European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

My hon. Friend has always stuck to his principles; the reality is that the Leader of the Opposition cannot even stick to his own manifesto.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Does the Brexit Secretary not agree that the Prime Minister has a problem with veracity? He told us that he would rather be dead in a ditch than sign the letter, and signed the letter. He told us that there would be no border in the Irish sea, and then he negotiated a border in the Irish sea. Why on earth should we ever believe a single thing this Prime Minister says?

[Stephen Barclay]

The Prime Minister did not sign the letter, so I think the issue of veracity was actually in the question.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I intend to rebel against all those who do not want to vote to deliver Brexit.

Today’s vote is important. The eyes of the country—no, the eyes of the wider world—are upon us today. Every Member in this House has a responsibility in the decision that they will take to determine whether or not they are going to put the national interest first—not just an ideological, single-issue or party political interest, but the full, wider interests of our constituents.

As we look at this issue, the decision we take tonight will determine not just the future of our country and the future lives of our constituents, but I believe the very future of our politics, because we have today to take a key decision, and it is simple. Do we want to deliver Brexit? Do we want to deliver on the result of the referendum in 2016? [Interruption.] We know the views of Scottish National party Members: they reject results of referendums, including the referendum to stay in the UK.

When this House voted overwhelmingly to give the choice of our membership of the EU to the British people, did we really mean it? When we voted to trigger article 50, did we really mean it? When the two main parties represented in this House stood on manifestos in the 2017 general election to deliver Brexit, did we really mean it? I think there can be only one answer to that: yes, we did mean it; yes, we keep faith with the British people; yes, we want to deliver Brexit.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Lady will just wait for a minute.

If this Parliament did not mean it, it is guilty of the most egregious con trick on the British people.

There have been many views across this House. I want simply to say something to some of the groups involved. To those who believe that there should be a second referendum—some believe passionately and have for some time; others have come to this more lately—I say simply this: you cannot have a second referendum simply because some people do not agree with the result of the first. I do not like—

[Ms Eagle]

rose—

[Mrs May]

There are many people who want to speak, so I am going to carry on. I have taken many interventions and questions from across the House on this issue over time.

I do not like referendums, but I think that if we have one, we should abide by the result that people have given us.

Then there is the Labour Front Bench. I have heard much from those on the Labour Front Bench over the last three years about the importance of protecting jobs, manufacturing and people’s livelihoods. If they really meant that, they would have voted for the deal earlier this year. Now is their chance to show whether they really care about people by voting for this deal tonight—this afternoon, I hope, Mr Speaker—in the House.

Then let me say something to all those across the House who say they do not want no deal. I have said it before; I have said it many times; I hope this is the last time I have to say it: if you do not want no deal, you have to vote for a deal. Businesses are crying out for certainty, people want certainty in their lives, and our investors want to be able to invest and want the uncertainty to be got rid of. They want to know that this country is moving forward. If you want to deliver Brexit, if you want to keep faith with the British people, if you want this country to move forward, then vote for the deal today.

Withdrawal Agreement: Proposed Changes

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I think members of the public are getting wise to what is going on: this Government are trying to deliver Brexit and this Parliament, collectively, is trying to frustrate it. My hon. Friend raises the interesting solution of putting this to a vote, and I will discuss that with my ministerial colleagues.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Has the Minister seen the documents?

[James Duddridge]

I have already said that I will not comment on which documents I have and have not seen, or which versions I have and have not seen. This is a document that we are negotiating on. It makes sense to look at that document, negotiate on that document and come back to the House with a final document. This House does not want a blow-by-blow account; it wants to deliver a deal.

Irish Border: Customs Arrangements

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Gentleman says he does not believe it. I chaired the group last time, along with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. There is constructive agreement and frank discussion within that group, and that happens outside the consultative group forum as well—I have set up several bilateral meetings with businesses since.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Section 10(2)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, on the Irish border, says there can be no hard border that undermines the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which enacted the Good Friday agreement. It also makes illegal an agreement that creates or facilitates border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic that feature physical infrastructure that was not there before. Can the Minister explain how on earth what we learned overnight is compatible with the law?

[James Duddridge]

I am unclear what the hon. Lady means by “what we learned overnight”. If she means the press report on RTÉ in Ireland, I can tell her that it simply is not true. I can categorically say to her that there are no plans and never have been any plans for any physical checks. This is not a right to reply, but I will be more than happy to take that up with her in more detail, in relation to the Act and more generally, particularly when everything else has come out in the wash.

Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

The right hon. Lady says, “Answer the question”, but we are trying to be as simple as we can and use as few words as possible. We will obey the law, but who knows what will happen between now and the end of negotiations? We are seeking a deal and the nature of that deal is moving forward on a daily basis. Beyond saying that we will always abide by the law, I will not get into it any further.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer today, the Prime Minister hinted in answer to my question last night that he would obey the law but said directly to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that he would not. The Minister’s answers today would be listened to with a little more belief if senior sources in No. 10 did not keep briefing that they are going to break the law.

[James Duddridge]

The hon. Lady has a Minister, not a senior source in No. 10, saying on the record that we will obey the law. I think that trumps any so-say, off-the-record briefing.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)]

I rise to speak as the proud but slightly bemused independent Member for North East Bedfordshire. I commend my friend, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for his remarks and the way in which he went through the technicalities of the Bill. I have no wish to do the same and do not wish to detain the House on those matters. Let me make just three brief points in support of the Bill.

First, is the Bill a stumbling block to negotiations? No, it is not. The Bill does not prevent the Prime Minister or the Government from negotiating. The reason that we do not yet have a deal or might not get one is not this Bill. Ever since the referendum and the start of negotiations, a variety of reasons have been cited for not getting a deal. In no particular order, it has been: a remainer Parliament, a remainer Prime Minister, Olly Robbins, the EU, Michel Barnier, Martin Selmayr—always a different reason. We were told recently that all could be solved if only we elected a Prime Minister who was a Brexiteer with an absolute determination to leave, no questions asked, because the EU would then fold and we would have the deal that the UK always wanted. We have such a Prime Minister, whose determination is clear, and the EU has not folded, so this time we are being told that it is us—that it is me. That is nonsense.

There are two reasons why we have not had a deal. First, Members in this House have not voted for a deal. If they had looked at it hard two years ago, they would have bitten your hand off to accept all the provisions in the withdrawal agreement and the transition period, which a Brexiteer will now be in charge of. The second reason is that many in the UK have failed to grasp that it is we who are leaving the EU. That means that it is a negotiation between us. We have never really understood the EU or its arguments, believing that a negotiation was a series of demands from the United Kingdom, not a negotiation. That and the language that we have used—built on 20-odd years of the drip, drip of poison about the EU—has made sure that we did not get a deal.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman and I came to this House in the same year, so I am sad to hear his announcement that he is going. Does he agree that the kind of language being used from the Government Front Bench and in the media about those who are trying to prevent no deal, such as “traitors” and “collaborators”—all of that war-like language—is less than helpful?

[Alistair Burt]

Absolutely. In my conclusion, I shall talk a bit about that and how we have got to reset, but the hon. Lady makes a good point.

Secondly, why do we want to avoid no deal? I will not repeat all the things that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, which are obvious; the economics are clear. For me, there are three reasons. The first is the threat to the Union. I am a Scot, my mother and father are from Scotland. I am a proud Scot. I am also British through and through. I could not believe a recent poll of Conservative members that said they would abandon almost anything, including the Union, providing they left the EU. I regard that as a terrible threat. We should not risk it.

My second reason is Ireland, which is treated by some here as some sort of irrelevance and a place that has made up the border issue to prevent us from leaving the EU. With our history in relation to Ireland and everything that happened there, it became our best friend in the European Union. Our choice to leave—our Brexit—has put Ireland in the most catastrophic situation of any country, and we now expect it to accept another English demand that it should do something. Have we no understanding of what that relationship means and the damage done?

My third reason for wanting to avoid no deal is the damage to Europe and the relationship with Europe itself. I grew up as part of the first generation to avoid war in Europe for countless hundreds of years. I arrived in the House of Commons when there were giants here such as Denis Healey, Willie Whitelaw and Ted Heath—people for whom Europe was the place where they and their friends had fought and died—and they wanted something different. That has always motivated me in my sense of Europe. Whether we are in the European Union or not, that relationship with Europe is clouded by the sort of language that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned. I do not want to see that relationship threatened by a no deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I can confirm that we will not be voting with the Government tonight and that we will keep our focus on the task in hand, which is to ensure that we do not leave the EU without a deal, and that requires the passing and implementation of this Bill.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress and give way in a moment.

