European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Calvin Bailey and Peter Dowd

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

I think the fact that the hon. Gentleman used the word “intractable” gives us a clue about how challenging it actually is. When a country decides, for better or for worse, to withdraw from a treaty to which it has been a signatory for more than 50 years, issues are bound to arise.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill undermines not only the UK’s adherence to the Windsor framework, but the security architecture that the Belfast agreement underpins? The Belfast agreement is not just a peace settlement, but a cornerstone of our national security strategy. By jeopardising our reputation as a trustworthy international partner, the Bill would weaken our ability to collaborate with allies on global security challenges. Does he not agree that by maintaining the integrity of the agreement, we are safeguarding our national security and international standing?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have to be very careful of the law of unintended consequences when we go down a particular path.

Issues are bound to arise that either no one thought about or thought would have significance outside of an abstract environment but subsequently became significant, or that were parked so that we could come back to them at a later date. The reality, as we found throughout the whole post-referendum period—oven-ready this and oven-ready that—is that lots of things that were parked are coming back to bite. The problem with that, as I said, is the law of unseen and ignored consequences—those things are waiting around the corner, and turn up like an uninvited and unwelcome guest in our house.

Please bear with me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the potential unintended consequences of coming out of a treaty. Imagine what would happen if we decided to abrogate the North Atlantic treaty—which, of course, no one would dream of doing. We know there would certainly be huge consequences to such an action. I suspect Members understand there would be pretty immediate and most probably predictable consequences to that. However, it is sometimes the unpredictability of taking actions that comes back to haunt us.

The same could be said for other treaties, which may appear to be of little significance and consequence in the short term, but which might take on a whole new persona down the line. I am not sure that many people would initially grasp the consequences of, say, breaching the Antarctic treaty, but there would be consequences in due course. If we abrogate a treaty, or part of a treaty, it is unlikely that we can then somehow revisit it, change domestic law and expect other countries to accept that.

I will finish on this point, because it is important. There are other treaties that we have to look to—I could go into detail on them, but I will not. What about— [Interruption.] Well, if Members insist. How about the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? What would happen if we decided to tweak that a little bit through domestic law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

That is a perfectly valid point. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has had a sneak preview of the points that I will raise later on. I will take up that matter with my staff.

It is important to recognise that those views are considered. I am sure that those views have been informed by many events, circumstances and long-held political opinions, and by culturally held views, which, in turn, have been informed by many personal and political experiences—some constructive and positive, and others negative and traumatic. In justice to the debate, I am sure that Members have attempted to bring if not a fresh perspective to it, then at least a perspective that takes into account the views of others from across the Chamber.

In this debate, the word “irrelevant” may itself become irrelevant, because we must face up to the fact that many of the points being made are not irrelevant, given the wide-ranging impact that any change to the law would have on internal and external relationships, both in a formal legal sense and informally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said.

On trust, the Bill asks the House to abrogate our treaty obligations under the withdrawal agreement. That is worrying. Having given this some thought, I decided to look at the treaty landscape and the issue of necessity, which has been raised. That then sets off the justified claim about the potential for abrogation, so it is a good place to start. The ecosystem around treaties goes to the heart of the efficacy of partnerships, relationships and—dare I use the word—trust between those who sign a treaty.

This issue really goes to the heart of the question of trust, belief or faith in what we say as a nation. I look to our finest playwright to set the scene—in fact, I go to scene four from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, part 3:

“For trust not him that hath once broken faith”.

The concept of oaths and promises was explored by William Kerrigan in his book, “Shakespeare’s Promises”. It is important to quote this, because it goes to the heart of the matter. He writes:

“It is impossible to imagine any kind of moral life without obligations, and impossible to imagine obligations without types of promises. We are always up against them. Before we ever reflect on what a promise is, we have made them and are expected to make more of them. We are born into nations that enter into treaties and agreements. Promises are with us like gravity. Man is a promising animal.”

[Mr Bailey]

I take my hon. Friend back to his point about abrogating treaties, which is the modus operandi of the next United States President. Such behaviour creates instability in our international order, yet those supporting the Bill ask that we disestablish an agreement that provides stability, and that seeks to address intractable issues, and asks that we fix those problems through relationships with such persons.

[Peter Dowd]

It is a fair point. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: if we agree to the Bill, are we in breach of faith and trust? I think so. I do not say that lightly, or to be offensive or provocative.