Death of Alexei Navalny

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful, as ever, to the SNP spokesperson for his tone and his support. Of course, it would be premature for me to comment. By convention, we never comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we are looking at pace at all options in response to this outrageous event. In that context, we will continue to liaise with US and EU allies—that is a matter of course. The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about sequestration. Again, I cannot comment, other than to say that we continue to look at the most viable legal route to bring about that good.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend tell the House what advantages remain in maintaining diplomatic relations with this murderous and barbarous regime?

Persecution of Buddhists: Tibet

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman mentions that, I wish to pay tribute to him for his work for so many faiths: for the Christian faith, particularly and regularly, but also remembering in China that Buddhists and Muslims are persecuted by a vicious regime. The hon. Gentleman is more assiduous than any other Member in the House, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He and I share a similar faith and in this House we both realise that we serve a greater person—a greater God. Our job in this place is to do that, and we do so faithfully for all religious views as well.

A delegation was organised by the APPG, and I understand that the hon. Member for Congleton has also been in Nepal on two occasions. I am quite sure that from those delegations we have learned much about the situation of Tibetan refugees in Nepal, many of whom are unable to obtain official documentation. The significance of what happens in Nepal towards Buddhists and other religious minorities is particularly worrying. The situation is ongoing, which troubles me. It is clear that more must be done to ensure that all Tibetan refugees in Nepal and, indeed, in Tibet find access to Government services and assistance, which necessitates documentation.

In Tibet itself, persecution of Buddhists has been going on for some time. The persecution includes general cultural and linguistic oppression, as well as forced imprisonment and other grave human rights violations. According to the US State Department’s 2021 report on international religious freedom in relation to China, Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibet receive forced political education and face almost total regulation of their religious activities.

In essence, the Chinese Communist party, as the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) in his intervention reminded us, actively seeks to control the religious affairs of Tibetan Buddhists and people of other faiths, including the Muslim faith, across China. What is happening to the Uyghur Muslims is, in my opinion, nothing short of genocide.

In essence, the Chinese Communist party tries to take control of all religious affairs of Tibetan Buddhists and has been shown to do to other religious groups something similar. There are direct violations of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which we commemorated just last week. It was important that we put down a marker on the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights, which we did at many events.

China and the Chinese Communist party hold thousands of prisoners, political and otherwise, in Tibet; many are religious figures. Although there are not many details about prisons, it is known that many political prisoners are held in Tibet. The report to which I have referred suggests that some 1,800 were held in 2021, but it is estimated that the number may be even greater, and we suspect that it is. Free Tibet reports human rights violations in prisons, including torture and the denial of medical treatment and legal assistance. Unfortunately, this follows a predictable pattern of and in China, as can be seen in Xinjiang province, where Uyghur Muslims are detained in nothing short of detention camps. Some millions of people may well be detained.

In addition to its legal requirements under international law commitments, the UK has, I believe, a moral obligation to call out these abuses and to work for change, which is why we seek to have some idea about that from the Minister and her Department. We must, I believe, do more to promote human rights and to relieve the suffering of minority religious and ethnic communities throughout China. Whether someone be a Baha’i, a Christian, a Muslim or a Hindu Indian—whatever the religious or ethnic group of someone in China—China will try to deny their right to worship their God as they so wish.

Monitoring the situation is difficult because of China’s strict hold on communication flow in the region. Little to no foreign presence is allowed in Tibet. When allowed, tours are highly choreographed and limited to specific areas. There is very tight control of what takes place, and the opportunity to have an independent and free religious view is restricted.

Cultural oppression goes hand in hand with what the US State Department describes as the sinicisation of Tibetan Buddhism. These efforts are outlined in Chinese policy, which has been implemented in other areas. The efforts include forcing Mandarin instruction, restricting religious celebrations and pilgrimages, and monitoring closely monasteries and other religious sites. The Dalai Lama, the traditional religious leader of one of the major Buddhist schools in the region, lives in exile in India while China has attempted to take control of the religious and political position, including through the kidnapping of a chosen religious leader, the Panchen Lama. Essentially, the Chinese Communist party seeks to control the religious operations of Tibetan Buddhism through close supervision and control of leadership.

What happens to those of a different religious minority or faith in Tibet and across China is very clear. This Sunday, for instance, everyone in this Chamber can go and worship the God that they wish to worship in the church that they wish to go to. They have that freedom, because that is what we do in this country. Our concern is that that freedom is not there in Tibet. Such cultural oppression is immeasurably damaging to affected communities. With the loss of language and religious heritage comes the loss of local identity: culture, traditions, history and the importance of what people do. We must do all we can to prevent that.

It is good to see the Minister in her place. We look to her for a positive response on this issue. It is a big subject, and we have been seeking a debate for some time: we recognise the need for it to be debated in this House, and for the House to make recommendations that can help those of a Buddhist faith in Tibet and across the whole of China.

