Leaving the European Union

Antoinette Sandbach Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

The lawyers conceded that point, but it was not directly relevant to the case that was being argued.

[Mr Jenkin]

It was the premise of the judgment.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I hear the chuntering from my hon. Friend, but the reality was that it was not the issue that was being decided on. If there was any merit in that point in the judgment, it was clearly obiter dictum, as it is called.

[Paul Scully]

That exchange is interesting, but it is moot, because we are off. The point is whether we are off tomorrow, as the petitioners want, or whether we are off at the end of the two years under article 50.

I sum up my remarks by saying that I understand the petitioners’ frustration and why they want to leave now. We need to speak to them, but we also need to speak to the people, some of whom are here today, who want the future situation to be as close to the status quo as possible and for us to find a middle path. We can only do that with a sense of agreement, a sense of proportionality and a sense of optimism that wherever we go in the world, we will still be trading, partnering and collaborating with Europe. Environmental pollution does not stop in the channel. Terrorist threats do not stop in the channel. We will clearly need to collaborate with our European partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. My remarks will first address the petition. They will then address the Government’s approach and advocate for an alternative to their binary position of either securing a great deal or crashing out with no deal at all. The petition paints the starkest picture of what a truly hard Brexit would look like. A few colleagues have flirted with the idea of taking World Trade Organisation terms or leaving the European Union without a deal, but I do not believe any of them would advocate doing so without even attempting to strike an agreement with our European partners.

The petition calls on the Government simply to walk away, despite the announcement of sufficient progress in December. It is apparent that the supporters of the petition support the hardest of hard lines on Europe, but there is a far greater number of people for whom the picture is less clear. Many a remainer voted to stay, despite concerns about how the EU operates, and many leavers voted to leave despite legitimate worries about the potential impacts.

What is being proposed? Were the petition’s proposals adopted, there would be several impacts. There would be a significant hit on our economy, our international reputation and British citizens living in the EU. We must separate the two different no-deal concepts. The idea of reaching no deal after negotiations—in other words, a deal to have no deal—would be different from the no deal envisaged by the petition.

Just walking away would see massive disruption to our businesses, such as our airlines and our nuclear safety industry. We risk planes being grounded and nuclear power stations grinding to a halt if basic agreements are not in place. The economic impact would be significant, especially on our world-leading financial and business services industries. Tariffs on goods and services would be imposed and we would need to re-establish our own schedules at the WTO before we could even begin to set the agenda. Exports of goods and services to the EU27 in 2016 totalled £236 billion, amounting to 12% of GDP. Financial and business services constituted £51 billion. Leaving with no deal on goods or services would be a huge hit to our world-leading industries

The Bank of England estimates that no deal could lead to 75,000 jobs being lost, so it is vital to negotiate to try to secure an agreement. Likewise, some estimates say we could lose £10 billion a year of tax revenue from no deal. Even some non-EU trading partners rely on EU regulations to define the legality of their trade—the REACH regulations for chemicals, for example, would be most likely to be at risk. That would significantly impact sectors relevant to the north-west. The chemical, car and energy industries are all big employers in the north-west, where my constituency of Eddisbury is located.

There is also a human impact. Crashing out with no deal would mean any decision on EU nationals would be unilateral, leaving Brits in the EU in the lurch and the subject of whatever immigration laws applied to non-EU citizens in the countries where they resided. Furthermore, those situations would change overnight. It would cause great uncertainty and alarm for the million-plus Britons living in the EU. People who have set up their lives in another country, who are living there peacefully and legally, would have to uproot everything if the suggestions in the petition were followed.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) that we should support the Government in trying to achieve their aims in the negotiations. I support the Government’s commitment to building a deep and enduring partnership. The announcement of sufficient progress last month throws this petition into sharper relief as it shows that a deal should be possible and that it could be more favourable than the cliff edge or crashing out. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) stated that he wanted the eventual deal to be,

“of greater scope than any such existing agreement.”

That is encouraging, as it is apparent that existing trade deals such as the deal with Canada or the CETA deal do not go far enough to meet our demands, needs and interests. The issue is vital as the WTO working paper found that an ordinary FTA would cut UK exports of both goods and services to the EU by 40% relative to the current regime.