So the truth is that we are on course for a no-deal Brexit for which there is no mandate from the public or from this Parliament. We might think that in those circumstances this Parliament would be sitting every available day between now and 31 October, to avert this threat, to scrutinise the Prime Minister’s plan—if there is one—and to find a way forward, if we can. We would all willingly sit on those days to find that way forward, but no: from next week the Prime Minister wants to shut this place down for five weeks in this crucial period. He thinks that we and the public will be fooled by the obvious untruth that Prorogation is merely for a Queen’s Speech. The five-week Prorogation is to silence this House and frustrate attempts to prevent no deal, and any suggestion to the contrary from anyone, in my view, is disingenuous.

[Ms Eagle]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the characterisation by Conservative central office, which is appearing on Twitter and on its other social media even now, as we debate this extremely important Bill—hashtagging this Bill the #SurrenderBill—is beneath contempt?

[Keir Starmer]

It is beneath contempt, and I can only imagine how businesses—the people who work in businesses and the management of businesses—will look on in horror, because they have repeatedly told me and many other Members of this House their deep concerns about no deal, and we are protecting this country against no deal.

Leaving the EU: Business of the House

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak this afternoon for Scotland’s national party in this debate. I congratulate the official Opposition and thank them for giving us this opportunity. I welcome the cross-party consensus that has seen, to my reckoning, every party bar one represented on the list of signatories to the motion. I congratulate the Secretary of State. I have always admired his ability, in best debating society style, to speak at great length without hesitation or repetition. This afternoon, however, he managed to add the achievement of not actually saying anything during the whole time he was on his feet.

Let us forget the cries of democratic and constitutional outrage at the very idea that Parliament should decide what Parliament is going to discuss in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) pointed out, there are very successful and highly regarded Parliaments not too far from this one where Parliament sets the business, and that seems to work perfectly well. The constitutional experts say it is a bad idea. I wonder what the predecessors of those same constitutional experts thought of the “ridiculous” notion that women should be allowed to vote and sit in this Parliament. No doubt they were telling us that that was a dangerous precedent, too.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Secretary of State appeared to be telling us that he agreed it would be wrong to drag the Crown into Parliament by having a Prorogation as political as that suggested by some of the Tory leadership candidates? Does he therefore agree that passing this motion merely puts into our Standing Orders for that particular date an insurance policy to prevent the more unscrupulous of those who are currently standing for the Tory leadership from doing precisely what they are threatening in hustings to do?

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Lady makes a very valid point. I think the more important point is that the motion would allow, on one particular day in two weeks’ time, the elected Members of this Parliament to decide what we will discuss. The Secretary of State and others have said that that would prevent the Government from putting their business on the Order Paper. The Government cannae tell us what they want to be discussing on Monday, never mind in two weeks’ time! Given the stuff they have been using to pad out the agenda over the past several weeks, they can hardly claim that there is a backlog. Well, there is a backlog of massively important proposed legislation that needs to come through, but there is absolutely no sign of it.

I will tell you, Mr Speaker, what would be a democratic and constitutional outrage. It would be an outrage for any Government, either through deliberate malice or sheer incompetence, to plunge us into a disastrous no-deal Brexit against the interests of our four nations, against the will of Parliament, and now, since 23 May, quite clearly against the will of the people. It would be an outrage for the expressed will of 62% of the sovereign citizens of my nation to be cast aside as if they neither existed nor mattered. It would be an outrage if 3 million citizens on these islands saw their basic rights curtailed and undermined as a result of a flawed and corrupted referendum that they were banned from participating in.

All those outrages would pale into nothing, however, compared with the outrage if the first act of a Prime Minister, appointed in an election in which less than one quarter of 1% of the population was allowed to take part, was to abolish this Parliament and reinstate it only when it was too late for us to carry out the duty for which we were elected: the duty of pulling our four nations back from what everyone in this Chamber knows would be an economic and social catastrophe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the speech he has just given. I fear that the trajectory of the entire Brexit debate since the referendum, with everything that has happened, is pushing us to the extremes of that debate, because we had a Prime Minister who simply did not bring the country back together, or seek to do so. She decided that the way through this conundrum was to appease the unappeasable Brextremists in her own party. It is hard to see whether there will be the kind of consensus and bringing back together of our fragmented country for which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) wishes.

I see us heading towards a final choice between no deal and revocation, but in the absence of that choice being before us today, the modest measure that we are debating gives us a chance as a Parliament to have an insurance policy against careering off into the catastrophe of no deal. A newly elected leader of the Conservative party with no democratic mandate from the country and no majority in Parliament might manipulate the way in which this House works to deny us the chance to express what we have already expressed clearly: there is no majority in this Parliament to take this country out of the European Union without a deal. To me, that is a modest proposal.

