European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of some very considerable pride—but my understanding is that the legal position is clear. I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the legal position. Ministers have made—I say this quite neutrally—a number of statements about adherence to, or compliance with, the so-called Benn Act. Those statements have not always been immediately and obviously compatible with each other. I think we have to await the development of events. In general terms, it is of course true to say that Ministers have emphasised their commitment to observe the law, including the Prime Minister, who has said that on a number of occasions. It is also true that the Prime Minister has indicated that he is not willing to seek an extension.

My understanding of the legal position is the same as that of the hon. Gentleman. We must await the development of events. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), from the SNP, raised a similar concern about this matter, which has now been echoed by the hon. Gentleman. Further enlightenment may follow when the Leader of the House uncoils and addresses us from the Dispatch Box—I do not know. I am not psychic; we shall see.

I think that matters are coming to a conclusion today, but the House will sit on Monday and I confidently anticipate that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) will be in his place and ready to leap to his feet with alacrity to advance his point of view and that of others. [Interruption.] The Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), is shaking his head in a mildly eccentric manner. [Interruption.] Not at me—indeed. We are deeply grateful. I was not looking to call him, but if he particularly wanted to raise a point of order, especially as he used to be my constituent, far be it from me to deny him. [Interruption.] He says “Not today”—okay, fair enough.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of today’s decision, I should like to inform the House that Monday’s business will now be a debate on a motion relating to section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and I shall make a further business statement on Monday.

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the Leader of the House has said. We will hear what others have to say—that has been done by him on a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I certainly expect the Queen’s Speech debate to be conducted. It is to be expected that it will be continued. After all, the Leader of the House, who must have contemplated the possible scenarios, informed the House in all solemnity on Thursday of the business for Monday and Tuesday. He has not disavowed it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The nod of the head from the right hon. Gentleman confirms that he is not disavowing the intention to continue with the Queen’s Speech. I hope that the hon. Gentleman derives some succour from that fact. It is necessary for him not only to listen to me but to observe the head movements of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It would certainly be helpful if the Leader of the House would elaborate, because at the moment there is extreme ambiguity about intention, and that—if I may very politely say this to the Leader of the House—cannot be right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you worry unduly. There will be a full emergency business statement on Monday—that is part of what I was saying—so that people can have a full appreciation of what business there will be. I made my announcement on a point of order because the situation had arisen urgently, and it was important to make clear to the House straightaway what would happen. However, as Members will know, statements are made very early in the day, and there will therefore be an opportunity for full understanding of how business will develop.

The Queen’s Speech debate will continue, but Monday will be as I set out in the point of order that I raised a few moments ago.

[Mr Speaker]

It will be if it is orderly, and I will reflect upon that matter. The Government are not the arbiter of what is orderly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I indicated to him during the exchanges on the business question on Thursday. That is a matter that brooks no contradiction whatsoever. Even if people feel that they are immensely knowledgeable about procedure or have a right to have their own way, or both, they can do so only within the rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman on that point. My instinctive and unfailing approach, to the best of my limited ability, is to try to facilitate the House. It flows from that that I do not want the House to be disadvantaged.

In the ordinary course of events, one would hope that there was adequate notice of a motion and therefore an opportunity for amendments to be submitted on an earlier day. If there is no reasonable opportunity in this case, but there is—and I say “but there is”; it remains to be seen whether there is—an orderly motion before the House, tabled at rather short notice, it must be right that there should be an opportunity for manuscript amendments to be tabled, so that alternative propositions can be put before the House. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that that would be the case. It would be, I think, desirable in processing these matters for any such amendments to be down by midday on Monday. The Government’s motion has gone down today; a simple nod of the head would suffice.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful. However, I am happy to hear other views about that, although that would be my instinct—by midday would be helpful. Yes, there would be an opportunity for manuscript amendments.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 General Committees

[Mr Vaizey]

I was about to praise my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He has published a fantastic book on 12 Victorian heroes, which has received a great deal of publicity.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

I hope that when my hon. Friend makes his intervention, which is imminent, he might support me in saying that this House has a fine tradition of robust but courteous debate when we disagree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is enormously kind. It is only fair to add that most of the reviews have not been entirely sympathetic.

