Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

I welcome this late conversion on the part of the Scottish National party to celebrating our exit and having Big Ben chime. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a decision as to whether Big Ben should bong or not is one for the House authorities and I would not dare to step into such terrain. The wider point, as I think the mood of the House has demonstrated, is that this is an historic moment and many Members of the House wish to celebrate it.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I urge the Government to be careful about the tone that is adopted at the end of January. They will appreciate that there are many who do not see this as a moment for celebration. In particular, may I ask the Secretary of State what measures are being put in place for the large numbers of non-UK EU nationals, of whom there are many in Cambridgeshire, who will feel particularly vulnerable at that point?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member is absolutely right, and I hope that colleagues across the House will see that I always try to take a tone that reflects that. I have often talked about the fact that in my own family, notwithstanding my personal role, my eldest brother is an official working for a European institution. I know that many families were split on this issue.

To answer the hon. Member’s question directly, one thing that we have done is establish a £9 million fund to support outreach groups and charities. We have worked with embassies in particular. Within that £9 million, £1 million is specifically for the settlement scheme, as I am sure the Minister for Security detailed in Committee on Tuesday, and there have been 2.6 million or 2.8 million or so applications, so the scheme is working very effectively free of charge. But the hon. Member is right that some people will have concerns, and one thing that the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill does is guarantee the rights of citizens and address many of the concerns that some of his constituents have shared.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

It is not a revelation to this House that I supported leaving in the referendum, that I still support leaving, that I have voted consistently on every occasion to leave, that I have voted against extending article 50 and that I have stood by the manifesto on which I was elected. The question for Labour Members is why they repeatedly—at every opportunity—refuse to stand by their manifesto commitment. Why will they not honour their promises to the electorate? Yes, I do support leaving. I support leaving with a deal, and I have made it clear that if we do not leave with a deal, of the two alternative options I would leave with no deal. My position has been consistent. Why hasn’t theirs?

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the effectiveness of the EU settlement scheme for European economic area nationals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

This is a hugely important scheme designed to help EEA and EU citizens take up their rights and deliver on the Government’s commitment that we want them to stay. I regularly meet colleagues in the Home Office to discuss the scheme, and it is important to note that the Home Office has received more than 650,000 applications so far, with thousands more being received every week. Applications are free and there is plenty of time to apply.

[Daniel Zeichner]

If the Government really wanted to make non-UK EU nationals feel welcome and wanted them to stay, they would make this an easy system. In fact, people have to have the right phone. If they do not have the right phone, they have to go to an ID scanning centre. But just look at where those centres have been placed; they are all around London, so the Secretary of State’s constituents and my constituents have to travel all the way to Bedford, Peterborough or London. Why is there not at least an ID scanning centre in every county?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the accessibility of the scheme, and I agree that it should be accessible. There are going to be 200 assisted digital locations across the UK to support people to register, including one in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Cambridge, which he should welcome.

Leaving the European Union

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies]

I completely agree. We have seen 6 million people in a matter of days saying, “Enough is enough—we want revocation.” A million people were on the streets, and for every one of them, there are probably 20 more. I personally could not make it; due to various commitments, I could not come along. We must have a vote of the people. Clearly there is a crying need for us to move forward.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Further to the previous intervention, in the last debate in Westminster Hall we had exactly the same situation; very few Government Members attended. Does my hon. Friend agree that the petition shows a real passion on the side of people who want to remain? They do not want a fudge. For them, remain means remain, and that is what we should do.

[Geraint Davies]

People have the right to exercise their views, whether to leave or to remain, and increasingly people want to remain. They can see how awful this is. We have been talking about this matter endlessly, and if we do not revoke or have a public vote, we will spend another 10 years talking about it, with ridiculous deals that will push us down the economic toilet in my view. It is time to put Brexit out of its misery. It is time to let the people decide.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions)

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my good friend the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).

It is extraordinary, is it not, that we are here today? I, like others, welcome the constructive tone struck by many in this debate, but it is 27 March and we have known for so long that the end date was 29 March. This kind of debate should have been held so much earlier; to start it today is, I am afraid, a mark of failure for the whole process.

I am not one of those who can say that I have changed my mind through this process. I represent one of the most remain constituencies in the country, and I am a passionate remainer myself. I have found that difficult at times, because I recognise that many of my colleagues are in a much more difficult position.

I caution colleagues slightly about the policy discussion we are having today. Although we may well be able to move towards a rational compromise, I have wondered throughout whether that is really where many members of the public are. If I needed any proof of that, when I floated the idea of revocation in this Chamber some six months ago, it was seen, to be frank, as a bit of an outlier positon. However, if I needed any confirmation of that position, it is the extraordinary strength of the petition that has been running over the past few weeks.

I am a member of the Petitions Committee and it is unfortunate that aspersions were made earlier today on the veracity of that petition. The staff work very hard. To be frank, if Russian bots were crawling over parts of one of the campaigns during the referendum, I think we can send a strong message that they are not going to be running over the parliamentary petitions website, because we are very careful. Whatever one feels about the issue, there is strength of feeling: 27,000 people in my constituency—almost one third of the electorate—have taken the trouble to make their point. I would say that for them, remain means remain. I fear that some of the compromise positions will not satisfy people elsewhere. That leaves me to conclude, having looked at some of the intermediate options—I can see their merits from a policy perspective—that we have people who feel passionately about this issue on both sides.

How do we resolve that problem in a democracy? Frankly, I think there is only one answer—I thought the most powerful contribution this afternoon came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett)—which is to make that plea to reconcile our differences by doing it in the way that we do best in this country: to have a sensible discussion, now that people actually know the facts. Goodness, we all know much more about all this than we did two or three years ago. I do not think we should be afraid of asking the people if they want a final say. Give it to them and they will tell us what they think.

