Leaving the European Union

Royston Smith Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I challenge the language he used—“crash out”—as it goes back to what I was saying about a sense of optimism. We are right to plan for no deal, because it would be patently ridiculous if we did not have every avenue covered as we seek to build our relationships with the rest of the EU; but saying that we will “crash out” suggests that there will be no planning at all, and I just do not share the pessimism of that view. Regarding the car industry, the hon. Gentleman gives a strong argument for why we need to do a deal and why countries such as Germany, which sells 10% of its cars to us, would want to do a deal with us. We can set our tariffs as we see fit, whether that is 10% or not, if we leave without a deal, but then we would have to have an equal tariff with other countries, unless we have a free trade agreement with them.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

This is not a competition, but not only did I vote for the Referendum party in 1997, I was a member of it before I joined the Conservatives, not necessarily because I wanted to get out of the EU but because I felt it was time people had their say.

On “crashing out”, does my hon. Friend agree that the people who say “Let’s go now,” are pushing us to crash out, rather than to wait and see whether we can get a good and favourable deal?

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is exactly right. We need to use the time imaginatively, sensibly and constructively to ensure that we do not crash out, and that if we have no deal it is because we choose to have no deal—because we feel that is the best way for us, rather than because we have been forced into it by a knee-jerk reaction.

We were shown the benefit of using the time by the first part of the negotiations, which concluded just before Christmas and looked at three things: the Northern Irish border, EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens living in the rest of the EU, and the amount of the financial settlement we might pay. While we were getting in a funk because of some of the newspaper headlines and the rhetoric that was being built up, the Prime Minister got her head down and carried on. Everyone was despairing on the Monday, but by Friday she had come up with a really good deal and was able to demonstrate that both sides had compromised. That is what a negotiation is. Sitting there thinking we will get everything we want is fanciful, and I say that as someone who would love to have everything he wanted. It is just not going to happen. That is the whole point of a negotiation. If we are to have a fruitful ongoing partnership with our European friends, it is really important that we take that time, and the Prime Minister ably demonstrated that before Christmas.

I have done a few public meetings in Sutton in which I have tried to give people my sense of a Brexit update as neutrally as I can. I always say, “Don’t read The Independent and The Guardian about Brexit because you will be going to hell in a handcart whatever you do, and don’t necessarily read things like the Daily Express, because everything is going to be absolutely sunny. We know it will be somewhere in between.” That is a fact of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

That would be the reality, though: we would simply say, “We’re going.” That would be like a crash because if a car skids in the winter, the driver does not know the outcome until they stop. If we were to leave the European Union without a deal in place, a plan or a route map of where we were going, we would have no control over the future of this country’s economy.

I ask the people who signed the petition to think about it from the other perspective. There is an implication that the European Union is somehow being vindictive—that it is not dealing with us and giving us the best possible deal. Surely, if the roles were reversed, we would expect the European Union to protect our interests from France, Germany, Italy or any of the other 27 countries. We would expect our interest to be preserved, so we should respect their right to negotiate the best terms for them. For me, the impact on this country of leaving the European Union without that route map, agreement or deal is more important. Where would we go? What would we do? What would be the impact on our trade, and on the tens of thousands of jobs in this country that depend on our trade with the European Union?

There has been a lot of talk about the car industry: what would happen to companies such as BMW if we were to just walk away? What would be its arrangements? How would it get the spare parts from Europe, which suddenly would be in a foreign market? BMW is a vital British employer, and it would suddenly be cut off from part of its own company. There are others, too. We would stop them from moving goods about the EU. How would the borders operate under those circumstances? They are not ready—there is no customs arrangement. How would we trade? There has been a lot of talk about queues at the ports. I ask Government Members to think about the impact on the farmers in north-east Scotland if there were no customs or trading arrangements with the European Union. How would they sell their beef? I am sure that hon. Members agree that the impact would be disastrous, because they could not get their products to Europe.

What about our airports? In my constituency, there is a lot of concern about the impact on the airport—a vital link that provides Scotland with connectivity not just within Scotland, the UK and Europe, but to the rest of the world, too. There are fewer than 18 months to go before we leave the European Union—that is the period of time that most international carriers look ahead, to negotiate their routes. There is acknowledged hesitation among foreign carriers, particularly American ones, to commit to routes from the UK because they do not know whether they will be able to fly to Europe. If we leave the European Union without a deal, what happens to the open skies policy? That is not covered by WTO rules. What would they do—a separate deal? How would we have a separate deal if we walked away? Walking away means no deal.

