European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need certainty, and the Prime Minister’s deal offers exactly that. What we have from those on the Opposition Benches is more dither, more delay, and a desire for a second referendum, but no clarity on how long that second referendum would take.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

I understand the political reasons for the Minister’s reluctance around the Benn Act, but it is the law of the land. I am worried by what he said, because he seems to give the impression it is only about sending a letter, but it is about more than that. Section 1(4) of the Act requires that the Prime Minister “must seek to obtain” an extension. It is not just a matter of sending a letter; he must seek to obtain that extension, and that involves the Prime Minister using his best endeavours and good faith in trying—[Interruption.]

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

It doesn’t say that.

[Mr Leslie]

There is a duty on the Prime Minister that he must seek to obtain an extension. Will the Minister therefore acknowledge that the Prime Minister’s legal duties are not simply about sending an unsigned letter?

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It will be if it is orderly, and I will reflect upon that matter. The Government are not the arbiter of what is orderly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I indicated to him during the exchanges on the business question on Thursday. That is a matter that brooks no contradiction whatsoever. Even if people feel that they are immensely knowledgeable about procedure or have a right to have their own way, or both, they can do so only within the rules.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to what appeared to be a quasi-business statement from the Leader of the House, which was or was not about matters that the House may be discussing on Monday but of which we have not had proper notice—and there is no intervening day for a motion tabled today for discussion on Monday, which is the normal course of events—the suggestion that we should repeat the same debate on essentially the same matter, section 13(1)(b), is surely contrary to all our normal practices, whereby the Government of the day, if a matter has been disposed of, cannot repetitiously and vexatiously keep asking the same question until they receive the answer that they prefer.

I do not ask you to rule on this matter now, Mr Speaker, but I strongly urge you to take account of the fact that many of us would feel that it would be an abuse of the power of the Executive to come back on Monday and ask the same question again just because they did not get the answer that they wanted today.

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

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I fear my hon. Friend is right that many are less worried about the law and more worried about stopping Brexit. We have had extension after extension, and the answer to this uncertainty cannot be more extension.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)]

The most visible evidence giving us grounds to doubt the Government’s intention is their £100 million billboard advertising campaign saying, “Get ready—31 October, here we come.” That is actually inaccurate and misleading, because nowhere, not even in the small print, does it mention that the law of the land may prevent a no-deal Brexit. Should the Government not be honest with businesses and consumers? I will certainly be writing to the Advertising Standards Authority. The Government should be honest in their advertising and not mislead the public in that way.

[James Duddridge]

Let us be honest that a no deal is a very real possibility. Even if this House extends, whether through this Act or some other mechanism, we still might be in the same position and a deal might not be done. We would then be in a no-deal position. It is right that every responsible business prepares for no deal, despite the fact that we want a deal.

EU/British Citizens’ Rights

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I have read the Good Friday agreement. I read it as the Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, and I have read it as a Minister in my Department. I think that it is absolutely right that we should protect all elements of that agreement. Of course the hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of EU citizens and UK citizens sits alongside the common travel area arrangements and the commitments that we made under the Good Friday agreement, which stand regardless. I am very glad that we have been able to work very effectively with the Irish Government to convince all the other EU member states that those issues should be respected whatever the outcome of the negotiations and whatever the arrangements we reach between the UK and the EU.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Change UK)]

I would like to know how many of the affected citizens the Minister has actually spoken to. Does he understand the crippling doubt and uncertainty that is affecting so many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly with the spectre of no deal hanging over their heads? Is there somebody else that the Minister should be speaking to at this particularly crucial moment? I am talking about the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) whom he should go and speak to right away to find out what on earth he is planning to do, because nobody else seems to be hearing a word from him.

[Mr Walker]

I have met EU citizens’ groups up and down the UK in a number of embassies and at a number of events that we have held across the country. I have met British citizens and their representatives in a number of EU member states that I have been visiting. I continue to listen to their concerns and to ensure that those are reflected at the highest levels of Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) can answer for himself, but I will certainly be making the case to whoever takes on the leadership of our party and our country that securing the rights of EU citizens and UK citizens needs to be a top priority.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Chris Leslie Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend’s points are particularly relevant to new clauses 4 and 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) which seek, I believe artificially, to restrict the nature of amendments that could be placed in relation to any motion on an extension. It is very relevant to new clauses 4 and 5 for us on this side of the House to say “No, there should be greater latitude for the sort of issues to come into that.”

