European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Garel-Jones Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, this amendment standing in my name seeks to introduce a new clause to enable a confirmatory referendum to be held to indicate that the terms of the Brexit negotiated by the Government are acceptable to the people of these islands. I also support very much the objectives of other amendments coupled with mine in this group.

Earlier in our Committee deliberations, I spoke of the need for MPs to have the right to a meaningful vote on the outcome of the Government’s negotiations, and for that vote to include provision for returning to the status quo if the negotiated package was unacceptable to Parliament. In his response, the Minister refused to give that undertaking. In these circumstances, it makes it even more important to build into the Bill a provision for the people to be allowed to endorse or reject the final negotiated outcome.

If the Government fail to come to an understanding with the EU on a negotiated Brexit package, which they may well not, and have to recommend quitting the EU on a no deal basis, the argument for a referendum is irrefutable. People were promised a new arrangement with the EU and voted to leave on that basis. They did not vote to quit the EU with no arrangement at all. Had that been the proposition put to them in the referendum in 2016, I am convinced that the outcome would have been very different indeed. In fact, the 2016 referendum gave the Government a mandate for entering into negotiations and other preparations for Brexit. Once we know what Brexit actually means, the time will come for the Government to report back to the people for a decision on whether to go ahead with it or not on the terms available. That will not be a wishy-washy Brexit which tries to mean everything to everybody, pandering to populist wishful thinking—

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

Has not the Supreme Court confirmed in a ruling precisely what the noble Lord is saying: that while Parliament authorised the referendum, it has yet to authorise, or have the authority to authorise, the outcome of that negotiation?

[Lord Wigley]

Yes indeed; it is of course finally a matter for Parliament to decide what should happen. The process we are going through in Committee, and later on Report, in particular, will enable MPs to have the appropriate pegs on which to hang the questions that then need to be decided in the light of the information that will be available to them at that stage. That is why I feel it is important that we give them this option, particularly given that they will not have the opportunity to have a meaningful vote if the outcome of the negotiations is no deal. We have had it confirmed that there will be no meaningful vote of MPs or of this House in those circumstances. That must stress and underline the logic of putting the question back to the people in those circumstances. It would not be a rerun of the 2016 referendum. It would be a new confirmatory vote conducted with much fuller information available, and would be a far fairer test of the public’s will than the last referendum, carried out with very limited available information.

A whole series of issues were not foreseen at the time of the 2016 “in principle” referendum, or, at the very least, were not drawn to the attention of the voters by either campaign or by the media. These include the significance of the Irish border question, the loss of EU citizens’ rights, the crisis facing Gibraltar, chemicals and medical testing, customs logistics at ports, the extreme uncertainty for business during negotiation periods—and not least the fact that Mr Trump had not then become US President, casting doubt on whether the UK could get an acceptable trade deal with the US following Brexit.

It would, I believe, be perfectly honourable and credible if Mrs May now said something along these lines: “We pursued Brexit in good faith, believing it was the will of the people. We have explored it thoroughly and discovered a whole series of unforeseen consequences. I now believe that it is my duty to ask the people whether this was really what they wanted when they voted and to give them the final word on the outcome of the negotiations”. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Well then, I will speak to it.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

May I say something?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

All right.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

One of the interesting aspects of our country is that, unlike almost every other country in the world, we do not have a written constitution. Britain’s unwritten constitution could be summed up in one sentence—Parliament is supreme. I myself take the Thatcherite view on referendums, as indeed does my noble friend Lord Patten, but since this particular referendum was approved by Parliament, like it or not, I have to accept it. However, I remind the House of the Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter, of which quite by chance I happen to have a copy in my pocket:

“The 2016 referendum is of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences. The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation”.


That means that the outcome of these discussions must be laid before Parliament, and given that our unwritten constitution gives that right to Parliament, I have no doubt whatever that Her Majesty’s Government will abide by our unwritten constitution—the supremacy of Parliament.

[Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may put one point to my noble friend. Is he, as I am, mildly amused by the fact that so many of our noble friends seem particularly keen to quote the views of present and former leaders of the Liberal party but do not seem keen to remember what the most distinguished leader of the Conservative Party over the past few years said explicitly about the danger of referendums being an example of the worst sort of plebiscitary democracy?

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Indeed, I agree with my noble friend. What they are saying in fact could possibly mean that were the outcome of the deal to involve the killing of the firstborn child of every family in Britain, we would have to accept that.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Baroness Thatcher’s last vote in the House of Commons made in February 1992 was in favour of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty? She was nothing if not inconsistent on these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I know that my noble friend does not think much of referendums, and neither do I. I think that referendums are a shocking idea. I hear around this House a lot of people who frightfully disapprove of the last referendum we had because it came up with a rotten result, as far as they are concerned. So will my noble friend please explain to me, because he is an extremely clever man, the logic for why on earth, having not liked the last referendum, we would want another one?

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Parliament is supreme.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My noble friend Lord Garel-Jones says that Parliament is supreme and he is entirely right. My noble friend Lord Robathan was here on Wednesday when I gave him and this Committee my answer to that. I do not think that the last referendum was an authority to leave on any terms or no terms. I think that it was an instruction to the Government to negotiate the best terms that could be negotiated, leaving open the question: who then decides whether the terms or the absence of terms are acceptable? I have always believed that the final decision rests with Parliament and, if Parliament so requires, the British electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Is my noble friend saying that the Supreme Court is mistaken in this matter?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I thought I heard my noble friend argue not a few moments ago about the supremacy of Parliament. I believe in the supremacy of Parliament and that judicial interference is one of the worst aspects of our membership of the European Union, and another reason why we should get out of it. I give way to my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid that I was not old enough to vote in that referendum, but my father tells me that he voted to join a Common Market at the time and nobody ever asked him whether he wanted to join a European Union. But that is a separate argument.

We in the Government believe it to be our solemn duty to deliver on the instructions of the people.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Lord Callanan]

I will make a little progress, if I may. I will take interventions later. I am on only the third paragraph of my speech.

I will not embarrass the Liberal Democrats further by quoting their leader, the right honourable Member for Twickenham, Vince Cable. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, says that that was years ago. It was not; it was in September 2016; it was only 18 months ago that he said that we should not have another referendum. Again, he is entitled to change his mind, but I hope that the Liberals will have the good grace to be a little embarrassed about it.

The Government never hesitated in accepting the verdict and, in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Government than put the question of the power to notify Article 50 to Parliament. In passing it, this House and the other place voted with a clear majority to authorise the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50. The clue was in the name: it was the Article 50 notification of withdrawal Act, passed in the other place and in this House with large majorities. It was to give our notice to withdraw from the European Union, authorised by Parliament.

[Lord Garel-Jones]

Is my noble friend saying that he disagrees with the ruling of the Supreme Court that although it was indeed the case, Parliament did not authorise the outcome of those discussions? That is what the Supreme Court has ruled.