I welcome the commitment to building a global Britain, a nation committed to free trade across the globe. However, to have better arrangements with a country on the other side of the world than with the EU just the other side of the channel would be unwelcome. For Brexit to be worth it, we must see new trading partners come in in addition to, not as a replacement of, existing partnerships. I press the Minister to make sure that any deal includes the free movement of services as well as goods. The British economy is reliant on some of its financial and professional services industries for jobs and for tax revenue. Financial services exports to the EU, worth, as I have already outlined, £51 billion, are vital to our prosperity. London’s global pre-eminence and the financial services sectors in Liverpool and Manchester benefit the country as a whole.

On plan B of the WTO, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke about using our time imaginatively, sensitively and constructively to make sure we do not crash out. I agree with that, and there is an alternative plan, a back-up plan, should no deal be achieved. An off-the-shelf deal of any nature would require compromise from Members of all parties. None of the options is perfect, but nor is any pragmatic proposal or plan. In fact, the European Free Trade Association would allow us to fulfil our commitment to respect the will of the people and the referendum vote. We would be outside the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. We would be free of the risk of ever-closer union, which concerned some remainers as well as leavers. Some people, even some Members, raised concerns that they were misled over what kind of body the UK was entering into in the 1970s. Yet EFTA has shown itself to be clear. The organisation is strictly an economic grouping. It would also protect our economy, ensuring full access to the single market, including services.

Joining EFTA would give us access to its free trade agreements spanning 38 countries and more than 900 million customers. Access would come at a significantly reduced cost compared with EU membership. Norway’s net contribution in 2015 was €115 per person compared with €214 per person for the UK. This would also give our services sector a significant degree of protection. The negative impact would be small, as compared to no deal on financial services, the costs of which I outlined earlier. I cannot think of a better way to demonstrate that we are leaving the EU but want to remain engaged with Europe than by joining EFTA.

Likewise, joining EFTA would have a beneficial impact on our long-term agreements with the EU, as many EFTA institutions are already recognised by the EU and relationships already exist between them. It might seem strange, but I am not alone in my positive view of EFTA. Indeed, many notable figures from the other side of the referendum debate were very positive about this arrangement.

“Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing”,

said Nigel Farage.

“The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initially attractive to some business people”,

said Matthew Elliott from Vote Leave and Business for Britain.

“Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK”,

said Arron Banks.

Daniel Hannan even wrote a paper for the Bruges Group entitled “The Case for EFTA”. My constituents were told that the single market was not being put at risk, that there was an option to be self-governing and to take back control and have all the benefits of the single market. They were told to vote leave because we could stay in EFTA, so I do not understand why the WTO is now plan B and not EFTA.

I hope I have made it clear from my remarks that I view the proposal of this petition as potentially devastating for jobs in my constituency. It would be a road to ruin. It endangers our prosperity and our international standing, as well as putting in jeopardy the rights of our countrymen who live on the continent. I am pleased that the Government are moving in the opposite direction to the petition, with their ambition for a deep and enduring partnership with the EU. I very much hope they are able to meet their goals and I will do what I can do support that.

I would, however, caution that this agreement must include a deal on free movement of services, especially financial and professional services, which are the basis for so much of our prosperity. Should the deal not be everything that the Government hoped and promised, the solution would be closer involvement with other international bodies such as EFTA, and not to turn our back on the liberal international order and try to go it alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman makes a wise point, which shows the danger of standing up and trying to make a speech on the spot. I agree that discontent with the system and with politics has made people sign the petition. Arguably that also explains things such as the Trump phenomenon, which was kind of a vote for “none of the above”. When people are so frustrated with elites and people in ivory towers who seem removed from their everyday lives, I can see why they might sign such petitions. However, like many things in the Brexit debate, what might look good on first glance starts to fall apart after a close look at the detail. The promise of £350 million for the NHS is one such example. I think we had a one-off injection of that amount for the winter crisis, but it was meant to be every week. That is what was promised on the side of the bus. It sounds good, but in reality it falls apart.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about certainty and predictability. We live in uncertain times, so people want some sort of predictability. I do not read The Guardian in isolation—I mainly read it on Saturday for the TV guide—and I have been taking soundings from small businesses in my constituency. Park Royal, which at one stage was the biggest industrial estate in western Europe, is in my constituency, and I have visited various businesses there. Savoir Beds, in NW10, used to make hand-stitched mattresses and things for the Savoy hotel. I think it still supplies the Savoy, but its products are now available on the open market. Savoir Beds said to me early on, “Can you reverse Brexit?”