[The Chairman]

Order. I think in fairness that it is my judgment that we will take. Thank you for your advice, but actually it will be the opposite way, not the way the hon. Gentleman is trying to open up. I have said I will allow flexibility, but I am not going to allow discussion on matters that are not part of tonight’s debate.

Leaving the European Union

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend has put that very well.

Before turning to the content and substance of this petition, I will first put on the record my gratitude to the Government Digital Service, which worked hard to keep the petitions website up and running under the strain of the highest usage it has ever experienced, which at its peak saw the petition receiving around 2,000 signatures a minute. I am keen to emphasise that, contrary to some of the rumours that have been put around to try to undermine the integrity of this petition, the Government Digital Service has a number of automated and manual systems in place to detect bots, disposable email addresses and other signs of fraudulent activity.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

On this point about the number of signatures—in my constituency, there were more than 9,500 signatures—I understand that General Data Protection Regulation rules mean that I cannot necessarily see who has signed that particular petition. Normally, however, in a petition we get a sense of who has signed. Is it possible that the House authorities would at least be able to email back those people who have signed the petition, to give them some feedback about what has happened to it in Parliament, because, like many others, I would like them to know that, yes, I am prepared to support revoke and remain, rather than have us crash out of the EU?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sure that is now on the record and the Petitions Committee, which is a formal cross-party Committee of the House that processes the petitions tabled by members of the public which reach the threshold for a petition to be debated, will obviously notify the people who have signed it, to tell them that the issue has been tabled for debate or that there is a response from the Government.

When someone signs a petition, they are directed to their MP, so that they can let them know if they want to. I have been contacted directly by constituents who have signed the petition and who want me to know that they have signed it, and obviously they can then receive feedback from me as a Member of Parliament. I am sure that there are many members of the public who have signed the petition who will be watching the proceedings today with great interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

The petition that I particularly wish to address is that signed by over 6 million members of the public, calling on the Government and Members of Parliament to be prepared to revoke article 50 in the face of a Brexit catastrophe and support remaining in the European Union. Over 8.6% of my constituents—some 9,500 people in my constituency—have signed that petition. In December, I and other Members whose constituencies will come back to me—I could name them, but I am trying to think of their constituencies —took a case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We took a risk and prosecuted the case that, as the United Kingdom, we had the unilateral right to rescind the notification of article 50 if we needed to do so. We took that case despite many people saying that we should not do it, that it was impossible, or that the decision to trigger article 50 was a one-way street.

We expected that once the mythology of Brexit—the unicorns—was held up to the light, and once Members of Parliament and other people looked at this question, we would find ourselves in the situation that we are in this week. We predicted that the concept of a jobs-first Brexit, or a Brexit that promised all of those wonderful things that were on the side of the big red bus, was a mirage that would prove impossible to deliver. There was a notion that Britain could pull up the drawbridge and everything would be fine: that we did not need to worry about our European alliances, or care particularly about the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, because these things could all be ironed out and it would be sorted out. We now know that is not the case.

Many of my constituents, and many hon. Members present, have looked at some of the options that we are debating in the other Chamber today: a customs union, the Norway option, the Canada option, or a supposed managed no deal. They have looked at the evidence, as they should, and have concluded that every single form of Brexit will make our constituents worse off. Therefore, how can I in good conscience say to my constituents, “That’s fine—no problem at all,” especially as they voted for remain? How can I possibly allow that situation to continue without giving them, at the very least, the right to sign it off through a form of final consent? They should have the final say.

I found myself finally having to leave the Labour party because I could no longer continue with the charade that somehow the Labour party was going to eventually get to the position of offering the public a vote. That option has remained on the ballot paper; it looks as though there has been some movement, and many good Labour MPs have been trying their best to get their Front-Bench team to support it. However, that was one of the reasons why I could no longer stay in the Labour party and had to join the Independent Group. Our view is that the public, if they so choose, should have the right to instruct their Government to revoke the article 50 notice and support remaining in the European Union. We are in a difficult set of circumstances, but if we want to truncate them and bring this situation to a conclusion sooner, a referendum is the best way to do so, rather than entering into four, five, six or seven years of long negotiations about our future relationship with the European Union.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman may know that I tabled the Terms of Withdrawal from the EU (Referendum) Bill on 6 July 2016, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) is putting forward that proposal now. It is taking time, but we are getting there.

[Mr Leslie]

My hon. Friend has been very prescient on this issue. He has been consistent throughout—as have many hon. Members present—and I give him credit for that.

