European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and Extension Letter

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

Perhaps we could have a similar tradition for the remaining duration of the rugby world cup, to which many Members from across the House would enjoy applying that maxim. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct on the Opposition’s position. I appreciate that they have moved a lot and frequently, but if I take the position set out on Sunday by the shadow Brexit Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), it clearly was for a second referendum. That is odd, given that they do not trust the people with the first referendum. The question that the Leader of the Opposition is not answering and needs to answer is: how long does he expect the primary legislation to take? How long does he expect the question testing from the Electoral Commission to take? How long does he expect the operational preparations to take? How long does he expect the regulated campaign period to be for? If his position is to have a second referendum, we need answers to those questions, because he risks leaving this Parliament in paralysis because he is not answering how long he wants to delay Brexit for.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Just to clarify the Secretary of State’s earlier statement about the Bank of England, the bank was, of course, comparing the current withdrawal agreement with a no-deal Brexit, rather than with the current economy. Will the Secretary of State answer my young constituents and say whether he has ever sent a letter that he has not had the courtesy to sign?

[Stephen Barclay]

As I think is the case with all MPs, there have been occasions when I have, for example, dictated letters to my parliamentary office, and they have been sent out as dictated and signed on my behalf.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am alert to the argument the hon. Lady has made. I think the fairest thing to say is that, as I have been advised by the Clerk, a ruling on Monday on this matter would be sensible. I must say to colleagues that the Chair seeks to be as dextrous and versatile as possible in attending to colleagues’ various points of view and in responding to questions put to the Chair. It cannot always be expected that the Chair will do so immediately when something is raised that had not previously been put to the Chair, of which there was therefore no advance notice, and which has not therefore been discussed with expert advisers. It is perfectly reasonable to seek that expert advice, to discuss it with those so advising, to reflect upon the matter in the cold light of day and then to come back to the House with an informed, as opposed to a speculative, conclusion.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am cognisant of your recent comments, but it seems to me that we had a business statement setting out what was going to happen next week in the normal way. That has now been altered on a point of order. I am not convinced that that was an appropriate point of order. If it was not, we have not received notice in this House of what will happen on Monday. Can the Government alter the business on Monday using a point of order, or should an invite not be made for an emergency motion that we could listen and respond to?

[Mr Speaker]

The Government can put things on the Order Paper, but I repeat that this was not an emergency business statement. It could have been, but it was not, and that is a deeply relevant matter. Although the Government can table that which they wish—they can go to the Table Office and seek to table propositions—this is not an emergency business statement. There are precedents for most things in this House—although not for everything—but I cannot recall readily an example of a business statement being made purely on a point of order. It probably happens from to time, but in any case this is not an emergency business statement as such. It is an indication of intent, but it is not an emergency business statement as such.

Withdrawal Agreement: Proposed Changes

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I think the Government expect cross-party support because there are a number of colleagues who have behaved very reasonably. I am afraid I did not hear who the hon. Lady was quoting at the beginning of her question, but I am more than happy to talk to her about that later on. Apologies, but I did not hear the beginning of her question.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Are cameras on the border infrastructure?

[James Duddridge]

To be frank, I was not being careful with my terminology. If the hon. Gentleman is asking, “Is there no infrastructure?”, there is no infrastructure. In relation to cameras, I saw cameras in Northern Ireland on the main road. I do not think it would be tenable to have cameras all along the border. They would simply be ripped down and be targets for terrorists to attack. I think he has successfully stretched my desire not to comment in any more detail. Certainly, he has done so effectively.

Compliance with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

We do not discuss what legal advice has been taken; nor do we discuss the contents of that legal advice, as I have already said in the House.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. We have had a lot of discussion and intimation today about complying with the rule of law. Section 3 of the Act will oblige the Prime Minister to do something. In the spirit of the law, how will the Prime Minister meet that obligation?

[James Duddridge]

The law very clearly lays out the obligations in section 3 and other sections. I have nothing further to add.

Leaving the European Union

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the Petitions Committee for the debate on the three petitions and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for introducing it. We have heard a lot of very interesting arguments, and I extend my thanks to the 98 people in East Lothian who signed the petition asking to respect the original referendum—they have a right to a voice. I thank the 356 people in East Lothian who signed the petition to hold a second referendum. I thank the 13,099 signatories—nearly 12.5% of my constituents—who signed the petition to revoke article 50.

