EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Falconer]

I am glad that someone is grateful for my coming back, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s courteous tone. Of course, the Windsor framework is important. As he and many people across this House know, it is an incredibly complex arrangement that seeks to preserve the delicate balance in Northern Ireland. I have heard comments from all sides of the debate. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland soon. It is vital that the people of Northern Ireland get the benefits of both. I understand the criticisms that he made during his remarks, but at the moment it is the one part of the UK that benefits from both, and I want to see that benefit maximised to the absolute fullest.

I was saying a little about European challenges. As the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, there are challenges for our economy, as there are for other European economies—I discussed that during my time in Austria, and the Foreign Secretary will discuss it with his counterparts. There are of course real conversations to be had with our European friends on the whole range of issues that have been discussed.

I want to confirm a few things. First, to colleagues who spoke up for their farmers, I understand the pressures on British farmers. I understand the support that I have heard this morning for concluding an SPS deal. I intend to do so with British farmers’ interests at its very heart. I heard some of the specifics, including the barriers and costs that have accrued when seeking to export. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), but there was a suggestion that sausages were not the most important thing. As a Lincolnshire MP, I would like to say that they are, and their easy export is a priority for me and would benefit not just Lincolnshire and Europe, but the whole of the UK.

I also heard the other important points that were made. I will again try to strike a brief moment of unity with the Opposition: we have great strengths in services. Many European firms look to the UK for those strengths. It is a shame that those arrangements and services remain as immature as they are. That was a frustration before 2016 and it remains a frustration afterwards. It is in the whole of Europe’s interest to free up the services trade within Europe. I discussed that with my counterparts just this week.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The question of scrutiny was raised by the Minister’s colleagues. In the absence of a European Scrutiny Committee, how is this stuff going to be scrutinised if he brings in direct applicability and direct effect of European laws?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot provide much comment on the structures of parliamentary scrutiny, which are obviously not a question for me, but I can confirm that if we are able to conclude the ambitious deal that I hope we will be able to in the months ahead, I will of course return to Parliament and there would be a full scrutiny process. He refers to changes in the law. That happens in this place, and I would expect proper scrutiny processes of any legislation that was required to enact the Bills in question.

I was talking about services, and I pay tribute to the musical talents in this place. It is not just the Prime Minister who knows how to play a guitar. It is a great shame for Europe and Britain that touring is not easier for British bands in Europe. I discussed those issues this week. It is a source of frustration to me that it has not been possible to make faster progress. I heard the Liberal Democrat advice to change our manifesto commitments, but I would question the political wisdom of doing so. It is a manifesto commitment for us to make progress on this issue, and we will continue to do so. There are a range of complex issues being raised by the European Union about securing the changes that we want to see. I am sure it is a sentiment shared right across the House that music should flow freely, and that the UK and Europe benefit from the closeness of those relationships.

Some questions were raised about the timing of the summit and the negotiations. Obviously, we will need to agree timing with our friends in Europe and announce it in the usual way, but I want to be clear to the House that I am ambitious to move quickly and I would like to see progress within the coming months.

There was much else upon which I could touch. I will leave the debate about the statistical doppelganger proxy method for checking whether the British economy could have grown more or less quickly than other European economies to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire. All I will say is that our relationship with Europe is absolutely vital for our economy. In our constituencies, we will all have experienced businesses that are finding exports and recruitment harder; a whole range of issues have been made more difficult by the poor deal that we were left with. I would like to reassure the House that it is my intention during my time in this role to make it easier for the whole of the UK.

Iran Conflict: Ceasefire

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am sorry I have not replied to the correspondence yet; I will do so as quickly as I can. In relation to the question about military support, I want to be clear: the UK stands with our Gulf allies in a defensive capacity. As the shadow Foreign Secretary alluded to, we do provide capability to our friends and partners in the Gulf to protect themselves against these attacks. We do also continue to provide permissions to the United States to use our airbases, where they are taking defensive action on behalf of our partners and allies. Those arrangements have been discussed by the relevant Ministers from the Ministry of Defence on a number of occasions, and they remain in place.