[Mr Vaizey]

I have to confess that I have read one or two, but that leads me to my next point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Lindsay, and to see so many good friends—right. hon. and hon. Friends—making our Benches groan under the weight of their attendance. Someone in this room is box office. It could be the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich or it could be me, but I strongly suspect it is you, Sir Lindsay.

I am conscious that we are short of time, so I will try to rattle through my speech, which addresses almost all the points that have been raised. It is important to be clear from the outset that the statutory instrument does not change the time and date that the UK will leave the EU. That happened at the European Council on 11 April as a matter of international law.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Has not the Minister, in those few words, revealed the scandal of what has happened? Some 17.4 million people voted to leave; 500 Members of this House voted to exercise article 50; and one person, the Prime Minister, who had said 100 times that we would leave on 29 March, stopped it. That killed democracy.

[James Cleverly]

I will address that point, if my hon. Friend will be patient for a minute or two.

The decision to seek a further extension followed votes and the passage of primary legislation in Parliament that supported the extension of article 50. The statutory instrument is about ensuring that our domestic legislation reflects international law and about avoiding confusion in our domestic statute book, which would help no one.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

It really is no good Government Members complaining about the lack of time—the lack of time to debate this Bill or the fact that we are days away from crashing out of the European Union with no deal. In fact, we would have done that already, were it not for the interventions of people from all parts of this House and in the other place.

Why are we in this position? There is some serious revisionist history going on tonight. It is because after the referendum, a Parliament in which a majority of Members voted to remain none the less said, “We accept that people have voted to leave the European Union.” When the Prime Minister—after she had been dragged through the courts, incidentally—was eventually forced to ask for permission to trigger article 50 and begin the process of negotiations, as has been said, the vast majority of MPs, myself included, voted to give the Prime Minister that permission. That was Parliament’s sole role in the matter: being asked for permission and giving the Prime Minister permission.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

When Parliament voted for article 50 to be activated, surely Members knew that we would leave after an agreement had been reached or after two years—or did they not bother reading article 50?

[Wes Streeting]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware from our time together on the Treasury Committee that we knew what the timeline was for the negotiations. What we could not have foreseen was that the Prime Minister would be so irresponsible, when given the authority to trigger article 50, to send that letter without first having agreement within her Cabinet, within her party and across the House. We also could not have foreseen—not least because she promised repeatedly that she would not do it—that she would have wasted a significant proportion of that two years on a general election.

In the election, the Prime Minister asked the country in explicit and personal terms to give her the mandate that she needed for a hard Brexit of the kind that many Government Members now demand. What did the public say? They said no. They did not give the Prime Minister the majority she asked for. The Conservative party lost seats and the country decided that no one party could be trusted with a majority to govern. That should bring humility on all of us. It also required a degree of contrition and compromise, but we have not seen any of that from the Prime Minister until the 11th hour.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would rather deal with this matter. I think it is more orderly to deal with it in that way. If there are no further points of order on this matter, I will—[Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg).

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought this matter would come at a later stage, because on private Members’ Bill Fridays we do not have money resolutions until Bills need to go into Committee. The money resolution is given at that stage. It is the case that a Bill cannot proceed out of Committee without a money resolution, not Second Reading, is it not?

[Mr Speaker]

That is true, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no automatic or compelling obstacle to the House treating of the matter now. I judged, in consultation with the hon. Member for Stone, that it might be for the convenience of the House—particularly a relatively full House, at this time—for me to say something about the matter now on the back of what he has said. The alternative was for him to expatiate on this point in the course of any speech that he might make on Second Reading.

Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive, but I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Somerset would agree that for me then to interrupt the Second Reading debate to respond to the point would be a rather ungainly way in which to proceed. I thought it better to treat of the matter now, before we embark on Second Reading. I have heard his point, and I respect it, but I do not think it is conclusive.

EU Withdrawal Joint Committee: Oversight

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly, but I must say that I am saddened to see the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) holding, until he just put it away in his pocket, his mobile telephone. I have long been conscious that the hon. Member possesses, and indeed uses, such a mobile phone. However, it does conflict very, very, very heavily with my image of the hon. Gentleman as the embodiment of tradition and as someone who thinks that the 17th century is indecently recent.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Regrettably, I was explaining why I was delayed for a 2 o’clock appointment—so that I would have the pleasure of being in the Chamber to listen to this important urgent question. My apologies for being unduly modern. I hope, Mr Speaker, you will follow in my footsteps of antiquity as a general rule.

To come to the gist of the question, I wonder whether it is correct that the Joint Committee will be subject to article 4 of the treaty, which means that any rulings it provides are senior law in the United Kingdom and therefore could overwrite statute law—making Henry VIII powers, which have been a matter of some controversy in this House, seem relatively minor?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Obviously, this is a rather circular point. Article 4 is the conduit pipe, if you like, through which the provisions of the withdrawal agreement would come into UK law. The point of the Joint Committee is to look at the implementation of the withdrawal Act. There really should not be a conflict between article 4 and the Joint Committee. As I say, if there is a dispute, that would have to be resolved within the Joint Committee. As far as the British Government are concerned, there will be ample consultation, debate and questions in this House.

EU Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Changes

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I can only reiterate what I have already said, which is that we will be holding the meaningful vote tomorrow. Of course, exactly what is brought forward by the Government will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, which are still ongoing.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

With regard to the legal changes required to the withdrawal agreement, this House voted for the entire removal of the backstop. Does it not strike my hon. Friend as incongruous at the very least that it is harder to the leave the backstop than it is to leave the EU under article 50?

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, as always. The Government have heard loudly and clearly this House’s concerns about the backstop, and they are what the negotiations are to address. I am confident and hopeful that we will come forward tomorrow with something that will allow even him to support the Government’s deal.

Leaving the EU: Meaningful Vote

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People can take whatever view they like, but, to be fair, the Secretary of State is always an estimably courteous individual in the Chamber, and we must hear the fella.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm once again that the choice in the meaningful vote is clear—either to accept the Government’s proposition or to leave without a withdrawal agreement?

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend will know that section 13 deals at length with the procedural variations and what would need to happen in the event of Parliament not approving the deal. On the proxy debates that some hon. Members want to repeat—on the type of exit or deal we should negotiate—we have, of course, had 11 votes on single market or customs union-type variations to the Government’s negotiating mandate, and the Government in this House won each and every one.

Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The Bill will be introduced after Parliament has approved the terms of the final deal with the “meaningful vote”. In that context, the Bill will have a normal passage, like all other legislation. Of course, the views of parliamentarians will be welcome. The Bill can be amended, voted on and scrutinised in the normal way, but it will always be set in the context of Parliament’s approval of the final deal, which includes approval of the withdrawal agreement. Members will, I know, have taken the time over the summer recess to review this substantial document at greater length. Views and questions will have matured and crystallised, and I am therefore delighted to return to the topic today and listen to those views.

The Government’s objective in publishing the White Paper was to set out how we intend to legislate for the parts of the withdrawal agreement that have already been settled in negotiations: those relating to citizens’ rights, the implementation period and the financial settlement.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has just referred to what has been agreed so far. Am I right in understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that that remains an important principle?

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. When I say that we have reached agreement with the EU on those sections—citizens’ rights, implementation and the financial settlement—I am talking about the legal text of the withdrawal agreement, which is in the form of a draft international treaty. Members will be familiar with the screeds of text that have been shaded in green. Progress has been made since the March European Council, which indicates agreement on the legal text and substance between the EU and the UK.