I offer the same thanks to all three groups, because this is a debate in which we need to listen to all sides. We need to address the concerns. It is not a debate in which time should be wasted with interventions and shouting down to try to silence the other side; that is a problem we have had in previous years, and we are not getting any better at it.

I also thank the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who reminds us that the precursor of the EU was an organisation to keep peace—that was its fundamental purpose. People looked to countries across Europe that were devastated by war and said, “How can we make things better?” We came up with the idea of trying to share, and we liked it; it worked. The UK was instrumental in the creation of that organisation, then we sought to join. We were shunned, but we did not take that as a no; we went back and asked again. We did so because we saw that what was happening there was the right thing for the future. It was the right thing for young people then the way it is the right thing for them now. It was right for industry then, just as it is now.

We live in a world where we have a growing challenge from the west and a challenge in the east. Standing together makes us stronger, which is important. I was going to pick up on a variety of comments such as, “Oh, it’s in your manifesto,” and so forth, but, given the shortage of time, I shall not give them the dignity that they do not deserve.

I shall instead answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, who said that petitions have been used in Parliament for ages; they have, and date back to 1832. The very first petition was drawn up by the suffragettes, who wanted a vote, and presented to the House. I suggest that if we had listened to that petition then, some of what happened subsequently might have played out very differently and been more respectful of the sort of community and society that we want to live in today.

I want to look briefly at what article 50 says and why it should be revoked. It is a very simple clause:

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

It is those last two words—“constitutional requirements” —that have, as much as anything else, caused us problems. We have a challenging constitution; it is unwritten, but it is also versatile. It allows people to say, “This is what I think it is, and you disagree with me at your peril,” but our constitution works because we all agree on certain elements of it.

One of those elements is democracy. If we revoke article 50 as the petition requests, we will create space in which we can perhaps have a better discussion with people who are involved. Some young people in my constituency —primary schoolchildren—wrote to me, and one of them said, “We really should have another vote. We’ve talked about this; it makes sense.” Another boy wrote to me and said, “Why don’t we give the vote to everyone who didn’t have the vote then, but has the vote now? Let’s ask them.” Those young people are looking at adult problems that they know affect them, and coming up with solutions.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that should article 50 be revoked, that needs to be in conjunction with a people’s vote? We need to maintain people’s faith in democracy. If people are to have faith in democracy if we decide against something that was decided, albeit with a very small majority, we need to have another vote to be able to confirm the decision.

[Martin Whitfield]

I very much agree; we cannot have enough democracy. One of the questions that needs to be answered is what sort of democracy we want going forwards. We have looked at the referendum, and a group of people say, “The original referendum is sacrosanct; we can’t have another.” We have people who say, “We’ve had a general election—it’s sacrosanct, and we’re not going to change it.”

Very serious constitutional questions need to be addressed urgently. One way to do that is to create a space for that discussion to happen. The request to revoke article 50 does not mean that we will never leave the EU; it means that we can start to reconcile the country away from screaming and shouting and towards a situation in which discussion takes place and we can move forward together.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Businesses are affected, and many of them do not know who they will employ in the future, what supply chains they will use and which regulatory regime they will use. Surely we need to have space to allow them to have certainty.

[Martin Whitfield]

Absolutely; I agree. The handling of the no-deal nightmare cliff edge has not been the greatest moment in parliamentary history. We can have a great moment in that history by opening up the discussion again and trusting our voters—the public—to take it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister is hearing this, because it greatly concerns many people in my constituency and hers, and across the United Kingdom. The situation needs to be taken a grip of right now, so that those people can be reassured.

[Martin Whitfield]

I will be swift. I am sure that the hon. Lady will confirm that the substantial majority of those in her constituency are indeed EU nationals, as she said, but does not their angst about article 50 and this situation show their commitment to wanting to stay here to contribute to our society?

[Deidre Brock]

Absolutely. I completely associate myself with that comment. My constituency is particularly multi-dimensional, with a number of ethnicities across the board. That is something I relish the most about my constituency, and it goes back hundreds of years, because Leith is a dock area. The embracing of new people on our shores is particularly obvious in Edinburgh North and Leith, and I am proud to be associated with that.

