EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Debate between Stephen Timms and Robin Walker

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question and I respect the integrity with which he does so. The Speaker has already indicated that he would be prepared to accept manuscript amendments and I have been clear that the Government will bring forward their motion and the Attorney General’s advice as soon as they can. I am sure the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity will allow him to pursue the ends he means to pursue in a parliamentary way.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Minister made of what I think is an increasingly compelling case, which is that if the Prime Minister is able, tomorrow or subsequently, to bring forward an agreement that may be acceptable to Parliament, parliamentary approval for it should be subject to ratification in a subsequent public vote?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Robin Walker

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

The Government’s policy is that we are pursuing a bespoke trade agreement, not an off-the-shelf model. We believe that it will be in the interests of both sides in this negotiation to secure an implementation period.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The European Union has clearly and firmly set out its views on the options for these negotiations. Ministers so far have signally failed to provide any coherent response because they cannot agree among one another, and the Minister’s answers today underline that—whether the answer is regulatory equivalence or something different, we just do not know. How long will it be before the British Government have a coherent position to set out in these negotiations?

[Mr Walker]

The Prime Minister has repeatedly set out a coherent position with regard to the future partnership we seek with the European Union. There was the Florence speech. My Secretary of State has been making speeches and the Chancellor has been making speeches, clearly setting out the UK’s objectives for these negotiations, and we look forward to achieving those objectives in the months to come.

Leaving the EU: Implementation

Debate between Stephen Timms and Robin Walker

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I am happy to reiterate to my hon. Friend that that is absolutely our objective.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK will be ended from March 2019 under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but the Prime Minister has made it clear that the ECJ’s jurisdiction will continue into the two-year implementation period to follow. Can the Minister therefore confirm that the implementation and withdrawal Bill, which will come forward in due course, will re-impose the jurisdiction of the ECJ on the UK?

[Mr Walker]

There is a crucial distinction and difference here, in that the action of the ECJ in the UK currently takes place because we are a member state of the EU, and the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the agreement between the UK and the EU. That will recognise that the UK is therefore an independent country, adhering to that agreement, which the Prime Minister said should be under the same rules and regulations that we follow now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Timms and Robin Walker

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I am sure that plenty of analytical work is being done on both sides, but as my hon. Friend knows, the EU Commission does not make all its analysis public.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Surely quantitative assessments of the impact of leaving the EU on sectors of the UK economy should have been basic spade work for the negotiations.

[Mr Walker]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, and we debated at great length, a huge amount of sectoral analysis has been done by the Government on these issues. I think that he discussed at length with the Secretary of State in the Select Committee why quantitative impact assessments were not considered appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

The issue of onward movement in the European Union is, of course, one that we wish to continue to press; interestingly, the European Parliament made resolutions yesterday in support of the right of UK nationals to have onward movement in the European Union. We will continue to take that forward into the next phase of negotiations.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

On financial services, how hopeful are Ministers that through the negotiations the UK will retain the passport for service providers to trade across the EU?

[Mr Walker]

We are at the start of negotiations on the future relationships, but we should explore all the possibilities to make sure that the UK and the EU continue to benefit from the fact that we have a global financial services centre here in London and the UK.

Leaving the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Stephen Timms and Robin Walker

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. I would say that the proceedings of this House—certainly as they are reported by the press—are sometimes of great interest to our continental colleagues, but I do take his point.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Department has handed over some 850 pages, but the Minister has made it clear that some information has been withheld. If that additional material had also been handed over, how many pages would that have been? Would it be another couple of hundred, more or less, or has the information not actually been compiled?

[Mr Walker]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a hypothetical question to which I am afraid that I do not have an answer.