Leaving the European Union

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 239706 relating to leaving the European Union.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. When the Petitions Committee scheduled this debate, we were not entirely sure where we would be in the Brexit process when it happened. As we start this debate, I am still not entirely sure. We are where we are. There are opportunities for Members to discuss the issue in the main Chamber as well, so I suspect we will not be overwhelmed by the numbers coming to speak here today. I will say a little bit about what is happening this week and then go on to interpret the petition’s text and discuss possible ways forward.

As I said, we are not entirely sure what is happening this week, but we understand the Prime Minister will probably put what she describes as a deal to Parliament again. I have said on numerous occasions that the one word I would like to eliminate from the English language is “deal”. She has said many times that the options are her deal, no deal or no Brexit. The third option is generally presented almost as a threat, perhaps to her own side. It is suggested that it is an idea not to be taken seriously, but it is worth remembering that at the referendum almost three years ago, in a very different pre-Trump world, out of a population of some 65 million people in this country, just under 17.5 million voted to leave, which means that almost 50 million did not. Today I speak up for that forgotten 50 million, the 48% who did not vote for this mess and whose voice has too often not been heard. The debate has been constantly about the first two options, but the petition concerns the third, and it deserves proper consideration.

In December last year, which seems an age ago now, I asked the Prime Minister to revoke article 50 in the national interest, not least to allow those who claim to speak for the 52% to sort out what they actually want. She told me that revoking article 50 would mean staying in the European Union. Well, I and many others are fine with that. The petition, which now has more than 135,000 signatures, including, it will not surprise Members to hear, more than 1,100 from my own constituency of Cambridge, calls on Parliament to

“Revoke Art.50 if there is no Brexit plan by the 25 of February”.

That date was passed two weeks ago and we still do not appear to have a plan that can be agreed by the House. It is therefore fair to say that the petitioners would like us to revoke article 50 now.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

By the hon. Gentleman’s own logic, if 135,000 people have signed the petition, does that not mean that about 65 million have not? We should therefore treat it with the contempt with which he has treated the referendum result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not treat the referendum result with contempt. It has not been able to escape our attention and has dominated our lives for the past three years. The Petitions Committee should be treated with respect, and 135,000 signatures on a petition is not to be disregarded.

The petition text states:

“On the 25th of November both the UK Government and the European Union came to an agreement on the proposed departure from the EU. After an historic defeat in the House of Commons on the 15th of January, 2019 by a majority of 230 votes the PM has now decided to go back to the EU over the backstop.”

That is a statement of fact. On 25 November, the EU 27 leaders met for a special meeting of the European Council and endorsed the withdrawal agreement as presented by the negotiators of the EU and the UK. They also approved the political declaration on future EU-UK relations that accompanies the withdrawal agreement. The scale of the defeat in January was, I think, unexpected for most of us, and it is useful to consider why.

The petition mentions the backstop, which certainly accounts for part of the group of Government Members who voted against the deal, but there were many significant and substantial further concerns. For many of us, it was the imprecise nature of the political declaration that caused concerns; it looked like a wishlist of aspirations, rather than anything settled. Other concerns included the danger of a further cliff edge in two years’ time; the likelihood that at best we would pay to be part of programmes in which we no longer had any influence in terms of a vote; and the near certainty that we would still be subject to European Court of Justice jurisdiction. In other words, far from taking back control, we would, in the words of some, become “vassals”. Frankly, that had been obvious from the outset, and it was a pretty silly vassal that did not see that coming.

The second paragraph of the petition text states:

“Under section 5 (ii) of the Belfast agreement, 1998, there is agreement to ‘to use best endeavours to reach agreement on the adoption of common policies, in areas where there is a mutual cross-border and all island benefit’”.

Essentially, the Irish backstop is an unresolvable issue: it is a position of last resort that prevents a hard border on the island of Ireland by providing an EU-UK customs relationship if a suitable trade relationship has not been reached by the end of the transition period. Some are concerned that we cannot withdraw from it unilaterally, which of course is the whole point. It is a protection mechanism for both the Republic of Ireland and the UK as well as the rest of the EU, and thus it must apply to all of us.

Reams and reams have been written about the issue and months have been spent arguing about it and discussing it. The contents of the Attorney General’s codpiece continue to attract both speculation and consternation. Frankly, I suspect there is little that I can add to all the learned verbiage, other than the conclusion that it does not appear to be getting anyone very far. The technological solutions that some who fear being trapped inside a de facto customs union advocate to manage customs do not currently exist. Realistically, the backstop cannot change, or the protections that it offers will not be cast iron. Whatever codicils, clever words, Star Chamber tests or anything else are offered, a fundamental problem remains and is unlikely to be resolved.

Skilful negotiators are able to build confidence and create constructive ambivalence, allowing everyone to believe what they need to believe. It is a matter of politics, not law, and the Government’s failure to appreciate that is yet another in a long list of failures of basic competence. Brexiteers need to be honest: if they want to allow a position where a hard border becomes possible, they are accepting the potential break-up of the United Kingdom. By neglecting Northern Ireland in that way, it is possible that Brexit could result in the fracturing of our United Kingdom. For the Conservative and Unionist party, that is quite a price to pay. The border of the European Union will be the Irish border, as the Republic of Ireland is our only land border with Europe. The basic facts of geography are undeniable. Ireland is an island, and there is no way around that fact.

