EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions)

Debate between Peter Kyle and Nigel Evans
Monday 1st April 2019

(5 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle Portrait Peter Kyle
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention. As she will see, I will reframe the way that she puts it, but I agree with the general direction.

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Nigel Evans
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord Vaizey of Didcot Portrait Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Kyle Portrait Peter Kyle
- Hansard - -

I am going to make some progress. I promised Mr Speaker that I would take about six minutes, and I am trying hard to honour that promise.

Last week, 268 Members voted for the principle of a confirmatory ballot—the largest number of votes for any alternative Brexit proposition up to that point. The principle has effectively been used twice in the past 20 years to solve complex, divisive issues.

The first occasion was on the Belfast or Good Friday agreement. Many people, institutions and organisations were asked to give a lot to cement the deal, but they gained a lot together despite sections of Northern Irish society strongly rejecting it. The Good Friday agreement was put to a confirmatory ballot that confirmed the deal and led to a decisive end to the arduous process and a peace that has endured to this day. I do not want to risk undoing those gains, which is another reason why we need to unlock our politics.

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Evans
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Kyle Portrait Peter Kyle
- Hansard - -

I am going to make some progress, but I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene a bit later.

The second occasion was the alternative vote referendum in 2011. Electoral reform had been hotly contested and was a regular feature of public debate, and it was a divisive matter within the coalition Government. However, both Tory and Lib Dem parliamentarians were able to work together to legislate for it, because the matter would be subjected to a confirmatory public ballot. The innovation of a confirmatory ballot is important, because it is binding on Government. Once confirmed or rejected, the subject does not even need to return to Parliament. In the case of the Good Friday agreement, the matter was agreed. In the case of the AV referendum, it was rejected. However, the debate was settled instantly in both cases, as it would be in this case. There would be no return to Parliament, no more squabbling, no best of three, no “neverendum”, just a definitive end to the Brexit impasse—talking of which, I give way to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans).

Nigel Evans Portrait Mr Evans
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman has kept his word, for which I am extremely grateful. His idea would have some merit were it not for the fact that we had a general election in 2017, which our parties both fought on manifestos saying that we would deliver Brexit. Some 80% of the people voted either Labour or Conservative. Does he not therefore believe that, as I have heard from constituents over the past few weeks, we should just get on with it?

Peter Kyle Portrait Peter Kyle
- Hansard - -

The Labour manifesto was published two and a half weeks after I agreed to stand as a Labour candidate, and the deal we are now debating was reached a year and a half after the general election. We did not see the Chequers agreement, the Government’s negotiating stance or the deal until months after that general election. By standing on either manifesto, we did not give the Government a blank cheque to deliver any deal.