United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Christopher Chope

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

There may be one thing that unites most of us on both sides—the utterly wearying quality of the debate on which we have engaged for so long. As a consequence, when we find ourselves presented with an opportunity that might bring that debate to a conclusion, there is always a temptation to look at it and think that it could be a way out. That is particularly the case, because for many of us, although I accept not all, the sword of Damocles of a no-deal Brexit hangs over us and that sword is a matter of huge anxiety. I happen to believe that it would be catastrophic for this country.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Grieve]

In a moment.

The issue that we have to consider today is whether the offer that the Attorney General and the Government have made to this House goes any way towards resolving the problem. In my view, it cannot and does not. The origin of the problem lies, as has been so rightly said—and here I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—in the fact that the Government set out on an enterprise and said that at the end of it this House would be able to vote not only on a withdrawal agreement but on a future relationship. Indeed, page 36 of the Conservative party manifesto, which I am sometimes accused of not following, said:

“We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal, reaching agreement on both within the two years allowed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.”

The Government’s problems started to multiply when it became clear that that was not happening.

Whatever the motivation of different Members of this House in rejecting the Government’s deal, the truth is that at its kernel was the fact that we did not have any ability to make that assessment. That is why the Government lost twice on section 13 motions, and in truth I suspect that even if a section 13 motion could be brought back, it would again be rejected for the same reason.

Now, the Attorney General and the Government say to us that there is a way out of this, by which we can agree the withdrawal agreement, get a technical extension until 22 May—I will come back to that in a moment—and expect, in the intervening period, to resolve the outstanding issues to the satisfaction of this House.

In the past week this House, in its frustration, finally took control of the Order Paper, because it wanted to debate the alternatives that the Government did not want us to debate. One thing is clear from that debate: the alternatives need time to be agreed, time to be worked up, and time to be negotiated with our EU partners. How can that be done in the context of a technical extension that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated at the Dispatch Box would be there if we reached an agreement merely to implement it?

At an earlier date, I explained to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip that if this House reached an agreement, I would not, even if I did not like it, seek to use the passage of the withdrawal agreement Act for the purpose of wrecking it. That is a self-denying ordinance on my part. I am afraid, however, that it is perfectly obvious that some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members intend to use the withdrawal agreement Act to wreck the passage of any agreement. I have to say, speaking personally, that if I cannot vote on a clean motion to approve a deal, I will be constrained on the passage of the EU withdrawal Act to be much freer in my opposition.

The truth is that it is most unlikely that between now and 22 May we have any possibility of reaching that sort of consensus. That is why I have been of the view for some time that we ought to seek to extend article 50 further if we cannot come to an agreement by 12 April, and I believe that our European Union partners have understood that and would be willing for us to do it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I have no reason to think that the United Kingdom has not fulfilled its undertakings under the memorandum. The memorandum provided some important mechanisms and assurances for the Ukrainian Government when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal, and it is clear that those have not been observed by the Russian Government.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

So why does the United Kingdom not move to expel Russia from the Council of Europe? My right hon. and learned Friend has said in the past that if we do not give prisoners the vote we will be expelled from the Council of Europe, so surely on the issue of proportionality it is important that we spell out to Russia that it should leave the Council of Europe, and if not, it should be expelled.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s message. The view that I express is the view of the United Kingdom Government, and it is backed up by the advice of Professor Crawford and Professor Boyle. The overwhelming weight of international precedent is that, in the event of independence, the remainder of the UK would continue to exercise its international rights and obligations, and that Scotland would form a new state. In those circumstances, Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

But is there not an alternative legal viewpoint, which is that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom without Scotland would itself have to reapply for membership of the European Union?