European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Sandy Martin Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman says that he regarded that deal as a good deal. However, a very large number of Members in this House do not regard it as a good deal. His amendment, proposed in the way it is, seems to suggest that this is a binary choice. It is not a binary choice. We want a deal that actually satisfies the reasons why we think we need to get the best out of a Brexit deal or remain, and this does not enable us to do that.

[Richard Graham]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point of view. There are 650 Members of this House, all of whom, if we designed the perfect deal ourselves individually, would have differences from each other. However, we are at the stage where I believe the vast majority of people in this country want this issue resolved. Therefore, if we are to decide whether we want to accept a default position of no deal because we cannot reach agreement on a deal, this would be the moment for all of us to ask ourselves what we really want: do we really want a deal at all, or are we prepared to go straight to a no deal?

My amendment does not call for the Government to have a vote on no deal. It accepts that, if the vote for a deal were lost, this Parliament would have had myriad opportunities to support a deal and would, in that situation, have failed. I believe this amendment is fair to almost every point of view in this House. It gives us all one last chance to vote for a deal if we do not want no deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I have some sympathy with amendment 19 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and some sympathy with new clause 1 and also amendment 6, but I cannot vote for them, particularly new clause 1 and amendment 19, because people outside have figured out what is really going on here. As I said in my intervention earlier, we are in this position of not having left the European Union because there are people in here who were elected on a mandate and who stood up and said that they intended to deliver the result, but who have never had any intention of delivering our exit from the European Union. They are scared of their electorates, yes, and they now scared of their “selectorates”, but they never had any intention of delivering on the result. What they have done is play for time, exactly as suggested a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). They now want to play for time again, because they want to get us to 2020. When we get to 2020, it suddenly becomes, “Well, that referendum was in 2016. It is quite hard to implement a mandate from 2016 in 2020, which is roughly the length of an average Parliament.” That is what is going on in here.

The people have figured it out. My constituents went to the polls in 2016 and voted to leave the European Union by a margin of 67% in the belief that the result would be implemented because both sides had told them that. They trotted along to the general election of 2017. Some 93% of them voted for two political parties, which said that they were going to implement the result. They have figured it out. They believe that there are people in here who never had any intention of delivering on the result. If we have another extension and something else comes back, there will be another reason why they cannot quite bring themselves to vote for it. The particular niche thing that they select, perhaps never having mentioned it before, will suddenly be the block on why they cannot quite get themselves across the line. I am sick of it. The people are sick of it. They have figured it out. The reason why we are in this position is that, when people talk about compromise, we have had this perverse alliance—

[Sandy Martin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

No.

We have had this perverse alliance—

[Sandy Martin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

No.

We have had this perverse alliance of people who never wanted us to leave the European Union—remainers—voting with the minority of people on the Conservative Benches who actively want us to have a no-deal Brexit. They have trotted through the Lobby together, while people like me who came into this House in 2010 are absolutely determined to get us out of the European Union. We have done exactly what was asked of us and what is being demanded of us now. We have compromised. We have looked at that withdrawal agreement and said, “You know what, it is not perfect, but I respect the promise that I made to my constituents.” I respect the minority of my constituents who also voted remain and therefore expect me to represent them as well, which is why I have compromised and voted for that deal on three occasions. I have voted for a Norway option and an European Free Trade Association option on four other occasions, and the same people who lecture us repeatedly about how we need to compromise to get us across the line are the very same people—not all of them, but many of them—who trotted through the Lobby to kill that deal on three occasions and to kill the indicative votes on those four occasions.

I have to ask this question: when did it become the case that people who campaigned for remain could tell people who voted leave what it is that they voted for? When did it become acceptable for them to say, “No, no, no! These leave voters, whom I do not fully understand because I was on the wrong side of the debate and on the wrong side of my constituents, did not vote for no deal”?

