Queen’s Speech

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing which we can all agree upon, I think, is that not for decades has there been such an acute period of political and constitutional uncertainty as that which we are experiencing at present. We do not know whether there will be a general election, whether there will be a vote of no confidence or whether we will leave the EU. Our constitutional conventions are threatened, our courts are increasingly involved, our political parties are divided, Parliament is paralysed, and public confidence in and respect for Parliament is diminishing by the day.

Inevitably, as a result of all this, political debate is course and bitter. I would even go so far as to say that our political culture, the accepted norms of our national debate and decision-making processes are seriously threatened.

The symptoms are complex, but the cause of all our present difficulties is not complex at all. It is incredibly simple. In 2016, both Houses of Parliament voted, virtually without dissent, that the issue of whether we should remain in the European Union was something that should be decided not by the House of Commons but by the British people in a referendum. We, the parliamentarians, also decided the precise rules under which the referendum would be conducted and the precise question that would be on the ballot paper.

We all know what happened next. Leave won, and ever since, a significant number of parliamentarians, though by no means all remainers—I certainly do not put everyone in the same category—have used every possible procedure to obstruct, delay or even try to reverse the result of a referendum which, I repeat, almost all of us voted for.

There is no point whatsoever in holding referendums if those responsible for implementing them—the parliamentarians—will only do so if they agree with the result. That also applies to any suggested second referendum. Why on earth would I, who voted leave, agree to a second referendum, when I know from bitter experience that even if I win, it may not make any difference?

We have all heard the excuses for not implementing the referendum result. We are told it was not clear what leave meant. Well, it is crystal clear to everyone outside “Confused of Westminster”. If you leave any organisation, at the very minimum you do not have to obey the rules of the organisation and you certainly do not have to pay the subscription.

In any case, two can play at the “What does it mean?” game. What does remain mean? Does remain mean continuing to pay our current subscription? Does remain mean joining a European army? Does it mean ever closer union, with more laws to obey over which we have no control? Does it mean losing our rebate? Does it mean ever greater dominance and control from those members of the EU who are members of the eurozone? The truth is that the future is uncertain, whether we remain or leave. It is always uncertain. Life is uncertain.

The tactics of the unreconcilable remainers have at least evolved over time. First, we were told that the referendum did not really mean anything, that it was purely advisory and that it would be fine for the Government to ignore it. Then it was said that the real choice was not between remain and leave, but between a hard Brexit—or even the hardest of hard Brexits—and a soft Brexit. However, when Mrs May offered the softest of soft Brexits, they said: “No, thank you very much”, by a large majority. Their next tactic was saying: “What we want is a People’s Vote”. In the finest Orwellian tradition, the purpose of the people’s vote would be to reverse the 2016 vote of the people, but there was no agreement as to what question should be put to the vote, or even how many questions there should be, except, of course, that remain must be on the ballot paper.

The latest tactic is the so-called Benn Act, in which a majority of the Commons were united in the view that our departure from the EU should be delayed for a further three months. The problem is, of course, that that was all they were united on. Ask them what the three months’ delay is actually for and they are all over the place.

The most bizarre suggestion, from some, is that they want what they call a Government of national unity. It would of course be a Government of national unity with a passionate remainer as Prime Minister and a Cabinet full of remainers, so the losers in the 2016 referendum would achieve national unity for us all by excluding the leavers and reversing the referendum result. The mind boggles at the logistics of it all. Who would be the Prime Minister? Who would be the leader of the Opposition? Would Her Majesty be required to make another Queen’s Speech? What about the Chamber in which we sit? Presumably, for a Government of national unity we would all have to sit on the same side.

There are yet more severe remainers who want to go even further. They want to revoke Article 50 by a simple vote in Parliament, so that the votes of 17.4 million people in a referendum could be overturned by 326 votes in the House of Commons. It may be democracy, Jim, but not as we know it. These people who want to revoke Article 50 seem to believe that we can all pretend that the last three years, including the referendum, never really happened.

I can just imagine the letter that a revoking Prime Minister would have to send to the EU. “Dear Monsieur Barnier”, it would say, “First, let me apologise unreservedly for all the inconvenience to which we have put you during the past three years. It was all the result of a dreadful mistake that we made when we asked the British public whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. I can assure you that, in the future, there will be no more nonsense about consulting the people”.

This Parliament is enveloped in a political and constitutional quagmire. The cause, as I have said, is very simple: the failure of Parliament to honour the referendum. All the parliamentary and constitutional shenanigans are a direct result of this. Unpalatable as it may be to many in this House there is only one solution to this problem, and that is to leave the European Union. I voted leave but, in a spirit of national unity, I would like to end my remarks with the words of a remainer. This is Sir Anthony Meyer, writing in this week’s Sunday Times. He said:

“I voted to remain but believe that it is a moral and political imperative to honour the referendum result”.


Well, so do I, and I know that millions of our fellow citizens, leavers and remainers, think exactly the same.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

If I may correct my noble friend on one thing, Sir Anthony Meyer was my former boss in the Foreign Office and a former Conservative MP for Eton and Slough. My noble friend means Sir Christopher Meyer.

[Lord Grocott]

Yes, I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully agree with the well-deserved tribute that the noble Lord has paid to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I recall from when he has talked about our naval power that, some 25 years or so ago, we were debating 40 frigates and destroyers within our fleet. We now have about 20 and yet, somehow, we still talk of enhancing our “global role”—in which, surely, the Royal Navy should be playing a leading part. How can we play such an enhanced role if our fleet has been reduced to such an extent? The question surely answers itself.

