation by secondary legislation under a worryingly broader definition of what constitutes a deficiency in the legislation in the first place. There are also the new proposed powers in Clause 26, which allow Ministers to direct an unspecified range of courts and tribunals on which aspects of EU retained case law they must follow. This is a most extraordinary and unsatisfactory power, and we will support the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson, and indeed my noble friend Lord Beith, to delete it.

Moving on from the changes to the previous withdrawal agreement Bill, there are issues relating to the Government’s negotiating mandate which need to be considered and inserted in this Bill. When we debated the withdrawal Bill in 2018, we sought to include provisions which related to the Government’s negotiating mandate—issues which were covered by the political declaration but which we thought so fundamental that they should be included in that legislation. We will want to discuss some of these issues again and try to include them in this legislation. They include participation in EU programmes including Erasmus and Horizon and the European medicines regulatory framework. They include maintenance of environmental and animal welfare standards. They include the nature of a security partnership. This Bill should cover them all.

We at least have somewhat longer to scrutinise the Bill than was the case in another place. We need to make sure that we use this time wisely to limit the damage which Brexit could do to our economy, our constitution and our values as a liberal democracy.

Brexit

Lord Newby Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House is sitting on a Saturday for the first time since 1983 and for only the fourth time in 80 years. These occasions have typically been to debate a serious foreign threat to the vital interests of the United Kingdom: the outbreak of the Second World War, Suez, the Falklands. Today, we sit on a Saturday to try to resolve a serous internal threat to the unity and future of the Conservative Party. There is no reason, other than the Prime Minister’s macho commitment to leave the EU by 31 October, for the Government’s decision to recall Parliament today.

Such a timetable is a complete abuse of the parliamentary process. It does not allow the appropriate impact assessment to be made, for the relevant Select Committees to consider the proposals, or for the Commons and your Lordships’ House to give proper consideration to the withdrawal Bill. It barely gives us time to read and compare the documents. The withdrawal agreement itself—some 535 pages—was available for the first time for noble Lords to pick up from the Printed Paper Office just this morning.

We certainly have not had time to identify and work out what some of the changes mean. For example, the sections in the political declaration on dispute settlement and the forward process have been substantially rewritten. Why? Parliament is being asked to approve these changes with no effective ability to question Ministers on them. It is a disgrace.

It is, of course perfectly understandable for the Government to want such a timetable, because if they were to give Parliament time to look at the deal properly, a number of its highly undesirable consequences would become clearer. There would, for example, be time to have an economic assessment. Latest figures from UK in a Changing Europe suggest that the hit to GDP of this deal would be about 6.4%. This is broadly in line with the Government’s own analysis of last November, which suggested that, with the kind of restrictive immigration system the Government have in mind, such a deal could have an even bigger effect. For the north-east, north-west and the West Midlands, the fall in GDP would be considerably higher again.

There would be greater time to expose the fact that, as a consequence of the new deal, EU components of goods manufactured in the UK will no longer be treated as of domestic origin. Given the low proportion of UK content in cars, for example, this would have the effect of making it impossible to export any car manufactured in the UK to a third country duty free, even under a free trade agreement. This raises the spectre of the end of bulk car manufacturing in the United Kingdom.

More time would enable us to examine the threat to the level playing field on environmental standards and employment rights, which were guaranteed in Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement but are now relegated to the eminently amendable political declaration, with no presumption there that we should follow future improvements in standards under EU rules. More time would give us the opportunity to question whether, as the Conservative John Baron has claimed, the Government see this deal as leading to the equivalent of a no-deal Brexit at the end of the transition period next year.

More time would enable us to examine the economic impact on Northern Ireland. Under this deal, businesses in Northern Ireland will have to pay up front to “import” from Great Britain. They will be able to claim that money back only once the goods have been sold and once businesses can prove that the goods remained in Northern Ireland. Small and medium-sized businesses provide 75% of employment in Northern Ireland. For those with tight cash flows, this deal will have a crippling effect.