The third paragraph of the petition text considers the economic impact, noting that:

“The Government’s own economic analysis published in November 2018, shows that a no deal scenario will have roughly a 10% decrease in GDP.”

Again, volumes and reams have been written about the potential economic impact, particularly of no deal. Members will be delighted that I do not intend to re-rehearse those reams this afternoon. Like all economic predictions, it is of course contested, but we are in a curious place when the Government’s own economic predictions are treated with derision by their own supporters.

I will simply add to the already well-known data some information from last week, when the OECD published its regular economic outlook on the global economy. It predicts that a disorderly no-deal exit would probably spark a UK recession. The OECD shows that the UK economy has been weakening since the 2016 referendum.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that MPs for constituencies in the west midlands are very concerned. We have consulted universities and with Jaguar Land Rover, and they are all concerned about the situation that the Government find themselves in, because it means they cannot plan for the future. There are 800,000 jobs at stake in the motorcar industry alone, so we have to get it right.

Likewise, universities may have problems recruiting staff from abroad unless that issue is sorted out. More importantly, the Government will not guarantee funding for universities beyond 2020. People in the west midlands are concerned. The universities rely on the motorcar trade and vice versa, so it is a very serious situation that should not be treated lightly by anybody.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great knowledge about the west midlands and the motor industry. As a member of the Transport Committee, I have met with many motor manufacturing organisations, and I have watched aghast as the situation has unfolded over the last few months. It is very serious. Of course, the university sector is very important to my city. I have just come from a meeting with the University of Cambridge. My hon. Friend’s point about the uncertainty of future funding is very serious indeed.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

To reinforce my hon. Friend’s point, Jaguar Land Rover has already made about 1,000 people redundant; it hopes to secure its future. Ford has made about 300 people redundant. Then there is Nissan and other such companies. The concern is very real. It is no good the Brexiteers treating lightly things that have serious implications for the country.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I agree entirely. Just the other day, I was calling on people when canvassing in Cambridge, and was struck by the number of people I was coming across who were raising personal experiences. Very senior engineers were telling me that they were applying for jobs in Switzerland because the research funding upon which they rely through the Europe Research Council will be going there. They have no desire to go and previously had no expectation that they would ever seek to leave such a wonderful place as Cambridge, but if that is where the research money is going, that is where scientists will go. It is a global set-up, and we risk doing huge harm to our industries and our universities.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the OECD forecasts show a general slowdown around the advanced world, particularly on the continent of Europe, and show that the UK will grow faster this year than either Germany or Italy? Will he also confirm that there has been a general hit to the car industry because of diesel, which has nothing to do with Brexit.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The OECD says all those things, but people in the motor industry are very clear that the uncertainty is an absolute killer when it comes to long-term investment. Of course, many of the decisions are not being made here, but in Japan. Those decisions are already being made, and are doing us huge harm. Of course there is a range of factors, but it is hard to imagine such instability not causing problems to our industries and universities.

The Government’s no-deal impact assessment, published two weeks ago, states that

“food prices are likely to increase”

and that customs checks could cost business £13 billion a year—an extraordinary sum of money. I have just come from an event that was about how our maintained nurseries are facing closure for want of a fraction of that amount. Why on earth are we doing it?

The Government’s report also said that the worst-hit areas economically in a no-deal scenario would be Wales, losing 8.1%, Scotland, losing 8%, Northern Ireland, losing 9.1%, and the north-east, losing 10.5%. It is no comfort to those of us in the west midlands and the east that it would be marginally better for us. Reportedly, even the most enthusiastic Brexiteers acknowledge that there could be problems in the short term. At least on that we can probably all agree.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Is not part of the challenge that we had all these debates in 2016? The fact is that all the doom and gloom of the economic predictions regarding a vote to leave did not materialise. Most people chose to ignore them, and had the courage to vote on the basis of sovereignty. Re-rehearsing the economic arguments does not seem to be having any effect on the views of the British people.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is very confident. I am sure that he is so confident that he is keen to see that tested in a further vote—I will come to that in a moment. One of the good things that has come from the process is that we all know so much more than we knew three years ago, not just in the country but in this place. As people begin to lose their jobs, and as the people of Cambridge begin to up and go elsewhere, it has become increasingly clear that it is no longer about possible projections, but what is actually happening on the ground.

I will pay the petitioners the tribute of finishing their petition before going further. In its final paragraph, the petitioners explain their view of the European Union’s perspective on the deal and the backstop. They say:

“The issue is that EU have firmly stated that they will not re-open negotiations with the UK over the agreement and remove the backstop.”

One of the most dismal aspects of the last three years has been a consistent failure on this side of the channel to understand how any of this looks from outside. The narrative of the evil European Union trying to punish Britain has, of course, been carefully burnished by some pursuing the Brexit cause, and their friends in certain newspapers, and will certainly continue to be promoted vigorously. Of course the European Union has its own interests, and it will fight for them. Why would it not? It has plenty of problems of its own to worry about.

The European Union has always been pretty clear that it would prefer that we had not decided to leave, but it has also been consistent and clear in its arguments. The UK has offered no workable solutions to the backstop issue. The EU has implored us to suggest something that would be fit for purpose, but the UK Government have suggested no mechanism that provides strong enough protections on the island of Ireland. It can hardly be a surprise that there has been so little progress.

I will try to bring the four paragraphs together, and summarise the petitioners’ case, which I take to be that years of work by officials, politicians, campaigners and more led to the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, but despite all that work it was overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Commons. On the issue of the public mood, interestingly, Professor John Curtice—one of the highest authorities on polling in this country—told an event just last week, hosted by the Economic and Social Research Council in a room adjacent to this Chamber, that that lack of confidence in the Prime Minister’s arrangements is shared by the public. Apparently just 30% of leavers support the Prime Minister’s proposals, and 22% of remainers, which I find slightly surprising, but there we go.