When I go to businesses I say, “Is there anything that I should be doing for you?” They all seem to be saying, “Can you reverse Brexit?” Initially, they found that their orders were going up because of the falling pound, but now that they want to buy more supplies that has come back to bite them. They have staff from all 27 member states. ChargeBox in Chiswick is really worried about that. When people go to a shopping centre, they can plug in their phone into a ChargeBox machine to charge it. Apparently, it makes sense to buy those machines, because people spend £35 more per head if there is a ChargeBox machine in a shopping centre. I visited ChargeBox the other week, and its representatives made those points to me about the talent pool from the 27 nations. That is in addition to the fact that businesses are finding the falling pound very difficult to work with, even though at one stage it might have looked like a correction.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I have a business in my constituency that manufactures paper cups. I think £400,000 of investment has been lost, and more than 50 jobs could be at risk if we do not get the deal right, because 55% of its manufacturing output is exported.

[Dr Huq]

I completely sympathise and agree with what the hon. Lady says; I have found the same thing. There is a small business called Mooch on Northfield Avenue, near where I live. It sells knick-knacks and gifts—a bit like Paperchase, but a small-business equivalent—and it opened just before 23 June. When it had to restock, the price of everything had gone up. It has not chosen the same lines again because people think that it has just opened and already hiked up its prices. Its suppliers are based in Europe, and because of the pound, everything costs more, so Mooch deliberately had to adjust its stock. I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the paper cups, and take her word for it.

It looks as if the EU negotiators have said, “Non, non, non”—that was meant to be a Belgian accent—to “Canada plus, plus, plus”, so that will not work. We have heard about the agencies and companies that are going to Frankfurt or elsewhere, such as the European Medicines Agency. I have not even got into the arguments about the impact on our regulatory framework, workers’ rights, environmental protections or many other things if we just came out with nothing in place—not to mention the impact on the 13,000 EU nationals in my constituency of Ealing Central and Acton.

In addition to Lord Kerr’s statement that article 50 could be revoked by only one side, there was a headline in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph—I accept not making exactly the same argument—which read: “UK could rejoin EU in future, says May deputy”. The argument that we could rejoin is already being entertained. Surely it would be cheaper and less troublesome simply to not leave in the first place? As I pointed out in my intervention, we were never part of the euro. I am talking in the past tense, even though we are still in the EU. We also had a generous rebate, and we were never part of the Schengen border agreement, so we were not even 100% in the EU anyway—we were perhaps only 60% in.

Some people argue that it was an advisory referendum, and only the other day the Speaker of the House of Commons said:

“People who are on the losing side are not obliged to accept that their view has been lost for ever”.

He also said:

“Democracy is not just about one vote…Democracy is a dynamic concept.”

I believe Nigel Farage has been saying that there might be a case for revisiting the decision. I imagine that he wants to do that quickly, so we do not see how bad things might really get. We used to be the world’s fifth-largest economy; we are now the sixth. The value of the pound seems to be tanking, and we have not left yet; it is early days. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions, because I am afraid I may have to leave before the end of the debate, Mrs Moon; I put that in the little note I scribbled to you. I apologise sincerely if I have to do so. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said:

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.”

The idea of leaving now, even before the negotiations are complete, is the opposite of that. There is a long list of people who are coming round to that perspective.

We need to indemnify ourselves. The points made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury about the single market and the customs union were very wise. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has done some modelling of what might happen in future; apparently, it may need 5,000 new staff, with a training process that can take six months. If we left now, how would that work out? I also wonder how many of the people affected are on the Irish border. In Dover, unemployment is not massively high, so if we left right away, that would that be a car crash. Moreover, Kent could turn into a huge lorry park.

Until the 2017 general election campaign started, it was almost as if the phrase “the will of the people” was deployed to shut people up. I welcome the fact that we are now having a healthy debate about the terms of Brexit, and that people such as the hon. Member for Eddisbury have voted with the Opposition on some matters. It seems as if a lid has been lifted, a genie has been let out of a bottle, and a Pandora’s box has been opened. Up until that point, it felt as if nobody was allowed to criticise any aspect of Brexit because it was “the will of the people.” It is very important that we look at other options, such as EEA or EFTA membership. To coin a phrase used by a former Labour Prime Minister, there may be a “third way”—not just in or out. There might be other ways of indemnifying ourselves against the worst effects of leaving.