More time would enable us to expose the threat to the union that these proposals pose, for, unlike the May deal, under this deal we are moving to a position where there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic but there is most certainly a border for goods and services between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Under these proposals, the economic union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is effectively no more. Politics follows economics. It is impossible to see how the proposed arrangements will not provide further impetus for a border poll on the island of Ireland, and one that might prove successful.

The impact on the union with Scotland is also clear. Northern Ireland will have freer access to EU markets than Scotland. Scotland will want the same, understandably, and the only way it will get it is by independence. This deal is a further recruiting sergeant for the SNP. For the Conservative and Unionist Party to hail this deal as good for all parts of the United Kingdom, when it will lead to its disintegration, is frankly shameful, but typical of the lengths that the current Prime Minister will go to try to preserve the unity of the English Conservative Party.

Of course, Conservative MPs dismissed the Northern Ireland proposals put forward by the EU at the start of the negotiations, yet now they line up on a deal that is essentially the same thing to support it. Just over a year ago, the Prime Minister said that EU proposals to have a customs border in the Irish Sea were,

“little short of an attempt to annex Northern Ireland”.

In your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said:

“We will not permit a customs border down the Irish Sea, which would put at risk the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK”.—[Official Report, 4/9/18; col. 1754.]


Those were wise words. Yet the very thing which was anathema in January is now a triumphant achievement, the gateway to a British utopia. I am sure that in winding up this debate, he will explain why his views and those of the Prime Minister have changed. I am sure that all noble Lords are struggling to understand.

At this moment, it is unclear whether the Prime Minister has the numbers to get the deal through the Commons. This is despite the capitulation of the “Spartans”. Where, in their hour of crisis, is their Leonidas? Under pressure to save the Tory party, the leader of today’s Spartans has shown the backbone of the eponymous Belgian chocolate, rather than the courage of the hero of the pass at Thermopylae.

There has been one amendment tabled in the Commons which would delay today’s meaningful vote on the deal, but even if it passes, a number of things are clear. First, a letter will need to be sent under the terms of the Benn Act, seeking an extension. Secondly, if the Government lose the meaningful vote on the deal—either today or at a later date—then the only way to get a resolution to the impasse is to consult the people. As we discussed earlier in the week, this could take the form of either a general election or a referendum, and for reasons which I set out on Monday, a general election is by far the inferior method of making what is—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, this party is absolutely sure that an early general election would deliver it many more seats. The same cannot be said for the Conservatives or Labour, yet we do not believe it is in the national interest to have one. There will be an election in the next year, and we are really looking forward to it.

Even if the deal passes by the narrowest of margins, it should still be put to the people, because it is so far from anything that anybody voted for in the referendum. Opponents of the referendum have, until now, seized on the fact that there was some ambiguity about what the questions might be. Clearly, to remain in the EU was always going to be one option, but it was unclear what the alternative would be. We now know. The alternative would be the Prime Minister’s deal, because even those in the Commons who have said in the past that no deal was an option—including the Prime Minister himself—now say that the deal is far superior to this. There is now near unanimity among Brexiteers that this is their desired outcome.

The deal before us today is significantly worse for the economy and the integrity of the UK than that negotiated by Mrs May. It deserves to be rejected. I had hoped that we in your Lordships’ House would have the opportunity to express that view today. That was not to be. However, we will have to play a part in dealing with the consequences of today’s vote, as any route now taken will involve legislation. At that point, I hope that we exert our powers to the full and help mitigate the costs to the country of this shameful, shameless Government.

Brexit: Appointment of Joint Committee

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling the Motion. When the idea of a Joint Committee was first suggested, I was very sceptical about it, for two reasons. First, I thought: surely it is obvious that the costs of leaving without a deal are so horrendous that there is no need to spell them out again. But that was before it became crystal clear that both candidates for leadership of the Tory party were prepared to contemplate no deal as a serious option and seemed either ignorant of or unconcerned about its consequences. So there is definitely a need for the exercise to be done.

Secondly, I thought that, even if we were to propose such a committee, the Commons would not pick up our suggestion and therefore that it would be a waste of time. But I was mistaken. There is clearly an appetite in the Commons for this exercise to be undertaken, and we should therefore set the ball in motion today.