During the recent UN forum on minority issues, the nation of Tibet was raised. The contribution from the International Campaign for Tibet was incredibly telling:

“Today, Tibetans face discrimination in all aspects of their lives, including employment, housing, and travel. Unlike their Han Chinese counterparts, they often experience obstacles in obtaining passports and their freedom of movement is severely impeded. Employment opportunities for Tibetans often provide substandard salaries.”

Truly, to be a Buddhist in Tibet—indeed, to be a Tibetan in Tibet—is to be a second-class citizen in one’s own country.

“In recent years, the Tibetan language has also been significantly marginalized – including via a vast boarding school system that separates Tibetan children from their families and enforces Chinese-language curriculum.”

We speak the language of our country here, but if we were Tibetans in Tibet, we could not speak our own language; we could only speak Chinese. That underlines the importance of the issue.

The statement continues:

“Tibetans are increasingly unable to study in their mother tongue, which places them at an educational and economic disadvantage when competing with Han Chinese for career opportunities.”

They do not have the same opportunities when it comes to jobs, health or education.

“This marginalization of Tibetans in the labor market is further compounded by a Han centric development model that exploits Tibet’s natural resources but excludes local Tibetans from input and benefits.”

The Chinese come in, take total control and then bleed Tibet of resources.

“In particular, we are concerned by the forced resettlement of up to 2 million Tibetan nomads, farmers and rural residents.”

The significant number of Tibetans who have been resettled tells us what has been happening in Tibet for some time.

“Tibetans are also vastly underrepresented in leadership positions in party, government, and military, on both provincial and local levels.

It should be noted that the absence of an independent judicial system and lack of access to justice for Tibetans, and overall, the implementation of elements of totalitarian rule by the Chinese authorities, have led to a pervasive climate of fear that precludes the assumption of free, prior and informed consent given by those affected by state measures.”

That gives hon. Members an idea of the control and suppression of individual liberty, freedom and rights. It tells us what has happened to their human rights, including the right to worship in the way they wish. I hope that this part of my speech has outlined the case clearly.

The gravity of the situation is clear. I had a look at a poster entitled “Tibet in 2023”. It went month by month, outlining the difficulties each month, and unfortunately the months did not get better. In January, it illustrated the arrest of two Tibetans, Tatse and Dhonkho—I hope my pronunciation is correct, or even partially correct. In February, a new cyber-security law was put in place for surveillance and censorship, and there were increased restrictions and phone inspections during the Tibet Losar celebrations. In other words, everything that happens in Tibet is monitored. Everything that Tibetans and Buddhists want to do is restricted. A person cannot even have a cup of tea or breathe their last breath without it being monitored.

Month by month, beatings take place. Rights are eradicated, from censorship to ensuring that university entrance exams be carried out only in Chinese. It goes on and on. That poster represents the tip of the iceberg; it explains just 12 months in which different things were happening. The latest news came out yesterday, when my speech was being written. It was about the arrest of four Tibetans who were involved in stone-carving Buddhist mantras. Really? It was for their faith. Where is the threat in that? Does anybody honestly believe that that is right? It is not, and this debate illustrates that.

I have been clear that this House needs to take greater steps to defend religious freedom and to engage with the Chinese. Sometimes that is frustrating in itself, as they do not seem to want to engage. The Chinese are the masters of propaganda and censorship, but this House will not be silenced. The debate has given us the opportunity to express that, and I call on the Minister and the Government to be the strong voice that we are calling for.

A number of asks have been forwarded to me. I have given them to the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), and I ask the Minister how we can help to accomplish them. The first is to protect the right of the Tibetan people and His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama to follow their religious tradition in the selection of the 15th Dalai Lama. It is really not too much to ask. It is one of the basic rights that Buddhists seek.

The second ask is to free the Panchen Lama, who has been in detention for some time. The third is to release all Tibetan prisoners of conscience; the majority are from monastic communities, which illustrates exactly why it is important. The fourth is the freedom to practise religious traditions without fear of state persecution; when the state tries to control the very life a person leads, that has to be changed. The fifth is the freedom to learn the Tibetan language—the language that Tibetans love and that they want to use to express themselves. That holds the key to accessing the complete Buddhist canons of the Kangyur and the Tengyur.

The situation for freedom of religious belief in Tibet is grave. The nigh-on total governmental control over religious institutions and the attempts to suppress language and material culture are leading to clear violations of human rights. In these debates, I often say that human rights and freedom from religious persecution are like crossed fingers. They are not separate; they are the same. That is the truth: if somebody is denied their right to worship their God in the way they wish, they are denied their human rights. One follows the other.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, and to the Minister’s response. We seek to address these violations from our positions in Westminster Hall and the House of Commons Chamber. Let us be a voice for the voiceless in Tibet, and let that voice be heard loud and clear so that Tibetans and Buddhists have the freedom and the right to worship their God as they wish.