It would not have been appropriate for the White Paper to attempt to cover the parts of the withdrawal agreement on which negotiations have yet to be concluded. We will seek to keep Parliament informed as we make further progress, but let me make it clear that the withdrawal agreement Bill will be the primary means by which we give effect to the agreement, including any backstop arrangements for Northern Ireland and Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I suggest that the hon. Lady addresses those remarks to whoever she thinks said that, but I did not.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I was asked a different question, which was about the rights of EU migrants who come after we have left. I have always thought that those who are here before we leave should maintain full rights.

[John Redwood]

Indeed. I would not have expected anything else. I think that it is always better if people speak for themselves.

I am very worried by this drift. I am also worried by this whole so-called implementation period or transitional period. It is clearly not an implementation period, because there is nothing to implement as of today. Even if there is a moderately detailed political agreement, it will not be something we can go off and implement. I have become very nervous about the idea that we need another 21 months of uncertainty. I have heard a lot from remain about the dangers of uncertainty. I can see that going on for too long with arguments about our future is not terribly helpful. I think 33 months is probably quite long enough to have a good old argument and see whether we can get a decent set of agreements from the EU or not. I remain to be persuaded that there is something our talented Ministers can achieve in negotiations on 1 April next year, to pluck a date out of the air with no particular significance about it being April fools’ day. What is it that could be agreed on April fools’ day next year that could not be agreed now or in December? We still have seven negotiating months left. We have already had two years or more of negotiations. I would say that that was a fair enough test. I would also take the view that if there is not something at the end of 33 months that we like, then we should just say, “Fine, it is not to be. We will go off and do bilaterals on a regular basis on the things that are of mutual interest.” I suspect we would get along just fine.

That is, of course, how the 160 other countries around the world get on with the EU. They do not have a special trade arrangement. They are certainly not bound by EU treaties in most cases. There are those who are terribly worried about the fate of the trade deals the EU has with 60-odd countries. I can reassure them that I still have not heard a single one of those countries say they wish to lose that trade deal with the UK. Of course, in law it novates to both the UK and the rest of the EU, but it needs to be agreed with the other party to the agreement. I do not know of any country that does not want to allow us to novate. Of course, some say we could improve it and make it better—why not? It is a good idea to have a look at it, but until I am told of a country that has actually ruled out taking on one of these trade deals I think they are there for us to continue to enjoy.

What is more important is that if we got on and left, we could sign trade deals and implement them from April next year. There are a number of countries friendly to us who would like early trade deals. There are off-the-shelf trade deals that they might be interested in developing, which they have developed with others, that would get us off to a good start. I do not like the provision in the White Paper—I think perhaps the Minister did not quite grasp it—that says, as I understand it, for the 21 months they are proposing for transition we are not allowed to implement a trade deal with anybody else. I think we could discuss them and get them ready for signing—that kind of thing—but they could be brought into effect. I think it would be rather nice to get on with it and bring things into effect.

There are plenty of other things I would like to talk about, but there are many others who would like to join in. Let me sum up by saying that my worry about the EU withdrawal proposal is that I do not think Parliament will be very willing to put the legislation through without great clarity, as Labour has said, on the so-called partnership—the association agreement. For myself, I am going to need a lot of persuading, because I think the money is far too great and the transition delay, so-called, is far too long. I am also extremely concerned that we will give up one EU treaty only to sign up to another two, which look to me as if they will have many of the problems that we had from the original.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), although I confess that I have many different thoughts.