Some of our media have been mentioned, such as The Guardian and the more left-leaning papers, but others such as the Daily Mail and the Telegraph have been really distasteful in some of their commentary. For example, putting the hon. Member for Eddisbury and others on the cover was reprehensible and appalling, as was calling for people’s heads, as it was a crazy person who went for the head of one of our own number, our friend and colleague Jo Cox—we should never lose sight of that.

I will finish with another quote from Mr Speaker, who said that

“in voting as you think fit on any political issue, you…are never mutineers…never malcontents…never enemies of the people.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 805.]

That should be painted on the side of a red bus! We should always uphold our principles in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

That prompts the question as to why the Secretary of State for Scotland made those unconditional guarantees at the Dispatch Box. There was a time when a Minister who made promises at the Dispatch Box and did not keep them could not possibly remain a Minister. Perhaps, if we were prepared to go back to those days, we could start to rebuild some of the trust that has been lost.

One of the great ironies is that, while a lot of the emotion linked to petitions such as this is the result of a lack of trust in politicians, both the hard Brexiteers and the not-so-hard Brexiteers on the Government side are asking us to trust the entire future of our nations to a small and not particularly accountable group of Government Ministers and advisers in the negotiations. To me, that seems completely illogical. If the process has been driven by people’s loss of trust in their politicians, the one thing we should not be doing is passing legislation that allows a few Ministers to go off and do what they like, with little or no effective scrutiny or holding them to account.

I will not say “blame” because I do not like using the word, but I think certainly the Conservatives, and the Labour party for a number of years, deserve to be strongly criticised for not standing up to dismiss the EU myths. I know that Labour have begun to do it more recently, but by that time it was too late. Instead of David Cameron saying that as part of his EU negotiation he would put an end to benefits tourism, why could he not have just told the truth and said, “We don’t need to put an end to it because it doesn’t really exist to any noticeable extent in the first place”? Why did he not say, “We’re going to use the rights we already have to prevent benefits tourism in its entirety”? Why, when there was so much talk about the damage being done to our economy by immigration, did no one in the Government stand up and say, “Immigration is good for our economy”?

[Antoinette Sandbach]

It is all very well to explain that, but when we look at the signatures on the petition, they come from areas that have had very large impacts from inward migration from the European Union. That was largely caused during the period when former Prime Ministers Blair and Brown could have put restrictions on the number of EU migrants coming in, and did not. That is what has caused the issues, because the volumes coming in meant that it was difficult for local councils to adjust to the demands on their services. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point on that matter.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point, and I have a lot of sympathy with her. However, the fact is that under the existing freedom of movement rules within the European Union, if the UK Government determined that there were particular geographical areas of high unemployment, for example, they would have the authority to take steps to restrict freedom of movement in those areas. That is just one example.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about the difficulties that local authorities, health authorities and so on have had in dealing with a significant number of people, whether they have come from the UK or elsewhere. A significant increase in the population of an area in a short time does cause difficulties, which were made much worse by the complete inadequacy of the system of Government funding for local services, certainly in England; I.do not know whether it applies in Northern Ireland or Wales. Local authorities simply were not given the powers they needed to take decisions to cope with increased demand for their services, because it was easier for some people to blame it on immigrants than on a failure of Government policy.

We have seen the EU myths that were never properly challenged; we had the myth again today about the all-powerful European Commission, able to impose laws on the United Kingdom. It is not. The Parliament of Wallonia was able to hold up the comprehensive economic and trade agreement deal. The Parliament of the United Kingdom tried to prevent the relevant UK Minister from signing it, but they went off and signed it anyway, against an explicit instruction from the European Scrutiny Committee acting with the full authority of the House of Commons. The Scrutiny Committee said to the Minister, “No, you don’t sign it.” The Minister went and signed it anyway.

The lack of parliamentary control and scrutiny over what has been happening in Europe for the last 20 years is not down to problems with the European Union. It is down to this Government and previous Governments being prepared to ride roughshod over the will of the House when it suited them.