The 1998 Belfast agreement must be respected. That creates a near insoluble problem on the island of Ireland if the Prime Minister is going to continue opposing a UK-EU customs union. A no-deal option is economically highly dangerous, and the EU will not move further, given that it feels that it has already made substantial concessions, and the Prime Minister refuses to change her red lines. That, in substance, is the case being made by the petitioners.

Members will note that this has been a very brief account of some of the most complicated and contentious issues that this place has dealt with in many years. Many hours have been devoted to arguing about every aspect; before the debate started, we reckoned that the Petitions Committee has already brought six or seven such debates to this Chamber. I have chosen not to re-rehearse every argument in depth, because I am not sure that it would add much of value.

We are where we are—at the beginning of a week in which the whole country hopes that we can make some progress; in which the millions of non-UK EU nationals living in the UK, and the millions of UK citizens living in the EU, desperately hope that the uncertainty that blights their lives will end; in which the businesses desperately making plans for the uncertainty that risks wrecking their hard-earned investments in just a couple of weeks could see that uncertainty also come to an end; and in which the long-term sick, worried about security of supply of their vital medicines, could see an end to their anxiety. All that and much more could be done this afternoon—this very hour—were the Government finally to listen to the 48%, who voted for something achievable, rather than those who voted for a vague, wild and sometimes imprecise set of aspirations.

The petition sets out a compelling case. We have exhausted the first two of the Prime Minister’s options: the deal is dead, completely rejected by Parliament, and a no-deal exit would be irresponsible, plunging the country into chaos and hitting the most vulnerable hardest. It follows logically that we should go for what the majority of the country now want. If that is disputed, I say we put it to the test: have the vote on the work done by the Prime Minister and her Ministers. To finish with the Prime Minister—finish with her, not finish her—her deal, no deal, or no Brexit? Frankly, there is no contest. Simples: revoke article 50 now, and let the country move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. Passions run deep, and I think our constituents would expect us to speak with passion on these issues. There are strongly held differences of opinion.

One of the things I wanted to use this debate for was to remind people that the 48% feel strongly too, but I am disappointed that during the debate I got no sense that the other side understand how people in the 48% feel. I am not sure there will be a successful resolution until solutions are brought forward that respect both sides of the debate. On that note, I must say how very impressed I was with the contribution from my colleague on the shadow Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman). If the negotiations had been conducted in that spirit and with such care, we would be in a very different place today.

We frequently hear about “getting on with it”. I do not think people quite realise where we will be standing on 29 March if we go out either with no deal or with the Prime Minister’s deal. It will be not a matter of getting on with it, but the start of it—the start of an endless period of negotiation and rancour in the years ahead. That is one of my great fears. As for fear of the unknown, there is a reason to fear the unknown; it is sometimes quite sensible to fear that. I caution against a leap into the dark.

Finally, I will slightly disagree with my hon. Friend, because it seems to me that we have learned so much more in the past few years that it is not unreasonable to say, “The position is now very different from where we were in 2015, and the sensible thing would actually be to go back to the people to ask them whether this is what they want.” I do not see anything remotely undemocratic in that, and my guess is that that is where we will end up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 239706 relating to leaving the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The deal is absolutely essential across the piece, and that is exactly what we are focused on. If we can secure a deal, we will leave in an orderly and timely way. Given the efforts of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), in preparing this country for no deal, I do not believe that a no-deal scenario will lead to the sort of destruction that the doomsayers on the Opposition Benches have suggested. We are doing lots and lots to secure our safety and our prosperity in the case of no deal.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T2. In Cambridge, it is local elections season. When I knocked on my first door on Sunday, I interrupted someone who modestly described himself as a mid-career academic. He was filling in a job application to move to Switzerland and told me that a number of colleagues in his department were doing the same, the reason being that his department faces losing 20% of its funding from the European Research Council. These are senior scientists who have heard what the Government have to say but have concluded that their future lies elsewhere. How can the Secretary of State reassure the 48% who feel that their future has been put at risk?

[Stephen Barclay]

I am very happy to tell my fellow Cambridgeshire MP how I reassure the academics of Cambridge on this issue. If we look at just how many European Union universities are in the top 50 compared with the number of British universities in the top 50, we see that the determination of their success is not based on their membership of the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a cultural ambassador for this country, for the great work she does in promoting the performing arts. It is absolutely the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to support the great range of talent that comes into this country, and there is no reason why that should be in any way impaired as we go forward.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman knows all about science, culture and education because he represents Cambridge.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The political declaration makes it very clear that the Government want to maintain a close involvement with EU programmes in future. Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State, who is a fellow east of England MP, to see if he shares my disappointment at the reports that the long-established and well-regarded East of England Brussels office faces possible closure? Will he join me in making representations to the East of England Local Government Association?

Vote Leave Campaign: Electoral Law

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 223729 relating to rescinding Article 50 if the Vote Leave campaign broke electoral laws.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

The petition raises an issue that is clearly timely, lively and of huge interest, because almost 200,000 people have signed it in less than three months, including more than 1,000 people from my constituency of Cambridge. I thought it likely that many hon. Members would wish to contribute to a debate on this issue. I thought that some might have spoken on the subject of the petition, some on related subjects and some to confirm pre-existing positions—I confess that I am no exception in that regard. I also suspect that a few people will wish to intervene and, as Mr Speaker would probably put it, “beetle away”. I entirely understand and I will be generous in taking interventions. However, to avoid my being knocked off course completely, I thought that I would first set out the ground I intend to cover and then hon. Members can judge for themselves where best to make their interventions.