Last night, I received an email from a constituent called Kirsty. She posted this question to me. She said, “Why do these people who got the referendum result wrong, were on the wrong side, get to say why I voted?” She said, “I know why I voted leave and I am prepared to have a no deal.” She signed off as Kirsty, under 40, not a racist and quite well educated. All we have heard throughout is that if someone wants a no-deal outcome then obviously they are just a stupid, thick, racist northerner. People have seen this, and we are sick of it. I will not support any amendment that allows a further extension, because my constituents and I know what is going on here. Those colleagues are playing it long, playing for time and saying that they respect the result when they have no intention of doing so. They did not respect the result in March or April of this year, and they are not going to on 31 October. You can sure as damn tell it, Dame Eleanor, they ain’t going to on 31 January either.

Leaving the European Union

Sandy Martin 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

There is definitely more of a sense of urgency. People feel that if they are to have their voice heard to make their case, they need to do it now, perhaps in a way that they did not feel previously.

[Sandy Martin]

My hon. Friend talked about the anger of some of those out there. Does she agree that there is a lot of anger from some people who voted leave as well? If we believe in democracy and we want to ensure that we can deal with the anger on both sides from people who feel they are ignored, the only way to do that is to have another vote, to enable people to vote on fixed propositions rather than simply nebulous concepts.

[Jenny Chapman]

I agree that there is anger on both sides. We have not always heard it, but in this debate colleagues have been at pains to make sure that when they talk about the far right, or the scenes outside Parliament last Friday, in no way do they characterise all leave supporters in that way. That has happened in the past, and it is a good thing that we have not seen that this afternoon. I credit hon. Members for making sure they have not in any way allowed that perception to be taken away from this debate.

The number of people who have signed this petition and others, and who have gone on marches and protests in recent weeks, shows how many people feel left out or ignored in this process. That has to be because, after the referendum, the Prime Minister was quick to say, “I will stand up for one side of the argument alone. The 52% will get what they want and to hell with everybody else.” That is a dreadful way to attempt to lead a country. In that situation, a Prime Minister ought to have tried to work through a way that is respectful to the outcome but listens to and bears in mind the concerns and anxieties of the 48%. I am elected but I do not represent just the people who voted Labour. I do not check how people voted before I work on their behalf. We are here to serve the whole country, however they vote at elections and in the referendum.

From what people are seeing, they think that Westminster is not working. They see a Prime Minister who, rather than listening to different views, keeps putting the same deal back to Parliament, hoping for a different result. I hope the Minister reflects on that and will set out how the Government plan to go forward. The Minister and I have been in a few of these petition debates, so I will not get my hopes up, but who knows.

On the first petition, to revoke article 50, we recognise the huge amount of public support and why it has touched a nerve with so many people. Any discussion about revoking article 50 would have to be considered in the context of a final choice between that and leaving without a deal. We recognise that, given the Government’s intransigence, we could get to that point, which was almost inconceivable a year ago. In particular, I have in mind the contribution made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in a recent debate, when he said that he used to think that the Prime Minister would not take us out without a deal but no longer holds that view. He knows her far better than any hon. Member here does, and his assessment is that she would consider taking us out without a deal. For that reason, as a final choice, revoking article 50 would be preferable to leaving without a deal, but we are not there yet. I am glad we are not, and I hope we never get to that point.

Our clear preference is for Parliament to have the time and the opportunity to debate credible alternatives that can command a majority in Parliament. The next stage of that begins today in the Chamber. I wish it had begun earlier, and I hope progress will be made. I do not think that Back Benchers should have had to initiate it; the Government should have initiated it or a similar process two years ago, to find a mandate on which they could have negotiated, while being obliged to engage with Parliament if the Prime Minister had managed to successfully negotiate. That is not what happened, and unfortunately we have had to take control as parliamentarians. I hope we produce a positive outcome today from this exercise. We will see at about 10 o’clock this evening.

Revoking article 50 at this stage without consulting the public in either a general election or a referendum, which is what the petition asks for, would not bring the country back together. I can understand why people are so frustrated that they reach that conclusion, but without having some kind of democratic process, that would not achieve the reunification that we should all desire. It is not the preferred approach at the moment, but I recognise it is an issue that we might need to return to in future. That will not be enough for some colleagues, but it is the most straightforward explanation of Labour’s position that I can manage.