If we were to accept just walking away from the European Union right now, none of these great international trade deals, which we are told will suddenly come out of the pipeline a few days after we leave, will be possible. Who will go into a major trade deal with anybody who says, “Oh yes, we had the biggest trade deal in the economic history of planet Earth, and we walked away from it and didn’t even stay to comply with the obligations we’d adopted and agreed to under that. We welched on the last trade deal we had; can we have a trade deal with you, please?” That is not going to happen. Even as a matter of self-interest and to present ourselves as an honest trading partner to future trade deals, we must ensure that we fulfil the obligations of our existing EU membership.

I do not have to hand figures for the rest of the United Kingdom, but in Scotland, we currently have £15.9 billion-worth of exports that go either to the EU or to countries to which we have access because of our EU membership. That is 56% of all Scotland’s international exports, and the figure is likely to rise to between 80% and 90% by the time we actually leave the European Union, because of the number of new trade deals that are coming on stream. We are looking at a potential drop in Scotland’s GDP of £12.7 billion if we leave without a deal. Actually, there is no scenario of leaving the EU that does not cause a reduction in Scotland’s GDP, but leaving with no deal is by far the worst. People would on average be £2,300 worse off. Who was it who said that nobody voted to make themselves poorer when they voted to leave the European Union? Perhaps they did not vote for that, but if we leave without a deal, it is what is going to happen.

I respect the views of the people who have signed this petition. I take offence at those who say that I am accusing people of being stupid. I would never use words such as “traitor” or “disloyal” to anybody simply because they voted or spoke in a way that I disagreed with. It is mainly Conservatives who have had those terms thrown at them, and worse, simply for following what they think are the interests of their constituents. That is despicable and should be called out and condemned unreservedly by us all whenever it happens. I have spoken out previously when people who claim to be on the same side as me have used similar inflammatory language about people they disagree with. There is simply no place for that in any democratic and free society.

That said, I genuinely do not understand what people who signed the petition think would happen if we were to leave the EU tomorrow without a deal. Let us say that we did leave tomorrow without a deal. There is no agreement on the future of the 3 million EU nationals living in the UK or the 1.5 million Brits living in the European Union. There is no deal about no border in Ireland, and that quite possibly means there is no longer a peace process in Ireland. There is no deal that allows our planes to continue to fly to the EU’s airports and its planes to bring us back from our holidays afterwards.

I think that the Prime Minister was highly irresponsible in coming up with the cheap line that no deal is better than a bad deal. The final sentence of the last report from the Exiting the European Union Committee was that it could not envisage, or it would be difficult to envisage, any scenario that the negotiating team would bring back that could possibly be as damaging as leaving the European Union without a deal, so let us get rid of that terminology, the sloganising, and the sound bites. They might sound good and get a few cheers on the front page of the Daily Mail, but they are contributing to a negative part of the whole debate. No deal is not better than a bad deal. No deal is the worst of all possible deals. This Parliament should have the courage of its convictions and send that message out, and each of us should be prepared, if need be, to say face to face to those of our constituents who signed the petition, “I know that you have done this sincerely and this is what you believe, but I cannot support it, because I am convinced that it is a recipe for complete and utter disaster.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

I do not know what deal the Government are going to make. I hope that they are capable of making something better than no deal. If the phrase “No deal is better than a bad deal” ever meant anything, it is losing whatever credence it had. I do not know how little confidence they have in their own negotiators that they would come back with something that bad. It is important that the deal we reach protects jobs and the economy. I think that is what the hon. Lady wants, but the Labour party recognises that it is also important that the deal recognises the outcome of the referendum. That is a difficult thing to achieve and a difficult thing to encapsulate in a single sentence. That is where the negotiations will succeed or fail, because the deal that is reached must settle the relationship we have with the European Union for 20 or 30 years, perhaps longer. We cannot have a perpetual state of negotiation and renegotiation, and referendum after referendum.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, from that point of view, EFTA membership is very attractive? One of the big concerns and reservations my constituents have is around ever closer union. EFTA gives us the benefit of a close relationship and a trading relationship without the political institutions, but still delivers that close and special partnership with the European Union.

