All 2 Debates between Dominic Grieve and Steve Barclay

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Steve Barclay
Saturday 19th October 2019

(5 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, I am happy to give that reassurance to my right hon. Friend. That is something that we can commit to do as we move forward.

Dominic Grieve Portrait Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Ind)
- Hansard - -

My right hon. Friend spoke earlier about there not being pointless delay, and I actually agree with him about that. This matter has to be brought to a conclusion, but he must be aware that quite apart from approving it in its generality, we also have a duty as a House to look at the detail of this deal in primary legislation. In the course of that, the House is entitled to pass amendments which, provided they do not undermine the treaty itself, are wholly legitimate. The difficulty is that, by insisting that the Benn Act be effectively subverted and removed, the impression the Government are giving is that they have other intentions—of taking us out at such a gallop that that proper scrutiny cannot take place. I wish the Government would just listen a little bit, because I think that they would find there is much more common ground on this than they have ever been prepared to acknowledge, instead of which they continue to give the impression that they just want to drive a coach and horses through the rights of this House to carry out proper scrutiny.

Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have always had great respect for the legal acumen and the seriousness of my right hon. and learned Friend, but there is an inconsistency in his case when he talks about wanting to look at legislation in more detail, having supported the Benn-Burt legislation that was passed in haste, and having supported the Cooper legislation, which needed to be corrected by Lord Pannick and others in the House of Lords, because it would have had the effect of doing the opposite of what it intended as it would have forced a Prime Minister to come back to this House after the EU Council had finished, thereby making a no deal more likely rather than less. That Cooper legislation is a very good example of where my right hon. and learned Friend did not look at legislation in detail, and, indeed, where it would have had a perverse consequence at odds with his arguments for supporting it at the time. Indeed, there is a further inconsistency: he championed section 13, but when the Prime Minister secured a new deal, which my right hon. and learned Friend said that he could not achieve, he then denies the House a right to vote in a meaningful way as required by his own section 13 because he no longer wants it to apply on the same rules as it did when he passed it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Dominic Grieve and Steve Barclay
Tuesday 12th March 2019

(5 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course I will reflect the will of the House and give way, but what is interesting is that what we see on the Opposition Benches is a desire not to get into the substance but just to play politics with what is one of the most crucial decisions in our country’s history.

Dominic Grieve Portrait Mr Grieve
- Hansard - -

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I just want to understand the implications of article 62, because it seems that what he is actually saying is that that would be a ground for voiding the entire treaty. That is a rather different thing from being able to pull out of the backstop. Doubtless, some Members of this House would be only too delighted to see the entire treaty voided, but it is a rather apocalyptic scenario, or have I misunderstood something?

Steve Barclay Portrait Stephen Barclay
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Rather like economists, lawyers can always find issues on which to disagree. As I said, the issue here is that we are dealing with unlikely circumstances. What came through in the Attorney General’s statement is the fact that, ultimately, this is a political judgment, not a legal judgment. It is for Members of this House to assess the political risk. Indeed, as the Attorney General himself said—