Before looking at the effects of no deal on any specific area of the economy or public policy, we need to be clear about what it means overall for our position at the country. This was recently spelled out by Sir Ivan Rogers, the former head of UKREP. No deal, he said,

“is not a destination. It is simply a volatile and uncertain … state of purgatory, in which you have forfeited all the leverage to the other side because you start with a blank slate of no preferential arrangements, and live, in the interim—probably for years—on a basis that they legislate in their own interests”.

Leaving without a deal means that there will be no transitional arrangements and on 1 November, 17 weeks from now, we will be on our own.

Some Brexiteers have argued that nothing will change and, in particular, that goods will continue to flow freely and that no one will notice the difference. It is therefore worth reading the Commission’s take-stock report to last week’s Council meeting on preparations made in the EU against no deal. I will quote from just one item, which states:

“In the field of sanitary and phytosanitary controls, Member States have set up new Border Inspection Posts … or extended existing ones at entry points of imports from the United Kingdom into the EU”.


I may have missed something, but I assume that the only logical point of having new inspection posts is to conduct new inspections, which means delays—and these delays would not disappear any time soon.

Noble Lords may have heard an interview with the head of Fujitsu on the “Today” programme last Thursday. He explained that his company was a member of the UK Government task force looking at technological ways to avoid controls at borders. Asked how the work was going, he said that there were “many difficulties”. Asked how long before there would be any implementation solutions, he could not even begin to hazard a guess.

So, when noble Lords opposite say, as they repeatedly do, that the new border controls that will be in place for 1 November are unnecessary, they are, to put it at its politest, peddling a myth. To suggest, as they sometimes do, that we can simply dispense with customs controls altogether and let smuggling rip is not only being criminally irresponsible but ignoring the fact that even if we were to do so, the EU will not follow suit.

Fujitsu is one of 1,000 Japanese companies that operate in the United Kingdom. Last week, Tarō Kōno, Japan’s Foreign Minister, explained that no deal would,

“have a very negative impact on their operation”—

by which he means cuts in investment and employment. A Joint Select Committee would be able to confirm that that is what we would face. It would also confirm the overall impact of no deal on the economy and the public finances. According to the Government’s own estimates, published in their 26 February document Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit, a transition to WTO rules would lead to an economy that would be between 6% and 9% smaller over a 15-year period, but the decrease would be 8% in Scotland and Wales, 9% in Northern Ireland and 10% in the north-east. The Chancellor said yesterday that the cost to the Exchequer would be some £90 billion in hard cash per year.

Of course, these costs are only part of the story. Freedom of movement would end on 1 November, and British citizens planning to work in the EU would find that they had no right to do so. Equally, we would find many sources of vital workers blocked under the Government’s planned immigration policy. The Government are very fond of saying that they still want the brightest and best to be able to work here. But as far as they are concerned, this does not apply to the brightest and best care assistants, agricultural workers, baristas or lab technicians, all of whom we need from the EU on a continuing basis and all of whom would be barred under the Government’s immigration plans.

No deal would also immediately end a whole raft of mutually beneficial mechanisms for security co-operation, including data sharing, police co-operation and extradition. As a nation and as individuals, we would simply be less secure.

A no-deal Brexit would also preclude any involvement in all the mechanisms that project a shared European voice in international affairs, whether on climate change, the promotion of human rights or security and terrorism threats. These are the biggest issues facing the globe. As last week’s G20 meeting showed, Europe’s is the only powerful voice advocating policies in these areas that we and the Government strongly support, because they reflect our values as a liberal democracy. Any sort of Brexit, but particularly one without a deal, would diminish our influence in resolving them. It would also threaten the union, with inevitable renewed calls for Scottish independence and more credible calls for a border poll in Northern Ireland.