The second petition calls for a referendum on the Prime Minister’s deal. Labour would support a public vote, which we would call a confirmatory ballot, to prevent a damaging Tory Brexit or no deal. Labour colleagues here will have had several discussions over the months about the desirability or otherwise of another referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I always read the paper that my mother reads; it is very important to know where she is going to come at me next time. I apologise if that is not the correct figure, but I maintain that the hon. Lady is an honest and brave parliamentarian.

[Sandy Martin]

I know the estimated percentage of my constituents who voted leave. It is 56.7%. However, I have told them that my role is to represent their best interests, and that is what I am trying to do. I am trying to represent the best interests of them all—not just the people who voted for me, but the people who did not vote for me; and not just the people who voted leave, but the people who voted remain.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think that is a completely honourable position for the hon. Gentleman to take. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, who has been straightforward throughout this process, is similarly honourable. As she said, she did not vote to activate article 50, and she has sometimes been quite outspoken, in a very polite way, about the process we have gone through in the House.

I hear the hon. Lady has had many conversations with people in her constituency, and many Members who contributed to the debate mentioned the many conversations they have had with leave voters. There are lots of reasons why people voted to leave, so we cannot say that everybody came behind one reason. Actually, there are lots of different reasons to vote to remain as well. People might have voted to leave because they wanted us to set our own laws—to have them set by this place, not by the European Commission—or to make our own choices about how to spend our money, or because they wanted to end freedom of movement. A number of people might vote for the Common Market 2.0 option today, knowing full well that means continuing freedom of movement, which their voters might well have been quite strongly opposed to. A number of people have said over the past couple of years that they voted to leave because they were concerned about how their wages had deflated against overall wage growth. People voted in the way they did for a huge number of reasons, and they are all legitimate. We must not debase the legitimacy of people’s actions.

I am very pleased that the hon. Lady was proud of the people who demonstrated last week, and I am quite sure she was proud to have the full and uncompromising support of her party leader at the front of the march. Oh, he wasn’t there, was he? I think he was in Morecambe. Perhaps she was nearly led from the front by her party leader.

Nineteen Members intervened in the debate, which I think is the most interventions I have experienced. The hon. Member for Darlington talked about the many petitions debates we have had in the Chamber. It is nice to have a full house of people—even on one side—talking about the petition, because these are very important decisions that we are making on people’s behalf.

I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for his contribution. As long as he is on the other side from me, I feel—no, he is a very good gentleman, and I entirely understand his view on this subject. He said this debate should have taken place in the main Chamber. I have no disagreement with that whatsoever. Perhaps when so many people—more than a million, or whatever it might be—sign a petition, the Petitions Committee could consider whether the Floor of the House might be the best place for the debate. I am in agreement with him on that, but obviously it is a House matter, so it is up to the Petitions Committee how it goes about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

In a way the hon. Gentleman is making the point that I was trying to make to the hon. Member for Streatham, because people did pay attention to what individual MPs were saying in their constituencies —at least, more people than ever before attended hustings in my constituency, and I should like to think that that was reflected elsewhere. The disconnect comes from the fact that in the end lots of people vote, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for a party rather than an individual. If a candidate’s party, nationally, says something loud and clear, they are almost disrespecting their party’s manifesto by saying something different locally.

[Sandy Martin]

Surely the point of a manifesto is to let the voters know what the party will do if and when it forms a Government. We wrote our manifesto in the hope and expectation that we would be able to form a Government and carry through the manifesto that we wrote. Unfortunately for the British people, we were not able to form that Government or to take control of the Brexit process. Clearly, over the past two years, the present Government have not been able to take control of it either, but we can hardly be blamed for that, and I do not think that the electorate should be able to blame us for the fact that the Government have not been able to control their own Members or bring forward a feasible, viable Brexit process.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I do not think that I was blaming hon. Members collectively. I was just making a point about what people might well have expected. It is not just the Government but many colleagues who stood on manifestos promising to uphold the result of the referendum who have an obligation and mandate to do so.