Anti-lockdown Protest in Shanghai: Arrest and Assault of Edward Lawrence

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

As I have highlighted, consequences have been put in train in relation to other situations, particularly in Xinjiang, and we will be having a robust conversation with the ambassador today. The hon. Member talks about Manchester; I have already highlighted that we are awaiting the details of the police investigation. It is absolutely right that we get that done properly so that we can then take informed action, which was clearly not the case with what happened to our BBC journalist.

On what is happening more broadly with the Chinese Government and their approach to covid, that is for them to decide. We have scientific co-operation and, if and when appropriate, that dialogue can take place. Ultimately, they need to make a decision about how they tackle covid within their borders.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this crucial urgent question?

The Government must always do all they can to protect the safety of His Majesty’s subjects abroad; that is a fundamental duty. I wonder what effect calling in the ambassador will have and whether more does not need to be done urgently that actually has an effect on the Chinese operation in the UK. Should we not be looking to expel diplomats; to take tougher actions in international forums where Chinese interests are at stake; or to do things that the Chinese would not want us to do, such as improving our relationship with Taiwan or inviting the Dalai Lama on a formal visit by the British Government to show that we are not a pushover and will not support the communist running dogs?

[David Rutley]

At the calling in today, those issues will be raised in a robust manner. Of course, the safety of our citizens is absolutely key across the world and in China, so we will raise those issues. In terms of providing a robust, muscular approach, as we have seen, given the concerns that have been raised in the House about Uyghur minorities, sanctions and trade guidelines have been put in place. We will continue to take the appropriate action to counter what we believe are incorrect practices.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is all sorts of flailing and waving about. It is not statesmanlike and the source from which it emanates is a source from which I usually expect the most statesmanlike conduct. The right hon. Gentleman’s question suffers from the disadvantage that it is not even adjacent to—does not even hover over, does not buzz around—the urgent question that has been posed, so he will have to pursue other opportunities to favour the House with his thoughts, or to seek to extricate from the mind of the Foreign Secretary his own. On that point, we will leave it there for now.

Now, I am sure we can expect a wholly orderly question from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), very likely delivered in a sentence with no split infinitive. It might even be a series of sentences amounting to a lucid paragraph.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that generous introduction.

Will my right hon. Friend carry on his Palmerston-like approach to defending British subjects overseas, which is one of the first duties of Her Majesty’s Government? Does it concern him, as it concerns me, that the treatment of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran, barbarous as it is, is being given succour by the socialists on the Opposition Benches?

[Boris Johnson]

I am afraid I think my hon. Friend underestimates the motives of the Labour party. I prefer to think that Labour Members are actuated solely by a concern for all our consular cases in Iran, in particular for the safe return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, we work closely under the Joint Ministerial Committee to bring in the devolved Administrations and make sure the great deal we are going to get has their endorsement and approval.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Further to the question by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), did my right hon. Friend hear the report on the “Today” programme this morning that other European leaders were making it clear that they would not accept a deal on any terms, and does he share my view that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander?

[Boris Johnson]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the birth of what I believe is his sixth child. He makes a very good point about the negotiating stance of our friends and partners across the channel. They do sound at the moment pretty hard over, as we say in the Foreign Office, but I have no doubt that in the fullness of time a suppleness will descend, and a willingness to compromise, because, after all, a great Brexit deal, a great free trade deal, and a deep and special partnership is in the interests of both sides of the channel.

President Trump: State Visit

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

I entirely agree. President Trump’s manner and behaviour throughout the election period were greatly worrying, and his extraordinary reaction to his own inauguration was concerning; I believe that it partly provoked the demonstrations that took place. When he thought he was going to lose, he said that he was going to object to the election on the grounds of fraud, but it is extraordinary for someone to complain when they actually win. He complained about everything. He complained that the rain did not fall—we all saw it fall—and he complained about the number of people in the crowd. He complained and lied about his own result. It is of great concern that the President behaves like a petulant child. How would he behave in a future conflict that might arise?

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response to Mr Trump’s perhaps ill considered phraseology, but what complaint did he make when Emperor Hirohito, who was responsible for the rape of Nanking, came here?

[Paul Flynn]

Many people have come here who have been less welcome than others; that is absolutely true. We have had people here who were very unsavoury characters—not from the United States, as it happens—but we certainly should not try to imitate the errors of the past. We should set an example by making sure that we do not make those mistakes again.