These are some of the costs of a no-deal Brexit, but what about the benefits? Everybody accepts that there would be net costs in the short term, and Jeremy Hunt for one is completely relaxed at the prospect of looking people in the eye and telling them that no deal means the loss of their job or their business. But beyond this immediate pain, for some the sunny uplands beckon. However, this nirvana is ill defined, devoid of specifics and wholly unsupported by any credible analysis. The economic costs through lost growth greatly outweigh our net contributions to the EU budget, and there is no evidence that trade deals with the rapidly growing markets outside the EU would be better than those the EU as a whole can negotiate—quite the opposite. I challenge anybody to offer even a shred of evidence that leaving without a deal would do anything but make us less safe and less secure.

What is now a Tory virility symbol was not remotely being offered in 2016 and has but minority support in the country now. In 2016 the Vote Leave campaign ruled out a no-deal Brexit and spoke repeatedly of negotiating a deal before even starting the legal process to leave. Today, in the latest YouGov poll, only 28% of the population—less than the Brexit Party vote in the European Parliament elections—supports leaving with no deal. Among 18 to 24 year-olds this figure falls to just 8%. So a policy option being clutched by Johnson and Hunt as their crucifix against the vampire of the Brexit Party is not even going to protect the Tory party from the electoral and existential threats it now faces.

Nevertheless, Boris Johnson said last week that we would be leaving the EU on 31 October, “do or die”. Jeremy Hunt on Sunday, not to be outdone, said that there was not much difference between him and Boris on the issue. There is of course, in reality, zero chance of reaching a new agreement with the EU before the end of October, and therefore leaving without one remains a growing possibility.

As this would be an act of monumental irresponsibility and stupidity, Parliament should at least prepare for such a decision with its eyes open. The Joint Committee that this Motion envisages would ensure that we did not stumble blindfold into a no-deal Brexit. It therefore has our strong support.

Brexit: Cross-party Discussions

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

I think the noble Lord is getting ahead of himself. The withdrawal agreement has been negotiated by the Government. We stand by that. The EU has made it clear that it is the only and best agreement available, and that will be reflected in the legislation that we bring forward, which I hope Parliament will consider in all seriousness.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, everybody knows that the withdrawal agreement Bill stands no chance of passing its Second Reading in the House of Commons so, first, why are the Government bringing it forward anyway and, secondly, when they have lost that vote, what do they plan to do then?

[Lord Callanan]

The noble Lord is asking me hypothetical questions. I remain confident that Parliament will want to reflect the result of the referendum, that it will see the messages that are being transmitted by the electorate and that it will want to make sure that the referendum result is honoured and that we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly manner.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

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

[Lord Rooker]

Yes, I absolutely agree, and I applaud the role that the new president has taken.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord’s peroration. He may be aware that, contrary to what a number of noble Lords said, many people who, like myself, live hundreds of miles outside London, are very aware that the majority of farmers, particularly upland farmers in the Yorkshire Dales, voted leave—frankly, they do not like people from Leeds, far less people in Brussels; the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, appreciates the strength of that view. They voted leave, not carelessly, but not thinking that it would have any personal consequences for them. Now, they very much realise that leaving without a deal could mean the end of their careers. Therefore, when the extremely impressive group North Yorkshire for Europe held a stall at the Leyburn cattle market a couple of months ago, expecting to be nearly lynched by all these farmers who voted leave, much to their surprise they were if not physically embraced, mentally embraced, by people who said, “My goodness! We now realise that our livelihood is seriously at risk”.

Is this not just one example of the many we have heard from noble Lords today of the potential economic consequences—not minor but visceral—of crashing out without a deal for the livelihoods and lives of people we respect for the contribution they make not just to the economy but to the environment, and who, as we speak, are going to bed worried about what is happening to our country?

[Lord Rooker]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. My very last point—it is my very last point, because it follows from what I said earlier—is about the warning from police chiefs this morning about the language being used. We have heard it here today: “betrayal” and “stealing”. The police have warned us not to use that kind of language because, in this sensitive area, it is almost inciting people to violence. Those words have been used, as have some others this afternoon, but I did not list them all. We either listen to what the police say or we do not. It is absolutely preposterous that language like that is used in Parliament, given the official advice this morning.