Faced with this petition, which has been signed by 6 million people, it is our duty to ensure that these views are not pigeonholed and sidelined in Westminster Hall, but that they are heard by the Government. It is not just a junior Minister—with respect to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris)—who needs to hear the voices of the people, but the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet Ministers. When we come to the end of this debate, I do not believe we should simply nod through the motion that this Chamber, Westminster Hall, has considered this petition. It is important that we fight for those who have signed it, and take this issue to be considered in the main Chamber of the House of Commons. That is the position that I will be taking today.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: our constituents want us to deliver on the result of the referendum. They also want us to secure the strongest economy for every part of our country—from Redditch to Worcester, and all around the country. We can do that by backing the deal.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Ind)]

This is completely crazy. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) had this absolutely right: we are nearly three years on from that referendum and yet the Minister is perhaps going to give the House three minutes to consider a motion. [Interruption.] He is shaking his head; he will not give us three minutes. So will it be half an hour—or perhaps an hour? I am not sure whether my question should be to the Minister or to you, Mr Speaker, because I feel that the House should be suspended, or at least the Government should bring forward an opportunity for the House to properly look at the motion and consider any Attorney General’s advice, because I, for one, want to table an amendment with my hon. Friends for a people’s vote, so that we can sort this out straightaway.

[Mr Walker]

Let me be clear that, as I said earlier in my statement, the Government will be seeking to make a statement later on today.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making some important and good points about the Prime Minister’s running down the clock, but he took that round of applause—that standing ovation—at the Labour party conference when he talked about a people’s vote with a remain option, so I have been waiting patiently for the section of his remarks in which he will perhaps dissociate himself from the remarks of the general secretary of Unite, who said yesterday that it would not be in the country’s interests to have remain on the ballot paper in a public vote. We are aware that sections in letters and remarks sometimes have a habit of being redacted by others, perhaps further up the pay chain. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that at the next available opportunity we will be voting in favour of a people’s vote?

[Keir Starmer]

I do not think I need to associate with or dissociate from anybody on what my views are. I think they are pretty clear. As for the timetable, I have set out the order of events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I applaud the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for seeking leadership and decisiveness at this moment. It makes me ask: who should be held responsible for the groundhog day moment we find ourselves in? It is no secret that I regard Brexit as an unmitigated disaster, particularly for the most vulnerable and least well-off of my constituents, whose jobs and livelihoods are threatened. I also hold the Prime Minister responsible for the conduct of the negotiations, accepting as she did this ridiculous arrangement whereby the divorce arrangements are separated from the future relationship. That should never have been allowed to happen. She then negotiated a deal that nobody really wanted, but which she is absolutely determined to prosecute at almost any cost. We are now in this ridiculous situation of the Prime Minister saying, “Back me or we all hold hands and jump off the cliff together.”

Brexit is not just a disaster; it is also a tragedy because of the economic consequences. We have been talking about the trade deals that we were promised would all be ready one second after midnight on 29 March. We discovered this week that only four or five of the 40 free trade agreements will be ready.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

We have got the Faroe Islands.

[Mr Leslie]

We do have the Faroe Islands, but the deals with Turkey, Japan, South Korea and Canada will not be ready. As well as the breach with our largest trading partner, the European Union, we must add a breach and fracture in our trade arrangements with all those other countries.

Brexit is not just an economic tragedy, because there are other tragedies. My heart breaks when I think about the history of our country leading up to this moment: working in alliances with our European allies; those citizens’ rights that have accrued; and the ability not just of generations of people to come, work, live and study here, but of our children to do the same reciprocally.

We talk about the backstop as though that nomenclature somehow describes what we are talking about. Let us be plain about what we are hearing. Some hon. Members do not want a time limit to the backstop. Essentially, they are arguing for a time limit on open borders between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—a time limit on the Good Friday agreement. When we put it in those terms, it is preposterous that we should be in this situation at all.

I hold the Government responsible for getting us into this run-the-clock-down strategy, but we should be completely honest about why we are in this situation. I wanted action today. Earlier this week, I said that we needed to snap out of this delusion now, because I worry about the time that we have in which to legislate on these things. I will have to cling to the hope of 27 February, but why are we waiting until then? It is because, in order to get the votes for a majority, we have to work cross-party. The truth is that an increasing number of Labour Members—even some on the Front Bench—are abstaining on votes, so we have to wait for Members on the payroll, Government Ministers, to do the brave thing and resign to counteract the loss of numbers on the Labour Benches. We should have a solid Labour move against this outrageous situation. The idea that the Labour party is not together in arguing against this tragedy—this disaster—is, for me, entirely heartbreaking.

