Leaving the EU

Graham Stringer Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is delightful to see you in the Chair, Sir David, and to be back in Westminster Hall. I agree with most of the comments made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). First, I would like to declare three unremunerated interests: I am a board member for the Centre for Brexit Policy; I am on the advisory board for the Foundation for Independence; and I was, until just after the referendum, a board member of Vote Leave.

I ask hon. Members inside and outside this Hall a simple question. We have seen a two-pronged attack on democracy since the decision in 2016, which, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said, was the single largest vote in our history. Most people in this country would be absolutely horrified if President Trump challenged a victory by the Democrats in the United States and it went to the courts, but that is exactly what has happened in this country. Many of my hon. Friends who care passionately about this and wanted to stay in the EU simply do not see it in those terms. That two-pronged attack on democracy has come from hon. Members, both from my party and from others, who want to overturn the decision, and from the EU itself, which is less surprising, because it is a non-democratic body that has used many tactics to make it painful for this country to leave, as a warning to other countries that might want to leave. So, I will start with that point.

I will also say that we have left the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) has said, but we are still in the transition period and subject to the withdrawal agreement. I hope that we get a Canada-plus style of free trade agreement, which was on offer at the beginning of this process, and it is another element of bad faith from the EU that that has been taken off the table, as has giving this country third-country status, which is real bad faith.

I hope that we can get that type of arrangement, but it is vital that the final leaving agreement is sovereign-compliant. We need control over our fishing and over how we subsidise our industry, if that is what we choose to do. This country subsidises industry, providing so-called “state aid”, at about half the rate of the rest of the EU, so it is not a big problem.

However, it is vital that we have control of our own laws. That is why people voted to leave the EU, so we need the final leaving agreement to be sovereign-compliant. And we must not have overhanging liabilities that are unaccounted for, to be determined by some future decisions that the EU might make to give us more financial commitments. Finally, regarding the conditions for leaving, we must not be subject to the European Court of Justice. Otherwise, we will not be a truly independent country.

I have supported the decision to leave the EU in many votes in the House of Commons. I did not support the final withdrawal agreement, because I never believed that there should be the possibility of Great Britain being separated from Northern Ireland. The EU has exploited that situation and weaponised the historical situation in Ireland to try and keep control over our laws, so I hope the Government can get an agreement that does not lead to the splitting-up of the United Kingdom in those terms.

In introducing the three petitions, my hon. Friend referred to the legal action that is being taken. It is the most curious legal action. I am not a lawyer, but who has ever taken legal action against a Bill passing through this House that is yet to become law? It is extraordinary. Indeed, it is not only extraordinary in that sense; it is extraordinary in that it goes against the EU policy itself. In the Kadi I and Kadi II decisions—a complicated case adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice—the Court came to the conclusion that

“the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty”.

So the legal action is not only absurd in its first terms; it also goes against the way that the EU deals with its own policy.

I think it was mentioned that several court cases found that actions taken by parties on both sides have been in breach of the law. That is wrong; it should not happen. There is no general election or local election that I have ever been involved in where there have not been problems; that is just what happens in the heat of the campaign. Regarding Vote Leave, the Electoral Commission gave Vote Leave bad advice, and it ended up in breach of the rules, and it has paid a fine for that. I do not believe any of that affected the outcome. The single biggest factor in cash terms was that the Government paid £9 million effectively to put out a remain leaflet, which dwarfed all the rest of the expenditure.

I will finish by swiftly dealing with the petitions. There is the petition that cites covid as a reason for delaying the implementation. I understand at least one motivation behind that. The fact is that if we can control our own laws and regulations, we are in a better position to respond to any crisis immediately and not to be bound by the European Union’s bureaucracy. I will give an example: it took about 18 years for the EU to change the clinical trials directive, and lot of jobs went out of Europe because it was so slow. In order to build our economy after covid and to deal with it now, we need to be completely in charge of our rules and regulations.

[Jack Brereton]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the challenge of getting an EU covid recovery package together is an example of that?

[Graham Stringer]

I do agree. I will not get into a debate about covid, but we need to be spritelier than we have been in response to this crisis, and being in charge of ourselves is the best way to do it. I have previously said that both sides have been found to have been in breach of the regulations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned foreign interference. Did the biggest interference in terms of publicity—when President Obama came over and asked people to vote remain—make any difference? I suspect in many cases that boosted the leave side of the debate.

