Debates between Mark Pritchard and Hilary Benn during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Wed 4th Sep 2019

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Hilary Benn
Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There may well be a general election at some point, but this legislation needs to be passed. It needs to go through the other place and receive Royal Assent, and it needs to be given effect. In other words, we must secure that extension to article 50, otherwise there is a risk that the election would result in our leaving without a deal, which, as it may turn out at 7 o’clock tonight, is not what the House of Commons wants. We should respect the view of the House of Commons.

Mark Pritchard Portrait Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
- Hansard - -

If this Bill passes and is given Royal Assent, can the right hon. Gentleman think of any other reason why the Labour party would not accept a general election?

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think I have just explained the reason, which has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and others. We must deal with first things first, and preventing a no-deal Brexit is the central, most important question facing the country.

Business of the House

Debate between Mark Pritchard and Hilary Benn
Wednesday 3rd April 2019

(5 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I was making the much simpler point that none of the propositions has carried. The Prime Minister said in her statement that

“the Government stands ready to abide by the decision of the House.”

That is important. She was referring to the indicative votes that may follow the process that we are currently undertaking. In my view, anything that the House indicates it is prepared to support—the difference is that indicative votes are so called precisely because we ask the House to indicate whether it is prepared to move in a given direction—would have to be considered by the Government. If a proposition were adopted, the Prime Minister would have to go to the European Union and seek to change the political declaration. At that point, it would come back to the House, and the test that the Government rightly set in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—the approval of the House for both the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement—would have to be passed.

Mark Pritchard Portrait Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
- Hansard - -

The right hon. Gentleman has said that he supports the withdrawal agreement, but he did not vote for it on meaningful vote 3 because of the disaggregation of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. Of course, that was not the case in meaningful votes 1 and 2, but he still did not support the withdrawal agreement.

Hilary Benn Portrait Hilary Benn
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, because in meaningful votes 1 and 2 we voted on the package. My objection, as I have made plain in the House many times, is to the political declaration and the complete lack of certainty that it offers. I do not want to stray from the amendment that I have tabled to the business motion, although the hon. Gentleman tempts me to do so.

After the experience of indicative votes rounds 1 and 2, and given that we are making some progress and that we are all being asked to compromise and see what we might be prepared to support, I suggest it would be timely to have the chance to do so again on Monday. I hope that the House will support my amendment.