Today’s debate on legislating for the withdrawal agreement is obviously covered in the White Paper, and it seems to me that it includes three key points. The first is the obvious issue of EU nationals. I have always thought that it is really important that people who are here lawfully, and who we allowed to come and invited to come, are protected in every possible way as if they were British citizens. We are not the sort of country that applies retrospective legislation, and as Conservatives we should have a particular admiration for people whose motivation is to improve their standard of living, and who have travelled halfway across a continent, legally and lawfully, to come to a country where they do not speak the language so that they can work hard to send money back to support their families. If that is not an admirable and Conservative thing to do, I do not know what is. It is not their responsibility that we have voted to leave the European Union. They came here under treaties we had agreed, and they will be entitled to remain here, because that is the type of country that we are.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that settled status does not confer exactly the same rights that those people have at the moment?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The rights that they have should be no better or worse than those of British citizens. We should not have a special category of people under EU law. The extra rights they have under EU law have been a mistake, and they have been granted by the European courts contrary to our intention. It is absurd that it is easier to bring in a dependant under EU regulations as an EU citizen than it is for a British citizen. That is not a fair law and, once we have left, it should not continue. People should have the same rights as the British, not better ones.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the initial settled status offer meant that a European citizen who went abroad to work for two years would lose that status? The period has now been extended to five years, but that is not what applies to a British citizen.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

We can be more generous. I am in favour of generosity to people who are legally here and who have made their lives in the United Kingdom. There must be some point at which, if they separate their lives from the United Kingdom and have not applied for British citizenship, the status might not be perpetual, but they should be looked after and protected, and we should always remember that they came here legally and that we are not a nation of retrospective legislation.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I think that other continental countries will reciprocate, because they are civilised nations. We are dealing with allies and friends, so this should never have been a topic of negotiation. We should simply have set out our stall and said what we would do. I am glad that it is now clear that in the event of our leaving on WTO terms, we will protect the rights of EU member state nationals who are living in this country. That is the first point on legislation on withdrawing from the European Union, and I am all in favour of generosity.

The second point is law, which was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has great experience in these areas. We were lucky that the Henry VIII clauses in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 were, by and large, removed, as they would have allowed all European law to have been brought back through the back door. It would have gone out through the front door and returned through the back door. Now, primary legislation will be needed, but that primary legislation is dubious, because it will produce a vassal state—Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians; this great nation state tied down by petty bureaucrats, running all over us, tying us down with ropes—because we will have to do whatever the European Union says during the implementation period. Our senior law will be made by a foreign body in which we have no say and no vote, and with which we have no association. Our money will go to—

[Peter Grant]

Which Europe are we dealing with: the one that is all friends and civilised countries that would never knowingly do anything bad to us; or a lot of miniature people who want to tie us down and, presumably, leave us to drown when the tide comes in? Or does the hon. Gentleman have a way to prevent the tide from coming in?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is confusing me with the much-maligned late King Canute, who was accused of trying to hold the tide back when, in fact, he wanted to show that it was not possible to do so. The bureaucracy of the European Union is something to which I am strongly opposed, but that does not mean that I do not admire the individual member states and think of them as great countries and friendly allies. The two are completely different. Even if they were the same, while I may have a great friend, I would not want him to rule my life. There is no logical connection.

[Sir William Cash]

If we look around the European Union—at Italy and, most recently, Sweden—many if not most of the other countries are voting with their feet against the restriction on their right to make their own decisions in their own Parliaments.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As so often, the United Kingdom is leading by example. To paraphrase that great quotation from Pitt the Younger, we have saved ourselves by our exertion and we will save Europe by our example. We should always remember that as we make this great exertion—this worthy and noble exertion.

To have a period of 21 months, however, during which our senior law in this country cannot be stopped and our senior court is the European Court of Justice is a great mistake. It is an aspect of the legislation for which I, for one, will find it extremely difficult to vote, because there was another way—an alternative route. In terms of the courts, it is what we do with our own courts in relation to human rights challenges.

If the domestic court—the Supreme Court—decides that a bit of primary legislation fails to meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is a fast-tracked way of amending legislation through statutory instrument. That means, however, that if the House of Commons is against the change and wills to make the move that is against the Act, it is free to do so. That maintains control under our democratic processes, and that is how the Government should be proceeding in relation to judgments of the ECJ—or the CJEU, if you prefer—during the implementation period. We would, in the normal course, want to accept them, because we would still have treaty obligations, but they should come to Parliament to be passed into our law by statutory instrument. That would give us a straightforward reserve power not to act it if we felt that the proposal was not the right thing.