May I say at the outset that the wording of the petition is admirably succinct and to the point, perhaps unlike some of our proceedings? It says what I suspect many people would assume is obvious. To paraphrase, it roughly says, “If someone cheats, then the result is invalid and it doesn’t count.” Because I did not like the result of the EU referendum, I obviously agree entirely, but unfortunately for me and for all those who feel the same, things are sadly a bit more complicated than that. It is those issues that I wish to explore initially. In passing, I will suggest that—sadly—cheating in elections or allegations of such are not new or rare. I will examine the mechanisms that we have to explore such charges, and the sanctions and punishments that may be incurred, and I will consider whether they are consistent across different types of elections and votes.

I will say a little about the particular circumstances surrounding the 2016 referendum campaign. I will then address the issue of article 50, and the views about the options that are potentially open to us. In passing, I will reflect on the complicated issues of consent within a democracy and the extent to which some of these judgments are legal issues, while some ultimately may be political issues.

I will conclude in a completely non-partisan way by saying, “Of course we were cheated, the whole thing has been a nonsense and we should stay in the European Union,” which I suspect is what the vast majority of those who signed the petition actually feel. I recognise, however, that there may be others in Westminster Hall today who feel differently. On a more serious note, I will try to offer a potential way forward to address what has undeniably been a distinctly fraught couple of years for our politics.

Let me start, however, at the beginning. Last week, I had the pleasure of joining the Lord Mayor of the City of London at an event in Cambridge. I was struck by his opening comments. He said that he is guided by three principles: the first principle is the rule of law; the second principle is the rule of law; and the third principle is the rule of law. Given that he was addressing a group of lawyers, that seemed like quite a smart opening. However, it strikes me that what the Lord Mayor said—that he is guided by the rule of law—is something that all of us in this place can probably agree on. We are here as lawmakers, and we respect the law even if we disagree with some of it and seek to change it.

The opening part of the petition, which queries whether any laws have been broken, should be relatively simple to consider. We have a mechanism that was established by Parliament to supervise electoral contests. The Electoral Commission has conducted an extensive investigation into the referendum and it has concluded that laws were indeed broken. Vote Leave funnelled nearly £700,000 to another campaign group, BeLeave, and did not declare that the two campaign groups were working together.

The precise details of what happened remain contested; others may wish to talk about that. I recognise that Vote Leave argues that the investigations have been politically motivated. However, the investigation has been made and the conclusions are very clear—indeed, they are stark. Vote Leave was referred to the police and those found guilty have been fined, which is the punishment available to the Electoral Commission under the law.

The Electoral Commission has commented that that punishment is, in its view, insufficient. I agree, as I suspect do the 200,000 petitioners; that is the force of the petition. However, that is the law as it stands at the moment, which makes the jump in the first sentence of the petition quite a leap: from if the law has been broken to nullifying the result. That may be what many of us would like the law to be, but I am afraid that it is not the way it is in this case—or is it? A recurring theme in this debate is that no-one is entirely sure.

There will be lawyers in this Chamber who will know far more than me, but one aspect of the legal debate begins with the status of the referendum itself. In the Supreme Court judgment made in December 2016, when the Government were being challenged on the need for parliamentary approval to trigger article 50, it was judged that the EU referendum was not legally binding but advisory, so logically it cannot be ordered to be rerun by a court. The decision about whether to go back to the public after a referendum is not a legal judgement; it is a political one. The decision lies with us.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing this very important debate. I speak as somebody whose constituency voted to remain; I myself also voted to remain. Can he address one point? He has mentioned, rightly, that in legal terms, the referendum was advisory and not legally binding. Therefore, the nexus between the triggering of article 50 and the referendum is weaker than if the referendum had been legally binding. Does that not weaken the case for the referendum result to be overturned or for article 50 to be rescinded, because Parliament is making an even more independent judgment than would otherwise have been the case?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I rather thought, almost immediately we start getting pulled into the legal arguments. His point is a reasonable one, but of course there are arguments back and forth, and many of these things remain to be tested in court, as is so often the case. However, he might make that case.

The point that I am making, and this is a theme that I will return to throughout my speech, is that the law is for the lawyers, but a lot of these judgments will ultimately be political judgments, which need to be made in this place. We can make a choice, on the basis of what we have seen in the referendum, as to whether or not we think the referendum should be run again—it is up to us to do so.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that we have clarity on where the law stands, particularly in relation to whether article 50 can be rescinded? I am not sure whether he is aware of a legal case—the Wightman case—that is going through the Scottish courts, which I am peripherally involved with. It seeks to get a case to the Court of Justice of the European Union for it to rule, once and for all, on whether article 50 can be rescinded, because we need that clarity in respect of other decisions that we have to make in this place.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I very much agree; in fact, I will come on to that point a bit later. It is a very important point and, of course, it would have been helpful for all of us if the Government had pursued that option to make things clearer, so that we could all have made a sensible decision. However, another theme of my speech is the lack of clarity throughout the discussion of this subject, and I suspect that that will not change in the immediate future.

I do not intend to rehearse the arguments about the abuses that are alleged to have happened during the referendum campaign—in fact, in some cases abuses have been proven to have happened during the referendum campaign—but others may wish to do that. I will just note a couple of things from the excellent work by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee to uncover the extent of the wrongdoing committed by the Vote Leave campaign, which of course is the subject of the petition we are considering.