In the amendment tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team, I no longer see the words, “option of a public vote”, which were in the Labour Front-Bench amendment of 29 January. I ask myself why are we regressing when it comes to our party’s policy, as passed at the September conference. Other Members have tabled amendments; I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and other hon. Members, who have tried to put this matter of Labour party policy on the Order Paper today.

We have this new euphemism of “options on the table.” How long is this table, and when will we ever get to those options? It is absolutely not acceptable. On this particular issue, we are being played for fools by the leadership of the Labour party. By now, we should have reached the stage of a public vote on the option of remaining in the European Union. Nobody can explain to me seriously, without being lawyered, why we are not at that stage right now.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was correct when he talked about the underlying reasons for this mess. Why are we at this groundhog day right now? The truth is that our party political system is shattered. It is broken, and it is letting this country down at a crucial time. This is the moment when we need leadership, but tragically, party political calculations and advantage are being put ahead of the national interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question—and as someone who worked for me as my parliamentary researcher for five years, I thank him for no sight whatsoever of his supplementary question.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

He’s better.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

He is much better; that is absolutely true.

Anybody who has been involved in any type of negotiation—perhaps a union representative trying to negotiate a better deal on employee rights or salaries, or just anyone involved in any sort of deal—knows that they need to have the ultimate option on the table at any given time. Reducing any options basically means that you have less room to negotiate—it would be a foolish thing to do.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Chris Leslie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

In May last year, when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I believe that I was the first person on the payroll to resign to fight for Brexit. I had deep concerns about how Brexit was being handled, and I felt compelled to resign for the Brexit that I believed in and the Brexit that my constituents and our country voted for. I was the first to step down, but I was not the last. We have seen talented, committed and hard-working colleagues on both sides of the Brexit debate resign because of numerous concerns.

Our reasons for standing down may vary, but one thing that we all have in common is our belief that this deal is a bad deal for our country. Be they remain or leave, I respect all those colleagues who bravely stood by their convictions and made the principled decision to fight for what they believe in, but the fight is not yet over. The Prime Minister speaks of a deal that will unite our country, a goal that no doubt we all desire, but the division we have seen is of the Prime Minister’s own making. Her desire to get a deal at any cost, prolonging “Project Fear”, and her decision to postpone last month’s withdrawal agreement vote were mistakes—and that decision has only led to more division at a time when our country should be uniting behind the democratic decision to leave the EU.

On 23 June 2016 the question was clear: should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU? The British people spoke and decided overwhelmingly to leave.

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Not overwhelmingly.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Well, I think 1 million more people is quite a big clue, actually.

It was never supposed to be this way. At the referendum there was no third option: the choice was either leave or remain. The referendum did not mention a half in, half out or worst of both worlds choice for our country’s future. The referendum question said nothing about giving the EU £39 billion of taxpayers’ money and getting nothing in return, the referendum question said nothing about a continued role for the European Court of Justice after 2019, and the referendum question said nothing about an Irish backstop and restricting our ability to sign new trade deals. This deal is a sell-out of those who voted to leave. It is therefore impossible for the House to unite around this deal, and it is impossible for our country to unite around a bad deal.

At the referendum two years ago the British people spoke and our objective was clear: as elected Members of Parliament we were tasked with delivering Brexit. Some Members thought the British people would deliver a different result and would vote remain in the referendum, but they did not, and this is the problem: some Members do not accept the result of the referendum and are using every opportunity to thwart the will of the British people.

It is a sad period in our great Parliament’s history when MPs try to overturn the democratic mandate; that is completely unacceptable, After all, it was Parliament that gave the British people the opportunity to have the referendum in the first place. Our great British parliamentary model has been a beacon that has been used as a template in parliamentary democracies across the globe for centuries. Let us not insult our greatest institution, or forget that we were elected by the British electorate. We are all democrats, so let us respect the result: our British people have spoken and it is time for us now to deliver. Our people decided to take back control and said we should leave. [Interruption.] They are still British citizens.

This was a vote dictated not by fear, but by hope: hope of a different tomorrow and a new path; hope of a new system not restricted by the EU’s institutions; and hope that once again our people will feel that they have a true stake in our country’s future. The chance of a global Britain was promised, but that promise has now been broken.

We must leave, and we need a clean Brexit and to trade under WTO rules if necessary. The US and China sell billions of pounds’ worth of exports each year to the EU using WTO rules; the UK can do the same if necessary. As the EU’s largest trading partner and with a deficit of £95 billion in trade in goods, we should have been negotiating from a position of strength, but the Prime Minister’s determination to get a deal at any cost gave the EU the upper hand. The Prime Minister showed her hand too soon, and now the EU has called her bluff.