Equally, the same should apply to new laws. New laws being made by the European Union, over which we will have no say, could do specific damage to areas of our interest. There could be laws affecting the City of London, in which I have certain interests—I draw people’s attention to my relevant declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They are not just my interests, however; they are the interests of the nation at large, and we want to protect them and to prevent unfavourable legislation over which we have no control from being passed.

What is Her Majesty’s Government’s best defence of this ability of a foreign set-up to make laws for this land, which is something that I cannot think any country has ever voluntarily agreed to before? Countries have become colonies, but normally that is after a little encouragement, usually at the end of a bayonet, spear or some such. It is most unusual—unprecedented, in fact—to volunteer to allow a foreign organisation to make one’s laws.

[Peter Grant]

Scotland did it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, that is not quite true. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant)—a great seat for which I once stood, in 1997, although not with enormous success—says that, but Scotland did not do that. Scotland became part of a greater whole, and how many Scottish Prime Ministers have we had who have led this country with great distinction? We became one, rather than simply farming out legislation to somebody else.

What is the Government’s best answer? It is that the EU is so slow—so slothful and sluggish—that in a period of 21 months, it could not institute any new laws and therefore we should not worry our little heads about it. This is a really unsatisfactory answer. It is not impossible for the EU to move swiftly, and it has done so the past. This is a golden opportunity for the EU to legislate in a way that we do not like, and we will have no say at all. I go back to the solution I have suggested for the courts: no new law without a vote in Parliament—and not a scrutiny vote. Although it is a very important Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee has never been able to stop any directive or regulation from coming in, and regulations have direct effect without any vote or scrutiny in Parliament anyway. There needs to be a vote as if for a statutory instrument. It is an abnegation of democracy to allow our law to be changed in this way, and this is a part of the White Paper that must be rejected.

[John Redwood]

Would it not be much easier if we did not have the so-called transition period and just got on with it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

That is very tempting—I would be delighted to talk about that proposition—but the title of our debate is “Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement”, so I feel I have to stick to those terms because otherwise Mr Deputy Speaker, who I understand has had a very nice holiday in France, showing our continental cousins that we still send them our finest and best—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. For clarification, I was actually looking around a first world war battlefield, and I went to see the grave of a Victoria Cross recipient from Chorley. It was essentially not a holiday.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I understand there was a haircut while you were abroad that was reported in the national newspapers and should be brought to the attention of the House.

The third point is money. Money is really important. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) intervened earlier on my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham to say that we were the sort of country that pays its bills—that is absolutely true—but the question is: what do we owe under international law? On this point, the most authoritative report is “Brexit and the EU budget”, published in March 2017 by the House of Lords EU Committee.

One may say that an EU Committee will be stuffed full of Eurosceptics and would be bound to come out with a report unfavourable to the EU, and that could perhaps be true in the House of Commons. I used to serve on the European Scrutiny Committee, and it would only be fair to confess that most of us were followers of that great gentleman, my hon. Friend—not right honourable, sadly—the Member for Stone, but in the House of Lords that is simply not true. The Lords Committee is made up of former Law Lords, a former Cabinet Secretary and others who, by and large, were in favour of our membership of the EU.