There is a potential impact on the pound and on trade. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum, the pound plummeted more than in the devaluation under Harold Wilson’s Government. We hear a lot about it recovering, but it is recovering from a very low base. Some people say that that is good for exports, but it is not good for imports—for buying goods—and for our tourists going abroad. Where would we derive the benefit that we were told there would be from leaving the European Union if we just walked away without a deal?

It is not a secret that I am not in favour of leaving the EU. I do not believe that it is certain by any measure that it will go ahead. I believe that the triggering of article 50 can be revoked. The weight of legal opinion is that we can say that we do not need Europe’s opinion, so we can revoke it on our own. Brexit is not a done deal yet: we can still repair our damaged relationship with Europe. But if we have to leave, we have to get the best possible terms for the United Kingdom. We have to be as close to the centre of Europe as possible. We have to be part of its trade, in the customs union and in the single market. We have to do what is best for the people of this country.

[Royston Smith]

Does the hon. Lady agree that comments such as the ones that she makes about staying in the single market and the customs union and having a second referendum are precisely why people started the petition and why so many people signed it?

[Christine Jardine]

One point about democracy that we have not touched on, other than mentioning that we should have unity, is that, whether in politics, business or family life, good decisions come from discussion and debate. We have to move forward in a way that allows everyone’s opinion to be heard. That way, we will reach a good decision. We have to be far more realistic than we were during the debate before the referendum, when our future was decided by a big red bus with made-up numbers on the side.

For my constituents and many others, simply to walk away would leave us vulnerable, immediately cut us off from our major markets and present us with a bleak future. I appreciate that some people would like to walk away now, but I caution that they should know where they are going before they try to leave anywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ross Thomson]

That proves the point: we have seen nothing constructive from the Opposition. Actually, in the same way as they were confounded by the phase 1 agreement in their argument, we can bet that they will be confounded in their argument again at the end of phase 2. All we have had from the Opposition on leaving the European Union is perpetual pessimism and talking Britain down. I am talking Britain up, because we can achieve so much more when we leave the European Union. We have a bright future ahead of us.

[Royston Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, first, it seems the overwhelming majority of people who want a second referendum are remain voters? Secondly, I do not recall anyone—remain or otherwise—saying that if the referendum result was to leave the European Union, we would need a subsequent referendum on the deal. Does he see it like that as well?

[Ross Thomson]

I agree. If the result had gone the other way and the United Kingdom had voted to remain in the European Union, we would have accepted the result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

To be honest, some of the claims made by those who claimed to be on the remain side before the referendum were nonsensical. In the past couple of weeks I think I have heard five Members on the Conservative Benches say, “You can’t believe what the Treasury tell you during a referendum campaign.” We know that, and perhaps some in other parts of the House need to remember that.

At the time of the referendum, and I suspect even now, an awful lot of people in the United Kingdom did not understand—and they still do not fully understand—how complex our relationship with the European Union is. It is not just about being able to buy bananas with as much or little bend in them as we like or being able to prevent these so-and-so foreigners from coming over and taking our jobs or claiming our benefits—which they do not do. It is much more detailed and complicated than that, and to extricate ourselves from that relationship in a way that does not harm the interests of the people of these islands is a difficult and perhaps impossible task. Time alone will tell.

[Royston Smith]

Going back to my earlier comments, would the hon. Gentleman agree that continually saying people do not understand what they were voting for is patronising and why petitions such as the one before us today are presented to this place?

[David Hanson in the Chair]

[Peter Grant]

No, I do not agree at all. I remember when one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the main Chamber turned talking about people not being well informed into a claim that they were stupid—and, of course, the Daily Express, as is its wont, put me on the front page saying that people who voted to leave were stupid.