As I said, this is a situation of grave concern, and the Prime Minister is in an awkward position. Since the seventh day of Mr Trump’s presidency, things have got far worse. We are now in the 31st day of his presidency. We have seen General Michael Flynn being forced out of office because he could not tell the truth about relations with Russia and could have been a victim of blackmail. That is a very worrying situation, and we know that allegations were made during the election campaign, and as a presidential candidate Trump made an appeal encouraging people to hack the accounts of Hillary Clinton. There may well be a case coming up that will show that the position of the President will be difficult to sustain if he himself is open to blackmail. We also know of the confrontation that took place during the election campaign involving President Obama, who warned that that eventuality was a likely outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

The will of the American people has changed rapidly within the last seven days. The position now is—[Interruption.] Well, get the facts. The position today is that Trump’s standing is at minus 18, which is precisely the level of support held by Richard Nixon on the day that he resigned his presidency. Trump is at rock bottom. He is the least popular American President ever in this country—hon. Members can go through the figures—and rightly has a low level of approval.

What we are doing, and what this debate is doing, is taking notice of what the public say. We will not be in a position where we ignore public opinion or where we seem insensitive to democratic decisions. That was the reason why many of us, with heavy hearts, voted for article 50 last week. We cannot allow, as happened in America, that gulf to appear in this country between politicians and what is seen as public opinion. That led to the election of Trump, and if we ignore what is being said in petitions and do not take action, the public will greet us with the same cynicism, see us as distant and look to elect non-politicians.

The great overarching topic on Brexit and on this issue is that we must maintain respect for politicians, and we must not see an increase in the divisions and in the lack of trust that has existed in this country. During the expenses scandal, our reputation in this House was at rock bottom; now it is subterranean. We have got to work to change it. Andrew Rawnsley, a very distinguished journalist, has said:

“Some ministers mutter that the big mistake was to issue the invitation to make an early state visit to Britain, a notion conceived as a way of flattering his colossal vanities. At the very least, it would have been prudent to wait before rolling the royal red carpet. Pimping out the Queen for Donald Trump. This, apparently, is what they meant by getting our sovereignty back.”

Those are the words of Andrew Rawnsley, which I am quoting.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Walker. I do not think it is in order to refer to pimping out our sovereign, even if someone is quoting a journalist, however distinguished.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I am sure that is not what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) meant. What he did mean, when he talked to me a few moments ago, was that he would speak for only 15 minutes. Can we get to the wind-up please, Mr Flynn?

US Immigration Policy

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making those words in our passports that refer to allowing Her Majesty’s subjects to travel “without let or hindrance” a reality, and on being the first Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to defend domestic policy in the United States since Lord North. May I encourage him to defend our interest, as he is doing, and not seek to tell America how to run itself?

[Boris Johnson]

I am not seeking to defend, explicate or rationalise in any way the policy of the presidential Executive order. I merely seek to explain how it may affect UK nationals and dual nationals, and what we have done to mitigate its effects.

EU Membership (Audit of Costs and Benefits) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am not entirely sure what my hon. Friend is driving at. At the moment, if somebody comes to the UK from outside the EU, we do not have to let them in, whereas if they are an EU citizen, we pretty much do have to let them in. It does not matter how suspicious we are of their motives—that is irrelevant. I want the more robust immigration policy that we are allowed for non-EU nationals to apply to EU nationals too. Nobody is saying that we do not want anybody to come into the UK from the EU, but I would rather we had some choice as to who we allow in. It is a great privilege to come into the UK. We should make sure that it is indeed a great privilege and that we are not just letting any old person into the country, which is the situation at the moment.

On sovereignty, it cannot be right that people making so many of our laws are unelected and completely unaccountable to anybody. The remain campaigners say, “Well, of course we have a European Parliament to scrutinise all these laws.” First, Members of the European Parliament who represent the UK are a tiny proportion of the total, so even if every single UK MEP voted against something, there is no guarantee that it would make any difference whatsoever. Secondly, if, in this country, the Government were permanently in office and the only people elected were the MPs scrutinising the decisions they were making, that would be a bizarre situation and there would be uproar. Yet the justification for having the European Commission, unelected and unaccountable, initiating all the legislation, which is the role of Governments in most national Parliaments, is that MEPs are elected. It is unbelievable that anybody can justify that kind of democratic situation. When we sign treaties with other countries, that is the end of it—the position does not get changed every five minutes by qualified majority voting, with things being imposed on us against our wishes. That is not how treaties work, but it is how our relationship with the European Union works.

We are told that we have a lot of influence in the EU. That argument was completely demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) in his contribution to the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday. He pointed out that a freedom of information request showed that over the past two decades there had been a definitive vote in the European Council 72 times and that we had been outvoted 72 times. So on Monday the idea that we are wielding this huge influence in the European Union was clearly demolished. It was shown to be a complete load of old codswallop. It is an illusion of influence. We do not have any influence; we are having discussions around a table and being outvoted at every single turn, as Ministers who attend these things know to their cost.

