EU-UK Summit

Debate between John Hayes and Danny Kruger

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is right. I will cite a very good article in The Spectator last week by Oliver Lewis, who was the deputy negotiator for the Brexit deal and the trade agreement. He wrote rather wearily about recognising the terms that had been agreed by the Government, because they were the terms that the previous Government continually resisted in negotiations. His point, which echoes that of my hon. Friend, was that the way the EU works is to force agreement on headline principles, which, over time, are translated into concrete policy. Where a thin end of the wedge can be driven in, as it can be with this agreement, more and more follows. That is what we should anticipate.

It is worth pointing out how thin the terms of the agreement are and how much detail remains to be worked out. We have conceded a set of principles that will allow ever closer alignment and submission to the regime that we painfully left some years ago. We see coming submission to the European Court of Justice, an agreement on rule-taking, a return to the single market in agribusiness, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and paying money into the EU budget.

Those were the explicit things that all parties in this House committed to ending when we agreed the outcome of the referendum. In 2019, both main parties agreed to abide by them, and in 2024, they agreed to abide by them and explicitly ruled out submission to the European Court of Justice, paying money and returning to the single market, all of which has now been agreed in principle by the Government. It is only a set of principles, but they are bad principles; they represent the betrayal of Brexit and of our manifestos. I will not go through the specifics, because other Members have done so very well, but I will quickly point out how thin these agreements are.

On e-gates, there will be some benefit for the Dordogne-visiting community that some of us have in our constituencies, but it is not a great achievement. Indeed, it is not even an achievement for this summer, so although I hope the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is enjoying his holiday in France, I do not think he will have benefited from the deal. He will probably have gone through an e-gate anyway, however, because there are already many e-gates that British citizens can use when going to and fro. That arrangement will still need to be negotiated, with each member state operating its own independent policy.

We have discussed food, and I will not go on about that other than to say that we have agreed to take the EU’s laws but we do not have any detail yet. Because we export so little, any benefit from a reciprocal arrangement will greatly benefit the EU at the expense of our exporters.

[Sir John Hayes]

To illustrate that point, looking at the figures the UK is the EU’s biggest export market. We receive about €51 billion of goods from the EU and return about €15.4 billion, so there is no doubt about where the balance lies. To emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend, the problem is that so much of this is smoke and mirrors. When we hear about realignment being dynamic or about subsidiarity, as we used to hear, those are terms that are used to disguise exactly the kind of pernicious detail that he set out.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely agree. I am afraid that the argument against EU membership, which was the trade imbalance, remains and has only grown with time.

I will not talk about our unhappy fish; we hear enough about those poor creatures. On defence, there has been no detail in the plan other than an expectation of that new procurement arrangement and that we will be financially contributing to that. There is also no detail on the carbon trading arrangement other than a clear expectation of higher taxes and rule-taking through the emissions scheme. On free movement, we are still unclear. The statement talks about terms to be mutually agreed. What those terms might be—how many people will be coming, what commitments of support there are for them on housing, public services and benefits, and what happens if they refuse to leave—all remains unclear. I am very worried about the direction of travel.

The good news, to conclude, is that none of that is real. Those are all headline principles. Although the expectation is that the EU, having forced our famously legalistic Prime Minister to sign up to a set of agreements, will then induce him to believe that they are binding commitments and that he will have to honour them in practice, I implore him not to. I also implore the Minister to consider that we do not have to fulfil those terrible terms.

Lastly, on the economy, although people talk about the decline of trade since Brexit, trade was declining substantially long before. The EU is a declining corner of the world’s economy and the direction of travel has not changed much. The fundamental point is that Brexit has economically been largely a non-event. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the underlying realities have remained largely untouched by it. Obviously, our economy was badly hit by covid, the Ukraine war and subsequently by the very bad Budget, and I admit, by some economic mistakes made by the last Government—let us be honest—but fundamentally the problems have not been related to Brexit.

To invoke some heroes of the last Parliament—particularly John Redwood, the great economic prophet of recent times—John Redwood shrugs at Brexit but Bill Cash rejoices because, fundamentally, it was not an economic decision that the British people made: it was about the restoration of sovereignty. It restored the possibility of good government to our country. I am afraid we did not get good government immediately after Brexit, and we certainly do not have it now. Many mistakes have been made and continue to be made, particularly by this new Government, but we now have the opportunity to govern ourselves in a way that will bring about the prosperity of the British people.

To quickly acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we still have not fixed the ongoing saga of Northern Ireland, and I deeply regret that the arrangements there persist in that most unsatisfactory way. The new agreement is clearly a declaration of intent to move back within the orbit of the EU and ultimately to rejoin.

I end by echoing the call from many hon. Members on both sides, and I honour the hon. Member for Walthamstow for her support. It is very important that we restore the European Scrutiny Committee and I hope that the Minister will agree.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Danny Kruger

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is delighted to have the support of the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the point that I was making: this is an inappropriate process.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a superb speech, as I expected him to do. On the issue of process, I say this to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), my constituency neighbour: as he will know, I have introduced some very serious Bills, including the one that became the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. It was preceded by three independent reports and pre-legislative cross-party scrutiny by both Houses, which happened before the Committee stage. The point is that that process should take place before Second Reading, not after.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will now run through the process before taking any more interventions.