The case explained in that very powerful document is that if we leave under the terms of article 50 without a withdrawal agreement, we will owe no money, and the reason is that our obligation to pay any money would in normal circumstances depend on the 1968 Vienna convention on the law of treaties. If we leave under those terms, without anything in the Lisbon treaty or other EU treaties, we would indeed be liable for our share of the liabilities, but that convention says that if the treaty of the organisation to which one belongs makes a different provision for leaving, that provision is authoritative. And then we go back to article 50, and the provision of article 50 is that if we leave after two years without a deal, that is it—there is no financial provision at all. In those circumstances, this £40 billion of our constituents’ money, which could be spent on other pressing needs—every Member could identify a pressing need in their own constituency, or for their own constituents or the nation at large—is not a legal obligation, but a charitable donation, unless it comes with a very clear quid pro quo.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the Opposition spokesman, made an excellent point on this in his very considered speech. He said that the Opposition would be expecting a good deal of detail on the second stage. What are we moving to? A report last week said that we would have a 10-page document on a political agreement saying that motherhood and apple pie was all fine and dandy. That would be £4 billion a page for waffle. Well, Members may like waffles—they may prefer Belgium waffles—but £4 billion a page for waffle is not something that any responsible Member of Parliament could vote for. For what, after all, is the job of this House and its power? How do we control the Executive? It is has always been through the provision of money, and if the Executive wish to waste British taxpayers’ money, we must say no.

The answer, then, is that we are generous and say yes to people who are living here, but that we say no to being a vassal state, no to being tied down by Lilliputians, and no to squandering taxpayers’ money.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) got it absolutely right in his response to the Chairman of the Brexit Committee that the constitutional power of this House to determine who is in Government is entirely unaffected by these amendments or the written ministerial statement that will be laid tomorrow. The powers, the authority and the rights of this House remain intact, and that is not dependent on whether a meaningful vote is amendable or unamendable.

Mr Speaker, as an historian of this House and its powers, you know perfectly well that the Norway debate was held on the Adjournment of the House—whether or not it should adjourn for the Whitsun recess. That great issue of the time—whether we should have a few days off at Whitsun—led to a fundamental change in the Government and the whole history of our nation that flowed from it.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do apologise to the hon. Lady, but I will not give way, because other people want to speak, and time is very short.

Therefore, the rights of this House are intact. The legislation will ensure that the Government can pursue their objectives, which is very important. The Chief Whip is in his place. I commend him for the tactful way that he has discussed these issues with so many people over the past week to ensure that we could come to something that every Conservative Member is able to agree to and put their name to that maintains the privileges of this House, ensures that the Government can negotiate properly, and sends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to the negotiating table with a united House of Commons behind them.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will make just a couple of remarks.

I want to reiterate the comments that have been made that this is not about reversing Brexit or about tying the hands of the Government. This is about what happens and the role of Parliament if things go wrong. It is about clarity, about what will happen in this Parliament and to the interests of our country in the event of no deal, or no deal being agreed by this House.

It is incredibly disappointing to have reached this position. It could have been so different. A week after the referendum, I wrote to the then Prime Minister. I then wrote to the current Prime Minister. I made the argument that it was in the interests of our country that this House came together, that we had ways of working across parties, across this House and the House of Lords, and that we came to a solution together and worked through the issues together. But, step by step, we have seen a Government who have run and a Government who have hidden—a Government who have not even wanted to bring forward their own impact assessments so that we can take part in an evidence-based debate on the impact of Brexit on our country and get the answer right. A process by which this country comes together is essential if, in the autumn, we reach a situation in which what was unthinkable becomes thinkable. To have a way in which we handle that is our responsibility.

Every large Government project has a risk register and a response to those risks. This is a critical risk for our country and it is vital that, in advance of such a situation, we all know what is going to happen and that we have a say, on behalf of our constituents, about what could be an incredibly catastrophic situation for our economy, our country and our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

When I was training to be a priest in the Church of England, my professor of systematic theology was called John Macquarrie. He would say that he was often asked by parishioners, “What is the meaning of God?”, but that actually the far more important question is, “What is the meaning of meaning?” To be honest, it feels as though that is what this afternoon’s debate and last week’s debate have been about: what is a meaningful vote?

The first point is that a meaningful vote is surely not one that is meaningless. We had a meaningless vote on Monday afternoon after the SO24 debate. It was meaningless because we were voting on whether this House had considered the matter of the Sewel convention, and even if every single Member of the House had voted against that, we would none the less have considered the matter. This is exactly what we do with statutory instruments as well: we vote on whether we have considered the matter. The Government’s motion will require the Government—not allow them but require them—to table a neutral motion.