We are told that the US wants us to stay in the EU and that that is a reason why we should. I do not doubt that it is in the United States’ best interests that we stay in the European Union, because we add a bit of common sense to it and it does not want the French, who are very anti-American, having even more power. If it is so important for the Americans that we stay in the European Union, perhaps they will pay our £18 billion membership fee each year for us. I look forward to President Obama making that offer when he comes to campaign in the referendum. I am sure that amount would be a drop in the ocean for the United States.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Let me bring to my hon. Friend’s attention the fact that the person representing the United States Government who has called for us to stay is John Kerry, a former senator, who in the 1980s showed himself to be no friend of the United Kingdom but a sympathiser with the IRA when he held up a treaty allowing for the deportation of IRA activists from the United States to the United Kingdom, saying that the justice system in Northern Ireland did not work effectively. He is no friend of Britain and has been in the past a terrorist sympathiser.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the House’s attention. With friends like that in the United States, I suspect we do not need many enemies.

I am prepared to accept that it may be in the best interests of the United States that we stay in the European Union. I am not going to question that for one minute, and I am sure that if I was an American I would probably be arguing the same. However, we should be making decisions that are in the best interests of the United Kingdom, not of the United States, which is big enough and bad enough to look after its own interests.

I look forward to a truly independent cost-benefit analysis that takes into account the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has made and some of the points that I have made. Any cost-benefit analysis that ignores those points that have been raised today is not worth the paper it is written on. I say to the Minister that, if anybody in the Government is working on some bogus cost-benefit analysis that they think is going to work in hoodwinking the British public, I hope he will insist that it takes into account the points we have raised today.

Crucially, the membership of any committee that puts together a cost-benefit analysis must correspond to that insisted upon by this Bill, which calls for a balance of people who are in favour of and people who are against the UK’s membership, a neutral chairman, and for none of them to be a current or past Member of the European Parliament or the European Commission. Only if those criteria are met will we have a truly independent and worthwhile cost-benefit analysis. However, given the Government’s reluctance over many years to publish such a cost-benefit analysis, I am afraid that any decision to rush one through now will be treated with a great deal of cynicism and scepticism, not just by me, but by many people across the House and, more importantly, by the British public.

European Affairs

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Lady is exactly right. The Danish agreement has been in place for 23 years and continues to serve Denmark extremely well.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hammond]

I am going to make a little progress now.

The second area we set out to address was Europe’s impact on competitiveness. We have achieved a commitment to completing the European single markets in services—a key area for Britain given the importance and competitiveness of our services sector—in digital; in energy, to ensure greater competition and lower energy bills for British households; and in capital, ensuring greater access to sources of finance for our entrepreneurs. We have also delivered a clear commitment to prioritising international trade agreements with the largest and fastest-growing economies across the globe, with the potential to boost our economy by billions of pounds a year; and agreement to cut the burden of EU regulation on business, with specific targets to be set for key sectors. That builds on a programme of work that the Commission is already undertaking, which has already slashed by 80% the pipeline of regulatory proposals, and bakes the deregulatory approach into the DNA of the European Union.

The third area in which this deal delivers is in ending the abuse of the principle of free movement to work in order to access the benefits of our welfare system, which are paid for by hard-working British taxpayers. We have already ended access to unemployment benefits and social housing for new arrivals and limited their time in which to find a job to six months. The package agreed last Friday gives us new powers to exclude criminals from EU countries, and stops EU nationals dodging British immigration rules to bring family members from outside the EU to live in Britain.

Under this agreement, we can apply our rules, including on minimum income and English language competence. It ends the unfairness of child benefits at British rates being sent to children living in countries with much lower living costs, and it gives us a new seven-year emergency brake to ensure that EU migrants will not have full access to in-work benefits until they have been in the UK for four years, answering the perfectly reasonable question: why should people take out when they have not paid in? Under this new arrangement, they cannot do that—no more something for nothing. Taken together, this is a package that will address the concerns of the British people about abuse of our benefit systems and erosion of our immigration controls.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On child benefit, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the agreement does not meet the promise set out in the Conservative party manifesto, which said:

“If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid”?

That has not been achieved. It is a failure.

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said before in this House, any reasonable person will look at the package that has been delivered. We have been clear from the outset that tackling abuse of our welfare system is about reducing the pull factor that makes the UK a target for inward migrants because they can get their wages topped up with a variety of benefits. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Although my hon. Friend can pick on a specific part of the package, I think that most reasonable people will want to look at it in the round.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I am going to make a little progress. I am happy to take interventions, but in doing so I am conscious that I am eating into the time available for debate.

We have also set out to strengthen the powers of this Parliament and of the British people. In the last Parliament, we legislated, through the European Union Act 2011, to ensure that no more powers could be handed to Brussels without the explicit consent of the British people in a national referendum. That Act introduced a vital check on the one-way ratchet of the transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels.