I say that it is time we put the ball firmly in our court and take the upper hand in these negotiations. The EU fears our leaving on WTO terms as it will give Britain the competitive advantage if we do, so let us fully embrace a clean Brexit; I have no doubt that the EU will come running back to us at the eleventh hour. But besides being a good negotiating tool, leaving on WTO terms is not something we should fear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is nearly two months since the 585 pages of the withdrawal agreement were published, and it is already gathering a little bit of dust. As we have already heard, despite deferring the vote and pretending otherwise over Christmas, and ringing up Mr Barnier or Mr Juncker on Christmas eve or new year’s eve saying “Please can we have a negotiation?”, the Prime Minister has found that, in that famous phrase, nothing has changed. So here we are yet again facing a Government who are determined to prevaricate and kick the can further down the road.

Earlier today, having seen the Government defer this issue previously, Members realised that once the Prime Minister’s plan was defeated there would potentially be 21 days, and then perhaps another seven days, before the Commons would be allowed to determine what happens next. We had the ridiculous spectacle of the Government objecting to that and saying, “No, Members must not be allowed to vote on moving things forward.” That prevarication is extremely dangerous. It is dangerous to put political calculations above the country’s best interests when we could crash out with no deal on 29 March.

I am glad, Mr Speaker, that you withstood the attempts by a loud and vociferous minority in this place to thwart Members and prevent them from having a say. You have in the past made decisions and rulings with which I have disagreed, but on this occasion allowing parliamentarians to express their views was the right thing to do. Indeed, that proved to be the case, because a majority of MPs said, “No, we don’t wish to wait 21 or 28 days, till the middle of February; we want to get on with things.” The time has now come to decide. The House has instructed Ministers, if the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected on Tuesday, to come forward with a motion three sitting days later, which would be Monday 21 January. We could then make some decisions.

By the way, I do not address my remarks on prevarication only to Ministers. I gently say to those on the Labour Front Bench that they, too, should stop prevaricating on the question of Brexit. The time has come for the Labour party to make some decisions and stop this notion of constructive ambiguity. I know that this complex sequenceology has been constructed to try to avoid having to confront these issues, but the politics should come second to the national interest. We cannot afford to gamble at this stage, given how close we are to 29 March.

The withdrawal agreement is wrong for the country, as is the political declaration that accompanies it. The withdrawal agreement ignores 80% of our economy, the service sector. It might not necessarily provide good pictures for the television cameras, unlike queuing ferries at Dover and so forth, but the service sector is very much where the UK excels, whether in legal, professional, media, creative or financial services. Not only do many of our constituents work in those services, but they provide the engine for the revenues needed for our public services—for our NHS, schools, local authorities and social care. If we ignore the risk of diminished prospects for those sectors in our economy, we will be facilitating a further decade of austerity to come. That is why I say to all Members, across all parties, that we cannot just kick the can down the road and pretend that this will not matter.

The problem with the withdrawal agreement is that it is full of warm promises about what might be agreed, but it does not actually agree many, many things. It contains no agreement on data or energy policy. It says that we will establish a process on transport policy, and that we will talk about the Erasmus programme to allow students to study throughout Europe. It does not resolve the security situation or the question of Euratom. It fudges the question of the Northern Ireland border still further. The withdrawal agreement does not actually settle many of these things.

What is worse is that the political declaration is non-binding on the parties involved, which means that it amounts to little more than warm words. The Government got themselves into this ridiculous situation by embarking on the article 50 process without a commitment that, by the end of it, we would have not just the divorce arrangement settled, but, in particular, a settled plan for an EU-UK trade deal. That should have been part of the negotiation framework.

For us now to be asked to leave on 29 March without having settled our future relationship with Europe is highly irresponsible. Ministers may say, “Well, we intend to do it this way”. European officials may also say that they intend to do it that way, but, of course, they are here today and gone tomorrow, and commitments that are made by those particular individuals will not necessarily bind us on what happens to the UK. Therefore, we will not have the EU-UK arrangement settled down by the time that we are asked to leave, and anything could happen in that process.

There are many difficulties with that, because of course if we do not have the EU-UK trade deal buttoned down, our prospects of doing deals with the rest of the world will have to wait. Other countries, such as Japan, Singapore, Canada, America and others, will say, “We may be interested in doing a trade deal with you, but we would like to see what your relationship is with the EU first. Will you be allowed to reduce tariffs or not?” That arrangement could take two, three, four or five years—an ever unknown amount of time. The Canada trade deal with the EU took seven years.