I disagree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who said that the vote in 1940 was on the Adjournment. It was not—it was on whether this House should adjourn for a successive number of days, and it was an amendable motion that would have had effect—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman if he does not mind. [Interruption.] Oh, all right.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I said that the vote was on the Whitsun recess, so I think that I covered that point.

[Chris Bryant]

But the hon. Gentleman managed to elide the fact that it was an amendable motion that had effect.

The point is that if the Government do what their motion says they should do—namely, table a neutral motion—the written ministerial statement gives the Speaker no power whatever to decide that it is not neutral. Indeed, if a Speaker were to decide that a neutral motion was suddenly, somehow or other, not neutral and could be amended, we should remove him from the Chair because he would not be abiding by the Standing Orders of this House. So let us make it absolutely clear: if it is a neutral motion, it will be a motion that has no meaning whatever.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jacob Rees-Mogg Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Not for the moment, no.

Secondly, we have removed Parliament’s power to give binding negotiating directions to the Government. As I have said, this would represent a profound constitutional shift in terms of which branch of the state holds the right to act in the international sphere. I turn again to Vernon Bogdanor, who said:

“Parliament’s role is to scrutinise legislation and policy; 650 MPs, still less 800 peers, cannot themselves negotiate.”

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Davis]

I will give way in a moment.

Instead, we have provided that, in the event that Parliament rejects the deal put to it, the Government will be legally obliged to make a statement on their proposed next steps in relation to article 50 negotiations within 28 days of that rejection. This House would of course then have plenty of tools at its disposal to respond, but I am as confident as ever that we will secure an agreement that this House will want to support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I was amused to discover that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a little taken aback by the amendment I tabled late last night. I tabled it with his best interests at heart. Having spent last week understanding that he might imminently be joining me on the Back Benches and realising that Lords amendment 19, if endorsed by the Commons, might precipitate the same thing again, I thought I ought to do what I could to help him. That is why I tabled my amendment, in addition to the one he has tabled, in lieu of the Lords amendment.

I must tell the House that I really am worried: the irrationality of the debate on the detail of Brexit is truly chilling. A person opens their newspaper and discovers they are about to prevent Brexit, when what the House is doing is legitimately looking at the detail of one of the most complex legal and political exercises in which we have ever engaged in peacetime, and, as a result, our ability to have a rational debate entirely evaporates. If we continue in this way, we will make mistakes and not achieve the best possible outcome.

The House of Lords was not acting irrationally when it agreed amendment 19. It had picked up on something that ought to be of great concern to everybody in this House—namely, that although we can make provision for achieving a deal, if we do not achieve a deal at all, we will be facing an immense crisis. It might be that some of my colleagues on the Government Benches are excited at this prospect and think it a wonderful moment, but I am not; I think it will be catastrophic. The question, therefore, is: how do we take sensible steps, in anticipation of this, to try to ensure a coherent process for dealing with it? That is what this is about. It is not about obstructing Brexit.

If we want to obstruct Brexit, there are plenty of other ways to do it. We could replace the Government with one that would like to stop it, although, having already triggered article 50, we would still have to get the consent of our EU partners. There is, then, a complete constitutional incoherence in imagining that the Bill and the way it is presented somehow leads to that dastardly outcome.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My concern about my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment is that it would change the constitutional balance and separation of powers. There is a perfectly reasonable way of ensuring that the Government do the proper thing, and that is a vote of no confidence. As long as the Government maintain the confidence of this House, they ought to be able to negotiate international treaties, but if they fail in their negotiations, the House has a remedy that has been a remedy for very many years.

[Mr Grieve]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but I would like him to consider for one moment the last part of my amendment, new section 5C, which deals with what happens if, on 15 February 2019, we have no deal. His invitation would be for the House to express no confidence in the Government and to get rid of them. Can one imagine a more chaotic process than the triggering of a general election five weeks before we fall off the edge of the cliff?