With that off my chest, and given the announcement that we are not having a recess next week—I am damn clear that I am keeping to my short family holiday, and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen will be here on Monday to carry the burden of Committee—I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Brexit

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is now the 13th opportunity that we have had to debate the Government’s withdrawal agreement. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House hope, like me, that it will be the last.

Since we had our previous debate on the subject, some things at least have changed. The first is that the EU has agreed to an extension of Article 50, which will be widely supported across the House. The way in which this happened, though, is a telling foretaste of how life would be were we to leave the EU. The Prime Minister was allowed into the Council to petition other member states and was subject to lengthy and sceptical questioning. Then, like a prisoner in the dock, she was led from the room to a windowless cell, where she was kept until the verdict on her proposals had been reached. A modest meal was brought in. After a number of hours, the verdict was read out to her and she was allowed to leave. This is the reality of “taking back control”; this is what it would be like, week in, week out, were we ever to leave the EU.

Before leaving for Brussels, the Prime Minister had made her petulant and ill-judged address to the nation. Many in the Commons were angered by her attack on them. What really rankled with me was the statement:

“I am on your side”—


by which she meant the side of the people. But this weekend has demonstrated that she is not on the side of the people.

Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will no doubt argue that a million people from across the UK on the streets of London, and 5.5 million people signing a petition, are only a fraction of the people. They are technically right. But how many people could the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, summon on to streets in support of the Government’s deal? How many people could the extreme Brexiteers summon up in support of crashing out? We know that Nigel Farage can summon up 200 in a pub car park—hardly the will of the people. We also know that every poll shows a large majority in favour of a people’s vote, and a large majority of them now want to remain rather than supporting either the Government’s deal or leaving without a deal. So when the Prime Minister says that she is on the people’s side, she is, as with so many other things, completely at odds with reality.

Until today, however improbable this may seem, the Prime Minister seemed to be a disciple of Samuel Beckett. When it came to her deal, she was following his injunction:

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better”.


Today’s Statement signals the end of that strategy, and the end of any attempt by the Government to stay in charge of the Brexit process.

The Prime Minister says that she is no longer willing to fail better, and will not bring forward her deal again until it succeeds. If—as she tacitly accepts—this is unlikely ever to happen, she has said that she will provide government time for other options to be considered. But what is unclear is when she will conclude that her deal is dead. Will it be this week? Will it be next week? Will it perhaps be 11 April? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

It is therefore hardly surprising that Members of another place will vote on an amendment later today that would give them early votes on other options. The Government say that if this amendment succeeds it will upset the balance between the Government and the Commons. But surely her proposal does the same. The Prime Minister accepts that it is for the House of Commons, not the Government, to put forward options for consideration and to determine the procedure by which it wishes to do so. The only difference between the Government’s position and that of Sir Oliver Letwin is one of timing, not substance. The truth is that the Government have thrown up their hands in despair and effectively said to the Commons, “Over to you”. It is the most humiliating abrogation of leadership and government in our lifetimes—but it is long overdue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred to the phrase in the Prime Minister’s Statement that,

“I cannot commit the Government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this House”.

In response to a question from the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister—if I heard her correctly—said that the Government would not feel obliged to follow any decision of the House of Commons that would cut across the commitments made in the Conservative Party manifesto. This seemed to me an extraordinary, dangerous and wholly unacceptable statement, and it is quite possible that I misheard it.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he also heard the phrase in the Statement:

“Unless this House agrees to it, no deal will not happen”.


Does he share my view that that means the Prime Minister is saying that, in the absence of an affirmative decision by the Commons, no deal is now impossible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

That appears to be what the Prime Minister is saying, but it is quite difficult to be certain on that because she does not always—as in this case—speak with absolute clarity, assurance and consistency.

To revert to my previous point, could the Minister in his winding-up statement commit the Government to aim in good faith to implement any decision taken by the Commons? I accept that the Government cannot guarantee the success of every proposal, because some at least would involve negotiations with the EU—but the House would be very grateful to get that assurance.

