UK Exit from the European Union

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 133618, 125333, 123324, 154593, 133767 and 133540 relating to the UK’s exit from the European Union.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. These petitions have now closed and have been on the books for a few months. Some of them have been overtaken by events and by subsequent debates in the Chamber, but it is important that we continue to discuss these matters over the coming months.

Three of the six petitions are essentially about the timing of our invocation of article 50, if we invoke it at all. The Prime Minister has said in recent weeks that the Government intend to invoke article 50 by the end of March 2017. Why has she picked that date? The Department for Exiting the European Union did not exist just a few months ago, so a lot of the Department’s work has to be about building capacity. As far as I understand it, the Department has 180 staff in the UK and can call upon 120 people in Brussels for advice.

We obviously need to build a strategy through conversations and discussions with devolved Assemblies, small businesses, large plcs, councils, local government associations and major metropolitan bodies. There have been, and continue to be, meetings with business groups and representatives of universities, the charitable sector, farming and fishing. There are ongoing roundtable discussions with a number of cross-cutting organisations and people, too.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his Department have been performing sectoral and regulatory analyses and are looking at more than 50 sectors and cross-cutting regulatory issues. It is important that we invoke article 50 when, and only when, we in the UK are ready to do so. Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, has said something indicative:

“I consider it to be very possible that the Brits will know exactly what they want at the start of negotiations, but that Europe still won’t be able to speak with a single voice”.

It is important that we know exactly what we want when we invoke article 50 by the end of March.

I suspect that the petitioners who want us to invoke article 50 immediately signed that petition because they do not believe it will happen. The petitioners who want us never to invoke article 50 effectively buried their heads in the sand after the referendum and are trying to replay the debate we had before 23 June. Some petitioners want Parliament to vote on article 50, which is a continuing debate—we debated it in the main Chamber last week.

There is an ongoing case in the High Court. I read an interesting article in The Daily Telegraph by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a significant Government legal background from before his election to this place. He surmises that the Government negotiate and sign treaties and that Parliament makes sure that we can comply with international obligations under UK law. The Government take the view—and I agree with their position—that the royal prerogative is the right way to invoke article 50, which is effectively the Government negotiating and signing treaties. Parliament will be able to scrutinise the Government’s discussions as we seek to leave the EU, and it will also have a significant say over the coming two years in shaping our exit from the EU through the great repeal Bill. Parliament will also have a significant say on shaping our future relationship with the EU, which will involve a separate negotiating process.

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

It is all very well our saying what we want before article 50 is triggered, but after that point the EU will tell us what we are going to get. We will not have any negotiating power. Before we pull the trigger, would it not be better for us to have an idea of what we are likely to get and then to have a referendum on the exit package? That is very different from what people reasonably understood when they voted on 23 June.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I disagree with him because I do not believe that the European Union will tell us what we will get; rather, this will be part of an open negotiation. Why? Because there is not one body. There are 27 different voices within the European Union, excluding ourselves, and they will each be fighting for their patch. Each country will be fighting for its own important sectors and will have those sectors in mind when it comes to the joint negotiations. The one that is often cited is the German automotive industry, which sells 10% of its cars to the UK market. Germany will not want BMW, Audi and Volkswagen—all those major brands—to suffer as a result of the Commission in Brussels burying its head in the sand during the negotiations. Each corner and each country will fight for its own sectors, as will the UK.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s generosity. Does he agree that it is striking that the 27 countries will decide among themselves what they will give us? We will not decide. They will have a big argument about it, as he says, but then they will say, “This is what you’re getting.” If the German car manufacturers think it is better to keep out the Japanese through tariffs and to sell more Mercedes to Spain and fewer to Britain, that is another decision. Ultimately, those 27 countries will decide collectively and then tell us what we are getting.

[Paul Scully]

By invoking article 50 we will effectively be working out how to separate the UK from the rest of the EU—that is, dividing up the assets and liabilities and deciding how we move forward with the institutions. Although that is intertwined, it is also slightly separated from our future relationship with the EU. Article 50 says that we have to take our future relationship into account, but there is plenty of time and we need to use the full two years to work out our future relationship.

I would not want to see our future relationship being hamstrung by waiting to invoke article 50 because we are trying to limit our negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. Frankly, that is what hamstrung David Cameron in the first place. If he had asked for more and had not limited himself in his renegotiations with the EU last year, we might have been in a very different place in the lead up to the referendum. We might have voted to remain. We should not limit ourselves in our negotiations on how we move forward once we have left the EU just so we can get to the point of invoking article 50 and starting the process next March.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I speak as a member of the Council of Europe—like your good self, Mr Wilson—and of the European Scrutiny Committee. The first thing to point out is that, although the petitions under discussion are all very important and have been signed by tens of thousands of people, they are dwarfed into insignificance by the petition signed by the 4.1 million people who thought that the referendum should have had a turnout of 75% and a pass mark of 60%.

Obviously the referendum has happened and we acknowledge it, but it is important to remember that it was based on what were basically a lot of false promises. In practice, many people I have spoken to about the vote say that what they anticipated was lower costs; £350 million a week to the NHS, for example; less migration; and market access. It now transpires that in the short term we are seeing much more migration and that costs will be phenomenally higher. The Chancellor and the Government have abandoned the deficit targets, and we are going to see a colossal increase in borrowing and expenditure in the autumn statement, in anticipation of dropping revenues. As for market access, the hard Brexit approach that emerged at the Conservative party conference and that the public did not vote for—they only voted to leave the EU—has sent the pound to a 30-year low. That might be okay in the short term for some exporters, but it will generate inflation and problems.