This deal goes further, breaking the ratchet once and for all, with a new mechanism to return powers from Brussels to national Parliaments. For new legislation, the UK Parliament, working with the other national Parliaments, will be able permanently to block proposed EU legislation that a majority of them do not want, through a red card system.

The declaration, signed by all 28 member states, that we secured at the European Council last Friday is, as I have said, legally binding in international law and has already been registered as a treaty at the United Nations. Authoritative legal opinion is clear on this point. It cannot be undone without the consent of every single member state, including Britain. The agreement commits all member states to changes, in due course, to the EU treaties to enshrine the protections for Britain as a non-member of the eurozone, and to confirm explicitly that ever closer union does not apply to the UK.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. He phrases himself incredibly carefully. He says, quite correctly, that the agreement is binding in international law, which is not justiciable, but it is not binding in European law, where it has only to be taken into account by the European Court of Justice. Nor is it irreversible, otherwise section A(7) could not say:

“The substance of this Section will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States.”

If it requires the respective constitutional procedures of the member states, that means that if they are not followed, it will not be implemented.

[Mr Hammond]

In the Rottmann decision, the ECJ itself made clear that it had to take account of a decision of this nature. I say to my hon. Friend and others who repeatedly make points about the legally binding nature of agreements that we are having a substantive debate about the future of Britain, in or out of the European Union. We have a package that has been agreed by all 28 countries and endorsed by their Heads of State and Government. It is not only legally binding, it is a solemn political commitment. I advise colleagues to address themselves to the substantive issues that we are debating, namely Britain’s place in the European Union and what the world would look like from the perspective of a Britain outside the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

It is always difficult to set out the defined and true position at the outset of any negotiations, otherwise one would not negotiate the position one would want to find oneself in at the end of it, so I do not agree with that. I think the Prime Minister achieved more than many people thought he would achieve. Of course, for some people even if he had parted the English channel it still would not have been good enough. Perhaps some even might have wanted him to fail. Overall, it is a good reform package for the United Kingdom.

I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) about tone. The parliamentary and national debate needs to be done in the right tone with the right language, in a measured and respectful way. I hope that will be the case. We have heard some reference to scaremongering today and in the media, but it was Nigel Farage, in a recent Oxford University debate, who said that the EU referendum issue would be “settled by security”. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), in the penultimate paragraph of his remarks, suggested that security was a key issue too. It is unfortunate that the issue of scaremongering is coming into the debate. It is legitimate to talk about national security, both for those who want to remain in the European Union and those who want to leave, and it is on national security that I would like to focus my main remarks.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) wrote in the Daily Mirror this morning:

“The threats posed to the UK’s security are just like the threats posed to the rest of Europe”.

He is right. Common threats require a common response. Europe’s threats are our threats too. The UK’s threats are Europe’s threats. In an unsafe world this is not the time to be walking away from our friends and allies. This is a time to stand together. This is not the time for the United Kingdom to be quitting Europe. My view is that the UK is safer in a reformed European Union and the European Union is safer with the UK standing by its side, now with our own special status.

The Paris attacks have been mentioned a couple of times today and in the media over the past few days. Some say that it is less likely that the United Kingdom will be subject to Paris-style terror attacks if we leave. I disagree and think that is a very, very bold statement to make. Some say the Syrian refugee crisis has had an impact on terrorist incidents across Europe and will therefore have an impact on the UK. That may well be the case, and I will come on to those points in more detail later. Specifically on the nationality of those involved in the Paris attacks, however, the majority were EU nationals. In fact, they were led by a Belgian national.

Some have referenced open borders in the United Kingdom. We do not have open borders in the United Kingdom. That is inaccurate and, unfortunately, misleading. The fact is that under Schengen we do not have open borders. That is a fact.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We do effectively have open borders for Belgians. Belgian passport holders can come here without so much as a by your leave. They come through and we cannot refuse them unless we have specific evidence. If we could make them apply in advance and get clearance, as we have to before going to the United States, our borders would clearly be safer.

[Mark Pritchard]

First, the reference to the Belgian EU nationals was to make the point that it was not Syrian refugees who undertook that Paris attack. Secondly, my hon. Friend may not want to make this point, but I will make it for him. The majority of terrorist threats in this country, as proven by the 7/7 attacks, are actually by British nationals, not EU nationals. Of the four involved in the 7/7 attacks, three were British nationals and one was a German national. It is not necessarily the case that coming out of the European Union will make us safer from attacks. I think there is a danger from some—not Members and certainly not my hon. Friend—of a Trumpification of the out campaign. There is a danger of the shadow of Donald Trump coming into this referendum campaign, which I think would be very unhelpful and dangerous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It was very reassuring to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tell us earlier that he is a Eurosceptic and explain how successful the renegotiations were from his Eurosceptic ivory tower. That is encouraging, but I thought it might be worth looking at what the renegotiations achieved compared with what Her Majesty’s Government set out. In the Conservative party manifesto, it was “an absolute requirement”, according to the opening of the paragraph, that child benefit not be given to anybody whose children are living abroad. It seems to me that that has not been achieved, so our Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary has failed in that regard.