Your Lordships’ House knows that we on these Benches believe that the only way forward is for a referendum to give the people the chance to decide their future. This is not the cry of a metropolitan elite. It is now the cry of the country. The teenager who got up at 2 am on Saturday morning to travel to London by car and bus from Berwick on the Scottish Borders was marching next to me to protect his life chances from the consequences of a squabble in the Tory party. He spoke for his generation and we must not let him down.

Brexit: Date of Exit

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

As the noble Baroness is well aware, since I have repeated it many times in this House—noble Lords will groan and roll their eyes—the legal position, until it is changed, is that we leave on 29 March. The Government have said that if the House of Commons wishes to vote for an extension, we will table the necessary affirmative SI, but we cannot do that until it has been agreed by the EU Council. We cannot just unilaterally extend Article 50; it has to be agreed with the Council. We will do that if an extension is agreed by the House of Commons and by the European Council.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, given the decision by the House of Commons yesterday to rule out no deal, will the Government now withdraw from the Order Paper all the statutory instruments which would implement no-deal provisions, on the basis that they are a complete waste of parliamentary time?

[Lord Callanan]

No, we will not. The reason—even I am getting bored of hearing myself repeat it—is that the law of the land, as currently constituted, says that we leave the EU on 29 March. Article 50 says that in European law, which the Liberals want us to continue experiencing, and British domestic legislation says the same.

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

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the reason given for having the debate today—the 12th on the Government’s withdrawal agreement with the EU and the political declaration—was so that we could debate the proposal that the Government were putting to a meaningful vote in the Commons tomorrow and express a view on it. We are all too well aware that the views of this House are now not pivotal to the Brexit process. But, under the terms of the withdrawal Act, we are given a minor role: that of debating what is proposed—and that is what we were hoping to do today.

The plan was that the Prime Minister would make a Statement at the start of business in the Commons this afternoon, setting out the basis on which she was asking the House to reverse its decision to reject the Government’s agreement and, if successful, to proceed to exit the EU on 29 March. For this to happen, the Government were to secure changes to the Irish backstop that would make it palatable to the DUP and a large number of otherwise dissident Tory Back-Benchers. Having failed to make any progress whatever in achieving a breakthrough on this, and facing another overwhelming defeat tomorrow, the Prime Minister is allegedly travelling to Strasbourg this evening to try to make more progress in an evening than a bevy of officials and Ministers—with or without a codpiece—has achieved in recent weeks.

Whatever the Prime Minister’s chance of success this evening, this sequence of events renders today’s debate almost totally pointless, as we have absolutely nothing new from the Government on which we can express a view. Indeed, were it not for the fact that some 40 of your Lordships have spent part of the weekend labouring over their speeches, I would be arguing that this debate should be scrapped—if only to spare Ministers the hideous ordeal of trying to explain what is going on and hearing 17 speeches from their own Back-Benchers, no doubt expressing 17 versions of what the future should look like.

However, as we are going on with the debate, I wonder whether the Minister could answer a couple of questions. First, is it true that the Prime Minister is going to Strasbourg this evening? Secondly, if she is, what is she taking with her that is new? Thirdly, if she is going and taking with her something new, on what basis does she believe she will have more success this time than on all the previous visits to Strasbourg and Brussels by officials over recent weeks?

Fourthly, by what mechanism do the Government believe the EU could express a definitive opinion on any new proposals before the planned debate in the Commons tomorrow? Fifthly, if the Prime Minister means there to be a meaningful vote tomorrow, how can it be achieved given that, presumably, no government Motion can be tabled tonight in advance of any talks taking place in Strasbourg on which a meaningful vote can be taken? Sixthly, if, by some procedural sleight of hand there were to be a meaningful vote tomorrow, this could be done on a Motion that had been before the Commons for only a few hours at most. Given that this is the most important decision MPs will be asked to make in their lifetime, how can this be seen as anything other than an extraordinary abuse of process by the Government?

Seventhly, we believe that the Government may have the meaningful vote tomorrow. However, if the EU states that it wants to take a decision tomorrow or later in the week in response to this unknown proposal that the Prime Minister might be taking forward, when might we then have a vote?

