Brexit Deal: Referendum

Julia Lopez Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies]

From top to bottom, as the right hon. Gentleman says.

So now we have what can be characterised as the “Bad Friday agreement”. Our great Prime Minister was phoned up at 5 o’clock in the morning, dragged out of bed and required to fly to a meeting in Europe to be told, over breakfast, what she will receive for Brexit. She will have to pay between €35 billion and €39 billion, with no strings attached on trade. She will have to ensure that the single market and customs union operates within Northern Ireland, which is obviously a recipe for companies from Britain to move to Northern Ireland so that they can be in both the UK and the single market. She was told that 3 million EU citizens will basically still enjoy all the rights and protections from the European Court of Justice while British citizens will not—we will be second-class citizens in our own country. She was told all that, and she said, “Oh, that sounds all right. I’ll go and talk to Parliament about that.” Sadly, we are not able to view that statement in its entirety.

We have seen the devaluation, the inflation and the lost trade, and we have had problems with market access. The people in Swansea and elsewhere who voted leave were told, “Don’t worry: we’ll have single market access,” but already we are seeing an exodus of jobs. I am not just talking about the European Banking Authority or the European Medicines Agency, but those basic strategic units of key importance are being dislocated from the British economy. Indeed, many multinational headquarters are in London so that they can be next to the City and have access to Europe. Companies are considering relocating for that reason as well.

If we exit and have to do our own thing with other countries, I fear for Britain. We would turn our back on the biggest market in the world and turn to the United States and the open arms of Donald Trump—I hope you have not eaten recently, Sir David—who has already placed tariffs on and shown aggression towards Bombardier. At his inauguration he said, “Foreign companies are taking our jobs, making our products and stealing our companies”, and that he would ensure that new trade deals would at least achieve parity or ensure a trade surplus for the United States. I am fearful of the sorts of trade deals we will get with regard to money and qualitatively speaking. They sell asbestos, chlorinated chicken and the like—that is something to look forward to from the United States.

People are suddenly realising that what was promised is not going to materialise, and that what is materialising is something awful. The Prime Minister has also agreed a two-year transition period—which is two years on death row, in my view. Companies now have two years to make an orderly transition out of Britain. They can relocate to somewhere they will not face massive tariffs or restrictions on skilled workers or product parts moving across borders so that they can make their products and sell them.

What is more, people were told that they would take back control. We have been debating the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which, in a nutshell, was meant to translate the rights and privileges of the EU constitution into British law, but which in fact is drafted so widely that it gives Ministers the right to change things as appropriate, so that those rights and privileges can be crossed out by future Governments. There is no guarantee for them. It is drafted so broadly that the courts are unable effectively to exercise judicial review over those rights. Finally, the enforcement agencies are not in place to deliver those rights. For example, in essence the European Court is enforcing air quality standards that we fail to meet in Britain; we would just be able to decide in future that we will not have air quality standards. Rights and privileges that we currently enjoy can be taken away by future Governments and the Government have concentrated power in Ministers, away from Parliament. Instead of taking back control, we are losing it.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

I call Julia Dockerill.

[Julia Lopez]

It is Lopez, actually. I changed my name when I got married.

[Sir David Amess (in the Chair)]

I do apologise.

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman talks about taking back control, but does he accept that the EU is not a static organisation but one whose key leaders recently stated a desire for much deeper political integration among member states in the years ahead? If we halted Brexit would he tell the people of Swansea that rather than taking back control he would be comfortable handing much more control to the EU, to carry out the vision of people such as President Macron, Martin Schulz and Mr Juncker?

[Geraint Davies]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her marriage.

Strangely enough, just before the Brexit vote I turned to the present Foreign Secretary and said, “Boris,”—this is what I say to taxi drivers, by the way—“can you name one law in the EU that you do not like?” I thought he would know because he was leading the campaign. He scratched his head and said, “There are three directives on bananas.” This is a true story. I said, “Well, the thing is, you can buy bananas in Tesco and the Co-op. There isn’t really a problem with bananas. Can you think of something else?” He scratched his head a bit longer and said, “REACH.” He was hoping I did not know anything about the regulation for registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. I said, “Do you mean the regulation that ensures that manufacturers are required to prove that a chemical is safe before it is marketed, as opposed to the American system where they can sell what they like and the United States Environmental Protection Agency must prove that it is hazardous before banning it, which is why asbestos is still legally sold in America?” I said, “Given that, don’t you think the precautionary principle that we use, through REACH, is the right one?” He said, “Oh, I think John, over there, has got to talk to me,” and walked off.