[Jenny Chapman]

Well, it could, but we should not be so lacking in imagination that we cannot conceive of alternatives that may also offer benefits, without being tied to an existing form or treaty. Sometimes we disappear down the rabbit hole of the customs union, the single market and existing forms of arrangement. Actually, we might be able to do better than that. Let us keep those on the table, rather than do what the Prime Minister thought she was doing in the Florence speech and take them away. It is conceivable that something else may be possible. The option the hon. Lady outlined does have the benefits she describes and it should never be written off without proper debate and negotiation. I fear that that is what the Government initially attempted to do. Although post-phase 1, one could argue that that is back in play—we shall see.

Another thing that frequently comes up in these debates is the plight of UK citizens in Europe and EU citizens in the UK. People have been described as bargaining chips in this process, so what would happen to those bargaining chips if the negotiations did collapse because we walked away? They would be left in a very precarious situation indeed. They would have no status and no rights, and that is not a situation that we should take lightly. I am pleased that hon. Members have made that point in this debate and it ought to be something we consider very carefully.

There are also the issues of crime, counter-terrorism, exchange of data, the arrangements we have with Europol and the European arrest warrant. We are a member of all of those things by virtue of the fact that we are part of the European Union. It may be that we can have separate deals on those issues—who knows? But we certainly would not if we just walked away, as the petition urges us to do. We would also become less attractive to future trade partners. The public perception of the incompetence of this Government would only be enhanced were they to take that route—so perhaps there is something in it—but it is difficult to imagine a worse outcome for Britain than failing to agree a deal.

The issue of Northern Ireland and the Irish border may be the most difficult to solve. Looking at the approach the Government intend to take, I do not think anybody should have anything to do with these negotiations until they have been to the border and spoken to people who live there, community leaders and business leaders in Northern Ireland, because it is the most critical issue for anybody living in that part of the world that there is no return to any form of infrastructure on the border. One can conceive of any number of possibilities, such as a digital border, light-touch border checks and arrangements for small businesses but not for others. All those things are possible, but I tell the Minister that any kind of infrastructure on that border will make peace and the conduct of daily life in that part of the world impossible, and that must not be allowed to happen.

It is good that phase 1 rules out the prospect of a separate deal for Northern Ireland and some kind of border down the Irish sea. That is welcome. There needs to be a solution that preserves the integrity of the Union, but one cannot then say that we will have any other kind of border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. I am very interested to find out quite how we solve that in the context of what was agreed in phase 1. The statements made on the alignment of regulations are fascinating. Now that those things are going to be put into a legal document, we will have to get some real resolution to these questions and not the fudge and clever use of words we have seen so far.

I have heard other people say, “Oh, you are catastrophising when you talk about Northern Ireland in that way.” We are not. There are still shootings in Northern Ireland—61 incidents last year. There are still people active in that part of the world who are prepared to use those methods. That is not something we should take lightly. Many of my constituents fought in Northern Ireland and they understand what this means. Whether they voted to leave or remain, they understand that this is not a question that can just be skirted over or somehow dismissed. It needs a proper resolution and any outcome that reinstates a hard border would be fought against by my constituents, even those who voted to leave.

Another reason for us to reject the petition is consistency. The Labour manifesto in 2017 said that

“leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the economy.”

Some of the Prime Minister’s words can be interpreted as almost agreeing with that sense of needing a transitional period and being willing to negotiate in that way. That is welcome, and we should say that it is, but she now has to deliver that and keep the confidence of her parliamentary party while she does so—let us hope that she can.

Nobody voted to be poorer, to lose their job, for chaos or to be less safe. That is what would happen if we accepted the petition, as we are urged to do. It is very good indeed that everybody here agrees that that would be a bad outcome. If we can take anything away from today, it is that we accept that a deal is the best outcome and that walking away with no deal would be a disaster for the UK and is something that we should resist as far as we can.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Fernandes)]

Thank you for your stewardship and chairmanship of this worthwhile and interesting debate, Mr Hanson.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for leading the debate, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, on whether the UK should leave the EU immediately. I must say that I very much enjoyed listening to his contribution and those of many hon. Members today. He has been a passionate campaigner for Brexit for many years. I applaud the sensible, pragmatic and optimistic message that he voiced and set out, which was echoed by many hon. Members who took part in the debate.