This country has decided to leave the EU, and we have to get the best deal possible. We have to ensure that we get it to be sovereign-compliant, and not let the EU carry on with what are effectively imperialistic policies. It wants to carry on controlling our laws and regulations. It wants to keep us paying, without our having any say whatever in the creation of those laws and regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I have many reasons to be proud of my constituency of Bath. One of the most important to me is its long tradition as an open-minded, welcoming and outward-looking city. Bathonians want this country to reflect those values, which we hold close to our hearts. Bath was one of the constituencies with the most signatories to the petition to halt Brexit for a public inquiry. In 2016, 68% of Bath residents voted to remain, putting us in the top 50 remain-voting constituencies in the UK.

Just days after the referendum, a handful of us residents founded what became one of the most active grassroots campaigning organisations in the country, Bath for Europe. We came together as a non-party political group of volunteers campaigning for the UK to remain at the heart of the European Union. I was a founder member of Bath for Europe before I was elected the MP for Bath. We were ordinary people achieving extraordinary things. We donated our spare time, talent, creativity, knowledge, experience, ideas and resources to keep the cause of Europe front and centre, both locally and nationally.

In addition to organising rallies, marches, speakers, events and regular meetings, perhaps our biggest achievement was our constant engagement with members of our community. Every week, we held street stalls and commuter calls, handing out leaflets and discussing Brexit and what it would mean for our city and our country. We did our research, and we respectfully listened to people, some of whom had opinions very different from our own. We spoke to them in a positive spirit. We became a fixture in Bath, and our constructive dialogue helped to lift the public discourse.

Among the most damaging legacies of Brexit have been the deepening division in our society and an aggressive culture war that seeks to pit people against each other. Bath for Europe stands for equality and fairness. For example, this spring, the group held a virtual EU citizens fair to support those applying for settled status. Bath for Europe remains a force in our city. The people of Bath will continue to uphold the values of openness, inclusion and international co-operation, and I will use my voice to represent their views in Parliament.

It is important to stress that we should not fight lost battles. No EU membership is now a reality. That does not mean that there are not many millions of people in the UK who believe that our place is at the heart of the European Union. Their voices need to be heard too, and I am one of them. Passionate supporters of a football club do not immediately switch sides to the club who won the premier league. They stay loyal to their side through the years, even through relegation, and prepare for better times.

[Graham Stringer]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a fundamental of democracy that the losing side accepts the overall result and the winners? That is how democracy works. One does not have to change one’s view, but one has to recognise the result.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I absolutely understand that democracy needs to play itself out, and I do not want to reheat the battles that we had for two and a half years in this Parliament.

However, we have argued again and again that the decision made in 2016 was unclear. We need to make it clear and discuss to the end whether what people understood they voted for in 2016 is really what they wanted. The result is now there, I accept that; we had a very clear election result, and we are now no longer members of the European Union. That is why I say that it is no use to now fight lost battles. But we have a passion to be at the heart of the European Union, and almost half of the people of the UK still believed that going into the 2019 election. They have not suddenly gone away. The winning side has to accept that too, therefore the debates that we continue to have here are not undemocratic. They are part of democracy. People have their voices heard.

EU membership at some point in the future continues to be a Liberal Democrat ambition. I firmly believe that our time will come, but in the meantime I will stand up for all EU citizens here in the UK and for UK citizens in Europe, and make sure that they can live with all their rights undiminished. That is what I now fight for: to keep the flame alive that our place as the United Kingdom is at the heart of the European Union. I will not give up on that belief, and I do believe that our time will come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

Thank you, Sir David, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on three very important petitions. Each of them, as you mentioned at the beginning, has been signed by more than 100,000 people, and they show the depth of feeling surrounding these issues. It is also, I believe, a great demonstration of democracy in action that people in the street—the public—can have their views heard in this salubrious building.

With your permission, Sir David, I will briefly address all three petitions. The first is “Halt Brexit For A Public Inquiry”. It states:

“The UK’s departure from the EU looms but questions remain about the legitimacy of the Referendum. The Electoral Commission said illegal overspending occurred during the Referendum. Were the vote/any subsequent political acts affected? Article 50 was triggered. Was the overspend known about then?”