People are increasingly realising that much of the inward investment that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke about was from businesses such as Japanese car manufacturers, which wanted to be here not only because we speak English but as a platform into the biggest marketplace in the world. But Nissan, for example, is now saying that if tariffs rise they should get compensation. If other inward investors need that, it will be a nightmare for the national accounts and for attracting businesses. The country will be borrowing more. What is more, the Prime Minister criticised the Bank of England—although she has no control over it—on quantitative easing and borrowing, which have moved up interest rates. From a business point of view, we will borrow more at a higher cost because of those pronouncements. We will have less access to a big market and less access to skills.

Like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, my background is in business—multinational business, as it happens; I was in charge of developing products for Colgate across Europe. Such companies will move production into the marketplace to avoid those tariffs. Businesses such as Tata Steel may be enjoying some short-term benefit from the exchange rate, but they know that 60% of their steel exports are into Europe, so in the long term obviously they will be looking to move. It is a nightmare.

Given that the reasonable expectations of people who voted for Brexit are not being borne out, it is reasonable to ask for a referendum on the actual exit package that we will get, rather than saying, “In principle, we’d like to go if we got this. Oh, it looks like we’re not going to get it, so let’s have a referendum on that.” We should do that before article 50 is triggered, because as soon as we trigger it, we have no negotiating power. The EU will then decide the terms of our exit within two years. Yes, the 27 countries will argue about what is best for them, but they will come to some consensus and say, “These are the terms of your exit.”

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned negotiating deals. As I said, he has been in business like I have. In business, someone with more power is in a better position. If the EU is negotiating with any country on behalf of Britain, it is in a much more powerful position to get the best deal than Britain negotiating individually with that country. What is more, if that country knows that we are desperate for deals because we are leaving the EU and wanting to expand, particularly if it is a very powerful country like China, it should hold back on its pork deal or whatever and say, “This is what you’re getting.” Britain will say, “We don’t like that,” and the Chinese will say, “Well, where are you going to go? You cannot go to Europe because you have shut the door behind you.”

[Paul Scully]

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the simplest way of showing we were desperate for a deal would be to limit ourselves to a negotiating position that was so slim that we would effectively be saying, “We want the single market, we want to keep freedom of movement, and we want to carry on paying into the EU—we effectively want to be in the EU, in all but name”? That would be very limiting and smacks of desperation.

[Geraint Davies]

To be clear, I want to stay in the EU. I have a Bill on the terms of withdrawal that I hope will be given a Second Reading on Friday. It basically says that we should get the exit package—or at least a good understanding of what it will look like with regard to the balance between migration and tariffs and all the other costs—and, if the British public think that it is a reasonable representation of what they thought they were going to get, then fine, we will go ahead on that basis, before the triggering of article 50, after which it is a one-way street and we have no power. If the British public do not think it is reasonable, the default position would be to stay in the EU because it had all been a dreadful mistake. Frankly, it has been a dreadful mistake.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Frankly, I think he is in the wrong job. I am sure he is an excellent Member of Parliament, but he has not understood the message of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. He would be better suited to a job on the business section of the “Today” programme, because the first five minutes of his speech have been unremitting doom and gloom. Why would the EU want to negotiate with us? One reason is that they sell us £70 billion a year more than we sell to them, so it is in their interest to have a good deal with the United Kingdom post Brexit.

[Geraint Davies]

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, rather than his first comment, there are only two countries in the EU that sell more to us than we sell to them: Holland and Germany. The other 25 nations have an interest in tariffs, because they obviously have a trade deficit. Germany might say, “We have all these Mercedes cars we’re selling,” but we know that when they block out the Japanese—who are primarily here because they want a platform for their car industry—and sell more cars to Spain, because the Japanese cannot, even they might agree with tariffs.

The simplistic proposition that was put forward by the purveyors of “It’s going to be all right; we’ll take control,” is farcical. That campaign was led by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the one and only right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who—a recent article has disclosed—was in favour of remaining in the EU. I was saying as much well before that article came out, because all his family were in favour and it is rational to stay in. He made a calculation because his primary objective was to become the leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. He was going to be up against the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who was pro-remain. The majority of Conservatives—more than 60% of party members—are for Brexit, so his plan was to go on about how great it was going to be to take back control, while hoping that we would narrowly remain. He would then have become the great leader standing up to Europe within Europe. But it all failed.

From that article, it is clearly true that that is what it was about. The Foreign Secretary has claimed that the article was some sort of script for “Blackadder”, or whatever his latest claim is, but when I approached him just before the Brexit campaign, I asked him a question—which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was asked and did not answer—and which I used to ask cab drivers, or anybody else. I said, “Name me one law in Europe that you don’t like.” The right hon. Gentleman said, “Erm, there are four directives on bananas.” I said, “This is not some sort of joke. Can you think of anything?” Eventually, after some consternation, he said, “REACH.” Members will no doubt know that REACH—the regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—applies the precautionary principle to endocrine disrupting chemicals in manufactured products. I said, “What’s wrong with that?” and he said, “Oh, well, I don’t really know,” and he walked off. His heart was not in it; his heart was in becoming the leader of the Conservative party. We are in this farcical position where we are going to lose out economically because the people of Britain have been sold a false promise.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), if someone goes to a shop and buys a phone that they are told works in a certain way, and they go home and it simply does not work in that way, they have the right to go back and say, “Hold on, I was told that this worked in a certain way but it doesn’t. I want my money back.” We need another referendum.