EU Exit Day Amendment

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It seems that we are not to leave the European Union on 29 March after all. Let me begin by offering my commiserations to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and his associates in the European Research Group; I appreciate that this must be a difficult time. I fear that commemorative memorabilia may need to be scrapped, the champagne orders may need to be cancelled, and indeed, the bunting will have to be put back in the attic as freedom day celebrations are cancelled throughout the land. It seems to me that the inconvenience and disappointment of the hard-right faction in this Parliament is a small price to pay, to see if we can save the country from catastrophe.

The gravity of the situation means that this is not a moment for schadenfreude, so I shall refrain from seeking any pleasure in the disappointment of others, but we need to point out that the fact that we are discussing this statutory instrument tonight can only be seen as nothing other than the abject humiliation of the British Government in this process—not only because on more than 100 occasions, they have foolishly come to the Dispatch Box and reassured us that we would be leaving the European Union on 29 March, but because, that having proven impossible, they now come and offer us a timetable that is not of their design but is one that is imposed on them. If that is not humiliation, I do not know what is.

As so many Members have said in recent debates on this matter, the Government have only themselves to blame. The fact that this SI seeking an extension to the process is before us tonight is entirely a consequence of how the Government have conducted the process. From the word go, they were not interested in anyone’s opinion but their own. The dialogue about how to implement the 2016 referendum result was constrained only to the voices within the minority Conservative Government and their allies in the Democratic Unionist party, who I see are absent from our proceedings tonight. That is shocking, because what they should have done was to try to reach some sort of national consensus on how to proceed in this most divided of countries. However, that is what they did, and of course, in the middle of it, they called a general election and the Prime Minister asked the British people for a mandate to support the manner in which she was discharging the referendum result, and the British people refused to give it to her. Anyone might have thought that that point would be the time to change tack, take stock and perhaps readjust—but no. They simply circled the wagons closer, bunkered down and spent the past two years negotiating with the European Union without reference to or a mandate from this Parliament. That is why we are in this situation today.

What happens next is the real question. If we have the delay granted that the statutory instrument suggests, what will we do with the time that is afforded to us? To my mind, that entirely depends on whether the Government wish to go forward with this Parliament in good faith or in bad faith.

A bad faith way to go forward would be to regard the debates that we have had today, and may well have in future, as some sort of inconvenient sideshow—an irritation to be dispensed with—before the Government come back yet again with a failed agreement, unaltered, to put before the House. That would be bad faith, and I think we saw some of that earlier on today when they tried to prevent us from having the debates that we had this afternoon in the first place. It was not a good look, and it is interesting that Parliament rejected the Government’s position today by an even bigger majority than we did on Monday. I would caution the Government to have some humility now in how they proceed. A good faith way to proceed would be to try to reach out and agree a new political consensus with other voices in this Parliament and in this country, including, in particular, other political parties and the devolved Administrations within the United Kingdom. That would be good faith.

This is a little surreal, because we are discussing what to do with the timetable before we know the outcome of the votes that we had earlier on, so I do not know yet what the mood of Parliament is on the various options that were put before it. That said, I am concerned that, when the Government have talked about how they might respond to those decisions and debates, they have suggested that they could not contemplate supporting anything they regarded as undeliverable. We can all accept that everything has practical consequences and that we have to come up with proposals that are practical and can be implemented, but I rather fear that “undeliverable” in this context means anything that conflicts with the draft withdrawal agreement. If so, it is another conceit to deny the will of Parliament.

The whole purpose of this exercise is that, having voted down the draft withdrawal agreement by such large majorities, we are genuinely engaged in a process to find a route to a majority by some other means.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the one thing that is genuinely undeliverable is a no-deal Brexit? We do not have the trading mechanisms to make it possible to deliver a no-deal Brexit and retain the stability of the country.

[Tommy Sheppard]

That is self-evidently true.

What is deliverable is to go back to the EU, remove the red lines and seek a new set of discussions with a new objective. My belief is that the EU would respond warmly to any such approach. To those concerned about being caught up in a process where the EU is placing constraints on what we can do, I say that our salvation is in our own hands, because we need only revoke the notice we served under article 50, pause the situation and take control of the process, without constraint or qualification or conditions being set by the EU or anyone else. That is a sensible move that the Government ought to consider. It was, of course, an unpardonable folly to trigger article 50 in the first place, without having the first clue where we were going, which is why I and my colleagues at the time voted against it.