The idea that the poor old Secretary of State for International Trade is raring to go with all these new deals across the world is, of course, fantasy. That is the delusion of Brexit that so many people are operating under, but the real world is beginning to bite. Businesses know it, and increasingly our constituents see it, and they want the right to determine their own future.

The withdrawal agreement and this settlement would end the free movement of people across Europe. I regard that as a great tragedy. It is a shame that we have not stood up and spoken out for the benefits of free movement. We should remember that free movement is reciprocal, so just as we restrict European movement into the UK, we will potentially be sacrificing UK citizens’ right of movement to the rest of Europe. Let us think of the future generations, their work opportunities, their study opportunities, the freedom we enjoy, the 2 million British people who already reside across the rest of Europe, and the uncertainties that this will create—and for what? What is this great harm? It is a ridiculous proposition, and that alone would be a reason to reject the withdrawal agreement.

There is also the notion that the agreement will allow us to control taxpayers’ money, but we know that we will lose a great deal of money because of the effect on the economy. Members do not need to take my word for that; the Treasury, the Government and the Prime Minister herself have articulated how we will be worse off by going down this pathway. We will be controlling a diminished amount of money. We will be paying out £39 billion, and possibly even more during the transition arrangement, in exchange for what? There is no commitment on a trade with the EU deal going forward, which I regard as a fundamental failure.

The Prime Minister has made a number of strategic errors all the way along this process, such as setting down red lines and interpreting the outcome of the referendum in her own way—for instance, on whether it was to do with the single market or the customs union, when, of course, none of that was on the ballot paper. She has also failed to take the temperature of Parliament. She did not exactly read the runes of the House of Commons from the beginning, and now she faces this situation. Under this arrangement the UK could be left in limbo in this situation for the next four years, and we would not even have a seat around the table to shape the rules to which we would be subject—it is a nonsense. Britain has had a fantastic ability to shape the rule-making arrangements of an entire continent—the whole European Union—for many years, and many of the rules and regulations that we have chosen to adopt have been generated by the United Kingdom. Some of the best ideas that we have had have shaped EU policies, and it is a great shame that we will be moving away from that.

Whether it is because of the failures of the withdrawal agreement or the wishlist presented in the form of the political declaration, which is an almost meaningless document, this House has to reject the Prime Minister’s proposal when it comes to the vote next Tuesday. The House must quickly realise that we have to extend article 50 at the very least, if not suspend or revoke the article 50 process, while we put this question back to the British public so that they can decide, in the full knowledge of the facts and the economic and social impact.

A people’s vote is a solution whose time has come, and increasing numbers of Members on both sides of this House are realising that it is the way ahead. I strongly hope that the Labour Front Benchers will also realise that the people’s vote has the support and is the preference of the vast majority not just of Labour party members, but of Labour supporters and voters. Now is the time to decide. We cannot afford to prevaricate any longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

One problem of having extended debate and resumption of debate is that we are getting a lot of repetition and recycling of arguments that we have heard many times before. For that reason, I want to focus on one specific issue, which is the idea of World Trade Organisation rules and exactly what they mean. The term “WTO rules” is used casually in every pub, and in every radio interview I encounter, but I suspect that many of the people who use it are not at all clear what it means.

Before getting into the detail of that, I will make one general point about no deal, which was brought out rather brilliantly by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who got to the heart of this very well. He exposed the fact that no deal is actually a choice. It is not just something that happens; it is the conscious choice of a Government who could choose to revoke article 50, as the Father of the House keeps reminding us. That may be a difficult decision and a very unpopular one, but article 50 could be revoked, and by choosing not to revoke it, the Government will be choosing to have no deal, with all its catastrophic—or so they tell us—consequences.

Let me narrow down to the specific issue of what the WTO rules would be if we found ourselves in a no-deal world. The basis on which I speak is that many years ago, long before I came into the House, I was part of a small community of international trade specialists and got involved in negotiating the so-called Uruguay round and then the Doha round as part of the World Trade Organisation—or, as it was then called, the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I saw at first hand the way in which the WTO system operates. I realise that there is no longer just a small community of anoraks, which is what we were. A large number of people now consider themselves experts on trade policy, but the glibness with which the term “WTO rules” is applied leads me to believe that there are probably not too many anoraks, because there are some very real difficulties in applying WTO rules.