As I have explained, pretty much anybody with a serious illness or disability could work out how to qualify for an assisted death under the Bill. Members may think that far-fetched, but it is what happens everywhere that assisted suicide is legal, including in Oregon.

Assisted Dying

Debate between John Hayes and Danny Kruger

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

I really do thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She is absolutely right, and I thank her for allowing me to make it abundantly clear what I hope I made clear earlier: I recognise the enormous power of the campaign, and that the overwhelming majority of people want it for the best of intentions. All of the people campaigning for this, and the overwhelming majority of the people who imagine making use of this law, do so for the absolute best of intentions. Please can we not have a deliberate misunderstanding of the points I make? I represent a lot of people who think this way, and I am making the point in all sincerity.

I challenge Members, many of whom must visit their hospices and know what is acknowledged as the fact of elder abuse. Tragically, we have a rising epidemic of elder abuse in this country. Half of elderly people who are victims of financial crime are victimised by their own adult children. It is not just the elderly we need to be concerned about. It is no surprise that no disabled organisation supports the proposal. It is the most vulnerable people, who by definition rely on the support of other people—their families and professionals—who are most at risk of assisted dying laws being misapplied, which is what I fear would happen. Suddenly, every controlling and coercive relative, every avaricious carer or neighbour, every overstretched or under-resourced doctor or hospital manager would have the means to cut their cost, and I do not believe it is possible to design out the risks.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. We have heard a lot about quality of life, but who are we to judge what a quality life really is? Is someone who is profoundly disabled without quality? Is someone with profound learning difficulties without quality? Why do we assume that the only lives worth living are those that are perfect or of high quality in the eyes of others?

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Danny Kruger

2nd reading
Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

First, may I congratulate the Minister for Universities on the very reasonable tone with which she has advocated this Bill, and the Secretary of State on his speech? As he said, this Bill is not a battle in a culture war or an ideological effort, but simply an attempt to defend what is already legal in this country. I do not want to aggravate the culture war—which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) says, we are certainly in—but the fact is that there is a battle of ideas going on in our universities, and if we are to prevent the exacerbation of the culture war, we need this Bill, and ideally we need it to be strengthened.

Opposition Members are right in pointing out that there are very few overt instances of censorship, but nevertheless academic freedom is under sustained intellectual attack in our universities. The battle of ideas that we are in is not one in the traditional sense of a clash of opinions and the normal free exchange of ideas that universities are all about. It is much more fundamental than that. It is a battle between, on the one hand, the very idea of the free exchange of opinions and, on the other, the opinion of the radical left, going back to Marx—the idea that the notion of a free exchange of opinions is itself oppressive.

I do not think many Opposition Members are radical Marxists but, in opposing the Bill, they are empowering radicals. I want to do justice to Members on the other side of the House, so I hope you will briefly indulge some student philosophising, Mr Deputy Speaker. The radical left seems to have two strong beliefs. First, it believes that identity is psychological—that a person’s true essence and self is constructed by themselves or other people. That explains the extreme sensitivity around people’s feelings, because if the self is a psychological construct and people’s identity is basically how they feel, being hurt or offended is absolutely catastrophic. An insult is a form of violence—it is almost worse than violence.

The second belief of the radical left is that people can and do suffer what is called false consciousness: they can believe ideas that are not true and that are, in fact, harmful to their own interests. These ideas are also known as conservative opinions, such as a belief in the western political and economic model, in Brexit or in the Conservative party. That explains why the radical left does not have a problem with censorship and why it thinks that censorship is actually necessary for freedom to suppress false consciousness and allow people to discover their real selves, rather than the conservative self that the ruling class has imposed on them.

[Sir John Hayes]

And that is precisely why the word “heretical” is apposite, because views that do not conform in a quasi-religious way to the orthodoxy that my hon. Friend has described are regarded as heresy. Once they are defined as such, almost anything can be legitimised in putting them down.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will be delighted that I am about to quote someone with whom he does not strongly agree: Herbert Marcuse. No debate about universities and students would be complete without Marcuse. He is the great Marxist philosopher who basically wrote the script for the radical left. In his “Repressive Tolerance” essay, which is admirably well named, he argued for

“the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism…or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought”—

as he calls it—

“may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions”.

That is what we are up against. I do not accuse a single Opposition Member of believing that but, in opposing the Bill, they are empowering those opinions. We are in a very parlous state in our universities, so I welcome the Bill, its strengthening of the duty for universities to protect free speech, the extension of this duty to student unions as well, the right of academics to sue if they have been no-platformed, and the role of the new free speech champion at the Office for Students. They are all excellent provisions.

To rebut what has been said by Opposition Members, the Bill does not allow hate speech. Hate speech is illegal. The Bill does not protect Holocaust denial, which is not protected speech. Under the ECHR, Holocaust denial is not protected speech. If a Holocaust denier is no-platformed, they would have no right under the Bill to sue or challenge the university.