Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of a public vote on the EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of a public vote on the EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)]

I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues, but those discussions are always short because we agree that it would be a bad idea.

[Mr Sweeney]

Einstein is widely credited with saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times but expecting different results. If the Government intend to bring their withdrawal agreement back to Parliament in the form of a Bill, is it not the case that it is only likely to receive any sort of majority in this House on condition of an amendment in support of a public vote? Does the Secretary of State accept, in the words of his own Chancellor, that that is a “perfectly credible proposition”?

[Stephen Barclay]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, part of the reason we have been having discussions with his Front-Bench colleagues is to look at how the legislation might evolve to take on board the earlier votes by the House. One could make a similar accusation against the Labour party. If we look at its policy on a second referendum, we see people such as Len McCluskey saying that it

“risks tearing our society further apart, as the ignored majority believe their views have been scorned”,

while other Labour members say it is the way forward. There is no consistency among Labour Members, and that is part of their problem.