Leaving the EU

Gordon Henderson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the process for the UK to leave the EU.

I am pleased that you are chairing the debate, Mr Bailey. I drafted the wording of the motion with a purpose. We have come to use Brexit as shorthand for our country’s extricating itself from the EU, but Brexit does our friends and neighbours in Northern Ireland a grave disservice. It is not Britain that will be leaving the EU, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Technically, if we are to use a shorthand at all it should be “UKexit”.

I applied for the debate before the Prime Minister’s excellent speech yesterday, in which she set out her objectives for the negotiations that will take place with the EU during the next couple of years. I wanted a debate because some of my constituents are confused. Like me, they are simple souls who believed that they knew exactly what they were doing when they voted to leave the EU in June 2016. The more knowledgeable among them even knew the process for achieving our withdrawal.

However, they are now confused, because they see certain hon. Members who apparently do not understand what is meant by democracy, such as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who seems to think that a referendum result is only democratic if he is on the winning side. My constituents do not understand why, having voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, their wishes are dismissed as only “advisory” by many remainers. They also do not understand why some MPs do not themselves seem to understand the process for leaving the EU, so I called the debate to allow the Minister to clarify that process. Let be me clear: that does not mean I want him to reveal any of the Government’s negotiating plans. I will explain more on my reasoning for that later.

My understanding of the process of leaving the EU is probably an oversimplification of the situation, although, as I said before, I am a simple soul. I believe that the first step is to notify other EU members that we intend to leave, by invoking article 50, and that nothing can be done until that happens, including negotiating with our EU partners. Article 50 is also bandied about as shorthand for setting the ball rolling, but I wonder how many people have actually read what it entails. I will enlighten those who do not know by reading it out:

“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3.”—

this is important—

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”

That seems pretty clear to me: the United Kingdom will leave the EU two years after invoking article 50, whether or not an agreement has been reached. That is my understanding of the process. I would like confirmation that I am right, and that article 50 of the Lisbon treaty will be triggered by the end of March.

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree with my interpretation of the triggering of article 50: once triggered, it is an irrevocable process that nothing—not even Parliament—can stop either that being completed or Britain’s leaving the European Union?

[Gordon Henderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it allows me to emphasise again that not only is that his interpretation and mine, but it is the EU’s interpretation. What he says is quite true: once we have invoked article 50, that is the end of the matter —we will be leaving the EU. That is my understanding of the process, and I would like confirmation that I am right.

I would also like the Minister to clarify what will happen should the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s ruling that Parliament should have a vote on any decision. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, leaving the EU will entail divorcing ourselves from all of the EU’s institutions, rules and regulations, including the single market, the customs union and the free movement of people—except under terms negotiated between the UK and the remaining member states. That is what my constituents understood, and it is what they voted for by a large majority in last year’s referendum.

Nationally, the United Kingdom voted by a margin of 52% to 48% to leave the EU. Some Members have said that that result is indecisive and should be ignored, but most of those Members were elected to this place with a lower percentage of the vote than 52%. Does that mean that we can ignore their opinion? I should add that, in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the margin in favour of leave was 62% to 38%.

I also add that my constituents who voted to leave are absolutely livid that some professor at Cambridge University called Nicholas Boyle is reported to have said:

“The referendum vote does not deserve to be respected…Like resentful ruffians uprooting the new trees in the park and trashing the new play area, 17 million English, the lager louts of Europe, voted for Brexit in an act of geopolitical vandalism.”

That is a disgraceful slur on my constituents and the rest of the 17 million decent people who voted to leave the EU—many of whom were Irish, Welsh and, indeed, Scottish.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman may have anticipated my point. I was going to say that, although he correctly pointed to the respective statuses of the United Kingdom and Great Britain earlier, there is clearly a massive flaw in the quote he read out. It was not 17 million people only from England; sadly, there were some in Scotland who voted to leave as well—although not very many.

[Gordon Henderson]

It was not my quote; it was by a professor of German from Cambridge University. He is a far more intelligent person than I am, but I understood that it was not only English people who voted to leave. I should add—the hon. Gentleman will probably realise this from my name—that my father comes from Glasgow. He is a proud Scot, but has lived in this country for 69 years. He is first and foremost British and considers himself so. Not only are those people called lager louts and vandals by this two-bit academic, but they are accused by other remainers, including Members of this place, of not understanding what they were voting for last June and of not being aware of the implications of an out vote. In addition to being insultingly patronising, that accusation simply does not stand up to even the flimsiest scrutiny.

Before the EU referendum campaign even started, the then Government sent every household an expensive leaflet, funded by taxpayers, setting out why people should vote to remain in the EU. Let me quote verbatim from that leaflet. It said that voting to remain would

“protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country—a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.”