The sentiment repeated to me regularly by my constituents, with very few exceptions, is that they want to keep our links with the EU, preferably remaining a full member state. That might be because we understand the benefits of the EU, freedom of movement in particular. As I am about to elaborate, just under 10% of the population are non-UK citizens of the EU—we have more than twice the UK average concentration—and we understand the benefits of immigration and the added cultural and economic value that immigrants bring. We understand how damaging Brexit will be—a chaotic one in particular. Parliament should heed such voices and we in this place have a duty to look out for their best interests.

We know that the deal negotiated by successive, legendary Brexit Secretaries, who all seem to have resigned in disgust at their own failures, has been disowned three times—and the cock has not yet crowed. There will be no rehabilitation and there is yet time for another denial if the deal is brought back a fourth time. I hope that the Prime Minister is willing to listen to the advice of the Lord Chancellor at the weekend and to acknowledge that the deal has no chance of passing and that she should be looking at other options. I certainly recommend heartily to her the revocation of the article 50 notification letter, a judicial inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 referendum and whatever follows from that. We could top it all off, as I said, by copying Ireland’s citizens’ assembly model to determine a way forward.

We should certainly make certain that no future referendum on such an important matter is allowed to proceed on the basis of hearsay, speculation, fevered invention and blatant prejudice. A proper position based on things such as facts and expert testimony should be set out by anyone advocating major change—there are precedents for that. In any case, revoking article 50 seems to be the most sensible course of action. There is no point trying to carry this nonsense any further forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I have said what I have said in public, and I will happily take that up with the hon. Lady after the debate.

I also thank the hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Stockport (Ann Coffey), for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). The hon. Member for Totnes cited a whole host of reasons why she is allowed to change her mind. I will not go back and quote all the things she said to her electorate in the 2017 general election. I also thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who missed the point that wages are rising ahead of inflation at this point in time, and obviously I thank the hon. Member for Darlington, who informed us about Labour’s whipping.

More importantly, I thank the number of people who have expressed themselves to the Government in the three petitions we have debated, which ask us to reverse the 2016 referendum result, whether by revoking article 50 or holding a second referendum, as well as the exact opposite: that the Government ensure that we deliver the outcome of the 2016 referendum no matter what. The Government’s position remains clear: we will not revoke article 50 and we will not hold a second referendum. We remain committed to leaving the European Union and implementing the result of the 2016 referendum.

Parliament’s position is now also clear. In the series of indicative votes on 27 March, Parliament voted on the options of revoking article 50 and holding a second referendum. Neither option achieved a majority in the House. Indeed, the House voted, with a majority of more than 100, against revoking article 50.

The Government really do acknowledge the substantial number of signatures that these petitions have amassed. We also recognise the hundreds of thousands of people who marched in London on 23 March in favour of a second referendum. In particular—I do not think anyone has done this—I congratulate Margaret Anne Georgiadou, the creator of the revocation of article 50 petition, for starting a petition that, at current count, has attracted more than 6 million signatures. That is a considerable achievement in anyone’s terms.

I want to take a moment to note that I, the Government and, I am sure, everyone in the Chamber, were disgusted to hear the reports that Ms Georgiadou has received threats and abuse for starting a petition. That is utterly unacceptable. Everyone should feel and be able to express their opinions and participate in political discourse without fear of intimidation or abuse. That is integral to our democracy and it should be at the front and centre of our minds when we debate and discuss all issues, including Brexit. It is those democratic values that underpin the Government’s commitment to uphold the result of the 2016 referendum.

Although I have elaborated on this process before, let me do so again, to reinforce exactly why it is that we must uphold the result. In 2015, Parliament voted overwhelmingly to give the British people a choice on whether to remain in or leave the European Union, allowing them to express a clear view to Government. Before we asked them to vote, the Government wrote to every household, committing to implement whatever decision they made.

On 23 June 2016, the British people expressed their view to Government. With nearly three quarters of the electorate taking part, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. That is the highest number of votes cast for any single course of action in UK electoral history. More British people than ever before or since amassed in agreement on a single, clear outcome: they wanted the Government to deliver the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

Of course, Parliament also made a commitment to uphold the result of the 2016 referendum. In the 2017 general election, the British people cast their votes again, and more than 80% of voters voted for parties who committed in their manifestos to uphold the result of the referendum.

[Martin Whitfield]

rose—

[Chuka Umunna]

rose—

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will happily give way to all three hon. Members, beginning with the hon. Member for East Lothian.