The Conservative party manifesto stated that we would

“reform the workings of the EU, which is too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic”.

The workings of the EU post the renegotiation remain too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic, so my Eurosceptic friend has achieved nothing.

In the Conservative party manifesto we made to the British people a pledge and a promise, on which we campaigned in, I hope, good faith. We said that we would

“reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf”—

not yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that of the British people—

“and safeguard British interests in the Single Market”.

We have not reclaimed a single power, so, in that, my Eurosceptic friend the Foreign Secretary has failed to live up to the Eurosceptic credentials of which he boasts—and with which I credit him, because the Foreign Secretary is an honourable man.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that what we needed was fundamental and far-reaching reform. We have not achieved fundamental and far-reaching reform; his Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary has, in that regard, let him down. In the renegotiations, we have not achieved anything of any great substance. On the free movement of people, we have nothing. We have so little on the issue of benefits that the great mass migration will continue. It was announced today that 257,000 people came from the European Union in the last year, 55,000 of them from Bulgaria and Romania. My Eurosceptic friend has done nothing to change that.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his Bloomberg speech:

“Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that’s been visited on our businesses.”

But that plague is to continue, and the renegotiations have done nothing to stop it. They have not summoned Moses back to try to deal with it, as I seem to remember he finally got rid of the plague of frogs that afflicted Pharaoh. On immigration, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he thought it was essential to

“restore a sense of fairness”

and

“to make our immigration system fairer and reduce the current exceptionally high level of migration from…the EU”.

Nothing has been done to achieve that.

Not only is the renegotiation a failure because it has achieved so little—it has failed to tackle the problems that we promised the British electorate we would solve—but, worse than that, we have given away our negotiating card when the European Union comes to a fundamental treaty reform of its own. The document that was settled last weekend states:

“Member states whose currency is not the euro shall not impede the implementation of legal acts directly linked to the functioning of the euro area and shall refrain from measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of economic and monetary union.”

The Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary—the honourable man to whom I referred—has managed, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to give away our most powerful negotiating card. When the European Union needs to develop the fiscal union that it has asked for, we have nothing to say because we have promised that we will do nothing.

And so we have left ourselves still on the path to a European superstate. That state has been getting bigger and bigger since we joined it in 1972—a state that has a flag; a state that has an anthem; a state that, because it is greedy, has not one but five Presidents; a state with a Parliament that has not one, but two seats of operation; a state with the symbols of statehood and the powers of a state. It has legal personality to conduct treaty negotiations. It has the legal power to make laws, and those laws are senior to our laws.

My right hon. Friend the famously Eurosceptic Foreign Secretary said that the treaty is legally robust, but he phrased himself very carefully, with the pedantry that one would hope for and expect in somebody from the Foreign Office. He said that it was robust in terms of international law. That gives it no justiciability in the courts of the European Union; it is merely taken into account.

We have a pretty worthless agreement, and we have scare stories to tell us why we should not vote no. If it was dangerous—if he thought the world would collapse on the day we voted no—why did the Prime Minister offer us a referendum? Is he some hooligan or some Yahoo who thinks it is safe to risk this nation’s future by trusting the people? When he said he ruled nothing out, surely he meant it. Surely he was not saying that, in fact, he was always going to go along with whatever our friends in Brussels said, because the Prime Minister is a most trustworthy figure, who negotiates in good faith. That is the problem with all that underlies this negotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

May I first congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate this afternoon?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the Minister might begin with an apology for the absence of the Foreign Secretary. It is custom for senior Ministers who have opened debates to return for the end of them. On such an important matter, it is a rather surprising discourtesy to the House that the normal convention has not been observed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I would say is that it is the choice of the Foreign Secretary, and who knows, we may hear something yet, as the Minister for Europe has so far only managed to get three words out.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and EU Renegotiations

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my near neighbour in Somerset, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Marcus Fysh), who gave a fantastic calculation as to why, on balance, it would be right to leave. I know that the people of Somerset will respond warmly to the lead he has given them.

I want to pick up on a couple of threads mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) relating to parliamentary sovereignty. We sometimes get into the idea that parliamentary sovereignty comes out of a vacuum, but in fact it is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. It is the way we represent the sovereignty of the British people. They delegate to us, for five years, the right to make laws in their name, but at the end of those five years they expect to have the sovereignty returned to them intact, so that they can decide how it should be used in future.