[Lady Hermon]

The Brexit Secretary studiously avoided questions about the Government’s commitment to the Good Friday agreement. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that taking this country out of Europe without a deal would have very serious consequences for Northern Ireland? Sinn Féin would certainly be incentivised to campaign for a border poll were there any hardening of the border, which would be inevitable with a no-deal Brexit. Heaven help us, but think what dissident republicans might do if there were to be no deal.

[Ms Eagle]

I agree with the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right to point out the Irish dimension of the entire debate. That many Conservatives seem willing to cast the Good Friday agreement into the flames has been an astonishing aspect of this debate.

Members of the Conservative party opposed to this modest insurance policy describe it as a constitutional outrage that this Parliament should seek to ensure that the country is not driven off the cliff of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit. In seeking to put aside one modest day of debate, to try to pass a Bill—which would need a majority in this House and to get through the House of Lords—to prevent that scenario, they suggest that we are somehow upending years of constitutional propriety.

I would listen to such self-serving arguments with far more patience had we not had a Government who have spent the past few years disregarding all sorts of constitutional propriety in how they have run this Parliament: gerrymandering the number of people on Select Committees, wilfully ignoring Opposition motions and finally refusing even to participate in votes, and being quite happy to ride roughshod over centuries of constitutional convention for their own aims. They then get themselves in a lather about the very modest motion that we are debating.

In the interests of the economic prosperity and security of this country, we have to prevent the Government party and any new Prime Minister behaving like a latter-day Charles I, seeking to govern without this Parliament. If we have to do that by using a modest Bill, that is the least we can do. There is no way, for the legitimacy of what we do in the future, that this Parliament must allow a Government without a majority and a new Prime Minister who does not have a direct electoral mandate to cause a no-deal Brexit without referring this back to the people.

There is only one way, in the end, of solving the constitutional issues facing us, and that is through either a general election or another referendum. In any case, it is the people who must decide how we go forward. We are not going to allow any newly elected head of the Conservative party to take that decision away from the British people. That is why I support the very modest change before us today to put that insurance policy on to the statute book.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

So he will, Mr Speaker.

Cromwell continued:

“Depart, I say…In the name of God, go!”

As far as I am concerned, that applies to many Members of Parliament who have reversed their votes and who have repudiated the vote of the British people and denied our democracy.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it really in order for a Member of this House to try to delegitimise other Members of this House, all of whom have our own mandates from our constituencies, simply because he does not agree with what we agree with?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not procedurally improper. It has offended the sensibilities of a considerable number of colleagues, but my hunch is that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will not suffer any loss of sleep as a consequence of that. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has made her point was considerable force, and it is on the record. Had the hon. Gentleman concluded his oration?

[Sir William Cash]

One last remark, Mr Speaker. I trust that the hon. Member for Wallasey will reflect on the fact that, as far as I am aware, she voted for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 when this House passed it by 499 votes to about 120. That is a fact—[Interruption.] But perhaps she did not, so she can tell me about that.

[Ms Eagle]

Indeed I did vote for that Act, but I did not expect the hon. Gentleman’s Prime Minister to make such a hash of it. We have to go back to the beginning, start again and do it properly.

[Sir William Cash]

In conclusion, I would simply say that I, too, think that the Prime Minister has made a hash of it. It makes no difference to me. I have said it repeatedly, and I will say it again and again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again and tell me about one promise made at the 2016 referendum that still stands today, I will happily accept his argument. We are here only because his Government and his Prime Minister have created the biggest mess in parliamentary history in a hung Parliament—one that was made hung by his Prime Minister gambling with a 33 majority and losing. Everything changed at the 2017 general election, but he forgets that.

The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about it being undemocratic to hold European elections. It is apparently undemocratic to ask the entire country to go to a polling station to vote in a democratic election when it is the right of people across Europe, by treaty, to go to a booth to put their cross in a box. How can that be undemocratic?

How can it be undemocratic to try to prevent a no-deal scenario? This is the worst thing of all. This House has voted on at least three occasions by a vast majority to prevent a no-deal scenario, so it is perfectly democratic for the House to take charge of the business and pass legislation to ensure that no deal does not happen. That is perfectly and utterly democratic.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there was no word during the referendum itself from those suggesting that we leave the European Union that we should leave without a deal and plunge our economy off a cliff?