I would never question anyone’s sincerity or intelligence when they cast a vote in a referendum or election, but the fact is that many people, at the time they voted, did not fully understand the implications of what they voted for. People will sometimes do that in an election, too. They vote for the party they usually vote for, and do not really look into the issues in any great depth. If someone does not like the outcome of a general election, they get another chance in a few years. Calling the referendum as the Government did, so quickly, and having it deliberately in the middle of important council and parliamentary elections in almost every nation of the United Kingdom, so that the referendum campaign ran at the same time, prevented debate of the length and detail that was needed.

UK Exit from the European Union

Royston Smith Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

We will all be involved in the negotiations, because we will all—parliamentarians, devolved bodies and business—be involved in the debates and discussions held here over the next couple of years. We need to involve the country in this important debate.

As was said during the debate on the referendum, and as I said when I was campaigning to leave, this is a 40 to 50-year decision. Frankly, that is why I, as someone who has wanted to leave the EU for 20 to 25 years, am quite happy to be patient for six months before we invoke article 50. We need to get our exit right, and then spend the two years ensuring that we get our future working and trading relationship with the EU right as well. This is an absolutely crucial period for the UK to get it right for the economy, for immigration and for control and sovereignty within this country—the three pillars that I was talking about.

We will have our chance to vote as parliamentarians on the great repeal Bill, which will come into effect the day we finally leave the EU. It will transpose EU law into domestic law. We can then choose; we will be taking control. That vote and the votes on subsequent Bills will determine how we leave the EU. That is Parliament ensuring that we are complying with international obligations under UK law.

One of the petitions mentions freedom of movement; its title is “Not to allow freedom of movement as part of any deal with the EU after Brexit”. The Prime Minister has been clear that we need to restrict freedom of movement. By doing so, we can create a system that allows us to control numbers and encourage the brightest and best, but at the moment we are limited in that ambition.

To my mind, one of our biggest pull factors for migration, especially from within the EU, is not benefits or the other things that people talk about, but the jobs that we have created over the last few years. The UK has been a success story in creating many jobs in difficult conditions. Youth unemployment is 48% in Greece, 43% in Spain and 39% in Italy. We can and should attract skilled workers and entrepreneurs from around the world. Naturally, EU citizens on our doorstep are likely to be the most numerous coming in, due to their location. I want to end that sense of entitlement and ensure that skilled workers from around the world, whether from Bangladesh, Australia, America, Canada or India, are on an equal footing with unskilled workers coming into this country from other parts of the EU.

[Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)]

To expand on the pull factors, does my hon. Friend agree that they are not benefits or the obvious things that people refer to, or even what he referred to, but the English language and the national living wage created by this Conservative Government? Those are two other pull factors that we simply cannot change.

[Paul Scully]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. He is absolutely right. That is why I believe the UK will be on a sure and steady footing when we come to negotiate with the EU. Due to the rule of law, our language and the trading history and trading relationships we have built up around the world, we are still an attractive location for businesses and inward investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, rather than his first comment, there are only two countries in the EU that sell more to us than we sell to them: Holland and Germany. The other 25 nations have an interest in tariffs, because they obviously have a trade deficit. Germany might say, “We have all these Mercedes cars we’re selling,” but we know that when they block out the Japanese—who are primarily here because they want a platform for their car industry—and sell more cars to Spain, because the Japanese cannot, even they might agree with tariffs.

The simplistic proposition that was put forward by the purveyors of “It’s going to be all right; we’ll take control,” is farcical. That campaign was led by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the one and only right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who—a recent article has disclosed—was in favour of remaining in the EU. I was saying as much well before that article came out, because all his family were in favour and it is rational to stay in. He made a calculation because his primary objective was to become the leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. He was going to be up against the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who was pro-remain. The majority of Conservatives—more than 60% of party members—are for Brexit, so his plan was to go on about how great it was going to be to take back control, while hoping that we would narrowly remain. He would then have become the great leader standing up to Europe within Europe. But it all failed.