Doing that will take time. Unfortunately, what we have before us tonight is only an interim measure, because it does not get rid of the cliff edge; it just pushes it a few weeks into the future. I am sure that we will have to come back to debate further statutory instruments and legislation to allow us properly to change direction and negotiate a better agreement with the EU, but that will take time; it will not be done by 22 May. We might as well acclimatise ourselves to the fact that to get a better outcome we will need a long and significant delay, which means preparing to fight European elections on 23 May 2019.

I am becoming increasingly alarmed. It seems to be the people who wish to deny the people of the UK any say on the outcome of the negotiations who are terrified at the prospect of facing the electorate on 23 May and asking them who they want to represent them in the EU. I do not understand how the Government negotiated an agreement that provided for this country not to be represented in the power structures of the EU during a transitional period of up to two years. That is ridiculous. We might stay, or we might leave the EU, but for as long as we are there, people in the UK have an equal right to be represented in those structures as people in any of the other 27 member states. We should acclimatise ourselves now to the idea of fighting those elections.

That would be a good thing. It would be embarrassing for some people who thought we would have it all done and dusted by now, but it is taking a little longer than people thought, so, as we take whatever time is required, we should be represented. I would predict two things if we have these elections on 23 May. The first is that the turnout would be considerably greater than the 35% in 2014. The second—I hope to be judged on it—is that the main loser will be the UK Independence party, which fluked the result last time.

Whether or not people respond to those elections will depend on how this Parliament approaches them. If we are seen to be dragged kicking and screaming to the ballot boxes, that will not be a good look, but if we embrace the opportunity for people in this country to have their democratic say, we may be able to change completely the narrative on how this matter is being addressed. We may be able to get rid of much of the ill-tempered debate that has taken place and begin the process of political healing. That is why we will offer no objection to the statutory instrument, but let me also say that it is only one small step along a much longer road that we now need to take.

Leaving the European Union

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Main]

I completely agree, but we have to learn from the past, which forms part of our future trajectory. All I am saying is that the in-out referendum that the House promised the British people is the only way to go. The three-way referendum now supported by the hon. Lady’s party and others would ask people to choose between what she would describe as a hard Brexit—a no-deal Brexit, perhaps—the Prime Minister’s Brexit, and staying in. That could not be countenanced as democratic.

As I understand it, the EU would have no truck—I do not blame it—with us wanting to kick the whole thing into the long grass during a long drawn-out process. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) said that the British public would never forgive us; certainly they would never forgive us for trying to twist the arm of the EU, and saying, “Please can we extend article 50, so that we can offer a three-way referendum?”.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady says that the British people would never forgive us for asking them again, but would they ever forgive us for a serious economic collapse as a result of a no-deal Brexit?

[Mrs Main]

That is interesting. The other day in the main Chamber, I tried to intervene on the Leader of the Opposition many, many times. I wanted to know whether the policy of the Labour party is to offer another referendum. The economic collapse, I believe, is a much-hyped fear factor.

The British public had 40 years of trying out the European project, which is certainly not the Common Market that my late parents voted for. That was a vote for one thing. After 40 years of ever closer political integration, the British public were asked if they wanted to re-endorse that membership, or if they would like to say, “We’d like to leave.”

It is not as though we have not discussed the possibility of leaving, or our unhappiness with having treaties foisted on us. The British public have a lot of experience—the history that the hon. Member for Bath does not want to draw on—of looking at how they were treated, how they were talked to, and how they were being sucked into closer integration, which they were not happy with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who opened the debate, said, that is what many people were unhappy with. The British public knew that they did not like it, so they decided that they wanted to leave and be an independent, self-governing and sovereign nation again. That is the argument that was made.

I campaigned to leave, and I made it very clear to my constituents that I was for leaving—I did not hide that, or take the easy option—although most of them voted to remain. I made it clear that I believed in leave, but that I was only one vote. Those members of the British public who were of voting age that first time around, however, had seen the direction of travel, which was towards ever closer integration, and they did not want to go there, so they decided get off that bus.

