Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, whom it is a pleasure to follow, is an orator. She has spoken eloquently on the question of the NHS. I am but a dry, superannuated lawyer. I shall leave the merits of this debate behind, although I should perhaps begin by saying that I favoured and voted for remain. Indeed, as I had suggested in a letter to the Times, whatever might be thought to be our national interests, the wider interests of Europe as a whole surely dictated that we should remain. But that is now mere nostalgia; the present reality is that the majority of our citizens have voted to leave. We have already lost not only a Prime Minister but the benefits—limited though they no doubt were—that he achieved in the February negotiations.

The only lawful route to leaving is via an Article 50 notification. So much is clear and, I think, undisputed among lawyers. It is clear, too, that we cannot lawfully repeal the 1972 Act—in particular, those parts of it that submit us to the paramountcy of EU law—until we have reached the point of leaving the Union. Until we leave, we need it. Altogether less clear is whether, under UK law, a parliamentary process—probably an Act of Parliament—is necessary to authorise an Article 50 notification of withdrawal, or whether this can be done by the Executive under prerogative powers. As we know, this issue is now apparently to be the subject of litigation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, consistently argues the view that he expressed in his Times column last week that legislation is required. In a letter in yesterday’s Times, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, a retired Law Lord, took the contrary view. If this issue has to be litigated, it will be decided, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, purely by reference to our domestic law because it depends ultimately on, in the language of Article 50(1), our “own constitutional requirements”. I tend, as he did, to share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that legislation is necessary, but that may become an academic issue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, ended his letter by saying that, in practice,

“it would be politically impossible to implement Article 50 without the consent of the House of Commons”.

I suggest, too, that it would need the consent of your Lordships’ House.

The critical question is this. I suppose there to be a substantial majority of the Members of both Houses—many in the light of the gathering uncertainties as to precisely what Brexit will involve—who are now strengthened in their belief that Brexit will be profoundly damaging to our national interests, let alone the wider interests of Europe as a whole. Notwithstanding this, should Parliament none the less give effect to the outcome of the referendum vote by authorising an Article 50 notification on whatever basis the incoming Prime Minister believes is best?

The arguments for and against our feeling bound to follow the will of the majority expressed in the referendum vote are obvious on both sides. They have already been widely canvassed by several of your Lordships and I shall not rehearse them. They are neatly encapsulated in today’s Times correspondence columns. Vernon Bogdanor suggested that rejecting the referendum result would be “very dangerous” for democracy—in short, a betrayal of the already somewhat fragile trust that the public have in us as parliamentarians. But other letters suggested that since parliamentary sovereignty was a central plank of the Brexit campaign, the campaigners could hardly complain if Parliament now rejects their vote to leave the EU. I have to say, albeit with great reluctance, that like the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, I am of the clear view that we have to give effect to the leave vote. This referendum was, after all, legislated for by a large majority in Parliament and designed to settle once and for all a basic question of principle, even though, ineptly, as others have pointed out, it is suggested that we are faced with a simple binary choice.

I shall say a word on the subsidiary question—another legal question—as to whether an Article 50 notification is irreversible. Suppose, following such a notification and negotiations under it, it becomes apparent that, after all, the best deal available would be conspicuously worse than remaining in the Union, could we simply abort the process and simply say that we are going to stay, or would the process have to proceed inexorably to the exit door? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, suggested that we could change our mind, and so, too, did Sir David Edward, our distinguished judge who used to be in Luxembourg, and Professor Wyatt in their evidence to the EU Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I hope that they are right but I have to say that I have read very powerful legal arguments to the contrary. This is a legal issue which, if it did arise, would have to be decided by the ECJ. Alas, we cannot count on being given a second chance to stay once we have started negotiation and proceeded down that road. Of course, the other 27 states may be happy to allow us to change our minds, particularly if, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, envisages, the Union had already moved—as one day it is likely to—to a less extreme position on the issue of freedom of movement. However, I am not optimistic about this. I fear that the rest of the Union will not wish to be seen to be trimming this cardinal principle to encourage a generally disobliging state—as they would perceive us to be—to stay with them. That said, there was not a word in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, with which I disagreed. This is essentially a concurring judgment, not a dissent.

Because, however, we are unable to guarantee a second choice—a second bite of the cherry—it is surely imperative that we do not notify our Article 50 decision until we have in place a plan which the Government are quite sure will satisfy those who voted for Brexit and is likely to be achievable in the real world. Alas, at present, plainly no such plan is agreed by all Brexiteers. One has only to contrast the speech today of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on the one hand, with the much more cautious, nuanced suggestion of continued close association with the single market in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maude, on the other. That is a difference replicated by the contenders for the next premiership. One day, no doubt, the clouds will clear on this issue, but I fear that thunderstorms are all too likely along the way. Boris may have gone but he leaves appalling problems in his wake.