[Martin Whitfield]

I refrained from raising this in my speech, but the Conservatives also stood on a manifesto saying that they would not separate the withdrawal agreement from the political declaration. How can they keep to one bit of the manifesto but not the other bit further on in the same paragraph?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I give way to the hon. Member for Streatham.

EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What I would say to my hon. Friend in respect of his question is that we were in the EU for 46 years. During that time we were absolutely and totally 100% under the jurisdiction of the EU. The withdrawal agreement essentially seeks to get a tunnel, or a pipe, away from that jurisdiction into a situation where we have left the EU absolutely. Now, my own understanding is that this is a wholly unique set of circumstances. In that respect, the withdrawal agreement seeks to be transitional—it is trying to get from state a to state b—so it is understandable that we will not be able to get immediate freedom, if that is how he would put it, but the withdrawal agreement substantially gets us from one state to another. If it is endorsed, I think we will be able to proceed in an orderly way out of the EU.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The Minister speaks about mutual consent, but where there is mutual consent there are never any problems. The problems come when that consent breaks down. With the Joint Committee, is it not correct that, surely, where mutuality of consent breaks down the final arbiter will be the European Court of Justice, irrespective of why the arguments arise?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That refers to circumstances that relate to EU law. There will be other points of dispute that do not involve EU law. It is clear that after the end of the implementation period the Court’s jurisdiction will be restricted.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a call for a subsequent public vote—a people’s vote. I am very clear that that is not something that this Government would ever support.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is often said that a lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client. We are going to receive legal advice tomorrow that has not yet been written because the negotiations have not finished. Will the Minister ask for that legal advice to cover the fact that what we will vote on tomorrow is a negotiated agreement for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act?

[Mr Walker]

The Attorney General has committed to publish his analysis in full.

EU Exit: Article 50

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The hon. Lady hits the nail on the head: that is the intention of some Members. To be fair, some Members are quite explicit about that. The point I am alluding to is whether that is now the official policy of those on the Labour Front Bench, because it is at odds with what Labour voters were told at the most recent general election.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Purely hypothetically, will the Secretary of State say whether it is in the national interest to have no deal or to revoke article 50?

[Stephen Barclay]

Instead of getting into hypotheticals, I would rather deal with reality. [Interruption.] Members on the Opposition Benches may wish to go down the hypothetical route, but I would rather deal with the reality, which is that we had the biggest vote in our country’s history, and at the most recent general election two parties stood on manifestos that said they would deliver on that vote. Any revoking of article 50 would be a huge betrayal to those voters, including those referred to by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in her question a moment ago.

Leaving the European Union

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Thank you, Sir Roger. Under WTO rules, we will be in control of our own destiny and we will be able to deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise to be a free trade champion and to be a truly global Britain, unlike under the PM’s current deal.

As a Conservative, I believe in the benefits of free trade. I want to see free trade with the rest of the continent that is as liberal as possible, but that cannot come at the expense of breaking the promise made to the British people at the referendum, or by my party or Her Majesty’s Opposition in our manifestos. Trust in Parliament and politicians is essential for a strong democracy. Across the west, we have seen declining levels of public trust in politicians and political institutions. The level of mistrust and scepticism has increased and I have grave concerns that if we do not deliver—if Brexit is stopped—that trust will erode further.

In November 2017, Ipsos MORI undertook a poll of trust in professions. Public trust in politicians was only 17%, which is truly damning. To put that into context, nurses were trusted by 94% of people. The ordinary man in the street was trusted by 64%. Bankers were trusted by 38% and professional footballers were trusted by 26%. We need to reverse that shocking trend and stopping Brexit will certainly not do that—quite the opposite. Some 70% of Conservative seats and 61% of Labour constituencies voted to leave the EU and they will not trust us again if we remain in the European Union.

It is also important to note that there is not and never was an option to keep the status quo. The EU is a project that supports deeper integration, and it is not clear on what terms Britain’s membership would be, even if the anti-democratic “stop Brexit” campaigners got their way. For example, would the UK remain an EU member state on its existing terms with opt-ins, opt-outs, a budget rebate and so on? If the UK were to remain, it has been suggested that we could end up paying more money to the EU budget. One of the pledges of the referendum was to take back control of our money. Those suggesting that Brexit should be stopped are essentially suggesting that they would be willing to pay more in and get less back. Good luck to them in selling that to their constituents. Our hard-fought rebate was a famous victory for Margaret Thatcher; Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair gave away a large chunk of the rebate for nothing. To remain in the EU following the largest democratic decision in our nation’s history would be an outrage, but to pay more into the EU’s budget for the pleasure would be a catastrophe.