From that article, it is clearly true that that is what it was about. The Foreign Secretary has claimed that the article was some sort of script for “Blackadder”, or whatever his latest claim is, but when I approached him just before the Brexit campaign, I asked him a question—which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was asked and did not answer—and which I used to ask cab drivers, or anybody else. I said, “Name me one law in Europe that you don’t like.” The right hon. Gentleman said, “Erm, there are four directives on bananas.” I said, “This is not some sort of joke. Can you think of anything?” Eventually, after some consternation, he said, “REACH.” Members will no doubt know that REACH—the regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—applies the precautionary principle to endocrine disrupting chemicals in manufactured products. I said, “What’s wrong with that?” and he said, “Oh, well, I don’t really know,” and he walked off. His heart was not in it; his heart was in becoming the leader of the Conservative party. We are in this farcical position where we are going to lose out economically because the people of Britain have been sold a false promise.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), if someone goes to a shop and buys a phone that they are told works in a certain way, and they go home and it simply does not work in that way, they have the right to go back and say, “Hold on, I was told that this worked in a certain way but it doesn’t. I want my money back.” We need another referendum.

[Royston Smith]

We seem to have turned this debate into some sort of attack on the Foreign Secretary. Were we to expand on that, we could equally talk about the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Because he was actually in favour of Brexit, he was so lukewarm when campaigning for remain that it caused a leadership challenge in the Labour party. We would be better moving on from the personalities and getting back to the substance laid out so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).

[Geraint Davies]

It is fair to say that the Foreign Secretary is not completely responsible for a narrow victory and that, had the Labour party and its leader done a better job of explaining the fact that we have inward investment because we are a platform into a big market, and we have good rights at work because they are collectively agreed, and that all that might be lost and so on—I will not run through all the arguments—we might not have ended up where we are. Indeed, had the Prime Minister not been so complacent about staying in the EU that he decided not to give 16-year-olds the right to vote in the referendum and not to allow British people living abroad to vote, we would be in a different place. It is obviously not all the fault of the Foreign Secretary; I am simply saying that his primary objective was to become, essentially, the leader of Britain, and that as a result our destiny has changed. It is a great tragedy of Greek proportions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman afforded me the opportunity to forward to him what the First Minister actually said about the relationship in her speech. She was perfectly clear: Scotland voted a certain way, with 62% of voters in favour of remaining in the EU. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the mandate that the First Minister of Scotland has to implement the will of the people of Scotland. The First Minister has been clear in her statements that she wants the best deal for the whole United Kingdom, because that benefits everyone. We believe that that best deal is to remain part of the single market—and, indeed, that was a commitment in the Conservative party manifesto.

[Royston Smith]

Will the hon. Lady explain something? The SNP continues to campaign to stay in the EU, because the vote was 62% in favour of remaining, but when the Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, the SNP continued to campaign for Scotland to leave the UK. The two things are inconsistent.

[Ms Ahmed-Sheikh]

It is very important that we get the chronology and the history right on when the referendums were held. In 2014, there was a referendum on Scottish independence, and 55% voted to remain in the UK, but that UK is no longer the same entity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Yes, essentially I believe that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for when they voted to remain. They want to maximise our opportunities within the EU, such as our access to programmes and funding. We have had generous access to significant funding from the EU and we have taken advantage of particular programmes, not least some of the cross-border measures. When people voted to remain, I believe they were also voting to preserve the Good Friday agreement. They wanted to try to keep it intact and do the least damage to it. Of course, people who voted against the agreement in the first place had no care about that. They do not care what damage is done to it; they just feel, “Well, somebody else will have to look after it,” and maybe literally pick up the pieces.

The other issues that the hon. Gentleman touched on go back to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and others about the whole question of the great repeal Bill. Last week I described it as the great “download and save” Bill, because it will simply download and save existing EU law, but the significant question then is, who will subsequently control the delete key? Will the great repeal Bill make it clear that only Parliament may repeal or amend those key EU laws, or will powers be given to Ministers to make significant change to that legislation by regulation?

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

That is a significant issue, because a number of Ministers would be happy to joyride around some of those laws, once they had said, “Oh, we’re behind the wheel,” and away they would go. Perhaps, as indicated last week, it would be a bit more like clowns with chainsaws or axes, as they go after particular environmental standards, employment rights, women’s rights or other things, just so they can demonstrate the powers under the great repeal Bill. I worry about what some people might do, in an excess of showing control, and the sort of joyriding that would take place.

[Royston Smith]

Other hon. Members have talked about what should be repealed given the choice. May I ask the hon. Gentleman about his thoughts on when we tried to repeal the unwanted, unfair and sexist VAT on women’s sanitary products? We could not do that through Parliament, but we would be able to do so if we had control in our Parliament. Is that one of the things he would be happy to repeal?