Article 50

Debate between David Davis and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I cannot off the top of my head think of a circumstance in which EVEL would apply, but it might do so. The point I would make to the hon. Lady is that that rests on a ruling by the Speaker, not by a Secretary of State.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will triggering article 50 be adequate to release us from other related treaty obligations under the 1972 Act, such as our membership of the European economic area?

[Mr Davis]

That is a debatable matter of law. I think that that is the accurate answer. Subsequent matters may arise after the triggering of article 50, but if so we will come back to the House.

New Partnership with the EU

Debate between David Davis and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Since the beginning of this process—since I took up my post—we have put the preservation of the stability and the interests of Northern Ireland pretty much at the top of the tree of the negotiations, particularly on issues such as maintaining an open border and preserving the economic basis of Northern Ireland, which is very dependent on trade with the Republic of Ireland. On the JMC, I do not know if it has gone yet but yesterday I approved a letter to the Northern Ireland Executive—although the next Government are now subject to an election, most Ministers are still in place—asking that during the interim period they send representatives, whether ministerial or otherwise, so that we are always across the interests of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman must take it as read that I am absolutely committed to maintaining the stability, peace and prosperity we have got used to in the last several years.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State said, giving up our membership of the EU and the single market is not incompatible with our negotiating access to the single market, either in whole or in part, but has he yet considered the red lines he might put down on what we pay for such access?

[Mr Davis]

I have considered them, but the idea that I might talk about them is another matter. There is a naive belief in modern politics that we have to establish, in some butch way, red lines. If we were to establish a red line, we would invite those with whom we are negotiating to make that red line very expensive. I do not therefore intend to get into the business of laying out red lines here, there and everywhere; I intend to get the best possible outcome for the country.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and Jonathan Djanogly

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

All those figures will be published in due course, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about one thing: I have given in terms an undertaking to the House that there will be no dilution of employment rights as a result of our leaving the European Union. He has not been paying attention.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The High Court judgment noted:

“The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given.”

Why did the Government simply accept that? If they had maintained that triggering could be reversed by Parliament, would not Parliament remain sovereign, despite the Executive taking the decision to trigger article 50?

[Mr Davis]

The reason was not really a point of law so much as a point of constitutional and political reality. I did not see it as possible that we could reverse the decision of the British people.