Not everyone here today will agree on whether our relationship with the EU is positive or negative, but we should all be able to agree that we are united under our democratic ideals and our British principle of fair play. Referendums are extremely rare under our constitution and even if they are not necessarily constitutionally binding, it would be unthinkable for the UK Parliament to overrule a referendum. I sincerely hope that that never happens, and I would always oppose such a move.

If the Opposition parties had won the 2011 referendum on our voting system or the 2014 referendum on Scotland’s independence, how would they and their supporters have felt if Parliament had rejected or overturned the result? That is the situation that this petition supports. It is wrong and simply un-British.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

No, I am nearly finished.

As politicians, we reap what we sow. If we ignore and discard the will of the people, the people will rightly discard us.

[Martin Whitfield]

On a point of order, Sir Roger, how can we get on the record that not everyone who sits on the Opposition Benches necessarily agreed with the indication of the vote mentioned by the hon. Lady?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but I think he has achieved his objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I must start by saying to the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) that people often do not trust politicians because they fail to answer questions, or, in her case, fail to accept the question posed in the first place. It would have been helpful if she had answered some of the questions when people sought to intervene. If she wants to intervene on me, I am very happy to give way to her or anyone else during the debate. Perhaps she did not want to take any interventions because she felt her arguments were rather weak.

The past week has been an absolute shambles. Anyone —in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—who looked at our Government and what they are doing with Brexit could not think anything but that this is a most depressing spectacle of a Government completely out of control destroying the best interests of the United Kingdom. What is happening is nothing to do with national interest, but everything to do with the Tory party interest. Who will be the next leader? What particular version of Brexit will be delivered by the Government?

Earlier there was an exchange about whether the country knew what it was voting for two and a half years ago. Clearly, it cannot have done. The Prime Minister has set out her deal, which has promptly been rubbished by a large number of her own MPs who think a different deal is what people wanted. The public are justified in not knowing what was offered to them two and a half years ago, because the Tory party does not know now what should be offered to the people.

I will not give the time of day to the bluffers in that party who believe that no deal is manageable. Some actually believe that. The Government have done a good job of setting out precisely what the impact of no deal would be, but some say, “Well, it would lead to a few transitional problems”. I suspect those people are sitting on family fortunes large enough not to be disturbed by the slight transitional problems that might occur if a no deal is what happens. Although the Prime Minister said she would not, I think Ministers should make some contingency plans for what happens if there is no Brexit. I hope that that is where we end up.

The opening speech and later contributions have set out the impact of no deal on EU citizens in the UK who are already demoralised and disturbed by what is happening about their futures here. Also, UK citizens in the EU are all too often completely forgotten in this process. I am getting reports from places such as France where UK citizens who have been long-term residents are being asked to go to a place many miles away from where they live to fill in forms that they have not had to fill in before, and they are very worried. Sometimes they are very elderly, and they do not know what is happening. If they have read some of the laws being prepared for the French Senate, they should be worried. They should also be worried about what French employers are being told about what they have to do to prepare for no deal and the checks that they might have to carry out on UK citizens. We seem to have completely neglected the interests of those citizens in this process.

Those who are arguing that no deal is manageable clearly have not spent much time with many businesses. Everyone I talk to, whether in the haulage industry, the pharmaceutical sector, universities or the NHS, is very concerned by the suggestion that no deal is a possibility. Some have already made costly investments to try to cope with it, such as ensuring that they have cold storage available for medicines. Some have made the preparations. The largest companies could probably cope with no deal, but smaller ones would not be able to. Many companies that operate with small margins will probably go to the wall if they suddenly find that the relationship that they had with a supplier in the EU no longer functions as a result of there being no deal. If we end up in a no-deal scenario, people such as the Minister and the Brexiters will have to explain to those companies why they have been put out of business.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is at least here. At least she has had the nerve to come and attempt to defend the policy that she supported. Where are the others? Where are those who have been so prominent in saying that this is a brilliant deal for the UK that will deliver fantastic benefits in terms of trade deals and so on? Incidentally, I have found it hard to identify any company that thinks that there will be a huge trade deal out there for them. Companies that already export very successfully around the world are saying to me, “I’m not quite sure what this trade deal will give me that I don’t already have, because I’m already trading successfully around the world. I worry that the very successful trade that I do with the EU will be damaged as a result of what the Government are doing.”