I was particularly struck by the chord of unity and agreement and the consensus that emerged from this debate. From Members who took opposing sides in the referendum debate, from all over the country and from different political parties, there has been a total consensus that the UK should not walk away from the negotiations now, should continue to build on the progress that has been achieved and should work towards seeking that new, dynamic relationship with the EU through an agreement. I share that optimism and pragmatism that has been expressed today by many Members. I also share their call for unity, which was particularly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham)—a unity that unites all of us behind a shared vision of a Britain of the future: one that is global, open, dynamic and prosperous.

Combined with that optimism and that call for unity is a shared acknowledgment of the need for patience. Again, that has been voiced by many today, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). Time is needed so that we can make the best of Brexit and strike a successful and prosperous agreement with the EU.

The Government’s position has been very clear: the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union and there must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the backdoor and, importantly, no second referendum. To do so would undermine our democracy and destroy the vital trust that lies between citizen and state, between voter and representative. That commitment to leave the EU is steadfast on the part of the Government. It means leaving the customs union and the single market when we leave the EU. It means regaining control over our laws, our border and our money. It means restoring our ability to be a leader in global trade and to set our own independent immigration, agricultural and fisheries policies. It means benefits for consumers, businesses and our democracy.

The Prime Minister has also been very clear that the UK will leave the EU at 11 pm on 29 March 2019—a date that is fixed as a matter of law under the article 50 process. This will reduce uncertainty to businesses and the public: we will leave the EU no later and no sooner than that fixed point.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

I just want to take the Minister back to her point about democracy. Does she accept that no Parliament can bind another Parliament and that, although I am not advocating a second referendum and it is not something I support, as a matter of principle it is not anti-democratic to hold one?

[Suella Fernandes]

The referendum that we saw in 2016 was a brilliant example of a thriving democracy. That vote, whether it had been to leave or to remain, although the majority vote was to leave, was a vote of confidence in our democratic process. It was a vote of confidence in Britain, and it is incumbent on all of us to respect that result and deliver that outcome.

The position respects the vote of the people in the referendum of 2016 to leave the EU. It also reflects the will of Parliament. The Government have successfully triggered article 50, pursuant to an Act of Parliament passed last year in the Commons on Second Reading by 498 votes to 114—an overwhelming majority—and they are negotiating for a good outcome that works for both the people and businesses in the UK and those in the EU.

As someone who campaigned to leave the European Union, I understand that those who signed the petition are impatient to leave the EU and are asking the Government to leave the negotiations before 2019. However, the Government are responding in a responsible manner, balancing the needs of adapting to our new post-Brexit landscape with ensuring that we are in the best possible position to really grasp all the advantages that Brexit will bring, so that we can have a smooth and successful Brexit. That is why an implementation period is so important.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the “punishment deal” mentioned in the petition will come to pass. Striking a free trade agreement with the European Union will be mutually beneficial to both parties. We want a rich, prosperous new partnership with our European friends and allies, and we believe that that is eminently possible. Seeking the best deal for the UK and maximising the benefits of leaving the EU, while maintaining the greatest possible access to EU markets and continuing to work with our European neighbours on common problems such as terrorism and security, is vital if we are to ensure that we manage the prospects of life outside the EU.

In addition, after withdrawal the UK will bring an end to the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. As the EU has confirmed, we have already made significant progress towards a good deal, as was set out in the Government’s joint report in December, striking agreement on citizens’ rights, on a financial settlement and in relation to Northern Ireland. For me, and for the Government, that provides great confidence that we can achieve a more positive deal going forward, and significantly reduces the chance of a no-deal scenario.

However, let me be clear: while we want and expect a good deal with the EU, the Government have a duty to plan for a range of eventualities, including the unlikely scenario where we leave the EU without a deal. That is common sense and it is prudent. Our plans are carefully developed to provide the flexibility to respond to a range of negotiated outcomes and to prepare us for the unlikely eventuality of not securing a deal.

Some of the Government’s planning has already become evident. Each Department has a clear understanding of how withdrawing from the EU may affect its existing policies in a wide range of outcomes. To support Departments, the Treasury has already given those such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Home Office, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Transport, nearly £700 million to prepare for Brexit, and is making an additional £3 billion of funding available over the next two years.