Similarly, when I spoke to the present Environment Secretary I said, “Mr Gove—Govey—can you think of an EU law that you don’t agree with? You are leading this campaign with Boris,” and he scratched his head awhile and said, “I don’t know: the clinical trials directive.” Again, he thought he could throw these things in, hoping that I did not know anything about them. I said, “The clinical trials directive requires that pharmaceutical companies and drug companies publish their tests and trials before marketing a product, as opposed to what happens in America, where they could have a number of trials and choose to just publish the positive outcomes of those trials and not the negative ones. So if someone is making thalidomide or something similar they could say, ‘Look, we have had these five trials and there is nothing wrong with it.’ So what is wrong with that, Michael?” He said, “I have got to go and talk to Freda” —or whoever it was—and went off.

The question that was asked was whether I would be comfortable with more laws passed in Europe, and the answer is yes. Do I want deeper, closer and greater political union? No. Obviously the people of France and Germany, where there have been elections recently, have shown that they want maximised devolution and sovereignty within a partnership that collectively works for the good of all. That is the essence of the EU, not some sort of monolithic, bureaucratic, centralised system that generates laws that people do not like—and some of the architects of the disaster that is going on cannot even think of any such laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. We have a veritable smorgasbord of e-petitions before us, so all of us can probably choose at least one of them to support and push forward.

I have been listening to the debate since it started and I have to say that I find Brexit debates, both in this place and in the other place, relatively dispiriting. Of course, I am not seeking to cast aspersions on colleagues here, but I find the debate dispiriting. We start from the principle of trying to debate something, and I came here today thinking that we would have a wonderful theoretical debate on the value of representative versus participative or direct democracy, the utility of referendums versus parliamentary democracy, and how the inherent tension between those concepts has caused such theoretical and practical problems in the past 18 months or so. What immediately happens, however, is that we all go back into our tribes depending on whether we like or dislike Brexit. Many of the speeches that I have heard, which have been heartfelt and have clearly come from a place of real principle, have fallen back on to whether people support Brexit or do not support it.

We have to be more careful about these kinds of discussion. I have heard massive misuse of polling in just the past hour and a half. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) talked about how we should have some kind of independent arbiter to judge the correctness or otherwise of what politicians say. I think that that is a terrible idea, but if we are going to do it, I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that we might start by banning politicians from using one poll to prove that something is suddenly a comprehensive, complete and totally true statement. If we want to play that game, a poll carried out by Opinium says exactly the opposite. I understand that the Survation poll, which has been quoted so extensively in this place already, also gives the Labour party an eight-point lead. I know that Opposition Members are delighted about that, but I do not believe that 45% of the people in my country believe in neo-Marxism and I hope that it will not happen. I will not go down the party political route, other than to say that.

I have heard a number of different comments today and I want to take up a few of them. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is no longer in his place, talked at one point about how, if we are honest as Members of Parliament, most of us know that ultimately Brexit is a bad idea. I think it was Elizabeth I who said, “Don’t seek windows into men’s souls.” I do not subscribe to that view. I genuinely understand why people in my constituency voted 63% to leave; I understand why I voted to leave. It was not because of a hatred of the European Union or because of the caricature of how we are that some people try to propose. It was not because of the lies that certain people have talked about in here, which I absolutely disagree with. It was actually because we happen fundamentally to believe that the future of our country can be better served in a different way from what has happened in the past 40 years. I ask those people on the opposite side of the debate just to think carefully about some of the comments that they make, because I do not believe in the depths of my soul that Brexit is a bad idea. I think it is a good idea, but I also understand the challenges that those people are putting forward. We should not enter binary discussions or make assertions.

[Julia Lopez]

I followed the speech by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) as closely as I could, and he seemed to be saying not only that we need Parliament to protect the British people from their decision, but that we need the EU to protect the British people from our own Parliament. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has a little more faith in this place and its people.

[Lee Rowley]

I absolutely hope that that would be the case. It is utterly important that we ensure that there is a wide debate about the issues, but ultimately we start from the principle that a large number of people—the largest number of people ever—have made a decision and we should seek to honour that.