[Royston Smith]

We seem to have turned this debate into some sort of attack on the Foreign Secretary. Were we to expand on that, we could equally talk about the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Because he was actually in favour of Brexit, he was so lukewarm when campaigning for remain that it caused a leadership challenge in the Labour party. We would be better moving on from the personalities and getting back to the substance laid out so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).

[Geraint Davies]

It is fair to say that the Foreign Secretary is not completely responsible for a narrow victory and that, had the Labour party and its leader done a better job of explaining the fact that we have inward investment because we are a platform into a big market, and we have good rights at work because they are collectively agreed, and that all that might be lost and so on—I will not run through all the arguments—we might not have ended up where we are. Indeed, had the Prime Minister not been so complacent about staying in the EU that he decided not to give 16-year-olds the right to vote in the referendum and not to allow British people living abroad to vote, we would be in a different place. It is obviously not all the fault of the Foreign Secretary; I am simply saying that his primary objective was to become, essentially, the leader of Britain, and that as a result our destiny has changed. It is a great tragedy of Greek proportions.

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman has very honestly said that he wants us to stay in the European Union. Does he accept the result, or is the logic of his argument that he would vote against any deal in a second referendum and then seek to maintain our membership?

[Geraint Davies]

I am holding back my cards. It is certainly the case that I view the referendum as advisory, not mandatory. We are here as part of a representative democracy to look at things in detail on behalf of our constituents. It was an acclamation at the time, but, as the disaster is emerging, the opinion polls suggest that were people to be asked again next week, they would not want it. I am here to represent the best interests of my constituents, the majority of whom voted to remain. On a local scale, Wales will lose thousands of jobs and billions of pounds. I hope that people will be allowed another chance to take a more considered view with more information, before we go ahead and trigger article 50, after which we will have no negotiating power.

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. When he talks about the referendum being advisory, does he remember that £9.4 million leaflet that went to every household? When I led the Westminster Hall debate on the petition related to that leaflet, I said that people were likely to forget all the words in it but remember the £9.4 million cost. I cannot remember the exact wording, but there was a line in there that said that the Government will accept the will of the people and will implement the result of the referendum. That was clear and unambiguous to every member of the public who received and read that leaflet.

[Geraint Davies]

Sadly for myself and indeed the country, I am not part of the Government. [Interruption.] There we are.

Do not misunderstand me—it was an extremely serious vote and the will of the electorate needs to be respected. However, one has to remember that the referendum vote was quite a narrowly defined vote and the suggestion is that now, if more information was available, people would act differently.

If it is increasingly obvious that the economic impact, in particular, and the other impacts will be so disastrous that they will be outside of what people expected, and if what is being offered—namely the hard Brexit—is not what people anticipated, it is reasonable that we should have another look at what will be a long-term change.

Regarding the spectrum of people voting, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and others will know that only 15% of people over the age of 65 did not vote—85% of them did vote—whereas only a third of people aged between 18 and 24 voted. Now, people might say, “Well, that’s their fault”—I understand that point—but people of that age have more to lose, in terms of the length of time and all the rest of it.

The whole thing was sort of hurtled through and the reason we had this referendum—let us face it—was because David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, thought before the general election, “Well, I’ll offer a referendum to stop UKIP, so the Labour party won’t win”, and we have ended up in a situation with this referendum that he thought he was going to win but cackhandedly messed up. Obviously, we had this deception at the same time, and we have ended up in this position. In the light of what is happening, should we as responsible representatives just sit back and say, “Oh, what can you do?”

[Stephen Doughty]

I wonder if, like me, my hon. Friend has had conversations with his constituents and found that, regardless of which way they voted, they feel very much in the dark at the moment about the actual practicalities of where we are and where we will be in the future. I know that he too has a significant proportion of constituents who working in the higher education sector and who are wondering whether their research projects will be able to continue, and many who work in the aerospace industry—Airbus operates in the defence space and aerospace sectors across Europe, with multiple sites, so what is the future for that industry?—or in the steel industry. People want to know the practicalities—the pragmatic results—regardless of whether they respect the vote or otherwise. Does he feel, four months on, that he has any clearer answers about where we are to give to the constituents asking these questions?

[Geraint Davies]

Well, no. As I have said, I would like to think we would look again, because, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out, there is enormous uncertainty in all those industries and all those delivery systems, so the inward investors and co-operators cannot come in.

My hon. Friend mentioned higher education. In Swansea West we have seen the building of a second university campus, with hundreds of millions of pounds of European money. This institution is internationally acclaimed and networked, in particular, into research and development across Europe. Now, all of that networking and those partnerships will say, “Sorry, you can’t do that now, because you’re not going to be here”. So, after all those partnerships, we will have to do our own research on our own, rather than having this global space or platform in Europe to do it.

My hon. Friend also mentioned hospitals. Sadly, my mother has been very unwell and she is in a hospital in Portsmouth. As I left the hospital, I saw that there was a board showing six of the top surgeons in that hospital and none of them had “British names”. What that means is that some of the best people in the world have trained and are giving their services here, and the suggestion that after five years we will just ship people off because they have got the wrong name is ridiculous. We have always been an international place that attracts people who get Nobel prizes. We have seen a number of Nobel prize-winners recently saying, “It is appalling that we’re now going to pull up the drawbridge and become Fortress Britain.” As for the point about uncertainty, business and other service sectors simply do not know what will happen.