I cannot help but quote one reflection from the DCMS Committee’s report in relation to one of the key players:

“Mr Cummings’ contemptuous behaviour is unprecedented in the history of this Committee’s inquiries and underlines concerns about the difficulties of enforcing co-operation with Parliamentary scrutiny in the modern age.”

Beyond highlighting the lack of respect shown for the rules and procedures of this Parliament by Vote Leave, the Electoral Commission’s legal counsel stated that:

“Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation. It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence.”

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent opening speech. On the point about people attending Committees, does he agree that the social media element has an impact on the close scrutiny that we need, not just of ourselves as Members of Parliament, but of elections in general? Because it is so new, it adds confusion and layers of fake news, making it even more difficult for the average citizen or voter to get to the bottom of what the truth is.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observation. I do not think anyone would dispute the layers of complexity and difficulty, and the greater difficulty presented by social media. For some of us who have been grappling with electoral law over many years, social media makes it a whole lot more difficult, and I suspect we all know that we will need to update our procedures to try to cope with the challenges that are posed.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

For many of my constituents, this feels like an obvious point. There has been a breach of the law and there should be a way in which those who are responsible are held to account through our legal system. The fact that a general, local or European election or a local referendum would, in such a case, be voided in the High Court but that this referendum has not been seems nonsensical. I agree with the point my hon. Friend just made: that the rules, therefore, clearly need updating. Would my hon. Friend support me and others in calling for an inquiry, not just to understand the problems in the referendum, but to fix the rules for the future?

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend jumps ahead a little, but entirely correctly, to my conclusions. Over the next few minutes, I will show some of the inconsistencies and the need to update our rules and laws, and I very much hope that the Minister will listen closely.

Returning to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s conclusion, that was an extraordinarily strong statement, which frankly should make anyone in any way associated with the Vote Leave campaign at least wince—they should, more properly, be deeply ashamed. I cannot help noting that the alleged point of the entire campaign was to bring control back to this Parliament—a Parliament it now treats with contempt and disdain. The sheer hypocrisy, as well as the appalling boorishness, that the campaign has exhibited takes the breath away. How dare it wave the Union Jack when it so disrespects basic British values? Millions and millions of people who voted to leave will also have been horrified by its behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) put it succinctly when asking an urgent question on this matter in July:

“Who do these people think they are? They think they are above the law.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 227.]

Although this particular instance is controversial and unpleasant, and stinks of arrogance and an obnoxious disregard for our politics and our Parliament, over an issue that is extremely emotive for many of us, as well as highly significant for the country, it is important to remember that this is not the only occasion on which our politics has fallen short.

I have just made a pretty strong attack, so I will try to lighten the mood for a moment. In the interest of painting an accurate picture, I fully acknowledge that claims that ballots have been rigged or that electorates have been misled are hardly new or unusual. It was not just the notorious £350,000 claim on the side of the bus. [Interruption.] Million—sorry, not thousand. I have lost count of the number of constituencies I have arrived in and by-elections I have turned up to, where I have been puzzled and amused by the information being offered to the electorate by one side or another. Let me get my mea culpa in first. My party has made some interesting claims. I remember “Vote Labour or the fox gets it” dominating one parliamentary by-election. I remember Labour claiming that the Lib Dems were high on taxes and soft on drugs—that was one of my particular favourites, which I think was from Oldham and Saddleworth. In another by-election, possibly in Leicester, I remember being told that the contest was Mr Strong versus Mr Weak—neither of which candidates appeared on the ballot paper, as I recall. In general elections, the Conservatives have used the notorious double tax whammy and they have asked us, “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?”. Of course, whenever the Liberal Democrats are involved, it is always a two-horse race, whatever the facts might say.

Whether witty, making a reasonable point in a clever way or downright misleading, none of those statements actually broke the law, but Vote Leave did and it has been punished according to the law as it stands. However, the campaign also seriously misled the public. I and many others feel furious about the false promises that were made, but I reluctantly concede that this motley collection of attempts to at best divert and at worst mislead the electorate is, frankly, what electoral politics has always been: an unlovely struggle to achieve sometimes noble ends through too often distinctly tawdry means.

Sometimes, however, cheating does lead to a rerun. In Oldham East and Saddleworth, a by-election was triggered in November 2010 after the sitting MP, elected just months before, was reported guilty of “knowingly making false statements” about an opponent in the general election earlier in the year. After various court proceedings and an appeal, he was reaffirmed as guilty and conceded defeat. I was very sorry, because he was a Labour colleague. Interestingly, the electorate chose not to punish Labour at the ensuing by-election. There are more recent examples. In South Thanet, accusations of electoral fraud have been made that could have declared the election result in 2015 void due to overspending. The trial has been delayed. It is expected to happen in October and I therefore do not think it would be appropriate to say anything more about it.

Those who have signed the petition under consideration today may well ask: why are parliamentary election reports of wrongdoing treated so differently and so much more robustly than those relating to referendums? The answer, as I have hinted, is that electoral law is complicated, with different overlapping pieces of legislation that make it difficult to understand, even for those of us who have been struggling to work out what it means for many years. The important point here is that electoral law is different for national referendums.

In the case of a parliamentary election, there can be a challenge for one of three reasons: if there have been administrative failings that could have led to the wrong result; if a candidate is suspected of being disqualified from standing; or if there have been corrupt or illegal practices, including a candidate spending over the limit. Although there are financial limits on national spending by political parties and third-party campaigners during an election, there is no similar provision for declaring a general election result void because of overspending on the national scale. That makes the rules for referendums and parliamentary elections both complex and varied.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that whether or not we have another referendum on our membership of the European Union, the probable involvement of the Russians indicates that democracy in this country is at risk and that, whatever action we take in this House, we should try to ensure that it is motivated by our desire to defend democracy as well as the rule of law?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend and near neighbour. There are so many aspects of the matter that could be explored today, some of which I suspect others will choose to pursue.