The World Trade Organisation is to trade what the United Nations is to peace. It has some admirable principles, but I think most Members, and certainly those on the Government Benches, would consider it seriously negligent of us to make our national defence dependent solely on the rules of the United Nations. Rules have to be enforced, and they have to be effective.

We need to look back on what the World Trade Organisation is and what it is trying to achieve. In the post-war world, it has established one central principle, and actually it is not free trade; it is something called the most favoured nation—MFN—rule. It is about non-discrimination. It has one big waiver, which is to allow common markets and customs unions such as the European Union to function on the basis of total free trade within themselves, but its whole objective is to stop the proliferation of bilateral agreements.

Such agreements were common in the inter-war period, and they are becoming fashionable again. Many people who are in favour of Brexit say that they are the whole purpose of trade policy. Those people want deals with numerous countries, but the whole purpose of the WTO was to stop this happening. It was supposed to be a multilateral organisation. In that capacity, the WTO achieved a great deal. It cut tariffs to single digits on most manufactures except agriculture, and it got rid of quantitative restrictions, except for the quotas that still exist for agriculture and textiles. It also began to establish a set of rules around intellectual property and various other intangible non-tariff barriers regarding, for example, government procurement.

The problem is that the WTO reached the zenith of its authority about 10 years ago, when the Doha negotiations collapsed and multilateral trade negotiations ceased to make any progress. This was largely due to the obstruction of India, Brazil and, to some extent, the United States. The European Union was actually the main liberalising force, but anyway, the negotiations collapsed and the WTO’s authority is now much less strong. Where does that leave us in terms of what the WTO rules now mean? If they mean anything, it is the application of the rule of law. In the WTO, the rule of law operates through dispute panels, which in theory have the same force as the European Court of Justice in settling disputes. It baffles me that Conservative Members are so affronted by the intrusiveness of the European Court of Justice, because it was designed to achieve precisely what the dispute panels of the WTO were designed to do.

However, like the United Nations, the WTO is not a desperately effective body, and many of its rulings are not carried through. Because it is a weak organisation, it is possible for big countries to bully weak ones. A celebrated case some years ago involved a trade dispute between the United States and Costa Rica—over men’s underpants, as it happens—and Costa Rica won the dispute. The United States felt deeply humiliated and refused to comply. A face-saving compromise was eventually reached, but that dispute sowed the ill feeling that in due course led to President Trump, who has made it absolutely clear that he does not believe in the World Trade Organisation. He does not want it to work, and he is doing everything he possibly can to stop it working, including not sending judges to sit on the dispute panels. It is now a very weak organisation. If we were to crash out of the EU under WTO rules and found ourselves in a dispute with the United States—or, indeed, with the European Union, which we had left—we would not be able to rely on the WTO dispute panels to settle the dispute in an orderly manner.

That is one of the WTO’s central weaknesses. Another is that, throughout its history, it has been overwhelmingly concerned with getting rid of tariffs. The main problem in international trade these days is the divergence of standards, which is of course why we originally entered the single market under Lord Cockfield and Mrs Thatcher. That was perfectly logical. If we are trying to liberalise trade, we attack the non-tariff practices that obstruct trade, hence the harmonisation of rules on mutual recognition. However, the WTO does not do that. It has very weak rules covering government procurement and all the barriers that are dealt with in the European Union through the rules on state aid, competition and the like. That, in turn, means that there is very little in the WTO that covers the services sector, which, as we have been reminded, accounts for 80% of our economy. We have a fair degree of liberalisation in the services trade in the European Union, which benefits our high-tech industries, financial services and so on. No such arrangement exists in the WTO. Those sectors are completely unprotected.

Finally, and not least, the fact is that some tariffs remain, and they are on agriculture. We have the problem that if we leave the European Union with no deal, on WTO terms, the European Union’s tariffs on dairy products, lamb and various other items, which are quite high, immediately kick in. The problem with that, as we discovered when we had the foot and mouth epidemic, is that if we cannot export, prices crash. The only logical response from the farming industry, in order to maintain the value of the stock, is to slaughter large herds. This will happen. We know there is a paper at the moment in the agriculture Department—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—setting out a plan for slaughtering a third of all British sheep in order to maintain the integrity of the market. That is an inevitable consequence of a high tariff obstructing British exports.