Of course, in the community of people who are EU citizens, the referendum result is a disaster, and not only because xenophobia is being sped up and people are in the streets, saying, “Go home”, and all the rest of it, but because the economic fact is that the average EU citizen contributes 34% more in tax than he or she consumes in public services. If we swap those people for retired Brits in Spain, France or wherever it is—I know there are about 2.2 million of those people living abroad and we have got about 2.6 million or so people from the EU living here—we would be swapping hard-working, tax-contributing, working Polish people and all the rest of it for people who have retired to the sun, and who would be more of a cost on the health service and make less of a contribution. How does that make economic sense, and was it debated?

The whole thing is a nightmare and what the Government are saying to those people is, “Well, we won’t allow you to have permanent residence here until we know everybody else isn’t going to send our people back”, and when will we get that assurance? So, the point about uncertainty is at the heart of the problem. Who will invest? Who will have these academic partnerships?

A dreadful situation is emerging. I realise that some of the opponents of this view want “Independent Trump Day”, or whatever they want here, and some people still think this is going to be a great idea, and are sure “Only Fools and Horses” and all that sort of stuff is fantastic. However, the reality is that this is an issue of such immense strategic importance that Parliament should look at it again and not simply say, “Well, that’s what they said. It’ll be unfortunate if it doesn’t turn out as we hoped.”

We realise we cannot negotiate; we realise now that, if we go along to a country, we will not represent the EU; and we realise that we already trade with the rest of the world. In total, 56% of our trade is already with the rest of the world; it is not like we were not trading with the rest of the world before.

Finally, on being desperate for any deal, I am particularly concerned about and engaged with issues around the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, in terms of new trade arrangements that would give companies particular powers to sue Governments. As the Minister will know, tomorrow the Council of Ministers is due to agree the provisional agreement of CETA in Slovakia. What that will do is immediately invoke powers for companies to sue Governments who pass laws that will affect their profitability in the future. By way of example, there is a sugar tax coming in now, assuming that the ideas on that have not changed, and fizzy drinks manufacturers are currently suing Mexico over a similar situation. So we could be in line for all sorts of things. I know that the Minister has said to us, “We haven’t been sued before”, but that is because at the moment we are the investor in small economies. Now the gun will be given to Canada, and the American subsidiaries will work through that. The point I am really trying to make is that we will be desperate to have trading agreements and we will want to sign up to virtually anything, at any cost, in the future, once we are out of the warm home of the EU.

I hope that there is still space politically to think again, and with those words I will give other people time to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

I should make it clear that I am not in favour of Scottish independence. If Scotland became independent and became part of the EU, it would be trading within the EU and so would not face any tariffs. Does the hon. Lady accept that that would, sadly, provoke a lot of industry in England and Wales to simply migrate up the road to Scotland? It would be a disaster for England and Wales if Scotland were to go, and take with it all the industry, so that it could work in the EU.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

That is why I made the point that the cards are on the table. The Prime Minister gave her word to our First Minister, in Scotland, after the vote that Scotland would be involved in the negotiations, and she should act on that. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, if the good people of England and Wales wanted to make Scotland their home, we would be absolutely delighted to welcome them, as we are a country of inclusion.

The Government are asking the people of this country to trust them with the negotiations, but it is important to note that we have conflicting points of view among Ministers. How can we be asked to trust a Government when they do not even trust each other? That is the position we find ourselves in. The contrary position is taken in Scotland. We made our views clear: 62% of us voted to remain in the EU. Business knows that it is a disaster for us to leave the EU and the single market. The ball is very much in the Prime Minister’s court: she should act on the manifesto on which the Conservative party were elected to government, albeit by an extremely narrow majority. It is clear that the party is nervous about the majority and what it might mean in the future.

In closing, what develops is entirely within the Government’s hands, but let us ensure that Scotland and the other devolved Parliaments are involved in the conversation, the debate and the negotiations. If the Prime Minister wants to be the Prime Minister for the whole United Kingdom, she should include the whole United Kingdom in all the arguments. In the Opposition day debate last week, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said, “I have been at the Dispatch Box a number of times. I am accountable.” Yes, he is, but we are still debating this issue because we have no answers. Let us be clear: the UK Government may have a mandate to leave the EU from England and Wales, but not from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Moreover, they do not have a mandate on the terms of that exit, because differing positions were offered during the referendum debate and the Government do not have a confirmed position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. If businesses face tariffs in the EU, they will argue that they need to get their costs down and will say to the Government, “Hold on. Why don’t we have three weeks’ paid holiday instead of four? Why don’t we reduce environmental standards? That will give us all sorts of other benefits.” They will take rights away from workers so that inward investors will face lower costs to platform into Europe, given that we face tariffs. Is there not a real risk to people across Britain from that?

[Melanie Onn]

We must be careful not to paint all business in that way. However, the reality is that throughout the whole discourse on the referendum, workers’ rights have been portrayed as red tape and therefore cumbersome things that people would want to do away with. Companies’ bottom line is also an issue. If they need to save money somewhere, it is likely to be in areas where they see wiggle room, as we have seen in the past, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point.

The Transport Secretary—I feel as though I am picking on him, so I apologise for that—said last month of the great repeal Bill that decisions made by the European Court of Justice on the United Kingdom will cease to apply, so that is one thing that will change. So while some workers’ rights will be made more vulnerable, others will effectively be repealed, and it will be left to judges to decide whether to maintain them. It certainly does not feel like the sovereignty of Parliament is being restored: it is merely taking control from one unelected judiciary and giving it to another unelected judiciary.

The Minister needs to clarify things today. Will the great repeal Bill transpose existing EU case law into UK law, or was the Transport Secretary accurate in his description of the Bill last month? If the Government do not plan to do that, does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s promise that existing workers’ rights will be protected was misleading to say the least?