I do not like to talk of winning or losing, but the only way to describe a referendum is in those terms. The leave campaign won because there was more heart in the campaign to get back our sovereignty than there was in saying, “We know the EU’s not perfect, that it should change, that lots of you have had grumbles and complaints over the years, and that we keep trying to change things and it never gives us much—but I am sure it will at some point in the future.” That did not cut it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

We will come to that shortly.

When she is questioned, the Prime Minister just keeps hitting the repeat button. She knows it is nonsense and, what is worse, she knows that everybody knows she knows it is nonsense. It did not have to be like this. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has highlighted the original drafting of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There was provision for multiple exit days for multiple purposes, which was sensible. It was the Government’s proposal.

However, to throw some red meat to those whom the Chancellor described as the Brexit “extremists” of the European Research Group, the Government fixed 29 March on the face of the Bill for all purposes. It was a gimmick, and a time-consuming and irresponsible one. The Opposition told the Prime Minister that it was a legislative straitjacket and that the Act would have to be amended. We tried to help her out, and tabled amendments to that effect, but the Government rejected them. They rejected proposals that would have given Parliament control over the dates.

The Prime Minister is now preparing to return to Brussels, following last week’s vote. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talks about the EU giving some flexibility. Let us just remember what the Prime Minister is returning to do. She is going to ask the EU27 to change the backstop that they did not want, but that she pressed them hard to accept. The backstop is a UK Government proposal. We can imagine their bewilderment when, having conceded it when pressed by the Prime Minister, they will face her telling them “You know that backstop? We have got to change it.”

[Sandy Martin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Prime Minister had made a little more effort to secure a deal among her own Members of Parliament it might have been easier for her to get a decent deal with the European Union?

[Paul Blomfield]

I shall be echoing my hon. Friend’s point in a moment.

The immediate task that the Prime Minister has set herself is to reopen the deal that she said, two weeks ago, was unreopenable. On 15 January, she said:

“Some suggest that there is a fourth option…to vote this deal down in the hope of going back to Brussels and negotiating an alternative deal. However, no such alternative…exists.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1112.]

It is worth remembering, too, with all this focus on the backstop, that the backstop was not the primary objection for the majority of us who voted to reject the deal. It was the impact that the deal would have on jobs and the economy. The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is right to say that we have the right to walk away, but we also have the responsibility to the British people to outline the consequences of taking that sort of step, and we have exercised that to some degree in terms of the impact of no deal.

With the country currently despairing of our politics and with business confidence collapsing, the Prime Minister might reflect—to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin)—that it did not have to be like this. At the outset, she could have said, “The British people have voted to leave the European Union, but by the closest of margins; it is a mandate to end our membership of the EU, but not a decision to rupture our relations with our closest neighbours, our main trading partner and our key allies.” She could have added, “Therefore, we will seek a deal that reflects that position: a deal that is right for people’s jobs and livelihoods, in a customs union, close to the single market, in the agencies and partnerships”—some of which the hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned—“that we have built together over 45 years, retaining the rights and protections for workers, consumers and the environment, and keeping up with those rights and with the EU as we move forward.” If she had said those things, she could have secured a majority in Parliament. She could have united a country that had been so bitterly divided by the referendum, and the issue of the Northern Ireland border would never have existed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential for UK border delays in the event that no deal is agreed for when the UK leaves the EU.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential for UK border delays in the event that no deal is agreed for when the UK leaves the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)]

The Government have published 106 technical notices addressing the no-deal scenario. We are striving for a good deal with our European Union partners, but we will be ready for all outcomes from the negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue, not least because Government and the pharmaceutical industry already liaise on stockpiling for far longer periods in other circumstances, including in relation to vaccines. We will keep it under review, but this is something the industry is used to doing and we are used to co-operating with it.

[Sandy Martin]

In September, the Borders Delivery Group reported that 11 of the 12 major projects to replace or change key IT systems were at risk of not being delivered on time or in a workable condition. Many of my constituents who work at the port of Felixstowe are at their wits’ end about how this is going to work. Can the Secretary of State tell us what is going to be done with those IT systems?

