Leaving the EU: Parliamentary Vote

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s substantive question, may I just correct him? He talked about Czechoslovakia. The Minister involved was correcting somebody else; he was not asserting a belief that that was who we were negotiating with. I would prefer that to be on the record.

Yes, with the full facts, absolutely; that is why the vote has to take place once the draft deal is concluded. At that point, we will know precisely what the withdrawal deal amounts to and what the framework for the future arrangement is.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Given the way the EU has delayed and delayed, it is not entirely unreasonable for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think it will carry on delaying. Will he impress on Monsieur Barnier, however, that it would be much more preferable to conclude a deal as early as possible, because any implementation period will be of far less value if business cannot be certain it will be available to it sooner rather than later?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, that is one of the things I said to the Select Committee yesterday—that we intend or will try to get the Commission to agree the implementation period as soon as possible.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The Opposition spokesman has just reminded us that this Bill was trailed for a long time as the “great repeal Bill”, which is a very unlikely title. Fortunately, it repeals hardly anything at all, which is one blessing. One thing that it does repeal, however, is the European Communities Act 1972, which is a particular irony for myself and, no doubt, for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), as we well remember that Act. I was then a Government Whip and engineering, mainly by co-operating with the Jenkinsite faction of the Labour party, how we were to get the vote through against the rebellious, imperialist Eurosceptics who were then on our Back Benches. It is therefore an irony that a complete mirror-image debate now presents itself to me rather many years later.

My starting point is where the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) finished. I have to accept that we are going to leave the European Union. I accept that because this House passed the legislation to enact article 50 by a large majority. I argued and voted against it, but it went through, and it is idle to pretend that it is politically possible for that to be reversed. The question now is how we leave. I quite accept my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s basic premise that technical legislation is required to ensure that it is practicable to get a smooth legal transition, but I do not think that the Bill confines itself to that aim, as has just been said. A Bill of this kind is necessary, and we will have to vote for it, but the question is whether this particular form of the Bill is remotely acceptable.

I studied the amendments tabled by the official Opposition, and indeed those tabled by large numbers of other Members, and my conclusion was that I found myself agreeing with the overall majority of the sentiments and opinions in all of them. The one thing that gave me a problem was that they all suggest that the House

“declines to give a Second Reading”

to the Bill, which would stop any possibility of our making the required changes. However, minded as I am to contemplate voting for Second Reading, I will need some assurances before we get there, in particular that there will be sufficient movement on some of the unanswerable points being made about parliamentary democracy and a smooth transition to whatever the alternative is, so that the Bill becomes something other than wrecking legislation if it proceeds. I have not decided yet—I am actually going to listen to the debate, which is a rare feature in this House, because if we were to defeat the Second Reading, the Government would be obliged to bring back another Bill to try to achieve the same purpose. If the Government will not move in the next two days of debate, we may have to force them to go back to the drawing board and try again to produce a Bill that is consistent with our parliamentary traditions and that gives this House the control that leaders of the leave campaign kept telling the British public during the referendum campaign they were anxious to see.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will not, because large numbers of people want to speak and I want to touch briefly on the time constraints. During the proceedings on the 1972 Act, I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Bolsover, like me, sat through days and days and weeks and weeks of very high-quality debate. It was a historic moment and it was not constrained by these Blairite notions of family-friendly hours, timetables and so on. I do not want to go back to the all-night filibustering and some of the nonsense that led to those practices being discredited—that is not suitable in the 21st century—but this Government began this process by trying to argue that the royal prerogative enabled them not even to bring article 50 before the House. They have been trying to reduce parliamentary scrutiny and votes ever since the whole thing started.

As a simple example, I raised with you a few moments ago, Mr Speaker, the question of the 5 o’clock rule. Apparently we all have to stop at 5 o’clock this afternoon. It would reassure me about the Government’s intentions if the opportunity were taken to lift that limit now. The Leader of the House only has to rise at some time in the next hour or so and say that the 5 o’clock will not be invoked today, and all the time constraints that we face will not be a problem. I hope that the Bill’s programme motion will not confine debate to a comic number of days. The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras showed how complex some of the debates will be, and we do not want to be told that we have to give legal analysis in five minutes flat or be cut out by some quite unnecessary timetable. We have at least until the end of 2019 to get these procedures right.