We need to establish whether the article 50 process can be stopped. There is no point in trying to cancel the process before 29 March, as the petition suggests, if that is not possible. That is why the Wightman case, which seeks to establish whether article 50 can be revoked, and with which I am peripherally involved, is critical. The Government have said, “It’s a hypothetical question. We’re not going to revoke article 50, therefore we’re not going to tell you what our legal advice on the subject is.” I think that Members are entitled to know whether article 50 can be revoked. If we get to 29 March 2019 without a deal, I suspect that everyone in the Chamber will want to know the answer to that question. Ministers will no longer be able to hide behind the words: “It’s a hypothetical question. You’re not entitled to know the answer.”

[Martin Whitfield]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although the Government are not prepared to release their legal papers, they seem to want to appeal the decision to refer the case to the European Court of Justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to speak in this debate.

When is a deal not a deal? When is an agreement just a draft agreement? Here we are, two years after triggering article 50, and Parliament now has before it a document of 500-plus pages that sets out how we will go about leaving the European Union, and a seven-page political declaration about our future beyond that point. It is almost as if we had a technical drawing of the taxi that we will get there in—it might have only three wheels and some of us might not be able to get out at the end, but we will still enjoy ourselves—and only a bland sketch on the back of a napkin of what it will look like where we are going.

That is the context of the petition before us today, which I support and which has been signed by 206 of my constituents. Is it a cry for help—a cry for sense? In the referendum, East Lothian voted by 64.6% to 34.4% to remain in the European Union. That overwhelming majority was reflected across the whole of Scotland. I grant that it was not the view of the whole United Kingdom, but people are very worried about a no-deal Brexit, which is a distinct possibility threatening us if the Prime Minister is unable to get her deal through Parliament in a meaningful vote.

The petition realistically encapsulates the political stalemate between our political Executive and the legislature. Ministers have spent the weekend pushing the idea that this deal is better than no deal. That is a false dichotomy. I remember a time when no deal was better than a bad deal. Hope and expectation rather than cold facts have driven decision makers into this position. At what stage should we hold to account those who promised that such a utopia was down the road, but instead delivered a dog’s dinner—or a dog’s Brexit-fast? It is nonsense to suggest that a democratic decision is binding for ever. People are entitled to change their mind when they find out the facts and when democratic legitimacy is questioned. If no democratic decision could be revisited, Parliament as an institution would be defunct.

[Catherine West]

What is my hon. Friend’s view of the facts that have emerged about how the election was run, particularly the £8 million of electoral funding?

[Martin Whitfield]

It is interesting that as more and more facts become apparent, people’s confidence in politicians seems to be attacked again and again. We seem to fail not only to recognise what has happened in the past, but to offer any way out. What is required is to recover that trust by looking into our constituents’ eyes and saying, “We can sort it.” Whether we leave with a deal or no deal, it is a betrayal of our young people, our communities, our farmers, manufacturers and industry, and our working people. It is a betrayal of people young and old in my constituency of East Lothian.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the timber industries—I refer to my registered interests—I am seriously concerned about the impact of no deal on the timber sector. Last week, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from the Irish timber industry, who spoke about the chaos that could come their way in a no-deal Brexit. They also spoke about the strength of an industry that, over its time in Europe, has created a way of dealing and doing business that means that a piece of wood purchased in B&Q may have started life in the Republic of Ireland, been felled and cut in Northern Ireland, and been transported across the border to be ready in the shop for the purchaser. The additional logistical costs to timber importers will affect not only small businesses across the supply chain, but the wider construction industry, which will play havoc with the Government’s timid housing proposals.

Such worries are spread across every industry. There is a disconcerting sense that the Government believe that they have reached a good deal because they have a seven-page document about the future, but it offers no more certainty or security than a catastrophic no-deal scenario. Neither option provides the certainty or security that my constituents demand, but there is another answer. I believe that, if asked, the people of East Lothian would vote as they did last time—to stay in Europe—but this time it would be a vote for no Brexit.