In that sense, I am very close to the Scottish understanding of the sovereignty of the people, because it comes from them and belongs to them. It is not ours to give away; it is ours to protect, return and operate within. It is not about us as individual Members of Parliament or these grand rooms; it is about the rights of the British people and their ability to achieve through us the things that they have expected to achieve for centuries. I am thinking primarily of redress of grievance and the right to hold the Government to account.

That is why the issue is so difficult. Although it is possible to hold a Minister to account and to seek redress of grievance through this House in those areas that remain a domestic competence, as soon as an issue goes beyond these shores and becomes a European competence, it is impossible to obtain redress of grievance through this House. Indeed, in my correspondence with a Minister on behalf of a constituent, I was told that, although the Minister was sympathetic to my constituent’s plight, if he were given the redress he needed the British Government would themselves be fined. He could not, therefore, get that redress. That is a fundamental attack on parliamentary sovereignty which is there for the right reason.

On the renegotiation, the hon. Member for Glenrothes made an interesting point. He said that he thought many of us would vote against anyway, because we are so desperate and gasping at the bit to leave, and that, whatever happened, we would not have been willing to accept what the Prime Minister came up with. I do not accept that. I think that this was an opportunity for fundamental reform, but that has not happened. I do believe that the Government have acted in good faith—I do not believe they have got it right, but I do accept their good faith.

The Government have, however, negotiated around the edges. They are, perhaps, so steeped in the ways of the machinations of the European Union that they have failed to see the big picture and think that, when negotiating with 27 other countries and the Commission, it is an amazing achievement to get the right to hold a discussion on the difference in view between the Euro-outs and Euro-ins. It is like dealing with a brick wall—for want of a better cliché coming immediately to mind—so even being allowed a discussion results in them thinking, “Whoopee! We’ve achieved something very important that we can present to the British electorate.”

If we look from a further distance at what the Prime Minister has said over a number of years, what he promised in his Bloomberg speech and what we put in our manifesto, we see that they were not about pettifogging changes around the edges; they were about fundamental reform and the reassertion of sovereignty. Because the renegotiations were in that sense so narrow, so weak and so uninspired, the status quo is not an option in the referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, the choice is not between leaving and staying exactly as we are; it is between leaving and remaining in a Union moving towards ever closer union.

If we look at our past opt-outs, we will see that that is true. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the social chapter no longer exists. It is incorporated in the treaty, so our opt-out came and went, as frost on a winter morning might disappear as the sun comes out. Our opt-out on Schengen is there and it is important, but recently we agreed that we would be part of an EU border force: there is a migration problem, and the solution to it is of course more Europe and more European integration. We are going along with that, although we are not formally part of it. The Dublin treaties on returning people to the place where they first sought sanctuary are coming under threat, which would make our position outside Schengen very difficult to manage.

On justice and home affairs, we got an opt-out under the treaty of Lisbon, but again and again we have given more away. We have given away the arrest warrant and we have given away Prüm, so investigation and arrest are now in the hands of the European Union.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Why was there no referendum on the things that were first taken out and then sent back?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The European Union Act 2011 was a protection, but it was also part of a coalition deal, so it ensured that things that the Lib Dems were quite keen on would not automatically trigger a referendum. I agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to have had a referendum on giving back the things that we had claimed when we opted out of justice and home affairs matters a little over a year ago. Now that arrest and investigation are determined at a European level, the argument for some European centralised oversight will only become stronger. If a Bulgarian issues an arrest warrant that is effective in the United Kingdom, surely there needs to be some European common standard to ensure that that is done properly.

The direction of travel is towards more Europe. Even in the context of monetary union, we should bear it in mind that we only have an opt-out from stage 3. We are committed to stages 1 and 2. The European Union has not enforced those in recent years, for obvious reasons, but that will not always be the case. We are committed—article 142 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is relevant to this—to our currency being of interest to the European Union.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that there is a huge degree of unification among the elites at the heart of the European Union, but there is no such sense of common identity among the peoples of the countries that make it up?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. He is absolutely right: there is no common people, but there is an elite who have this vision that more Europe is the answer to a maiden’s prayer. Let us look at the treatment of Greece, and how it suffered through its membership of the euro, which was forced upon it. Greece was encouraged and egged on by the European Union and the Commission to adopt the euro, partly because it was the birthplace of democracy, and how outrageous it would be if it did not join in this grand political scheme. When it got into difficulties, which economists knew it would get into, what was the answer from the European Union? More Europe, more control over its affairs, more direction over what it does and less domestic democracy. In what happened in Greece, we see the clash that is in the motion before us. We have a choice between moving to a single European state or maintaining the sovereignty that is still ours. To do that, we have to vote to leave. Texas maintained that it had the right to leave the United States; it did not.