On a legislative front, as well as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the Government are already introducing other legislation, such as our Trade Bill, which will allow the UK to develop an independent trade strategy. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill will lay the groundwork for an outstanding international sanctions regime, and the customs Bill will set a framework for delivering an effective customs regime. Legislation on nuclear safeguards arising from the UK Parliament will deliver a regime for the future landscape on nuclear safeguards.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Does the Minister accept the recommendations of various Committees, including the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, for example, that we should seek to rejoin Euratom, or seek associate membership? It would cost around £4 million, which would be a far cheaper option, and would instantly align us with a nuclear safeguards regime that is worldwide, rather than just European, permitting our power stations to keep providing electricity for our homes and constituents. Although I appreciate that the Bills are being introduced, does she see that that is a sensible option?

[Suella Fernandes]

No. The Government’s policy is to leave Euratom, because although it provides some benefits, it also subscribes us to a jurisdiction and legal framework that are not aligned with our objectives in leaving the European Union. Our Nuclear Safeguards Bill provides us with an opportunity to combine exactly the objectives that my hon. Friend set out with honouring the legislative requirements of leaving the European Union.

[Suella Fernandes]

A vote to leave the European Union entails an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is what this Government are committed to and that is what will be delivered. It is essential if we are to regain the benefits of leaving the European Union.

Although the Government do not want or expect a no-deal scenario, we have a duty to plan for all eventualities, so we continue to develop those plans to ensure that we are prepared when we leave the EU at in March 2019. Alongside the necessary legislation, we are procuring new systems and recruiting new staff where necessary to ensure a smooth exit regardless of the outcomes. However, to walk away from the negotiating table now and leave immediately would be counterproductive and unnecessary, especially in light of the progress made in December on the first stage of the negotiations.

First, consider the financial settlement. Far from the punishment deal anticipated by the petition, we have achieved a good deal for UK taxpayers. Britain is a nation that honours its obligations, and we will honour our share of the commitments made during our membership while ending the vast sums of money going to the EU every year. Crucially, we have ensured that our rebate will continue to apply, and that the EU will reduce the settlement accordingly. The settlement may be paid over the course of several years, but the Government estimate that it will be between £35 billion and £39 billion, equivalent to roughly four years of our current budget contribution, around two of which we expect will be covered by the implementation period.

As the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) pointed out in his speech, the money is not a divorce bill. We have agreed a fair financial settlement with the EU, enabling us to move to the next stage of negotiations. We will soon see significant savings from our payments to the EU, compared with what we would have paid had we stayed in. We will continue to benefit from EU programmes under the budget plan. No UK region will lose out on EU budget funding, and anyone who gets European funding—local councils, regional bodies, UK businesses, scientific researchers, Erasmus students or charities—can continue to bid for and receive funding until the end of their projects.

From the beginning, the Prime Minister has been clear that safeguarding the rights of EU citizens is her priority. In her open letter in October, she made it clear that we

“hugely value the contributions that EU nationals make to the economic, social and cultural fabric of the UK”,

and that we want them to stay. We are pleased that that commitment is reflected in the joint report of December. The agreement reached in principle will provide citizens with certainty about their rights going forward, enabling families who have built lives together in the EU and UK to stay together. The agreement gives people more certainty not only about residence but about healthcare, pensions and other benefits. The agreement will cover only those people defined in the withdrawal agreement. Anyone arriving in the UK after the specified date who does not fall in that category will be subject to future arrangements.

Those who signed the petition may well have had concerns about the European Court of Justice. At present, the UK is bound by all ECJ decisions; hundreds of decisions every year have effect in the UK, whether or not the case originated in the UK. That will end. The UK will take back control of its laws, and UK courts will have the final say on UK cases. EU citizens’ rights in the UK will be upheld by implementing the agreement into UK law.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Of course, we will still be subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. My constituents have a great deal of difficulty understanding the distinction between the two. Will the Minister confirm that it is Britain’s intention to remain bound by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights? The judgment in the Abu Hamza case, for example, prevented us from deporting him.

[Suella Fernandes]

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the European Court of Human Rights arises from the European convention on human rights, totally separate from the European Union and its legal structures. It is a source of much of our rights culture here in the UK, transposed through the Human Rights Act 1998. She is right that we are, and will continue to be, bound to honour that document and the decisions of that court.