There are two broad issues. One of them I will leave alone because the concerns have been dealt with brilliantly and will dominate a lot of today: the Henry VII clause, the sweeping powers and the extraordinary nature of the legislation. I will not try to compete with what I think, with respect, was a brilliant speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope that we will hear some reply to it over the next two days of debate—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) will touch on it.

My own analysis of clauses 7 and 17 is probably not up to the standards that have already been demonstrated, and there is no point in repeating the case, so I will just say one thing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues about what I expect in response. We are told that conversations will be held with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I am delighted to hear that. We are told that we will have assurances about how Ministers are going to use the powers, but at every stage in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s speech he actually defended the wording in the Bill, as he had to, and did not make the faintest concession either to the justifiable concerns about the impact on devolution or to the even bigger concerns about whether we are going to fritter away parliamentary democracy in this House by passing the Bill in its present form.

I know that my right hon. Friend is sincere in his assurances. He is one of the people in this House whom I would trust to seek to deliver what he is offering to us, but the reality, as someone has already said, is that we are all transient in politics. He will come under pressure from some of his colleagues, and we have no idea who will be in any particular post in 18 months’ time. The letter of the law will determine the scope for parliamentary scrutiny. I do not want more assurances or charm; I want positive amendments and changes. The Government will salvage their reputation if they take the lead and produce amendments that answer the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and if they reassure us that the drafting was a misunderstanding. Better drafting can make it the no-policy-change, technically necessary Bill that I would quite happily support.

The second issue, very briefly, is the question of staying in the single market and customs union during the transitional period. Of course we will have a transitional period, of course it has to be a smooth transition and of course by the end of 2019 we will negotiate a basis for future free trading arrangements, but the Government have to move, just as the Opposition have moved. I made a speech in the Queen’s Speech debate explaining why I am in favour of staying in the single market and customs union at least for the transitional period, and I then answered the various arguments that are routinely thrown out, so I will not repeat any of that now.

There is now only a whisker of difference between us. I do not deceive myself that I converted the Labour party, which has tabled an amendment identical to my arguments in the Queen’s Speech debate, with which it did not then agree, but its proposals are remarkably near the Government’s proposals.

We all know, and British business knows, that we need a smooth transition. We do not need change until we are certain that we have some acceptable new arrangements. The Government’s position paper on customs arrangements—I will not read it all—says:

“This could involve a new and time-limited customs union between the UK and the EU Customs Union, based on a shared external tariff and without customs processes”.

I will not go on, but there is an absolute whisker of difference between the Government’s paper and what the Opposition are now saying, and what everybody of the slightest common sense, in my opinion, is saying—that we should stay in the single market and the customs union until we know that we can smoothly transfer to some new and equally beneficial arrangement. Again, I would like some reassurances on that.

I detect in the wording of the Bill and the Opposition’s amendment that we are crawling towards the cross-party approach that will obviously be required to settle this in the national interest. It is absurd for the Labour party to say that it is all agreed on the new policy it has adopted, and it is absurd for the Conservative party to say, “We’re all agreed on whatever it is the Secretary of State is trying to negotiate in Brussels.” The public are not idiots; they know that both parties are completely and fundamentally divided on many of these issues, with extreme opinions on both sides represented in the Cabinet and shadow Cabinet, let alone on the Back Benches.

Let us therefore resolve this matter. Let us make sure this Bill does not make it impossible to stay in the single market and customs union, and let us have a grown-up debate on the whole practical problem we face and produce a much better Act of Parliament than the Bill represents at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I do not want to repeat many of the excellent points made from the shadow Front Bench and elsewhere, but I do want to make one observation and two points—one legal and technical on clause 6, and one that is more substantial on clause 9.

First, I want to make an observation. I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who has just spoken: what is proposed in this Bill is unprecedented, as we see from the reaction on both sides of the House.

There is an absurdity in this debate. I spent much of the time during the EU referendum debating against Conservative Members campaigning to leave. More often than not, the core of their argument was about a Brussels elite exercising power, yet I have sat in the Chamber for most of today and listened to them become arch-advocates of transferring power to another elite in this country.

