UK-EU Customs Union

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome and congratulate today’s four maiden speakers. We very much look forward to their future contributions.

While there have been statements by the Government on the relationship with the EU, we have not had a comprehensive policy statement setting out their objectives in the negotiations. A paper on the defence partnership was published on the same day as the UK-EU common understanding. Similarly, the Cabinet Office policy paper on the internal electricity market last December dealt with the outcome of discussions with the EU. However, we are not here just to debate outcomes; we are here to scrutinise and seek to influence government policy. To do so, we need to understand what that policy is. Will the Government commit to publishing a comprehensive policy statement on negotiations with the EU similar in detail to, for example, the July 2021 Command Paper on the renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol?

As for the case for rejoining the EU customs union or parts of the single market, I will make three brief comments. First, any such decision, now that we are out, would be very different from the decision to leave the European Union, and the dividing line will not be the same as in the referendum. We are too large an economy to join a bloc in which we would have no say. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to Mark Carney’s fine speech in Davos, but I do not see how rejoining the customs union would fit in with that speech. His argument is not that middle powers should tie themselves to bigger powers; it is the opposite of that. Middle powers should maximise their autonomy and influence through flexible and variable arrangements in which they retain a say with a wide range of powers. By all accounts, we are a bigger middle power than Canada and less dependent on the EU than Canada is on the United States.

Secondly, the European Union faces complex and decisive choices in the years ahead. As Mario Draghi warned, doing nothing or doing too little means accelerated decline. In recent interventions, he has complained that little has changed since his report and that conditions are worsening. What would this mean for us if we chose to join a customs union or parts of the single market now? It would put us, I am afraid, in a bleak position. Either we would have joined a bloc that fails to meet the challenge and declines faster, or, if the EU takes bold and transformative decisions, we would have joined that bloc just before those decisions are taken and without any ability to influence them.

My final point is on reports about a so-called Farage clause that the EU would be seeking as part of its reset—a penalty provision on future renegotiations. As some will remember, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Barrow, a similar proposal was made in December 2020. It had a different name then; it was called the hammer clause. Imagine if the hammer clause had been agreed by the then Government. The Government today would have a weaker hand in their discussions with the EU. A penalty clause or mechanism will affect any future Government, whatever their colour, including a Liberal Democrat Government seeking to rejoin the European Union, because if there is one thing we can be certain of, it is that there will always be negotiations. We negotiated on the way in, we negotiated while we were in, we negotiated as we came out and we are still negotiating. Does the Minister agree that it would be reckless and irresponsible for any Government today to weaken the negotiating position of a future Government? Can she reassure us that no penalty clause would be agreed to?

Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, although I share the concerns that some have expressed about the statements that have been coming from Washington recently, I cannot support the Bill for at least three reasons.

First, the recognition of states is an exclusive Crown prerogative. Parliament can legislate in any matter and can limit the prerogative, but it is constitutionally a very bad idea for it to do so. When Parliament stepped in and tried to run foreign policy in the past, the result was not usually a success—for example, in 2017 and 2018, when it was not clear whether it was Parliament or the Government running the negotiations with the EU. We are going through particularly testing times. This is not the time—if it ever was—for Parliament to dictate the content and timing of a sensitive step in foreign affairs on the Government.

Secondly, by forcing the Government to recognise the state of Palestine within the pre-1967 boundaries, the Bill would disincentivise the Palestinians from compromising, and without compromise there cannot be peace. I echo in this respect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on territory as a requirement for statehood under the Montevideo convention. It would be ironic for Britain now to proclaim that the pre-1967 borders were always the unequivocal and definitive borders of Palestine, given that Britain was one of the few countries that recognised, back in 1950, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, except for Jerusalem.

The third reason is that recognising Palestine in the current circumstances would reward Hamas. True, we would be recognising the state and not any Government; the policy of officially recognising Governments was stopped by Lord Carrington in 1980. But in this case, the distinction would be somewhat artificial. The fact is that recognition of a new state is a gift to whoever is in power at that point. There are two Palestinian entities that exercise governmental control in the Palestinian territories: the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. All evidence suggests that Hamas is by far the more popular of the two, and it would almost certainly end up being in complete control of the Palestinian state.

Some believe that support for Hamas would wane if we in the West showed greater support for the Palestinian cause, including through recognition. I disagree. I cannot think of many international causes that have received as much support and attention in the West as the Palestinian cause, yet I can see no evidence of such support and attention being rewarded with greater moderation. At this point, Palestinian support for Hamas is a social and political fact; it is a regrettable and truly tragic fact but one that we cannot wish away. Things may change in future but we are not the ones who can make that change happen. We barely know how to change our own society. We must dispense with the illusion that we can change other people’s societies.

Even if every country in the world unconditionally recognised Palestine as a state tomorrow, the consequence would not be Hamas giving way to a moderate Palestinian faction. What would happen is that Hamas would gain an internationally recognised state. In those circumstances, recognition would not help solve the conflict but escalate it.

UK-EU Relations

Lord Verdirame Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On fishing rights, in approaching future access arrangements beyond 2026, our position is clear: we will continue to advocate for and support UK fishing communities while ensuring that we meet our shared international obligations. On the timing of the debate, I repeat what I said earlier: attempts will be made to improve timeliness after the Recess, but Statements are scheduled and agreed with the usual channels. On whether there should be a European committee, my understanding is that there is one. Arguably, given the dire need for a reset following the previous Government’s deteriorating relations with the EU, there should have been more scrutiny under the previous Government, not less.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, further to that answer, in the previous Parliament a number of White Papers were published by the Government of the day. One in February 2020 set out the approach to the negotiations on the TCA, and another one, I believe in July 2021, set out in some detail the approach to the renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Will the Government proceed in a similar manner and produce Command Papers that set out the approach to the negotiations? If so, when are we likely to see them?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord on that point, but we are not planning to give a blow-by-blow ongoing position on where we are with negotiations. We are clear that we are resetting the relationship with our European friends, and this Government will continue to report back to Parliament, as per the Statement, so that there is the opportunity to debate this. But I note the noble Lord’s point, and I will write to him on that aspect.