[Ian Murray]

I hate to quote the leave campaign, but I think Mr Hannan himself said that nobody was considering leaving the single market. Indeed, the whole campaign was predicated on having the easiest trade deal in history, on 40 trade deals rolling over by 29 March, on a Brexit dividend, and on an extra £350 million a week for the NHS, but none of that has come to pass.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely do. Let me also say, as a Member of Parliament whose constituency split virtually down the middle, that there is a range of reasons why people voted in the way they did in the general election, because general elections are not single-issue democratic events. However, I can say that people in Ilford North were very worried about what a Conservative Government would bring to the country, not least because of the position that the Prime Minister staked out on Europe.

I made it very clear to my constituents that I believed that any deal should be put back to the people. That has been a consistent democratic principle. I did not know at the general election that we would be in the position we are now in: not just in the last chance saloon but on last orders. It seems that the Prime Minister is literally on last orders, as she is there just before they boot her out.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the one thing the election pointed out was that there was not a majority for a hard Brexit, and that if the Prime Minister had recognised that and reached out at that moment, we would all be in a much better position than we find ourselves in?

[Wes Streeting]

The Prime Minister has never sought to compromise. What she has found difficult—and what any Prime Minister would find difficult—is trying to reconcile the broad range of promises that were made to people in 2016 and the inability to deliver them all. That is entirely due to the fact that the leave campaign was never honest about the tension at the heart of its offer, which was that there is a trade-off between national sovereignty and economic trade and partnership, economic security and national security. We have been great beneficiaries of pooled sovereignty, but if we try to unpool sovereignty there are trade-offs and sacrifices. The leave campaign has never been honest about that.

The final thing I want to say is about the European elections. The idea that we would decide our country’s future, not just for the next year or two but for generations, around the inconvenience of organising European elections is nonsensical. There has never been a clamour for European elections. In fact, lots of the country is currently with Brenda from Bristol on the idea of any election: “Not another one!” I find this idea that holding elections or a confirmatory vote is undemocratic to be laughable. How can involving all our country in decisions about our future possibly be anti-democratic? The idea that we would rush to judgment, crash out with no deal and make decisions that will hurt this country for generations to come because we cannot be bothered to go out and knock on a few doors is no basis on which to make a decision. We should vote against the amendment.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I have made the point once and I thought I had made it clearly—[Interruption.] Yes, I made it very clearly. I think he disagrees with it, but the point that I was making is this: the process for which the House opted was and is a discrete process and the first of its kind. Indeed, the novelty of the process, which is welcome to some and not to others, was the subject of much comment earlier in our proceedings. I believe that it is a process, and the House decided earlier that it should be pursued over a two-day period. In those circumstances, with a specific balloting procedure set in train, I do not think that it falls into the category the right hon. Gentleman has described.

I should add that I set out the position in respect of the same question in the same Session on 18 March, and that on 25 March—that is to say, on Monday this week—in response to a question on her statement from the right hon. Member for New Forest East, the Prime Minister signalled that she was well aware of the strictures that I had issued and that if the Government attempted to bring back their deal, they would ensure that my requirements were met. So it was obviously in the Prime Minister’s mind that there was a test that needed to be met, and I reiterated earlier this afternoon that test of change. I do not honestly think that it can usefully be argued further tonight, but no doubt there will be discussions in the days to come and we shall have to see what emerges. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman, at least in part. He is not easily satisfied, but I hope that it has at least in part satisfied him for tonight—[Interruption.] Ah! The Attorney General says, “It ought to!” Who am I to disagree on this matter with so learned and cerebral an authority in the House as the Attorney General?

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note from the results of round one of the indicative votes process that the Father of the House’s motion on a customs union failed by a majority of eight and the motion to hold a confirmatory ballot failed by 27, and yet the shadow Brexit Secretary argued that the Government’s motion, which failed by 230 at its first attempt and by 149 at its second attempt, should somehow take precedence—[Interruption.] I meant to say the Brexit Secretary; I was just future gazing. Does that not strike you as a rather odd interpretation of the results so far, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, interpretations vary, which I think is clear from the points of order. The hon. Lady has made her point with some force, and I am sure that people will study it in the Official Report together with the observations of other right hon. and hon. Members.

EU Exit Day Amendment

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My understanding is that that was the Council’s view of when we would have to give notice that we would be holding European elections, if we were staying in for longer, and that is why it set that date as the date by which we would have to have made our mind up as to whether we are leaving. But that is for the European Council to determine. I am not a spokesman for it.