These questions remain unanswered. A significant focus for this petition is questions of overspending, its affects and the timing of the release of information relative to the triggering of article 50. There is little doubt, as the Electoral Commission insisted, that more than one group broke electoral law and spending limits, in some cases by quite substantial amounts. It is less clear what the effects have been. A poll by Opinium in 2017 suggested that 26% of Brexit voters felt that they had been misled by promises during the campaign, and that voters in that sample would by then have voted 47% to 44% to remain.

With regard to subsequent political acts, this seems a most serious concern. Evidence gathered and analysed by the Institute for Government in March 2019, but also supported by many other commentators since, points to dramatic consequences. This is not the place for the detail, but an introductory paragraph from the report, referring to the effects on Ministers, civil servants, public bodies, money, devolution and Parliament, states:

“In each area, we find that the challenge of negotiating, legislating and implementing Brexit has called into question how government works in the UK. The roles of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, of civil servants and their departments…and of parliamentarians and the devolved administrations”

have all seen their roles considerably affected and changed significantly during this period.

As for the timing of article 50, it was invoked on 29 March 2017. One month earlier, on 24 February, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Electoral Commission was investigating the spending of Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe, so clearly rumours of an overspend were well known to the Cabinet before article 50 was invoked. It is therefore my belief that there is sufficient doubt about the legitimacy of the referendum result surrounding spending limits and the political processes undertaken during that time to warrant a formal investigation and that Brexit be halted. I therefore fully support the petition to halt Brexit for a public inquiry into these matters.

[Graham Stringer]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the points that he is putting on behalf of the petitioners were actually put to the courts in this country on judicial review, and that the courts threw the case out and said it lacked all merit?

[Allan Dorans]

I am aware of that, and I await the outcome with some excitement.

The second petition calls for the establishment of a public inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 EU referendum. It states:

“There is now strong evidence of serious misconduct during the 2016 EU Referendum, including interference by foreign actors and governments. This must be investigated under the Inquiries Act (2005).”

There are certain reports of interference. The Intelligence and Security Committee of this Parliament published a report on the interference and concluded:

“The UK Government have actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered.”

It also concluded that the Government’s response was not fit for purpose. It was unacceptable that the Government delayed the publication of that very important report by a year.

Ciaran Martin, the then head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, confirmed that Russian hackers had attacked British media, telecoms and energy companies over the past year. That the UK Government have regularly avoided looking for evidence is certainly cause for suspicion, but that in itself is not solid evidence of interference. Similarly, their being able only to refer in a press release to suspects as “Russian hackers” does not allow us to form a strong or firm conclusion that foreign actors or Governments were involved.

Where there are strong suspicions in any area of national security in the context of the protection of our democracy, further investigation must take place in the public interest. I believe that that case has been made, based on those strong suspicions; that there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into the circumstances; and that it would be best taken forward by a public inquiry. I therefore add my support to petition 250178, to establish a public inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 referendum.

Finally, the third petition seeks to extend the transition and delay negotiations until after the coronavirus outbreak has been dealt with. The Government must consider delaying negotiations so that they can concentrate on dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, the resultant health, economic and social upheaval and the unprecedented circumstances that we currently face, which can only be dealt with by a Government with a clear, single focus on the problems on a massive scale that have been caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Doing so would necessitate extending the transition period; there can only be a one-off extension, which should be for two years. There is, of course, an obvious case to be made for extending the transition period.

Notwithstanding covid, the UK is clearly not ready for a hard Brexit. Up to 7,000 trucks carrying goods from the UK to the EU might face two-day delays after the Brexit transition, according to a letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Lloyds and Barclays were among the first UK banks to give notice to UK citizens living in the EU, warning them that their accounts will be closed on 31 December unless there is agreement. Border control posts at Northern Ireland ports will almost certainly not be ready in time, according to Stormont Minister Edwin Poots. Make UK estimates that UK firms will have to complete 275 million customer forms, up from 55 million, at a cost that HMRC has estimated at £15 billion a year.

I strongly believe that if we asked the public today whether they think we should delay Brexit, even for those reasons alone, a majority would agree. Some Brexiters would not, of course, as we have heard today—getting Brexit done, for some, is more important than dealing exclusively with the current pandemic that engulfs this country and threatens us all with dire and unimaginable consequences.