It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) is no longer in the Chamber. He talked about his participation in the Maastricht debates of the 1990s, and the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Stone (Sir William Cash) were also involved. The Prime Minister of the time had a word to describe them all, which I will not repeat today. They were constantly invoking parliamentary sovereignty and the importance of this House determining the future of our nation. It is funny how silent they are on upholding that argument now, and have been over the last few hours of this debate.

Let us be honest about the reason for this and for the absurdity of their position in this debate: they promised Brexit in terms that simply cannot be delivered in the timeframe the Government envisage. That is why we see these unprecedented, extraordinary powers envisaged in this Bill for the Executive. It is entirely right for us to keep reminding people of what the promises were and whether they are being delivered.

My technical point on clause 6—

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chuka Umunna]

I will not give way, I am afraid, because of the time. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he is not silent; he is certainly not silent.

The Secretary of State today said that the Government wish the transitional arrangements to be as close as possible to the existing arrangements. The EU27 are really only going to entertain membership of the single market and a form of customs union, if that is what the Secretary of State means, but they will also expect the rules on the transitional arrangements to be uniform and similar to those we have at present. The problem with clause 6 as drafted is that it does not give a clear enough instruction that after the exit date the judiciary should interpret UK law in a way that complies with EU law. The Institute for Government states that the ambiguity on this point risks leaving judges stranded on the frontline of a fierce political battle. I can say, as someone who practised as a lawyer for the best part of a decade before coming here, that that must be addressed.

The Bill cannot be allowed to come into force unless this House has approved the deal that is envisaged. The Bill does not state whether any withdrawal agreement will need the consent of both Houses before the powers can be used. The Government have said that we will get a vote on a final deal, but that does not appear to be within the Bill. Rather, it will take place by means of a motion, which would of course not be legally binding. So we have a promise of a vote, but it will have no teeth. That will deprive this House of its proper say not only on the withdrawal agreement but on a situation that the Prime Minister has described in which an affirmative decision could be made to walk away without any deal at all. We are somehow supposed to be passive spectators in that situation. It must be written on the face of the Bill that Parliament will have a part to play in all those scenarios, and that no powers in the Bill will be exercised until Parliament has had its say through a debate written in statute. We have been given many guarantees and assurances by those on the Government Front Bench, but these measures have to be put on the face of the Bill. We are asking for these assurances and scrutinising the Bill in the national interest, and we are entitled to do so without our motives being questioned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to my colleague on his appointment to the Front Bench? It is very well deserved. Is not the right way for the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) to secure the rights of workers, and to secure the environmental protections that he wants, to vote for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill? If the Labour party succeeds in blocking the Bill, those protections will no longer exist.

[Mr Baker]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations and his support, and I look forward to his support in future. He is absolutely right: the best way for Members of this House to ensure that they serve their constituents by delivering a working statute book, and delivering the continuity of the rights and protections currently in EU law and applying to the UK, is to vote for this Bill and to support its passage through the House.

EU Exit Negotiations

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

With the best will in the world, I choose my own words. In a negotiation there are pressure points, but that is to be expected. Anyone who imagines that 28 nations effectively negotiating together will not come to a point of pressure is living in another world—a fantasy world, someone said.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it was Michel Barnier who described the idea of a transition period without a clear agreement at the end as a bridge to nowhere, so will he dismiss some of the advice that he has received on transition periods? May I also invite him to dismiss the idea that September will be the great progress point against which the Government should be tested? Should we not wait until after the German elections when the German Chancellor will be much more fully involved in the discussions before we become really impatient for progress?

[Mr Davis]

I would not be harsh on Michel Barnier or others. The view of what a transition period is has gone through an enormous metamorphosis in the past six months. When we began talking about this—us and the European 27—the Europeans had in mind using the entire two years to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, then a sort of infinite transition period in which we negotiated our departure. That is clearly something that was massively against our interest in negotiating terms.

What was my hon. Friend’s second question? [Interruption.] Germany—yes. There are other issues that play against the timetable; there is no doubt about that. The German election takes place in three weeks or so, and the formation of the German Government will take at least another couple of months—probably three months. That will have an impact, because Germany—it is no secret—is the most powerful and important nation in Europe, as well as the paymaster, and it will have a big say in the outcome. So yes, there are other things to consider. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we should not pin ourselves to September, October or whatever, because in doing so we would be doing the job of the people negotiating against us, and we are precisely not going to do that.