Currently, major changes to our domestic statute book reflecting our exit from the European Union are due to take effect on exit day, which is defined in the EU withdrawal Act as 11 pm on 29 March, despite the extension terms that have been agreed at international level. These changes apply across a huge number of policy areas, from emissions trading to Europol. All these changes are designed to ensure that our statute book works when we leave the European Union, and all are due to take place on exit day. This definition has effect across the whole UK statute book. Now that an extension to article 50 has been agreed in EU and international law, we need to amend that date to reflect the new point at which the EU treaties cease to apply.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Has the Minister learned any lessons about putting exact times and dates on the statute book in primary legislation just so that his Prime Minister can blackmail her own party?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady makes a political point, which is not particularly appropriate for a debate on technical legislation. The instrument has been laid under the EU withdrawal Act to do just what I said. Section 20(4) of the Act contains a power to amend exit day through a statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously I well remember the exchanges, and I am aware of the particular interaction to which he is referring. The normal principle applies: every Member is responsible for the veracity of what he or she says in this Chamber. If a Member inadvertently errs, it is incumbent upon that Member to correct the record. The Minister, perfectly reasonably, said that he had not seen what was said. However, it is not beyond the wit and sagacity of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to arrange for a copy of the extract from the Official Report to wing its way to the Dispatch Box during the course of this consideration, and the Minister might then be in a position further to respond to him.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me on whether what Conservative Members are objecting to is the use of the royal prerogative, which allows us to sign up to international treaties using that power? If so, the logic of what they are arguing is actually that we should get rid of the Queen.

[Mr Speaker]

I simply say to the hon. Lady that it is not for me to offer an exegesis of what individuals might think about our constitutional arrangements, including the use or otherwise of the royal prerogative, but she has made her own point in her own way, with some panache, and it will be studied in the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We have seen today elements of the Conservative party in high dungeon, or dudgeon—[Interruption.] Maybe they should be in the high dungeon. We have seen them in high dudgeon about the fact that the Minister has brought a statutory instrument before us today to take away the cliff edge they were relying on plunging this country over in order to get the kind of clean break, catastrophe Brexit that many of them secretly want. I never thought in this House that I would sit here and see considerable numbers of Members of a Government party—the party opposite—planning on that basis to cause such damage to our economic prospects and the prospects for prosperity of all of my constituents and everybody else’s constituents; it is a period of history that I hoped I would never see.

The Prime Minister is entirely responsible for getting all of us into the mess we have seen develop over the last few months as she has repeatedly, after putting a definite leaving date on the face of the original withdrawal Act, put off the vote and put off the vote on her withdrawal agreement because she wanted, I believe, to face this House with an unpalatable choice between her deal, which many from all parts of the House have serious problems with, and the catastrophe of no deal. In a modern, mature Parliament I believe that that kind of process and choice should never be allowed to face us. Whether we voted leave or remain—whichever side of the argument we were on in 2016—we should not have been put in that position, and it was the date on the face of what is now the withdrawal Act that allowed the Prime Minister to have the leverage that she somehow thought would work to her advantage.

The Prime Minister has now been forced to resort to the leverage that we hear happened at the 1922 committee tonight, where she basically said “Back me so you can then sack me,” and gave another date, 22 May, for when she would announce her departure. So now, while the country’s future is still in the air and not decided, we have the horrible, self-regarding spectacle of the next runners and riders in the Conservative party seeing who will inherit the poisoned chalice that the Tory psychodrama of Brexit has injected into the body politic in this country.

The Minister’s statutory instrument is an inevitable consequence of creating a false cliff edge. That cliff edge was created for blackmail purposes, but there remain many sensible, responsible people on both sides of the House, and we have expressed our wish not to allow the country to plunge over it. The Minister was correct to bring forward the statutory instrument, and to surmise that this Parliament will not allow a choice involving the catastrophe Brexit of leaving with no deal. We will not allow this or any future Prime Minister to blackmail this country with such appalling, disrespectful and dangerous tactics.

I will support the Minister’s statutory instrument tonight. I hope that in due course we will be able to have a much longer delay, to start the process again and to do it properly with some of the respect that we have seen developing in today’s indicative votes debate and with the responsible, cross-party debate that is beginning to develop and which should have happened in this country when the Prime Minister crossed the threshold of Downing Street two years ago. She has got the process exactly the wrong way round. Permanent damage has been done to our economy, our prospects, our prosperity and, more than anything else, our reputation in the world, because this Prime Minister has got this so disastrously wrong. Whoever her successor is, I hope that they will not take this to be a place that can be blackmailed, as she has done, and that they will not play Russian roulette with the prosperity and future of this country. Anyone who decides that that is a reasonable way to behave does not deserve the honour of being our Prime Minister.