Public opinion, especially that influenced by our right-wing media, is not necessarily the best basis for policy development. By the Government’s own admission, any deal would be only a bare-bones trade agreement. Their own analysis says that there will be a GDP hit of up to 9% over the next 15 years if we further disadvantage our economy as we seek to recover from covid. All those factors require the undivided attention of Government, without the distraction of contentious negotiations about the arrangements to be put in place at the end of the current transition period. I therefore add my support to petition 300412, to extend the transition and delay negotiations until the coronavirus outbreak is brought properly under control.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for the way in which he opened up our discussion, and other hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.

The concerns raised in the petitions probably reflect the time at which they were launched, which was several months ago. The priority now is to look at the challenges that we face with just weeks to go before the deal that we need on our future relationship with the European Union has to be concluded.

On the issues raised in petition 300412, Labour pressed the Government, perhaps with some prescience, to give themselves some flexibility, when Parliament debated the withdrawal agreement Bill, and we tabled an amendment to that effect just in case unforeseen events might lead to the Government needing some wriggle room. I have to say that at that time we did not anticipate a global pandemic, but nevertheless we made that case. Our amendment was rejected, and the departure date was locked in law. The Government could have changed it before 1 July, but they did not, and neither did the European Union propose a delay.

We left the EU on 31 January, and we will leave the transition period on 31 December. We accept that completely, so I have to say that I share some of the exasperation of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell)—if not for the same reason—at some of the contributions from Government Members and the allegations that they are making about the position of the Opposition. They should—we all should—have some humility and some honesty in looking back at the paralysis in Parliament over the last four years, and recognise that many of the delays were caused by the way in which the Conservative party was tearing itself apart on this issue and that some of those who delayed a deal being reached were those described, I think, by a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Brexit extremists within his own party. Indeed, the Prime Minister was utilising the issue as he egged them on in his rise to power. But we are now into the final month of negotiations, and both the UK Government and the EU are clearly seeking a resolution within weeks to secure the deal that we need by 31 December.

The other two petitions raise real concerns, and they were clearly exacerbated by the Government’s handling of the report from Parliament’s Conservative-chaired Intelligence and Security Committee, the publication of which was deliberately and unnecessarily delayed by the Prime Minister until after the general election. It was damning in its conclusion that the Government

“had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”.

As one of its members said when the report was published in July,

“The report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum, because they did not want to know.”

There are real issues that deserve consideration, but they cannot halt Brexit, as the petitioners seek, because we have, as a number of Members have acknowledged, already left the European Union. That is the result of the mandate that the Government received in last December’s election, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) mentioned, but it is only one half of the mandate. The other half is to deliver the deal that the Prime Minister promised the British people. That pledged an

“ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership”,

with

“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”.

It pledged a deal that would safeguard

“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”

and keep people safe with a

“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”

That was not a proposal or a wish list, but an agreement—and one that was ready to sign off. In the Prime Minister’s words,

“We’ve got a deal that’s oven-ready. We’ve just got to put it in at gas mark four, give it 20 minutes and Bob’s your uncle.”

Originally, he said that it would be done by July, despite the pandemic, and then, forgetting his words, that it would be done by September. That came and went too, so he set a new ultimatum of mid-October, which he then dropped over the weekend after his conversation with the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen.

As a number of Members have said, businesses need clarity. The Government are providing confusion. The same incompetence that we have seen in the handling of the pandemic is now threatening jobs and the security of our country through the handling of these negotiations.

[Graham Stringer]

In previous debates during this long discussion, my hon. Friend and I have disagreed. Today, I essentially agree with the approach that he has taken, but is he not being a little asymmetric? It is his job to attack the Government and criticise and analyse what they do, but does he not feel that one reason why there is not an agreement now is that the EU has withdrawn what it offered right at the beginning—a Canada-style agreement—and has also withdrawn the recognition of this country as a third country, which was previously on offer?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right that we have not always agreed on these issues over the last four years, but we are in roughly the same place now, in wanting to secure a deal by December—not just any deal but the deal that the Government have pledged. That deal was not described by the Prime Minister as something that might be achieved; he said it was there, ready to go and we just had to press the button. I will return to the specific question of Canada, because it is important.