Brexit and Foreign Affairs

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I do agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that we are prepared for every contingency.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davis]

No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make some progress.

A large part of my job—almost the invisible part—is ensuring that we are prepared for contingencies, and that is happening as we speak.

We have also made it clear that the new partnership must be overseen by a new and independent impartial dispute mechanism. That cannot and will not be the European Court of Justice. No nation outside the European Union submits to the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ, and neither will the United Kingdom. We will start to move towards the new partnership by securing the rights of citizens on both sides. I know that everyone in the House will agree with me that European Union citizens make a huge contribution to our society. We have heard today from the Prime Minister about what the approach will entail, but the overarching principle is that European citizens living in the United Kingdom will continue to lead their lives in exactly the same way as British citizens with the same rights and responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I will make some progress, if I may.

Back home, the divisions are obvious. The Chancellor’s Mansion House speech last week was clearly an attempt to spike the Prime Minister’s Brexit approach. Thus he spoke of a “jobs and prosperity first” Brexit. That reflects the Labour party manifesto, in which we spoke of a “jobs and…economy first” Brexit. The Chancellor also spoke of an

“early agreement on transitional arrangements”

and no “cliff edge” for the economy, and that is in the Labour party manifesto, which said we would

“negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’”.

He has clearly been reading about our position.

The Chancellor spoke of a “management of migration”, not shutting it down. The Labour party manifesto spoke of

“fair rules and reasonable management of migration.”

Was his speech a personal view, the Government’s view, or the view that he hopes the next Prime Minister will take? Clearly we cannot go on like this.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in just a moment.

This approach is damaging our reputation abroad and weakening our position. Like the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, I was in Brussels last week. The talk in Brussels is, “What is going on? How long are this Government going to last?” We have put ourselves in the worst possible starting position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

It is realistic to imagine that we will not get a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU when we leave and that interim arrangements will persist under WTO rules, which may well be zero-tariff rules, but we would have to believe the EU was seriously insane if it wanted to ground all flights between the UK and the EU, if it refused to offer the products and standards arrangements it has with 100 or more other countries—whether or not it has a free trade deal with those countries—or if it wanted to check every Mini exported to the EU to see whether it fits the EU’s definition of a car. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really think the EU is so insane that it would want to do that?

[Keir Starmer]

This mischaracterisation of the point I am making does not help. This is not the EU demanding here; if we do not have a lawful basis for these activities in the UK, we do not have the authority to do this. It is no good talking up a “no deal” as if it is a viable, tenable option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I want to deal with this point, because I know it is an issue of real concern to my party. We have said that the outcomes are what matter, not the model for achieving them.

[Mr Jenkin]

I listened carefully to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying, and he said he does not want to have to adopt rules of origin. How will we avoid doing so unless we are in a customs union relationship with the EU?

[Keir Starmer]

I have said on a number of occasions that we should leave being in the customs union on the table. What the Government have done is to sweep these options off the table without evidence, without facts and without assessing the risks. We have said that what we should do is focus on the outcomes. One of the best ways to achieve tariff-free access across Europe is to have the customs union on the table at least as an option to consider.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I have seen that poll, which is of course important, but this is a matter of principle. This is a question of whether this House should be able to vote on the deal reached in two years’ time before the European Parliament votes and should be able to have a meaningful say, and that is what it has been, in principle, from start to finish.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The amendment does not simply give this House the right to vote on these matters; it also gives the other place the right to vote on these matters. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what would happen if this House voted to accept what the Government want to do, but the other place dug in and rejected it? What would happen then?

[Keir Starmer]

There is a reason why the amendment spells that out in detail: it is precisely what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box should be the position last time this was debated. Lords amendment 2 carefully reflects what the Government say is their assurance, so such a question about the amendment should be put to the Secretary of State.