Let me flesh out my concerns about the no-deal Brexit that will happen if, as expected, the political impasse between the Prime Minister and Parliament cannot be broken. Each impact of leaving without a deal is far worse than not leaving at all—the very essence of the young gentleman’s petition. A no-deal Brexit would put us on WTO terms, which would introduce tariffs and strict standards, potentially blocking businesses from trading across the whole of Europe. We should not leave the EU for that. We would lose frictionless border crossing by people and equipment, and we would lose on-time delivery for manufacturing. We should not leave the EU for that. A no-deal Brexit would threaten the valued rights and protections of workers across Britain. We should not leave the EU for that. It would hamper and harm our environment. We should not leave the EU for that. A no-deal Brexit would put the Union at risk. We should not leave the EU for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I am not sure that I completely understand the question. One cannot promise to carry out something if one is not in government; one can only make the case for people voting a particular way in a referendum. The electorate voted as they did, and that was clearly an instruction for the Government to carry out. They have not been very good at doing it, but it was an instruction. During the debate that set up the referendum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who was on Labour’s Front Bench at the time, gave an absolute commitment: “This is not for Members of Parliament to decide. We’re passing the power over to the electorate to decide.” That was echoed by all the parties. One cannot make promises in a referendum campaign; all one can do is advise people which way to vote, which I did. It is a bogus argument to say that promises were made and not carried out.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between a general election, in which parties stand on manifestos on a broad range of issues, and this referendum, which asked a very specific question? Today, we have a very different level of knowledge of what that specific question means, which was not available when the referendum took place.

[Graham Stringer]

It was always going to be the case that we would have a different level of knowledge and information afterwards, because time goes on; I agree with my hon. Friend. I put it that what has happened since is that our arguments have been validated by the obstructive nature of the EU. I remember many debates and discussions in which the arguments of the leave campaign were, in essence, that the EU had too much control of our democracy and the majority of our laws. My opponents said regularly, “No, it’s less than 10%”; we would argue about the Library documents on what was and was not a law; and they would say, “No, this is essentially just a trading organisation. It has minimal impact.” Now, we see that the EU is trying to hold on to control, not only in Ireland, but over our regulations and laws on manufacturing. We can now see how powerful the EU is, and how difficult it is.

The Prime Minister went to the EU and has come back not, unfortunately, representing the views of the people of the United Kingdom to the EU, but representing the views of the EU to the United Kingdom. She has come back with an absolute constitutional monstrosity, under which, in effect, the EU will keep control of whether Northern Ireland has separate laws from the rest of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

There is no doubt at all that the law in these islands has not kept up with modern campaigning techniques—particularly social media campaigning. There is a legitimate, right and lawful way to use social media to press a political campaign, and there are other ways, which certainly are not moral and should not be legal. We have not yet got the law in the right place for that. In any election, if there are valid and significant questions afterwards as to whether it was fair, the result is tainted for everybody.

For example, we now know there was a dodgy decision-making process about where the World cup would be held in a few years’ time, which tainted that decision immediately. If people are prepared to demand a re-run of a vote about where the World cup would be held, because they think the decision might be a bit dodgy, how much more important is it to at least look at and satisfy ourselves as to whether one of the most important decisions that people in these islands will ever be asked to take was taken fairly, or whether there was serious or criminal misconduct and whether that seriously undermined the legitimacy of the decision.

[Martin Whitfield]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about the use of social media. I point out, with some disappointment, that there are Members in this Chamber who are tweeting about the competence and views of other Members in this Chamber. Is it not the case that, if we are going to improve the quality of debate and the confidence that members of the public have in us as their representatives, we need to be respectful of the debate, as well as the mentions and motions that are made in the House?

[Peter Grant]

I will defend the right of anybody, whether they are a politician or a normal person, to take exception to somebody’s political views and to knock down their views as hard as they can if need be. However, when they begin to knock or mock the person, a line has been crossed. Obviously, I cannot monitor what is happening on Twitter just now and some people have made sure that I cannot monitor what they are doing publicly on Twitter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There are two colleagues bobbing who have not had a question so far. I call Martin Whitfield.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

On this sitting day in 1971, by 356 votes to 244, this House voted to join the EEC. Could the Secretary of State give us the benefits of that decision?

[Dominic Raab]

I am not quite sure of the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise, but I gently suggest to him that life has moved on a little bit since the 1970s, although some on the Labour Front Bench are a bit slow in catching up. We had a referendum in 2016. The British people voted to leave and we are going to get the best deal for them.