Returning to the general proposition about how these issues should be dealt with, some look to the Venice Commission for guidance. The commission’s guidelines on constitutional referendums, to which the UK is a signatory, include:

“National rules on both public and private funding of political parties and election campaigns must be applicable to referendum campaigns... As in the case of elections, funding must be transparent, particularly when it comes to campaign accounts. In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled”.

However, as colleagues may agree, some of that, too, is open to interpretation. It does not give precise advice, and the key point, I am afraid, is that it is not legally binding on its signatories, although we have signed up to the spirit of it and it really ought to guide us in that way.

If one clear conclusion and recommendation comes out of this debate, it should be that the current rules are inconsistent, and certainly not clear to the general public. The law on referendums should be strengthened and made consistent, and I very much hope that the Minister addresses that in his contribution.

There is a further issue that goes beyond the strict application of the law. We do not have a written constitution. We do not have a contract between citizens—or subjects, but that is a debate for another day; let us call them electors—and those entrusted to make law and to govern. We have a very British understanding, and arguably it has probably served us pretty well. If a party is elected on a manifesto that it then contradicts in government by U-turning on key flagship policies, for instance, it can be reduced by the electorate from a party of government to one struggling to make up double figures in its number of MPs, as we have seen in recent times.

It is widely understood that we all respect the outcomes of elections, however disappointed we might be by the result. I speak from some experience, having lost many more elections than I have won. That respect, however, requires that everyone plays broadly by the rules. Despite the examples I somewhat grudgingly gave earlier, most of us accept that most of the time our system works. I am being generous, as many of us, particularly on my side of political spectrum, feel that the levels of hostility from national newspapers owned by people with vested interests have over many years made any contest far from fair, but I persist in thinking that the removal van outside Downing Street remains a powerful symbol of a democracy that still maintains public trust and consent. However—this goes to the heart of the issue raised by the petition—if that trust begins to be put in doubt, and significant numbers no longer feel the system is operating sufficiently fairly, then our democracy is at risk. What we do about that is a political judgment, not a legal judgment.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for the fact that I and possibly other Members will not be able to stay until the end of this debate; there is another debate about the European Union withdrawal agreement taking place in the Chamber shortly. Does he think it might be helpful to have an independent arbiter to assess the statements made during election campaigns? Politicians of all parties could voluntarily sign up to an understanding that if the UK Statistics Authority, for instance, came down against a particular statement—for example, the £350 million for the NHS—and said that it was untrue, those politicians would never restate that position.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points. I quite understand that there is another, more attractive option coming up soon in the other Chamber, and I will be in no way offended if he leaves. On his point about whether there can be an independent arbiter, I am slightly dubious. We are all sufficiently experienced, even in local contests, to know that that would be a difficult thing to set up. I would worry about it. We have all seen examples where all candidates are given an equal space in a booklet, and we have perhaps noted that that is not necessarily the bit that cuts through to the electorate in comparison with reporting from other sources. It is a difficult area, and I have some scepticism about his proposals, although there may be some value in exploring the checking of statistics.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way to me for a second time. Does he agree that if there is a referendum and the Government of the day say that they will implement whatever the people decide, there should at least be a briefing in the Library of the House of Commons the day after the referendum goes one way or the other so that those of us who are rather surprised by the result know what the Government intend to do?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her suggestion. I am just remembering some bleary-eyed politicians trying to recalibrate in the middle of the night, and I am wondering how quickly such a briefing note could be produced accurately. This is a theme of what I have been saying, but I am not sure that one can design legal systems to cope with all these things. In the end, these are political judgments, and we live in a democracy with a fair amount of hurly-burly and a free press, as there should be. We do not want our elections and decisions being bought by money and external states. That is the worry, and that is the difference from some of the problems we have had in the past.

I will make some progress and move on to the separate but related question of article 50 and the ongoing debate as to whether it is rescindable. Lord Kerr was responsible for drafting article 50 as secretary-general to the European Convention in 2002-03 and is frequently quoted on this issue. Last year, he said that article 50 was revocable. That interpretation is supported by Jean-Claude Piris, former legal counsel to the European Council. Marie Demetriou QC, Jessica Simor QC and Tim Ward QC have written a joint legal opinion, which they have sent to the Prime Minister, in which they conclude that article 50 can be withdrawn before 29 March 2019 without the need to seek the agreement of the other EU member states. They also say that if that happened, the UK would retain its membership and privileges. The joint legal opinion notes that the wording in article 50 refers to a decision to notify an intention to withdraw. The QCs argue that an intention is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.

While legal arguments continue on the matter, in political terms the French Government have stated that they would welcome the UK staying in the EU on the current terms. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council President Donald Tusk have both said that Brexit is reversible. Lots of people have said lots of things over a period of time. When it comes down to it, I suspect that it is the political will of law- makers that counts here. However, it has been made very clear to us that we are welcome to stay, should we wish.

I have tried to present the petition in an even-handed and fair way, even though everyone already knows where I am going with my speech. In many people’s view, June 2016 was not a great example of a mature democracy working at its best. We know that in our system, referendums are used mainly by Prime Ministers who are in a fix, trapped by divisions within their own party. That was most certainly the case in 2016. Although I have not an ounce of sympathy for David Cameron, he must wonder every day how it came to this. In 2016, the country was hideously divided on the issue, but a decision was made. Two and a half years on, it looks as though we face another difficult decision: to accept whatever deal can finally be arrived at, or not. That is a different question from the one that was posed in 2016. I have argued this afternoon that the law around referendums should be changed to make them consistent with other electoral processes.