Exiting the EU: New Partnership

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The Government’s policy is that migration will be at a sustainable level. The point to understand here is that such decisions are made on a year-by-year basis. It is not Government policy to make the British economy suffer as a result of labour or talent shortages or anything else. It is perfectly proper for a Government to want to control their own migration policy and not leave it open-ended. The solution to the problem the hon. Lady cites is not just not managing the problem.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

When the Government serve notice on the European Union under article 50, will they take that opportunity to frame the negotiation by making it clear that we expect to agree the framework of our future relationship, as specified in article 50? Otherwise, we will effectively be negotiating the divorce arrangements in the dark, and the European Union would not be observing the principle of sincere co-operation.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend refers to the need to negotiate ongoing arrangements in parallel with the departure arrangements. As he says, article 50 refers to having regard to ongoing arrangements, and a negotiation on departure arrangements cannot be concluded before the ongoing arrangements have been concluded. I have already made that point to Michel Barnier, my opposite number, and I think the Prime Minister has made that point to a number of her opposite numbers around the European Union. This will be the first issue that we need to resolve at the beginning of the negotiations, so my hon. Friend is quite right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady is right that the farming sector is extremely important. The Government have already put in place measures to ensure that the current level of EU funding is protected until 2020, the end of the multi-annual financial framework period. Furthermore, I think that she should have more confidence in the sector. British agriculture produces some of the finest products in the world, and I have no doubt that the arrangements that are put in place will ensure that they continue to thrive in the international market.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend how the Government will approach the regulations and directives that will be created and implemented between now and the date we leave the European Union? We probably have no intention of keeping those regulations or directives, such as the ban on glyphosate. The National Farmers Union is very clear that that measure will be very damaging to British agriculture. Will we have to implement it before we leave?

[Mr Jones]

The Government have made it absolutely clear that, until the date of our departure, we will continue to play a full part in the European Union, which does mean observing all the regulations that are implemented. The great repeal Bill will absorb the body of EU law into British law. Once we have left the European Union, we will be in a position to review all that legislation and take the decisions that are best for British agriculture.

Article 50

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

There is a genuine desire, I believe, for people to come together, to support the Government, to build a consensus and to get the best deal possible. The reality is that we have abandoned the single market and the free movement of people without any debate in this place, never mind a vote.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

We had a referendum.

[Anna Soubry]

Well, there was one question on the paper: leave or remain. We are leaving the European Union—that is accepted.

I take my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a man of his word. When I voted for the two-part motion in December, I did not agree with triggering article 50 at the end of March, but I voted for the motion in the spirit that we would have a plan—I would like a White Paper—that we could debate. That would bring us together. What does my right hon. Friend have to lose by having a debate on a White Paper?

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend now agrees that this Parliament should be supreme. In fact, Mr Blair did take the country to war on the royal prerogative, because the vote in this House was not law, but purely advisory. Is it not rather odd that we now have a Supreme Court that sees itself as a constitutional court able to direct that this House shall have to do something, which has always previously been our right? We are a supreme Parliament; we can stop Brexit if we want to.

[Mr Clarke]

It is not going to direct us at all. The Supreme Court is the authority—I am not, and my hon. Friend is not—for saying what, strictly speaking, the legal constitutional position is. This House then has its own political role in deciding how, within that framework, it is going to operate. The political practice for decades has been that these kinds of decisions are not taken on the basis of telling Parliament that it has nothing to do with it and that Members will not have a vote. On the basis of that argument, the Cameron Government would have proceeded with their intervention in Syria, which we decided that we did not want; they would not even have offered the Commons a vote before they proceeded. In this particular instance, no Government that I can recall would have had the nerve to come along to Parliament and say, “Oh, we are exercising the royal prerogative; we are not going to ask you.”

Finally, let me deal with the nature of accountability. I am not sure that the Government have yet wholly picked up the point, apart from the fact that they have to get out of being defeated on a motion in a Labour Supply day. We are told, “Oh, the Government will make statements.” Well, the Government have been making statements, in which the rather vague language of “a plan” is used. We will probably be told that the plan is to have a red, white and blue Brexit and that we are believers in free trade, whilst we are giving up all the conditions that govern free trade in the single market. Apparently, not only are we going to give up the European Court of Justice, which we have always used very successfully to resolve disputes, but we are going to have trade agreements with everybody else and not abide by the rules of those either, if we feel like it. We need a White Paper, a strategy, votes in this House and clarity on policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I found the speech by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) rather refreshing. I submit that democracy is an awesome thing. When the tide turns in the minds of the voters, it is refreshing to see their democratically elected representatives turning as well. I wish him well in advancing a humane case for a humane and sensible immigration policy.