That was a pretty clear warning, but still 17 million people voted to leave the EU.

The remainers also tell us that although a majority voted to leave the EU, they did not vote to leave the single market. Let me quote from the Government leaflet again:

“Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk.”

That, too, was pretty clear: a vote to leave the EU was also a vote to leave the single market. But still 17 million people voted to leave.

Having lost the referendum, some remainers are attempting to change the rules of the game. They are now saying that the referendum was only advisory. That is twaddle. Let me read another couple of quotes from the Government leaflet. The first is this:

“This is your chance to decide your own future and the future of the United Kingdom. It is important that you vote.”

That is reinforced by a second quote:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

Voters in the United Kingdom as a whole decided to leave the EU. It is now for the Government to deliver what was promised and get the process started by invoking article 50. They should not be preventing from doing so by those remainers who are unable to come to grips with the result of the referendum.

Some remainers argue that article 50 should not and cannot be triggered without first obtaining the approval of Parliament. I do not remember those people pointing out during the referendum campaign that the Government’s promise to implement any decision taken by voters was illegal. Instead, it is only now that they are trying to subvert the will of the people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I do not really feel legally qualified to give a ruling on that, so I will permit the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) to continue with his contribution.

[Gordon Henderson]

Thank you, Mr Bailey. My comments were in no way designed to influence whatever the Supreme Court decides, but it is fairly common knowledge that it will give its ruling. My views are irrelevant to it.

The people I was talking about dress up their subversion with weasel words that would do credit to a used car salesman. They claim not to oppose UK exit, but their actions belie those words. I have no respect for those who say they want to abide by the referendum result but are desperately trying to find ways to somehow delay triggering article 50, in the hope that a way can be found to have a second referendum or a general election. As it happens, I think they are clutching at straws if they believe that voters would change their minds. In my view, if there was another referendum, the result would be an even more resounding vote to leave, because the “Project Fear” fox has been well and truly shot. In addition to realising that they were lied to by some remainers, the voting public do not like cheats and whingers, as those with a long political memory will know.

[Dr Poulter]

There is a point of view—I think a legitimate one—that as it took us passing an Act of Parliament to enter the European Union, Parliament will also legally be required to pass an Act of Parliament to take us out. That does not mean those of us who take that position in any way want to override the desire expressed by the British people to leave.

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, but he will not be surprised to know that I do not agree. I believe that when the Government hold a referendum in which they make it clear, as the then Government did, that the will of the people will be listened to, and when this Parliament—of which he and I were both Members at the time—decides to allow a referendum and for the British people’s view to be heard, we should hear it.

I talked earlier about those of us with a long political memory, and I want to remind people what happened in Winchester at the 1997 general election. The Conservative candidate lost by two votes to the Liberal Democrats, but after a successful petition, there was a rerun of the election, at which the Lib Dems won by a majority of more than 21,000. It is ironic that it is the Lib Dems leading the charge for another referendum. They appear not to have learned anything.

I mentioned the Government’s negotiating position. There are repeated calls from all sides of the House for Ministers to allow Members to scrutinise their plans in advance and vote on them. In my view, that would be quite ludicrous and could only be suggested by people who have little experience of business or absolutely no experience of negotiating. I have experience of both.

I left school at 16 and worked in the real world of business and commerce for almost 50 years before being elected to this House. For some of that time, I worked as a senior contracts officer for GEC-Marconi Avionics, which was then bought by British Aerospace. In that role, I negotiated with various customers, including the UK Ministry of Defence and McDonnell Douglas in America. There are no circumstances on earth that would have enticed me to reveal to those with whom I was negotiating information in advance about my negotiating stance. To have done so would have been akin to committing commercial suicide, so why should Ministers let our European neighbours know in advance what the Government’s strategy is? That would be stupid.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am listening carefully to the great detail he is going into and, indeed, to his business experience. Could he tell us whether, in making any business decisions that would mean going through a significant period of change, the companies he worked for consulted the board or its employees? How would he compare that to how the UK Government consulted people on the detail of their plans in the run-up to the Brexit vote?

[Gordon Henderson]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention, and I have a very easy answer for her. My experience in business is that shareholders elect a board of directors. The board of directors then employs people to manage the business, including negotiators, and does not expect to be kept informed of what is going to happen. If a negotiator messes up on a deal, they get the bullet. It is exactly the same thing here: if the Government mess up on this deal, they will not get re-elected at the 2020 election. That is the deal.

One thing I learned as a contracts officer was never to enter into any negotiation without a line beyond which I was not prepared to go, and to be prepared to walk away rather than cross that line. The Prime Minister said yesterday that in her view, no deal is better than a bad deal. I hope our negotiators remember her words and are prepared to walk away rather than accept a bad deal.