If the Government were serious about protecting existing workers' rights, they would secure them in primary legislation, not secondary legislation. That is exactly what my Workers’ Rights (Maintenance of EU Standards) Bill would do, so can the Minister say whether the Government will support my Bill when it comes before the House later in this Session?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising those issues. She is right to reflect on the fact that Charlie Flanagan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Taoiseach have reflected that they want to make sure that Northern Ireland’s very distinctive position is recognised and reflected in the future. Not only those in government, but all the parties in the Oireachtas have reflected that in the work of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement—a Committee that Northern Ireland MPs have the right to attend and speak at. It has set out a programme of work in relation to Brexit to look at the trade implications that might arise, and at the dangers of the incipient borderism that may emerge once we have one jurisdiction in the EU and one jurisdiction out. Once we have differential legislation coming in, we will have the tensions and difficulties of borderism. Whether customs posts are introduced or not, borderism will be an increasing problem. The problem will not only be in border areas and constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but across the north. Indeed, it will affect the south as well.

Before I touch on those particular questions, I want to address questions that are reflected in the petitions, not least the question of the role of Parliament. It seems strange that people who led a campaign in the name of taking back control to the UK Parliament now want to bypass that Parliament as far as considering next steps are concerned. It is clear that the people who are meant to be steering us forward have no plan, map, app or satnav for where they are going. The rest of us are being told that as far as the devolved institutions are concerned, we just have to tailgate wherever London’s impulses take them next—whatever whims, prejudices and fancies emerge, so long as there is some sort of consultation, we can safely tailgate London—but if people do not know where they are going, it is not sensible to follow them blindly. People in Scotland and Northern Ireland who voted to remain have the right to say that our position should be reflected. Members of Parliament from Scotland and Northern Ireland at least should have the opportunity to record their position here and in Scotland. The Conservative party imposed the new construct of English votes for English laws in this Parliament, but perhaps the compromise should have been English votes for English exits. We should let them decide to take themselves out of the EU and let those of us who want to remain retain membership of the single market and have access to EU measures and programmes.

People seem to forget that we had a referendum to endorse the Good Friday agreement. It was almost unique internationally, because it was a double referendum: it had to be held not just in Northern Ireland but in the south, and a majority was needed in both. It was John Hume’s great idea. It was a way of recruiting and respecting both senses and sources of legitimacy in Northern Ireland—the Unionist sense and source of legitimacy, which was bound up in the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, and the nationalist sense of source of legitimacy, which was bound up in the wishes of the majority of people in Ireland.

In that referendum, huge numbers of people overwhelmingly endorsed the Good Friday agreement. It was the high water mark of Irish national democratic expression—a form of articulated self-determination. It is part of the very delicate constitutional understandings that are at the heart of the Good Friday agreement, whereby we brought people to accept the principle of consent. Some Unionists used to resent the principle of consent because they thought it put Northern Ireland on the window ledge of the Union. Many republicans, of course, rejected the principle of consent because they said it created a Unionist veto and was partitionist. The Social Democratic and Labour party—a constitutional nationalist party that was the first nationalist party to put the principle of consent at the heart of our constitution—worked hard to consolidate the idea, and we got a span of acceptance around the principle of consent.

The principle of consent states that Northern Ireland’s future will be determined by the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, so it is confounded by the way in which Northern Ireland is being taken out of the European Union against the wishes of the majority of people there. The dual referendum is being confounded, too, because when people in the north and the south voted for the Good Friday agreement, they took Irish and UK common membership of the EU as a given.

The preamble of the agreement between the two Governments in the Good Friday agreement clearly makes significant reference to common membership of the European Union. Strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement, which deals with the institutions in Northern Ireland, refers to the European Union. Strand 2, which is about institutions for north and south—for the island as a whole—refers to the European Union. Strand 3, which is about relations throughout the islands of Britain and Northern Ireland, and takes in all the devolved Administrations plus the Ireland Administration, also refers to the European Union. So people cannot say that the European Union was not a conscious factor in people’s understanding when they voted for the Good Friday agreement.

The improvement in British-Irish relations, in the context of our common membership of the EU, was a major part of the backdrop to the Good Friday agreement. Without the experience of common membership of the EU and the improved relations in that regard, we would never have got the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985, which was signed by Margaret Thatcher and Garret FitzGerald, and set the context for the subsequent peace process.

People need to be very careful about what they are undoing here. They need to understand the difference between a mere stud wall and a supporting wall. When people talk about blindly taking Northern Ireland out of the EU against our wishes and about removing the Human Rights Act, which was a key pillar in the support for and understanding of the Good Friday agreement, they are dangerously knocking through a supporting wall. I am not saying that there will be a collapse straight away, but if other issues create pressure later we will regret this move. That is why people need to look more fundamentally at some of these issues.

People do not seem to realise, particularly in respect of the workings of strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement, which is about north-south arrangements, that a large part of the traffic and the programme of work of the six implementation bodies that were set up under the agreement relate to EU moneys or programmes. The Special EU Programmes Body, which, as its name implies, manages the EU programmes north and south, would disappear. The work of InterTradeIreland is in large part to do with encouraging businesses north and south to engage with European challenge funds, to understand opportunities in European markets and to understand European directives. It also uses EU money to help businesses and academia to take part in research consortia and alliances. That work would be affected. The food safety body largely deals with EU health and food directives and ensures they are transposed in a consistent and compatible way, north and south. Similarly, Waterways Ireland has channelled EU funding in a lot of its work.