That is not all; I had only 30 seconds in the House yesterday, but I mentioned the particular problem associated with exports through the port of Portsmouth. It is actually the lifeline to the Channel Islands; that is the main route. The Channel Islands are not otherwise affected by Brexit of course, but they will be in this case. If trade is obstructed at the port because of the need to comply with veterinary requirements, phytosanitary requirements and things of that kind, lorries will be obstructed and fresh produce will not be able to get through. Quite apart from the disruption to traffic, the whole system of agricultural trade and the supply of food to the Channel Islands will simply dry up. We have an enormous practical problem resulting from this.

[Mr Leslie]

The right hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech, which is very helpful indeed. Did he see that the Financial Times reported yesterday that the Department for Transport commissioned research that says that just a 70-second delay in authorising a vehicle at the border could mean a six-day queue to get on a ferry?

[Sir Vince Cable]

Yes. Indeed, if I have made a contribution to this argument, it is in pointing out that this is not just a problem in Dover; this problem exists in all the ports around the country. There is going to be serious disruption of supply chains—of the supply of fresh food and many other items. Those people who trivialise the issue by simply saying, “WTO rules—nothing to worry about”, are completely disregarding these consequences.

The conclusion I come to—I think many Conservative Members share it, publicly or privately—is that no deal is just not a viable, acceptable option under any circumstances. We will therefore, within the next few weeks, be brought to the point at which the Government will have to revoke article 50. That would be a major step; it would be overturning the result of the referendum. I feel uncomfortable about Parliament, through Government, doing that. That is why I and other people who are not enthusiasts for referendums believe that the only way of dealing with this properly and of reasserting democratic legitimacy is to go back to the public and seek their approval for doing just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)]

As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, this has been a genuinely interesting debate. It has been good to hear voices from all four nations of the United Kingdom. I have been struck by the fact that, from the opening remarks of the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the tone has been moderate. Even when there have been some profound differences—as inevitably there would be in a debate on this issue—for pretty well the entire period of this debate, those differences have been expressed in a spirit of mutual respect and readiness to listen, if not to agree, with what an opponent has said. To take up the final comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale, I hope that that is a harbinger of how this House might proceed for the rest of this debate and in the decisions that will face us in the days, weeks and months to come.

Many contributions so far have focused less on the withdrawal agreement than on the nature of the future relationship. When kicking off the debate, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras said that his preference was for a customs union with the European Union and close future regulatory alignment. Those points of view have been expressed elsewhere in the debate, and we heard hon. Members from Scotland and Wales reflecting the views expressed in the resolutions passed recently by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to that effect.

The key decision that faces this Parliament next week is not over what the new relationship should be in the long term. That can only be negotiated, in terms of the European treaties, once we have left membership and become a third country. What we need to do is to take a decision about the terms of the withdrawal agreement. The withdrawal agreement is the unavoidable gateway whether to a Canadian, a Norwegian or a Chequers destination, or to wherever on the spectrum of a future relationship any particular right hon. or hon. Member wishes to end up.

Nor do I believe that it is going to help to argue, as some hon. Members have advocated today, that the way forward is to conclude that these problems are too difficult and there is insufficient consensus, and therefore we simply postpone the article 50 deadline. The policy dilemmas, choices and trade-offs that face us as a Parliament and as a country are not going to go away in that time. Nor are the EU27 and the European Commission going to suddenly start to open detailed negotiations about the nature of the future partnership between us and them until we have actually taken the step of leaving, because while we are a member, we are subject to the obligations of, and have all the rights of, every other member state of the European Union. The treaties, yes, allow and encourage the EU to make trade and political co-operation agreements with third countries, but only with third countries—it cannot conclude or, indeed, negotiate such an agreement with one of its own members.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the House has to confront the fact that the default position both in United Kingdom law and in European law is that we leave on 29 March this year whether or not a deal has been agreed and ratified, and if the House wants to reject no deal, the House has to vote by a majority for a withdrawal agreement that provides for a smooth and orderly exit.

[Mr Leslie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will, and then I want to make some progress, particularly to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers.

[Mr Leslie]

Will the Minister elaborate on something? It is not just about voting for the Prime Minister’s deal; it would also potentially be about requesting an extension of article 50. He will acknowledge, will he not, that that facility is permitted under article 50?

[Mr Lidington]

An extension of article 50 is permitted under that article of the treaty—the hon. Gentleman is right to that extent. But of course such an extension has to be by unanimous consent of both the departing member state and all existing member states. What I am quite clear about in my own mind is that regardless of what opinions were expressed here, or by this or any other British Government, the EU27 are not interested in some sort of extension of article 50. They want this process brought to an orderly conclusion because they have other things, like a future budgetary process, that they need to get on with and think about after the United Kingdom’s departure.