We often hear remainers talking about hard Brexit and soft Brexit. No one has explained to me exactly what those terms mean. I am assuming that by “soft exit” the remainers mean we should remain in a single market, even if that means we have to accept the free movement of labour in exchange. I also assume that they are happy for us to continue paying the EU billions of pounds a year for the privilege of having full access to the single market and accepting all the obligations that come with being a full member. If that is the case, soft exit means no exit and they should be honest enough to admit it. As for me, exit means exit. Full stop.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I want to inform hon. Members that I have sought legal opinion on the point of order raised by Peter Grant. The situation is that even if the House sub judice resolution did apply to the case before the Supreme Court, I judge that the risk of any prejudice from this debate be so small that I would waive the sub judice resolution. Members should, of course, refer respectfully to the judges involved in the case.

Two Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to contribute to the debate. Ordinarily, the Front-Bench spokesperson would have five minutes and the Minister would have 10 minutes. If the Back Benchers are so generous as to give a little more time to the Front-Bench spokesperson, I will enable them to have more time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to sum up on behalf of the Scottish National party in this debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) for securing it.

In his opening speech, the hon. Gentleman reminded us that the requirement of the UK Government is to deliver and implement article 50 in accordance with the United Kingdom’s own constitutional requirements. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for reminding us, among other things, of the very special—indeed, unique—place that Northern Ireland has in the constitutional requirements of the United Kingdom. I hope that, whatever else happens, nothing in the implementation of article 50 will jeopardise in any way the very fragile and tenuous peace process that is still, thankfully, just about in place in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey quoted some figures and made some assumptions about the percentage of the vote that various MPs received from the electorate. I must say that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) actually bucked the trend that he referred to, because she got just under 57% of the vote in her election. Modesty forbids me from telling the House that I got just under 60%. Members will have worked out immediately that both those numbers are higher than 52%; indeed, they are also both higher than 55%, which is a number that is quite significant for some of us. Admittedly, though, they are far short of 62%, which is the percentage that matters most to me in this debate, because 62% is how many of my people said they wanted to stay in the European Union.

[Gordon Henderson]

I will just point out that 62% was also the majority in my constituency here in England.

[Peter Grant]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his great persuasive powers in achieving that result. I delicately remind him that I did not say 62% in my constituency; I said 62% in my country. There is an important difference.

The final comment that I will make in relation to the hon. Gentleman is that I share his distaste and despair at the tone of some of the debate before, during and after the referendum, and I certainly completely distance myself from the description that he referred to, which was used against all of the 17 million people who voted to leave the EU. I respect the right of people to take their own decisions. I may sometimes be horrified, dismayed, appalled or disappointed by the decisions that they take, but I will respect the decision that the people of England have taken and I also respect the decision that the people of Wales have taken. I ask Members to respect the views that have been expressed by the people of Scotland.

However, I gently have to remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not the first time in the last few years that opponents of change have told packs of lies to the population during a referendum, and I also have to say that I do not remember him protesting as loudly the last time it happened, which was in Scotland.

The debate is about the process for leaving the European Union, but it would be foolish to try to talk about the process without talking about where we want to be at the end of it, because knowing where we want to be can have a huge impact on the process that we choose to follow, and the way that we implement the process can significantly affect our chances of getting the results that we want.

What are the objectives and how have they been arrived at? Well, we have got some clarity on the first question, but not a great deal of clarity on the second. We now know something about the objectives. We now know that the Prime Minister’s objective is not to have free movement of people, but we do not know exactly what she wants instead. We now know that the Prime Minister does not want to be part of the single market; we just do not know what she wants to be part of instead. And we now know—well, we knew already—that when we negotiate this avalanche of new trade deals with everybody and their dog, who, according to the Foreign Secretary, are queuing to do deals with this wee pocket of land in the north Atlantic, those deals will not be subject to adjudication by the Court of Justice of the European Union; we just do not know whose jurisdiction they will come under. In other words, we know a great deal about what the Prime Minister does not want, but we are not an awful lot further forward in knowing what she does want.

Shortly after the referendum, the Liberal Democrats—yes, they do sometimes have their uses—came up with the phrase that the referendum result told us that people wanted to leave but we did not really have any idea about where they wanted to go, and I am not convinced that things have changed very much since then.

We cannot even get reliable and consistent answers from the Government about how they will decide on their objectives. Yesterday, in answer to my question about the Scottish Government’s paper, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told the House:

“I gave him”—

That is, Mike Russell MSP—

“an undertaking that we would debate that paper at the next JMC (EN), as it is known in Whitehall jargon, and that is what we will do. I have been very careful not to comment publicly on it”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 798.]

He was referring to the Scottish Government’s paper—