We could end up with Brexit meaning that the workings of strand 2 are, in effect, hollowed out, which is a matter of gross insensitivity—to nationalists in particular, but to all who bought into and supported the agreement as a balanced package, in terms of the institutions in the north, the north-south arrangements and the British-Irish east-west arrangements. It will not be good enough if strand 2 is hollowed out in a way that suits the Democratic Unionist party, the largest party in Northern Ireland currently. It never supported the agreement, it opposed it in the referendum, it voted no and it campaigned against it. It just so happens that it would suit the DUP for Brexit to hollow out that key aspect of the Good Friday agreement by default.

People may say, “Well, that can happen. It’s just a matter of luck and happenstance,” but that is not what the people of Ireland understood when they endorsed the Good Friday agreement in overwhelming numbers, and the people of southern Ireland changed the terms of the Irish constitution specifically to reflect that. We cannot turn around and say, “You’re unilaterally being taken out of the EU. We are unilaterally going to weaken strand 2 by pulling out the underpinnings and all the key bolts, because people in England voted in a UK vote.”

The Good Friday agreement made it very clear that some decisions are for the people of Ireland north and south alone, without external impediment. The way in which the Government are conducting Brexit—they are saying it is a one-size-fits-all, for all parts of the United Kingdom—is potentially going to constitute an external impediment to the due workings and development of the Good Friday agreement in the longer term. People need to recognise that just giving assurances about trying to avoid a hard border will not be enough.

[Geraint Davies]

I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Is he saying, given what has happened, that the Government should undertake to ensure that all the rights that are currently enjoyed—whether rights at work or environmental rights—the economic grants and even the subsidies to counteract the tariffs that will be introduced should now be given to Northern Ireland so we can sustain what the people who signed up to the Good Friday agreement across Ireland understood to be the case?

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Yes, essentially I believe that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for when they voted to remain. They want to maximise our opportunities within the EU, such as our access to programmes and funding. We have had generous access to significant funding from the EU and we have taken advantage of particular programmes, not least some of the cross-border measures. When people voted to remain, I believe they were also voting to preserve the Good Friday agreement. They wanted to try to keep it intact and do the least damage to it. Of course, people who voted against the agreement in the first place had no care about that. They do not care what damage is done to it; they just feel, “Well, somebody else will have to look after it,” and maybe literally pick up the pieces.

The other issues that the hon. Gentleman touched on go back to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and others about the whole question of the great repeal Bill. Last week I described it as the great “download and save” Bill, because it will simply download and save existing EU law, but the significant question then is, who will subsequently control the delete key? Will the great repeal Bill make it clear that only Parliament may repeal or amend those key EU laws, or will powers be given to Ministers to make significant change to that legislation by regulation?

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

That is a significant issue, because a number of Ministers would be happy to joyride around some of those laws, once they had said, “Oh, we’re behind the wheel,” and away they would go. Perhaps, as indicated last week, it would be a bit more like clowns with chainsaws or axes, as they go after particular environmental standards, employment rights, women’s rights or other things, just so they can demonstrate the powers under the great repeal Bill. I worry about what some people might do, in an excess of showing control, and the sort of joyriding that would take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

My view on that is clear, and I have been consistent. The hon. Gentleman has given the example of women’s sanitary products, but let us also remember that this Government have often cited EU restrictions against a lot of policy initiatives that many of us would want. EU obligations were quoted in favour of the unfair pension changes for women born in the 1950s, with Ministers and Government MPs insisting, “Oh, it’s because of the EU that we have had to do that, equalising in this sort of way and not adjusting.” It will be interesting to see how many of the Members who used that rationale in the past will say, “Now we are getting control, we can have a different take on the whole question of the pension changes and transitions.” Such excuses have been used in different ways and, similarly, were cited against having VAT concessions for hospitality or tourism, even though about 24 EU member states clearly have such variations in their rates.

The other question that I wanted to ask the Minister about the great repeal Bill is, as well as indicating whether any changes made to EU laws incorporated into domestic law will be under primary legislation or regulation, whether the Bill will automatically devolve powers that should go to devolved institutions, or will it have them retained for a period and subject to subsequent devolution legislation? In the particular context of Northern Ireland, some of us worry that under a so-called great repeal Bill powers would, in essence, be transferred to London, but not devolved before they have been exercised in London, perhaps to change some of the legislation or the standards on rights.

Doing that might be in the interests not only of the Government party in Westminster but, unfortunately, of the largest party in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist party. A change in a law before subsequent devolution to Northern Ireland would mean that those of us who want to change it back might do so only by avoiding a veto from a political party such as the DUP. However, if under a great repeal Bill the functions and powers over legislation in the relevant areas automatically devolve to Northern Ireland, then anyone trying to remove those rights and protections, or to reduce the standards, could do so only with sufficient cross-community support and no veto from anyone else. That is a significant political difference, so again the Government need to be careful about what they are treading on and dealing with in such areas.

A final and fundamental point that I want to make about this in respect of Northern Ireland is to do with the Good Friday agreement and the particular provision at the heart of its delicate constitutional understanding. The agreement is a special political and constitutional hologram—Unionists can hold it up to a certain light and see things according to their principles, and nationalists in Ireland can hold it up to a certain light and see things according to our political ethic and outlook—but the fact is that it provides clearly for the possibility of a referendum on Northern Ireland removing itself from the United Kingdom into a united Ireland. That is provided for not only in the agreement, but in schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which translated the Good Friday agreement into law.

