EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions)

Debate between Nick Boles and Nigel Evans

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her point, but I do not agree with it. My motion specifically includes a provision that the political declaration, as renegotiated, should then be cemented into the withdrawal Act, as will come if this House votes for this, and therefore this will require a majority of this House to vote to amend statute if there is to be a change. So it will not simply be a matter of a future leader of the Conservative party being able to rip this up and renegotiate it. They will have to amend an Act of Parliament in this House, and currently there is no majority for amending it in the direction that she fears.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I agree that the public would be relieved if we ever did come to a conclusion, but they would be angry if we came to the wrong conclusion. Does my hon. Friend accept that his common market 2.0 proposal would allow free movement of people, that it would cost us billions to access the single market, that we would be justiciable by the Court and so we would be law-takers, and that we would not be able to do free trade deals—and was that not the basic tenet of what we voted for in 2016?

[Nick Boles]

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is right about only some of those things. It is true that in normal days we would be subject to free movement, because that is the price of single market membership, and that we would have to pay over some financial contributions, although they would be probably of the order of half of what we currently have to pay. He is not correct to say that we would be justiciable by the European Court of Justice. If we were within the European economic area, which is what common market 2.0 proposes, we would be subject to the European Free Trade Association court, and the key thing about the EFTA court is that there is no direct effect in its judgments; they all have to be implemented by sovereign Parliaments before they take hold. So this is a substantially different relationship, one in which we would have a great deal more control. Of course we would be outside all the areas other than the single market—all the political areas of the EU—and we would truly have taken back control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

I am going to make some progress.

Some of my hon. Friends supported the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), which also supported British membership of the EEA and EFTA. Although the journey proposed by the common market 2.0 motion might take a little longer, I hope that those colleagues will recognise that the destination is, to all intents and purposes, the same and that they will therefore join my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth in supporting our motion today.

The construction of a compromise is not easy—nor is the realisation that we may not get everything that we want, that other people’s views and interests matter and that it is better to get half a loaf than to get nothing at all. Our constituents do not send us here for an easy ride or to duck difficult choices. This evening, let us live up to the words of the parliamentary prayer and, setting aside our private interests and prejudices, lead our country out of the Brexit morass.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Briefly, may I thank you, Sir, and the House authorities for the way in which the disruption was handled? It was a distraction, but there was no disruption to our proceedings. May we, through you, thank everybody involved?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Boles and Nigel Evans

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles]

I shall try again to explain this, because I have clearly failed to do so. I apologise for not being clear. If the hon. Gentleman’s local authority rejects a planning application and the decision is appealed, and if the authority does not have a local plan in place with a robust five-year land supply, the planning inspector will consider whether the application meets the requirements in the national planning policy framework. I reiterate that planning inspectors are backing local authority decisions just as often as they did before the Localism Act was passed.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

The Minister will know the intensity of feeling among local people when an application is approved on appeal. Even more worrying is that some local authorities are now rolling over to some applications because they cannot afford the expensive appeal procedure. Will he therefore consider giving extra support to small local authorities that are inundated with planning applications?

[Nick Boles]

Local authorities should be making the decisions that they feel are right for their local communities and that meet their local policies and those in the national planning policy framework. An appeal might be lodged following their refusal of an application, but if they feel that their decision was right in the first place, they will be able to ask for costs against the developer that has submitted the appeal. They should not feel too worried about the cost of fighting an appeal if they are certain that their decision is good in law.