We have to acknowledge that this is a fraught moment—for some, it is painful—in our history, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) demonstrated. We need to take on board the points made about healing divisions and adopting the right tone. The House should look at the continuum of our history: a whole millennium of this nation. Our successors will look back on this short period in which we were a member of the EU very differently. We have been in this organisation for only 43 years, which is a tiny span of our history. We debate it hotly now, but all the controversy will pass, and we will look back with much more equanimity than we feel today.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as we bring the country together it is important that people do not look for possible or imaginary problems, because we want the strongest possible position to negotiate the best possible answer for the country, and we need to unite to do so?

[Mr Jenkin]

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend.

The Latin monetary union was formed in 1865 in Europe and lasted for 62 years, but has been completely forgotten. It is never discussed. It came and went, and I think that we will come to see our EU membership, barely longer than a generation, in the same way.

There are two aspects to the motion. First, the Government will produce a plan—we all agree about that now. I do not think it came as a surprise that the Government conceded that point. Secondly, it seems that most Members will vote for the invocation of article 50 by 31 March 2017. We can demonstrate to the country that there is a great measure of consensus, but it prompts the question why there is a court case, and why the courts have chosen to become involved, particularly once the motion is carried. We do not need a court to tell the House that it is sovereign. The House could stop Brexit whenever it wanted, as it could stop anything else that a Government do if it chose to do so. It is unfortunate that a different kind of judiciary is developing, as I do not think that Parliament ever voted for that. We await the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling with respect and great interest to see if that is the kind of judiciary that we want.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Gentleman share concerns about the headlong rush to trigger article 50? Given that there may be 12 months of negotiations, if there is no deal in place the UK might find itself trading under WTO conditions, which would not be beneficial, particularly in the agricultural sector but also in a whole host of other activities. Has he thought about the consequences? I think that industry is not suitably engaged and is not demanding from Government the conditions in which it wants the UK to trade after 2019.

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman will find that a great deal of industry is quietly preparing for the possibility that there will not be an agreement. It is much more adaptable than many of us in the House. It is much more able to deal with change than many of us in government. What we are seeking in the plan is less complexity and less uncertainty, because that is what preoccupies people. Some people are talking up the complexity—some people want more uncertainty—to try to make a point. However, we have an opportunity in the plan to have less complexity and less uncertainty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) made it clear that the Prime Minister has cleared up a great deal of uncertainty, but that many in the opposition choose not to hear.

As for the aim of the article 50 agreement, it should be to put as little in the agreement as possible. If we want an agreement, let us not overload the process. Let us keep to the bare minimum. Let us try to shorten the timeframe. I was encouraged that Michel Barnier, the negotiator at the European Commission, wants to shorten the period of negotiations. Perhaps the European Commission is beginning to feel the pressure from business and people outside politics who want us to get on with this process, not drag it out and make it take 10 years or some of the more ridiculous suggestions.

We should be in a position to make a generous offer in our opening bid, which I expect to be included in the White Paper. It is worth reminding ourselves what the treaties invite the EU to do. Article 8 of the treaty on European Union states:

“The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity”.

The EU should read its own treaties before it starts its negotiation. Article 3.5 says that in its relations with the wider world, the EU

“shall contribute to peace, security . . . mutual respect among peoples”

and

“free and fair trade”.

Our opening pitch should be very simple. We should make an offer—a zero/zero offer: we will give EU countries zero tariffs on their exports to our country, if they will give us zero tariffs on their imports from us. That is in everyone’s interest. It is in the interest of jobs on the continent and in the United Kingdom.

We should also offer an opportunity for mutual recognition of services agreements, so that we can continue trading in services, as we do now. That, again, would be in everybody’s interest. We want the European Union to have access to the global financial capital and we want to be able to trade in the European Union in the same way. Of course we will offer continued co-operation, as the Secretary of State said, in justice and home affairs, security and defence, and foreign policy. We want to be the good neighbours.

Finally, the repeal Bill can be simple, unless people choose to make it complicated to try to carry on scoring points. The European Communities Act is a few clauses long. We need a repeal Bill of only a few clauses, setting out the principles by which we leave. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Czech Republic and Slovakia were one country and within six months of deciding to split, they split, and they are better friends now than they ever were before. That is the kind of relationship that I look forward to having with our European partners. Let us move it along quickly. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do a quicker deal and offer a quick Brexit in everyone’s interests, to reduce the uncertainty and keep things simple.