I want the Minister to address whether those specific provisions will be part of any new UK-EU treaty. Will there be specific provision for a UK that has left the EU to still respect and recognise that the Good Friday agreement provided for Northern Ireland to have the option of moving into a united Ireland? Such a provision needs to be included in any UK-EU treaty, if there is to be one, so that in Northern Ireland we are not hit with the kind of question that was used to vex and confuse people in the debate in Scotland, which is to say: “If you want to go into a united Ireland, you might not be able to go into the EU as well. You will be a new territory going into the EU, and therefore you will have to have new negotiations for Northern Ireland, and they could be very complicated.” People might also say, “A united Ireland will change the member state,” so even the Republic’s terms would be up for renegotiation and need a whole new negotiation.

That sort of scare was clearly used in Scotland, but it is one that we cannot allow any possibility of in future options for Northern Ireland. Some of us worked hard to get those provisions into the Good Friday agreement, and to get sufficient understanding around them. We cannot afford for those delicate understandings to be wounded or lost by the way in which the Government go about Brexit.

Some people have tried to say, “There is a precedent”—the German example is the perfect precedent—“so we don’t need anything in the new treaty.” However, the difference was, first, the weight of political interest in making that happen for Germany at the pace at which it happened and, secondly, the understanding that, because the original European Communities treaties specifically recognised the West German constitution—the basic law—which purported to apply to all of Germany, all that reunification did was to make de facto what, in recognising the basic law, was originally deemed de jure. That was the Germans’ equivalent of the old articles 2 and 3 in the Irish constitution—but the territorial claim of those articles was changed as part of the Good Friday agreement.

As diligent constitutional nationalists, we cannot afford for there to be any dirty work at the crossroads. There were understandings about the direct and straightforward premise of a referendum option for a united Ireland, and about how well it would be accommodated, and we cannot allow that to be confounded in any way by the terms of Brexit. The terms need to be specific, because we are also working in the context of different EU treaties from when German unification happened.

We also need specific provision so that no one in other EU member states will misunderstand that referendum option when it emerges in Ireland. People might say, “We, too, want the principle of regions being able to member-state hop, or to switch from one side of a border to another.” It needs to be clear that we are looking not for any wider or more general precedent for anyone else in or around the EU, but for specific recognition of the Good Friday agreement.

[Geraint Davies]

I am listening carefully, but is the hon. Gentleman putting the case that there should be a referendum now across Ireland about whether there should be a unification of Ireland, in order that the people of Northern Ireland who want to remain in the EU can do so as part of Ireland? He probably has not considered this, but will he consider extending that to Scotland—and indeed Wales, while he is at it—so they can join a unified Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

The hon. Lady did say that. I think what we need from the Government is an understanding of the opening terms of debate of their negotiation. We understand that the terms with which a negotiation is opened may well not be what parties walk away with at the end; but surely if control is being brought back to Parliament, parliamentarians need some understanding of the Government’s opening position. I do not think that that is too much to ask. A White Paper, as suggested by the Secretary of State, seems to me a good idea, so that Members can debate and perhaps vote on the terms. We do not ask—just for clarity—to vote on invoking article 50; but we want to see the terms on which the Government intend to proceed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) spoke well about workers’ rights. She sees clearly that they are not red tape, and I completely agree with her. To her credit, she is introducing a Bill along those lines, and has asked the Minister to support it. I hope he might consider doing that, and perhaps he will let us know his position on the Bill.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) talked about chaos in Government, and she is right. There are conflicting statements coming from different Ministers. At Conservative conference the position, to be polite, appeared somewhat confused, with a lot of clarification after speeches. Perhaps the reason we do not have a clear idea from the Government of the opening terms is that they have not yet decided what they will be.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the triggering of article 50 will be a once-in-a-lifetime change and we will be out? Then there will be some discussion about the terms. In the light of that, does she agree that a case can be made for delaying the triggering of article 50, so that the emerging picture that the British public will have to confront is much clearer? I think they will have an increasing appetite for a referendum on the exit package and those terms. We are just being rushed through the door only to find that the other side is full of gas and fire.

[Jenny Chapman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. What matters is that we get some consideration of the opening terms before article 50. That is the point. Whether that is done through a referendum or a debate and a vote in the House, the Government can proceed in various ways. However, my hon. Friend is right that to invoke article 50 before we have had that consideration would be irresponsible. It is for the Minister now to explain how he intends to involve parliamentarians and elected representatives in the devolved Administrations.

I thought that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made some extremely interesting points, and not just about the border. We are all concerned about issues of customs and the border with Ireland. I know that Ministers will be keenly considering the possibility of the Republic’s becoming part of Schengen. However, as the hon. Gentleman explained, there is a host of other issues to do with the delicate—that was his word—democracy in Northern Ireland and the Republic. That alone is worth considerable debate, and I expect that colleagues from Northern Ireland will insist on time being given to that set of issues.

I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for his helpful introduction on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He did a good job of balancing the conflicting opinions posed in the petitions, but it was an impossible task, because they are so contradictory. That brings home to me the level of interest in the issue that there is in the country, and the tricky balancing act that the Government will have to perform to satisfy those conflicting concerns. I suggest to the Minister that one way in which he might like to go about things is with a little more transparency and by being a bit more forthright in explaining what he thinks is the right position for the UK Government.

[Jenny Chapman]

It is to the Committee’s credit that it sought to reflect wider public views, including some that had not attracted as many signatures. However, having reflected on some of today’s contributions and some from last week’s debate, I want to be clear that Labour Members, above all else—and those of us present for the debate would have favoured a remain outcome—are democrats. The referendum result requires that we leave the European Union. Labour respects and accepts that, and so do I; no caveats.