Some 200 years ago, Shelley was looking at the state of England, observing the turmoil, writing his poem in anger and, indeed, sadness. Some of that same anger and sadness must surely be seen by so many of our friends as they look at the United Kingdom today. We all take pride in our constitution. Like many noble Lords, I have addressed conferences about the virtues of our unwritten constitution, its flexibility and the pragmatism of the British people. But, alas, over the past three years, we have failed the stress test of our constitution. Many shortcomings have appeared and many questions, which were under the surface, now appear almost paramount.

The current state of the UK has renewed the debate about constitutional reform by means of a constitutional convention or otherwise including the possibility of a written constitution, and it has boosted our discussion about further devolution or, indeed, independence. Noble Lords may have noticed the poll in last week’s Sunday Times, which said that 50% of Scottish people would now favour independence. I hear a “Hear, hear!” from my noble friend. As he well knows, we in Wales often have a sort of “Me too” or “Follow the leader” position about Scotland. I know where he would stand on that. It is rather surprising that the unionist party, by its own actions, has created greater discussion about, and support for, Scottish independence and, possibly, according to recent polls, greater support for the independence of Wales—which, in my judgment, if it comes at all, is something far off—as well as more talk about a united Ireland. We must remember, although we would not know this from listening to the contributions from our Northern Irish colleagues, that Northern Ireland—Ulster—voted to remain.

I begin with two preliminary reflections. First, we have as a country been here before. I have just read Claire Tomalin’s wonderful biography of Samuel Pepys, and my first reflection is that our situation reminds me of the period of the restoration of the monarchy from 1658 to 1660. So many of the most ardent Parliamentarians at the time suddenly discovered that they were Royalists after all. Could we not apply that to some Cabinet members, in particular, who are now saying stridently and ardently that they are now strong Brexiteers? It is perhaps a sad commentary on human nature that, rather like those Parliamentarians at the end of the Cromwellite rule, so many Conservative politicians are now discovering that they were indeed Brexiteers.

My second reflection is this. In the 1630s, there were two concepts about the source of authority of government—two concepts that collided in the Civil War. On the one hand, there was the divine right of kings; on the other, there was the sovereignty of Parliament. Now, it was not God but the people who spoke three years ago. The mantra today is, “The people have spoken: long live the people”. Are we seriously suggesting that one snapshot three years ago at one point in time has determined the position of this country, across the board, on foreign and domestic affairs, for as far ahead as is planned? It was well said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that, if there were a poll today, the people would have changed their minds. Are people not allowed to change their minds? Some people give the parallel of a general election, but a general election lasts at most five years and people can then change their minds. We are stuck with one snapshot, taken three years ago, which would change if there was a new referendum.

It is interesting that those who in the past called for the supremacy of Parliament against the foreign power of the European Union have now changed their tune and are rather downplaying the sovereignty of Parliament. The Prime Minister uses the terms “surrender” and “the surrender Act”—a mantra repeated again and again by his followers—yet one surrenders to an enemy. One can hardly properly debate and negotiate with the European Union if one truly thinks of them as the enemy.

Turning to the Queen’s Speech itself, and to foreign affairs and trade, it was claimed that we will be free of these shackles and enter the world stage boldly as global Britain. Looking at our resources, it is in part a pipe dream. It is certain that our clout internationally will be diminished. Our status will be diminished, as will respect for us overseas. We will be in a waiting room, waiting for decisions to come to us from the European Union. As for links with President Trump’s America, we saw how the Prime Minister kept silent on the Kim Darroch affair, for example, and did not rally to support a member of the Foreign Office at that time. The latest example is of course the dumping of the Kurds. I may be wrong, but I understand that we were not consulted in any way. Giving good warning of a policy change of this sort must surely be a test of a true ally. The only winners in this are President Putin, who gets a boost in terms of Russia’s long-standing policy in the Middle East, and, alas, ISIS, as the camps will not be guarded by the Kurds. That is the inevitable consequence of President Trump’s unpredictable, capricious decision, which has so dismayed his allies.

As for trade, our comparative weight in and out of the EU must be a major factor. Our market in the UK is 60 million, while the EU is 450 million. Whereas Mr Fox talked about glittering trade deals, he has achieved none. His policy collided with reality. Of course, sentiment plays no role in trade deals. India, for example, will demand concessions on visas and, as the excellent former US ambassador, Ray Seitz, reminded us, the UK is important to the US largely as a bridge to the European Union. Congress has a key role in terms of protectionism by America and pork-barrel politics. We would seek a deal in financial services, but the regulators and lobbies would stand in our way. That “America first” policy was shown in the US-Canada-Mexico agreement and, with US regulatory standards in food, animal welfare and food safety will prove a major difficulty. Our major market is clearly our neighbours in the European Union and, as an outsider, our weight there will be considerably reduced.

I make only this comparison between our Prime Minister and the President. Both obviously have problems with women, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that both are prepared to use their authority for their own personal ends, as with President Trump in Ukraine seeking to dish the dirt on a potential rival, and the Prime Minister favouring a girlfriend when allocating public money. This is well attested, however much it is denied.

It is crystal clear that we in the UK are living in most uncertain and troubled times—perhaps the most troubled times since just before the First World War and The Strange Death of Liberal England. Our constitution is fundamentally under scrutiny; our very existence as a United Kingdom is being challenged at a time when our global weight will be reduced. Navigating this uncertainty requires great statesmanship. I ask a question which again answers itself: does anyone seriously expect that statesmanship to come from our Prime Minister?