[Dominic Raab]

We had an extended Cabinet session last month. We looked at a whole range of action points right across the piece, including some of the IT issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We want to make sure we are in the best position to manage, avoid or mitigate any risk in a no-deal scenario, but of course we are striving for the best deal with our European partners.

Vote Leave Campaign: Electoral Law

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend jumps ahead a little, but entirely correctly, to my conclusions. Over the next few minutes, I will show some of the inconsistencies and the need to update our rules and laws, and I very much hope that the Minister will listen closely.

Returning to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s conclusion, that was an extraordinarily strong statement, which frankly should make anyone in any way associated with the Vote Leave campaign at least wince—they should, more properly, be deeply ashamed. I cannot help noting that the alleged point of the entire campaign was to bring control back to this Parliament—a Parliament it now treats with contempt and disdain. The sheer hypocrisy, as well as the appalling boorishness, that the campaign has exhibited takes the breath away. How dare it wave the Union Jack when it so disrespects basic British values? Millions and millions of people who voted to leave will also have been horrified by its behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) put it succinctly when asking an urgent question on this matter in July:

“Who do these people think they are? They think they are above the law.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 227.]

Although this particular instance is controversial and unpleasant, and stinks of arrogance and an obnoxious disregard for our politics and our Parliament, over an issue that is extremely emotive for many of us, as well as highly significant for the country, it is important to remember that this is not the only occasion on which our politics has fallen short.

I have just made a pretty strong attack, so I will try to lighten the mood for a moment. In the interest of painting an accurate picture, I fully acknowledge that claims that ballots have been rigged or that electorates have been misled are hardly new or unusual. It was not just the notorious £350,000 claim on the side of the bus. [Interruption.] Million—sorry, not thousand. I have lost count of the number of constituencies I have arrived in and by-elections I have turned up to, where I have been puzzled and amused by the information being offered to the electorate by one side or another. Let me get my mea culpa in first. My party has made some interesting claims. I remember “Vote Labour or the fox gets it” dominating one parliamentary by-election. I remember Labour claiming that the Lib Dems were high on taxes and soft on drugs—that was one of my particular favourites, which I think was from Oldham and Saddleworth. In another by-election, possibly in Leicester, I remember being told that the contest was Mr Strong versus Mr Weak—neither of which candidates appeared on the ballot paper, as I recall. In general elections, the Conservatives have used the notorious double tax whammy and they have asked us, “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?”. Of course, whenever the Liberal Democrats are involved, it is always a two-horse race, whatever the facts might say.

Whether witty, making a reasonable point in a clever way or downright misleading, none of those statements actually broke the law, but Vote Leave did and it has been punished according to the law as it stands. However, the campaign also seriously misled the public. I and many others feel furious about the false promises that were made, but I reluctantly concede that this motley collection of attempts to at best divert and at worst mislead the electorate is, frankly, what electoral politics has always been: an unlovely struggle to achieve sometimes noble ends through too often distinctly tawdry means.

Sometimes, however, cheating does lead to a rerun. In Oldham East and Saddleworth, a by-election was triggered in November 2010 after the sitting MP, elected just months before, was reported guilty of “knowingly making false statements” about an opponent in the general election earlier in the year. After various court proceedings and an appeal, he was reaffirmed as guilty and conceded defeat. I was very sorry, because he was a Labour colleague. Interestingly, the electorate chose not to punish Labour at the ensuing by-election. There are more recent examples. In South Thanet, accusations of electoral fraud have been made that could have declared the election result in 2015 void due to overspending. The trial has been delayed. It is expected to happen in October and I therefore do not think it would be appropriate to say anything more about it.

Those who have signed the petition under consideration today may well ask: why are parliamentary election reports of wrongdoing treated so differently and so much more robustly than those relating to referendums? The answer, as I have hinted, is that electoral law is complicated, with different overlapping pieces of legislation that make it difficult to understand, even for those of us who have been struggling to work out what it means for many years. The important point here is that electoral law is different for national referendums.