On the issue of freedom of movement, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State, said last week, there was just one question on the ballot paper on 23 June:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

It would be wrong for any Member here, or campaigner elsewhere, to read into the result a blank cheque for their own policy prescription on immigration. The referendum result is not a mandate to remake Britain in Nigel Farage’s image, and, as the Foreign Secretary said last week, it is not a mandate to “haul up the drawbridge”. It would be foolish for the country to turn its back on the great talents of the world who want to contribute to our prosperity and way of life. Equally, it would shame the Government should we turn our backs on the EU citizens in our towns, cities and rural communities who already contribute to our prosperity and way of life.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend says that we should respect the referendum. Everybody does respect it, but does she agree that it is not inconsistent both to respect that judgment and, when we have the exit terms and know precisely what we are getting—in terms of the balance between migration, market access and cost—to put it again to the British people: “Is this what you had in mind, because this is a once-and-for-ever decision”? It is consistent to respect the first referendum and have an exit package referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. May I also thank the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for his earlier chairmanship of this wide-ranging debate? When studying these petitions, I recognised there was a wide range of views reflected in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) did an excellent job of reflecting on those views in his introduction. As we have seen, the debate has gone even wider in some respects, touching on a number of things beyond even the six petitions we are debating.

I thank the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for her kind welcome and assure her that I take the responsibilities she referred to very seriously. As someone who, like probably the majority of Members in the Chamber, campaigned on the remain side in the referendum, but who now recognises that we have to reflect on the mandate of the British people and deliver on that, I am determined to make sure we do that in a way that addresses some of the concerns that I and other Members raised during that campaign, but that delivers on what the British people have voted for.

As others have pointed out, it is a healthy development in our democracy that petitions that receive substantial support should be debated in Parliament. This is not the first petitions debate we have had; indeed, we have had some excellent debates already on issues such as the devolved Administrations and on having a second referendum. I am sorry that my hon. Friend—sorry, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies); he was my friend when we served together on the Welsh Affairs Committee—was not there for the debate on the second referendum, because he might have been the only speaker in that debate to support what the petition called for. There were 13 speakers, including many from Labour and the Scottish National party, who all accepted that rerunning the referendum was not the right approach. Perhaps we missed his eloquent advocacy on that occasion.

[Geraint Davies]

I did not speak in that debate because I was speaking on behalf of socialists from 47 countries, as a member of the Socialist Group in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I spoke about the monstrosity and disaster of Brexit—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) was there as well—and explained the reason we might need a second referendum, if what is negotiated by the Minister and his Department does not resemble in the slightest the reasonable expectations of those who voted to leave.

[Mr Walker]

I am grateful for that illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s views, but I think it is important that, in responding to this debate, I focus on the six petitions before us today, which were described with typical eloquence by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) as a “six pack”, with a wide variety of flavours.

To cover the full Government response, let me first reiterate the Government’s approach to this important process. It is a process we have only one opportunity to get right, so it is right to take the correct amount of time over it. We have been consulting with a broad range of stakeholders following the referendum result, which it is right to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out. We are consulting with the devolved Administrations, with the overseas territories and crown dependencies, with businesses and with other interest groups to build a national consensus across the whole of the United Kingdom on our negotiating position. We will continue to involve the devolved Administrations in preparing the UK’s position.

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the rest of the ministerial team have already heard from a wide variety of sectors and stakeholders. We will also be holding a series of roundtables in the coming weeks on a variety of topics, including aviation, life sciences, financial services, agriculture and fisheries and many more. Engagement will continue through a range of bilateral meetings, visits across the United Kingdom, and the Joint Ministerial Council, which engages senior figures from the devolved Administrations. That process is about building an informed and strong negotiating position for the whole UK, and I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Swansea West on that position. I would gently point out, to a colleague for whom I have great respect, that the petition he spoke to, which had 4 million signatures, was not advocated or defended by any Member who spoke in that debate and does not appear to have the support of his own Front-Bench team or many Members of the House.

Three of the petitions we are discussing today concern article 50, when we will invoke it and how. Let me be clear: the British people have voted to leave the European Union, and their will must be respected and delivered on, but the process for leaving the EU and determining our future relationship is complex. I acknowledge that the largest petition we are debating—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, it is the only one that would have reached the attention of the Petitions Committee on its own—calls for us to exercise article 50 with immediate effect. However, by not triggering article 50 immediately after the referendum—as the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), originally suggested—we have given ourselves the time to develop a UK-wide negotiating strategy and to avoid setting the clock ticking until our objectives are clear and agreed.

It is also right that the Government should not let things drag on too long. We have had pressure both internally, as we can see from the petition, and externally, from some of our counterparts on the continent, who are clear that they want us to get on with the process. As the Prime Minister made clear, we will trigger article 50 before the end of March next year. That should reassure those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam probably rightly said, signed the petition thinking article 50 might never be invoked that we are getting on with the process and preparing the ground to make sure we can do that in the most effective way possible.

[Geraint Davies]

If I could ask for some clarification about the timing, is the objective of the Minister’s Department to try to reach certain negotiating goals, which are private at the moment, before the March deadline? If they do not reach those goals, is there any flexibility to manage the deadline in order to maximise the benefits for the British people, or is it just a hard Brexit—“You get what you get; that’s tough”?

[Mr Walker]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but as for setting out negotiating goals, he should be clear about what the Commission and Council have said about the article 50 process: that they do not want negotiations before it has started. Of course we need to prepare the strongest possible position for the UK, and we will engage where we can to make sure we set the terms for those negotiations, but it is not possible to pre-negotiate any particular deal ahead of the formal article 50 process, so I think he is perhaps setting unrealistic expectations.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?