Almost 200,000 petitioners and many, many more in the country feel very strongly that the 2016 decision, close as it was, was sullied by actions that have been proven by the Electoral Commission to be unlawful. It may be Parliament’s responsibility or fault that the law is inconsistent, but many of the people we represent feel that the law has not provided adequate recompense for wrongdoings, and that is the force of the petition. That the law was broken is not in doubt, but alongside that, many believe that the campaign was grossly misleading. What was offered by Vote Leave and other leave campaigns is not what is being delivered, and as with parties that renege on their manifestos, the country will not forgive the political system and the politicians who allow this to happen.

The two strands—breaking spending limits and misleading people—are separate issues, but for many people the two are inextricably linked. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is the grandson of Winston Churchill, told the House in the urgent question on this matter in July that

“one of the great glories of this sadly now diminished country was our electoral and democratic system…I say…that if we are to retain the integrity and the trust of the voting public, the whole damn thing needs to be blown and started all over again.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 228-229.]

The point is very well made. To maintain trust in our democracy, a political response is needed, and that political response is to ensure that justice is done and that we have a people’s vote.

The petition mentions article 10.3 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:

“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

I do not want to leave the EU; I have been explicit on that point. I truly believe that the economic, social and political damage that leaving would do to our country—hitting the most vulnerable the hardest—could be mitigated by remaining in and reforming the EU. Tackling the underlying causes here at home is the way to truly bring back control to the people, not to the bankrollers of election campaigns, but while having the conversation about our future relationship with the European Union, it is worth reflecting again on article 10.3. It states:

“Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

That was not what happened in the EU referendum campaign, where electoral rules were broken, a limited franchise excluded those who would be most affected and the question allowed people to vote on what they did not want, but then said nothing about the kind of relationship that should be put in place. As many have said, as we slam the door shouting “We’re leaving”, we are unable to answer the obvious retort, “So where do you think you’re going to?”.

To help our fractured society to move back towards the higher ideals of genuine informed participation in democratic life, it is right to consider the experiences of the past two and a half years since the country went to the polls, as well as the poll itself, and to look at what was promised then and what is being delivered now. It is right to wonder whether we can do better. People have the right to know the price tag before they pay the bill. I am absolutely convinced we can do better. We all know so much more now than we did back in 2016. My solution to the conundrum raised by the 200,000 petitioners is simple. We have an opportunity not to revisit 2016—not to have a rerun, despite the wrongdoing—but to have a new vote on the issue that lies before us. It would be a people’s vote, which would give the people a genuine choice to decide on their future: whether to take the deal, whatever is negotiated, or to reject it and so stay in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all Members who made contributions today. It has been a civilised debate.

The Minister reflected that the turnout in the Chamber was a decent one, but I have to say that I expected rather more Members—in fact, I expected a rank of Vote Leave supporters on the Government Benches to explain and defend their actions. I quite understand why they are not present: their actions were indefensible. What a pity that they are not here to defend themselves. I suspect that many of the petitioners will be profoundly disappointed—not by the number who are here, but by the number who are not, in particular on the Vote Leave side.

The Minister cannot, however, be held responsible for everything that happens in life. I shall reflect on some points in his response. I was mildly encouraged that the Government plan to look at the role of data and at strengthening the laws around referendums. Major lessons can be learned from all that went on. I was slightly disappointed that he did not take the opportunity to endorse the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) of a judge-led inquiry into what went on, which might help us, but perhaps that is for another day.

In conclusion, the Government again made a strong statement that the issue will not be revisited, but I reflect gently on the strong statements made by the Prime Minister in the early months of 2017 that there was no chance of a general election. Perhaps she should again go for a walking holiday in Wales and return to give the country what it needs to get us off the hook of the crisis by delivering a people’s vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 223729 relating to rescinding Article 50 if the Vote Leave campaign broke electoral laws.

Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I am confident that we will achieve both outcomes, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

We have learned this week that the European Medicines Agency has cancelled all its contracts with our highly regarded Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. That is not theoretical; that is now. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on our life sciences sector? Is this an indication of how well it is all going?

[Dominic Raab]

I cannot talk about any specific individual contracts, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in life sciences, as across those other areas we prize highly, we have a set of proposals—he will know them from the White Paper, but if he does not, I urge him to look at them—that will make sure we continue our strong co-operation and regulatory co-operation in that regard. In the event of no deal—of course we cannot force the EU to sign a deal; it has to be consensual and something both sides agree—we will have the technical notices, so that the guidance, the regulation and the team are in place to make sure we have as smooth a Brexit as possible in the circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. The Home Secretary has issued a statement that sets out his disappointment that the EU has not necessarily put into plan the reciprocal arrangements that it agreed to for EU citizens. For our part, we have made it clear that we have agreed the sections of the withdrawal agreement that provide for an exhaustive and comprehensive series of protections for EU citizens. That is on a reciprocal basis and we expect the EU to respond in kind.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

This week, the Office for Budget Responsibility followed the Institute for Fiscal Studies in pointing out that there is no such thing as a Brexit dividend. Given that the OBR was set up to provide expert advice to the Government, may we have an assurance that there will be no more talk from Ministers of this fantasy Brexit dividend?

[Dominic Raab]

It is clear that when we leave the EU and take back control of our borders, law and money, we will not be paying the gross contributions to the EU. We will continue some domestic payments in the way that we have described, but we will of course be able to take back control of our net contribution and will pay a lot less to the EU as a result.