European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Our priority is Amendment 3, to ensure that Parliament has a meaningful vote and that we maintain parliamentary sovereignty, but also important are other amendments to show that Parliament must be fully engaged in this process and that, as usual, our Members of Parliament are accountable through their constituencies. I cannot support this amendment, and I ask my colleagues not to support it. We will not take part in this vote.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been another good debate. I suspect that it confirms what many of us already know: that there are a number of your Lordships who passionately believe that the people have made a grave mistake by voting to leave the European Union and that there needs to be a referendum at the end of the negotiations. As I said before, I respect their views and I repeat my wish to bring together those on both sides of the argument—leave and remain—as we continue. But the Government are very clear that the amendment before us is misguided both in practice and in principle. Our reasons are very clear and they start with the democratic path that we have followed so far.

On 7 May 2015, the Conservative Government were elected by 11.3 million people, committed to a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union and committed to honouring the outcome. On 7 September 2015, 316 members of the other place voted in favour of holding a referendum by a majority of six to one. No condition or caveat was attached to the referendum, as my noble friend Lord Faulks pointed out. Parliament agreed on the question, which was simple: leave or remain? On 23 June 2016, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. On 8 February this year, the other place passed this Bill unamended—a simple Bill to trigger the process of leaving the European Union —by a majority of 372. This is the democratic path that has been followed, a path that will lead this country to leaving the European Union.

Some argue that we need another referendum, on what I consider to be somewhat peculiar and weak arguments. I refer to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, who said that,

“however it is dressed up, it will be seen as a second referendum. I cannot support that. Our people have already spoken”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 134.]

How right he is. Listen to Mr Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for North Norfolk, who said that the second referendum would raise,

“the question as to whether we’d remain in the European Union”.

But it was made abundantly clear that the referendum in June was, to quote the leaflet sent to all households in the UK,

“a once in a generation decision”.

There was nothing on the ballot, and no suggestion from Parliament, that there would have to be another referendum if the UK were to vote to leave. During the campaign, the then Prime Minister said:

“I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it’s a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can’t have neverendums, you have referendums”.


The next bogus argument is that people did not know enough to make an informed decision. I do not see that approach and argument as particularly liberal or democratic; I see it as somewhat patronising. It is as if we are saying, “We trust the people, but not quite entirely”. That Government leaflet spelled out the consequences and on many occasions during the campaign those on both sides of the argument made it clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. For example, Mr David Cameron said:

“The British public would be voting, if we Leave, to leave the EU and leave the Single Market”.


Mr George Osborne said:

“We’d be out of the single market, that’s the reality”.


Mr Michael Gove said that we should be, “outside the single market”. The noble Lord, Lord Darling, said:

“Those wanting to leave the EU want to pull Britain out of the single market”.


My noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford said:

“The Leave campaign has … been clear what Leave means: it means leaving the Single Market”.


These politicians were right to point this out, for if we were to remain in the single market it would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would still see it having direct legal authority in our country and it would mean not having control of our borders. It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.

The next peculiar argument is that a second referendum is needed to bring the nation together. Here I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. If the argument is that the first referendum divided the nation, a second referendum is hardly likely to unite it—quite the reverse. Rather than bring people together, it would merely encourage divisions to fester.

Let me say a word about the need to come together. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made a thoughtful and powerful speech. He is right about the need to heal our divisions and to work together to tackle the challenges we face. I would like to put on the record once again my thanks to the Church of England for hosting round tables to do just that. Moreover, others agree that we need to come together by saying:

“If we have to be out then let’s make the best of it”.


Those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, who on the question of a second referendum, said:

“Politicians should stay out of that”,


and the report of the event at which he said this—which I assume to be valid and not some form of fake news—continues as follows. Lord Ashdown,

“did not call for a second referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU saying it would be ‘foolish and wrong’ for Parliament to do that”.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, let me see if I can make a rather better hash of it this time than I did with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Is the Minister embarrassed by the fact that he keeps on answering the question by referring to an issue that is not addressed? We are not saying that there has to be a second referendum on European Union membership. That is done and we accept that the Government have their mandate. What we do not believe the Government have a mandate for is a brutal Brexit that will take us out of the single market. Can he explain why he believes that he does have that mandate, given that it was set out specifically in the Conservative Party manifesto that they would not do this?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, the Conservative Party manifesto made it absolutely clear that we would respect the outcome, a position that the noble Lord himself took on the night of the referendum. It is absolutely our intention that the Government will deliver on the results of the referendum. I know that the noble Lord is spending Lent eating his own words, but I am sorry to say that he is wrong on this point.

Then there are the consequences of such a referendum. Would it bring certainty? Will businesses clap their hands with glee at the thought of a referendum some years off, the basis on which it would be held unclear, but the consequences of which could be to throw the entire negotiated settlement up in the air? We know the answer. As I have said, the Institute of Directors have called for:

“A commitment across all major political parties … not to undertake a second referendum on either EU membership or the Brexit deal to reduce uncertainty”.


What would happen, even after all this, if the result of the second referendum is still to leave? As some noble Lords have pointed out, would we once again be subjected to people saying, “Actually, we don’t like this answer. Please try again”? Where does it end? Will we continue to hold the same referendum until we get the result that those who support this amendment prefer?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

If, as the Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech, no deal would be better than a bad deal, is the Minister really telling us that in the circumstances of no deal he would absolutely rule out a referendum in the future?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Yes, my Lords. It is very clear: we are leaving the European Union. That is the pure and simple answer to the noble Lord.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords—

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

No, I am sorry, my Lords; I am going to finish. I know that we will come back to this. Forgive me but I will not give way. I know that we will have a lot of debate after lunch about the meaningful vote that we will have, and I am sure that the noble Lord will have a chance then to have his say.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said on Wednesday that the rejection of a second referendum would be the antithesis of democracy. With respect to the noble Lord, I totally and utterly disagree. The referendum itself was democracy in action. We were also told that,

“a second referendum entails risks for which the price is too high”—[Official Report, 21/2/17; col. 160.]

and that:

“A further vote will prolong the uncertainty and cause uproar in the country, or worse”.—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 134.]


Those are the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, and I entirely agree with them. Calling a second referendum, as this amendment seeks to do, would undermine the will of the people as expressed in the EU referendum. The people have voted to leave the European Union and leave we will. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.