In the case of a parliamentary election, there can be a challenge for one of three reasons: if there have been administrative failings that could have led to the wrong result; if a candidate is suspected of being disqualified from standing; or if there have been corrupt or illegal practices, including a candidate spending over the limit. Although there are financial limits on national spending by political parties and third-party campaigners during an election, there is no similar provision for declaring a general election result void because of overspending on the national scale. That makes the rules for referendums and parliamentary elections both complex and varied.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that whether or not we have another referendum on our membership of the European Union, the probable involvement of the Russians indicates that democracy in this country is at risk and that, whatever action we take in this House, we should try to ensure that it is motivated by our desire to defend democracy as well as the rule of law?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend and near neighbour. There are so many aspects of the matter that could be explored today, some of which I suspect others will choose to pursue.

Returning to the general proposition about how these issues should be dealt with, some look to the Venice Commission for guidance. The commission’s guidelines on constitutional referendums, to which the UK is a signatory, include:

“National rules on both public and private funding of political parties and election campaigns must be applicable to referendum campaigns... As in the case of elections, funding must be transparent, particularly when it comes to campaign accounts. In the event of a failure to abide by the statutory requirements, for instance if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled”.

However, as colleagues may agree, some of that, too, is open to interpretation. It does not give precise advice, and the key point, I am afraid, is that it is not legally binding on its signatories, although we have signed up to the spirit of it and it really ought to guide us in that way.

If one clear conclusion and recommendation comes out of this debate, it should be that the current rules are inconsistent, and certainly not clear to the general public. The law on referendums should be strengthened and made consistent, and I very much hope that the Minister addresses that in his contribution.

There is a further issue that goes beyond the strict application of the law. We do not have a written constitution. We do not have a contract between citizens—or subjects, but that is a debate for another day; let us call them electors—and those entrusted to make law and to govern. We have a very British understanding, and arguably it has probably served us pretty well. If a party is elected on a manifesto that it then contradicts in government by U-turning on key flagship policies, for instance, it can be reduced by the electorate from a party of government to one struggling to make up double figures in its number of MPs, as we have seen in recent times.

It is widely understood that we all respect the outcomes of elections, however disappointed we might be by the result. I speak from some experience, having lost many more elections than I have won. That respect, however, requires that everyone plays broadly by the rules. Despite the examples I somewhat grudgingly gave earlier, most of us accept that most of the time our system works. I am being generous, as many of us, particularly on my side of political spectrum, feel that the levels of hostility from national newspapers owned by people with vested interests have over many years made any contest far from fair, but I persist in thinking that the removal van outside Downing Street remains a powerful symbol of a democracy that still maintains public trust and consent. However—this goes to the heart of the issue raised by the petition—if that trust begins to be put in doubt, and significant numbers no longer feel the system is operating sufficiently fairly, then our democracy is at risk. What we do about that is a political judgment, not a legal judgment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

We are very clear in the security partnership section of the White Paper that we are seeking the same levels of protection. We are seeking to engage with the EU on how these issues can be arranged between us so that we maintain the protections that we have now.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has to negotiate for the retention of market access for EU service providers as part of the future partnership between the UK and the EU.

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

17. What steps he is taking to ensure that negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU support the UK’s service industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

The White Paper sets out a comprehensive vision for our partnership with the EU. For services, our ambitious and credible proposals include guaranteeing that suppliers and investors can operate across a broad number of sectors, enabling firms to establish cross-border services, ensuring that professionals continue to get their qualifications recognised, and establishing a new economic and regulatory partnership for financial services.

[Sandy Martin]

Successive British Governments have expended significant effort and time on negotiating a single market in services in the EU, achieving a 40% increase in services exports since 2010 as a result. How long does the Minister think that it will take to negotiate a similarly open market in services with other parts of the world, and what does he suggest my constituents working in insurance and IT do in the meantime?

[Mr Walker]

The White Paper sets out a number of proposals for the services sector on how we can maintain those benefits, but we have also been growing our services trade with the rest of the world. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a 40% growth in trade with the EU, but there has been a 70% growth in UK services exports to countries outside the EU over the past decade. Our UK services industry is world leading and will continue to be as we go through this process.