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

I ask this question in all sincerity. Throughout this conflict, the Government have pleaded for de-escalation, but if Iran is gratuitously escalating, should we not give unambiguous support to the Americans for retaliating? Who else is going to retaliate against gratuitous escalation by Iran if it is not the Americans? Rather than hedging our bets, can we not give more unambiguous support—if not military support, then political support—for the United States’ efforts to resolve this conflict? It has already given so much ground in the negotiations. We cannot complain that it has not tried to be as reasonable as it possibly can.

[Mr Falconer]

I have sought in all my remarks to remain grounded in the relevant principles of international law. It is absolutely clear that the strikes Iran has conducted this week in Omani waters or on the territory of our friends and partners are a breach of international law. That then provides, under the relevant framework, options for response. We are not party to that response, but we are party to seeking to shoot down these attacks when they threaten our friends and partners. I do not want to enter into an emotional discussion of these questions. We are absolutely clear that what is happening in the strait of Hormuz and the wider region is a threat to international law, which this Chamber and this country hold dear, and it must be upheld.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is striking that the Government, despite deriding 14 years of Conservative Government, want to follow the example of the previous Government on just this matter. May I just point out that the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord Cameron, decided that the negotiations were not in the national interest and not in the interests of the Chagossian people, and that they should be suspended? May I recommend that the Minister follows our example on that?

[Mr Falconer]

I am confused whether I am or am not to follow the example of those on the Opposition Benches. My understanding was that Boris Johnson offered large quantities of money to Mauritius, absent negotiations, to try to make this all go away. That did not work. Negotiations were then opened with sovereignty at their heart. I am not sure which elements the hon. Gentleman would say I should or should not demur from. We are taking the action required to ensure the safety of the base and the security of the British people, and we are doing so closely with our partners, including the United States and Mauritius.

Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

There is resolve in Ukraine and among its allies, and there is significant unity. There have been a range of steps taken in recent weeks, including the sanctions that the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, the steps announced over the weekend on Ukrainian children, and the strategic dialogue with Ukraine that the Foreign Secretary conducted in London last week. We will continue to press. There is an illusion, I fear, taking root in Moscow that one more push and yet further military operations will lead to a weakening of resolve in Ukraine, the UK and across the west. That is an illusion. We will remain steadfast in support of our Ukrainian friends.

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

I remind the Minister that I look forward to tabling a motion for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine, which will refer to the 20,000 abducted children. I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on the work she is doing on this subject. That motion will also draw attention to the other atrocities. Just this week, we welcomed two former Ukrainian prisoners of war, who had been held and tortured by the Russians, completely without regard to the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war, because the Russians fabricate this narrative that they are not at war in Ukraine and are conducting some special military operation. They do not have the regard for the norms of warfare that we would expect any civilised country to have. Can the Minister underline the point that the Trump proposals are unacceptable, and will he join all the NATO allies in making it clear to the United States that these proposals are unacceptable?

[Mr Falconer]

I will ensure that the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for further discussions in this House on these important questions. He is right to draw attention to the clearly preposterous Russian position that it is engaged in an operation, rather than a war. I am less well versed in military matters than the Minister for the Armed Forces, but this is clearly not an operation. We are some years in, and there have been thousands upon thousands of casualties—men, women and children —and a significant loss to Russian forces, even over the past month. The hon. Gentleman asks about our position on some of the media speculation. He will understand why I am reluctant to be drawn on that in great detail. I can point him to the clear statement from the G7 last week, and to the latest comments from the US Secretary of State this morning.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Hamish Falconer

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

I will not rehearse too much the answers provided on 2 September and on numerous occasions in the Chamber since then. We have suspended, with one exemption—to which I am happy to return—all the arms that we are selling to Israel that could be used in Gaza. That suspension, in our assessment, also covers the west bank and Lebanon. We are taking action in accordance with our commitments under international humanitarian law, and we will continue to do so.

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

Can we be absolutely clear about what the Government are saying? It seems that the Government are not saying that there would be an automatic arrest should Benjamin Netanyahu arrive in this country, but they are saying that there would due process. Can the Minister confirm that

“customary international law…does not permit the arrest or delivery of the serving Prime Minister of a non-State party to the ICC”?

So the Minister is committing himself to due process but not to arrest. Am I correct in my understanding?