Over recent months, we have seen the Prime Minister repeatedly rebuffed by both Parliament and the EU. We have marvelled at her resilience. But this failure to make progress, coupled with her complete unwillingness to confront the facts, means that the Prime Minister really has now run out of road. Imagine if she were a chief executive due to make a major presentation to the board, and she said on the eve of the board meeting, “I’m sorry, there are no papers for this board meeting because my original business plan has failed. I’m hoping to amend it. I’m talking to my major customers overnight. I’m not sure whether I will be able to amend it, but, given that my sales directors failed to get them to agree to anything different, the likelihood is that I will fail to amend it. I hope you will still come to the board meeting tomorrow in the vague hope that you might have a proposal in front of you”. What would people say of such a chief executive? They would not still be there the day after tomorrow. But that is the position we find ourselves in with the Prime Minister.

As for the rest of the Cabinet, they are like sheep without a sheep-dog. We are told now that only two of them actually support the Prime Minister, and one of them is Mr Grayling. That is not wholly reassuring. It has to stop. The Commons must take control of this process and the affairs of the country, because the Government have lost control of them. There must be a meaningful vote tomorrow and then, on the reasonable assumption that the Government will not prevail, on Wednesday as planned there should be a vote to reject leaving the EU without a deal, followed by a vote to extend the Article 50 period, as the Prime Minister promised.

However, this is not enough. If the Prime Minister is forced to go back to the EU and ask for an extension, it will understandably ask, “For what purpose?”. There can be only one sensible purpose, which is to give the people the opportunity to stop this whole self-damaging spectacle in a referendum.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The noble Lord has been very frank about that. The purpose of having a people’s vote, as he describes it, is nothing to do with consulting the people as far as he is concerned; it is to reverse the decision of the people. The noble Lord and all his colleagues—I will give them this credit—have been absolutely committed from the day of the referendum result in 2016 to reversing it. Should there be a people’s vote and should the people decide, as I believe they would, to reaffirm their previous decision to leave the European Union, what confidence can I or anyone else have that he and his colleagues here will walk through the Lobbies with enthusiasm—because this House would have to confirm that vote, as would the other—to implement that decision to leave?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, every time I make this speech, the noble Lord stands up and asks me the same question.

[Lord Grocott]

I do not.

[Lord Newby]

He does. He may not have been listening, but I have said that, if the people decided in a further referendum that they wished to leave the EU, we would respect that decision. Would we go through the Lobbies with anything other than a very heavy heart? No, we would not. If we had another referendum and the people decided that the Prime Minister’s deal made the country better off, I would still not believe that to be the case. I would respect the decision, but that does not mean that I would suddenly say, “Oh, my word—for three years I have been mistaken”. The noble Lord knows that for a Liberal Democrat to lose a vote is not a totally new experience. If I lose another vote, it will not be new to me, but it will not mean that I stop thinking what I thought the day before I lost the vote—any more than the noble Lord, who has sometimes stood for Governments who have not prevailed, has stopped thinking that the Labour Party should remain in government. That is the nature of politics as I understand it.

We know now that the vast majority of young people believe that to leave the EU would be a bad mistake because it is bad for their future. We know that the majority of Labour voters, and the majority of voters in virtually every constituency, are in favour of having a vote and in favour on that basis of then remaining in the EU. If the Minister and the Government Front Bench are so sure that their deal is a good one, what are they worried about? Let us have a vote. Get on with it. We have had previous elections, as the noble Lord knows—

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

The noble Lord is being very honest about his position, and I respect that. Will he tell the House what question he would prefer to be put in the second referendum that he wishes to hold in order to overturn the first one?

[Lord Newby]

The logical question. The Government have a deal which they say is in the best interests of the country. We do not believe that it is in the best interests of the country. That is the logical choice to make. I suspect that there will be debates on exactly what the nature of the vote is, but that is the logical vote to have. The noble Lord believes that the Government’s deal is in the best interests of the country. Is that not the logical thing to ask the country about? I think it is.

We have heard much about the will of the people. It is now time for the Government to respect it and give them a vote.