Leaving the European Union

Martin Whitfield Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Thank you, Sir Roger. Under WTO rules, we will be in control of our own destiny and we will be able to deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise to be a free trade champion and to be a truly global Britain, unlike under the PM’s current deal.

As a Conservative, I believe in the benefits of free trade. I want to see free trade with the rest of the continent that is as liberal as possible, but that cannot come at the expense of breaking the promise made to the British people at the referendum, or by my party or Her Majesty’s Opposition in our manifestos. Trust in Parliament and politicians is essential for a strong democracy. Across the west, we have seen declining levels of public trust in politicians and political institutions. The level of mistrust and scepticism has increased and I have grave concerns that if we do not deliver—if Brexit is stopped—that trust will erode further.

In November 2017, Ipsos MORI undertook a poll of trust in professions. Public trust in politicians was only 17%, which is truly damning. To put that into context, nurses were trusted by 94% of people. The ordinary man in the street was trusted by 64%. Bankers were trusted by 38% and professional footballers were trusted by 26%. We need to reverse that shocking trend and stopping Brexit will certainly not do that—quite the opposite. Some 70% of Conservative seats and 61% of Labour constituencies voted to leave the EU and they will not trust us again if we remain in the European Union.

It is also important to note that there is not and never was an option to keep the status quo. The EU is a project that supports deeper integration, and it is not clear on what terms Britain’s membership would be, even if the anti-democratic “stop Brexit” campaigners got their way. For example, would the UK remain an EU member state on its existing terms with opt-ins, opt-outs, a budget rebate and so on? If the UK were to remain, it has been suggested that we could end up paying more money to the EU budget. One of the pledges of the referendum was to take back control of our money. Those suggesting that Brexit should be stopped are essentially suggesting that they would be willing to pay more in and get less back. Good luck to them in selling that to their constituents. Our hard-fought rebate was a famous victory for Margaret Thatcher; Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair gave away a large chunk of the rebate for nothing. To remain in the EU following the largest democratic decision in our nation’s history would be an outrage, but to pay more into the EU’s budget for the pleasure would be a catastrophe.

Not everyone here today will agree on whether our relationship with the EU is positive or negative, but we should all be able to agree that we are united under our democratic ideals and our British principle of fair play. Referendums are extremely rare under our constitution and even if they are not necessarily constitutionally binding, it would be unthinkable for the UK Parliament to overrule a referendum. I sincerely hope that that never happens, and I would always oppose such a move.

If the Opposition parties had won the 2011 referendum on our voting system or the 2014 referendum on Scotland’s independence, how would they and their supporters have felt if Parliament had rejected or overturned the result? That is the situation that this petition supports. It is wrong and simply un-British.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

No, I am nearly finished.

As politicians, we reap what we sow. If we ignore and discard the will of the people, the people will rightly discard us.

[Martin Whitfield]

On a point of order, Sir Roger, how can we get on the record that not everyone who sits on the Opposition Benches necessarily agreed with the indication of the vote mentioned by the hon. Lady?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but I think he has achieved his objective.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I must start by saying to the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) that people often do not trust politicians because they fail to answer questions, or, in her case, fail to accept the question posed in the first place. It would have been helpful if she had answered some of the questions when people sought to intervene. If she wants to intervene on me, I am very happy to give way to her or anyone else during the debate. Perhaps she did not want to take any interventions because she felt her arguments were rather weak.

The past week has been an absolute shambles. Anyone —in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—who looked at our Government and what they are doing with Brexit could not think anything but that this is a most depressing spectacle of a Government completely out of control destroying the best interests of the United Kingdom. What is happening is nothing to do with national interest, but everything to do with the Tory party interest. Who will be the next leader? What particular version of Brexit will be delivered by the Government?

Earlier there was an exchange about whether the country knew what it was voting for two and a half years ago. Clearly, it cannot have done. The Prime Minister has set out her deal, which has promptly been rubbished by a large number of her own MPs who think a different deal is what people wanted. The public are justified in not knowing what was offered to them two and a half years ago, because the Tory party does not know now what should be offered to the people.

I will not give the time of day to the bluffers in that party who believe that no deal is manageable. Some actually believe that. The Government have done a good job of setting out precisely what the impact of no deal would be, but some say, “Well, it would lead to a few transitional problems”. I suspect those people are sitting on family fortunes large enough not to be disturbed by the slight transitional problems that might occur if a no deal is what happens. Although the Prime Minister said she would not, I think Ministers should make some contingency plans for what happens if there is no Brexit. I hope that that is where we end up.

The opening speech and later contributions have set out the impact of no deal on EU citizens in the UK who are already demoralised and disturbed by what is happening about their futures here. Also, UK citizens in the EU are all too often completely forgotten in this process. I am getting reports from places such as France where UK citizens who have been long-term residents are being asked to go to a place many miles away from where they live to fill in forms that they have not had to fill in before, and they are very worried. Sometimes they are very elderly, and they do not know what is happening. If they have read some of the laws being prepared for the French Senate, they should be worried. They should also be worried about what French employers are being told about what they have to do to prepare for no deal and the checks that they might have to carry out on UK citizens. We seem to have completely neglected the interests of those citizens in this process.

Those who are arguing that no deal is manageable clearly have not spent much time with many businesses. Everyone I talk to, whether in the haulage industry, the pharmaceutical sector, universities or the NHS, is very concerned by the suggestion that no deal is a possibility. Some have already made costly investments to try to cope with it, such as ensuring that they have cold storage available for medicines. Some have made the preparations. The largest companies could probably cope with no deal, but smaller ones would not be able to. Many companies that operate with small margins will probably go to the wall if they suddenly find that the relationship that they had with a supplier in the EU no longer functions as a result of there being no deal. If we end up in a no-deal scenario, people such as the Minister and the Brexiters will have to explain to those companies why they have been put out of business.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood is at least here. At least she has had the nerve to come and attempt to defend the policy that she supported. Where are the others? Where are those who have been so prominent in saying that this is a brilliant deal for the UK that will deliver fantastic benefits in terms of trade deals and so on? Incidentally, I have found it hard to identify any company that thinks that there will be a huge trade deal out there for them. Companies that already export very successfully around the world are saying to me, “I’m not quite sure what this trade deal will give me that I don’t already have, because I’m already trading successfully around the world. I worry that the very successful trade that I do with the EU will be damaged as a result of what the Government are doing.”

We need to establish whether the article 50 process can be stopped. There is no point in trying to cancel the process before 29 March, as the petition suggests, if that is not possible. That is why the Wightman case, which seeks to establish whether article 50 can be revoked, and with which I am peripherally involved, is critical. The Government have said, “It’s a hypothetical question. We’re not going to revoke article 50, therefore we’re not going to tell you what our legal advice on the subject is.” I think that Members are entitled to know whether article 50 can be revoked. If we get to 29 March 2019 without a deal, I suspect that everyone in the Chamber will want to know the answer to that question. Ministers will no longer be able to hide behind the words: “It’s a hypothetical question. You’re not entitled to know the answer.”

[Martin Whitfield]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although the Government are not prepared to release their legal papers, they seem to want to appeal the decision to refer the case to the European Court of Justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to speak in this debate.

When is a deal not a deal? When is an agreement just a draft agreement? Here we are, two years after triggering article 50, and Parliament now has before it a document of 500-plus pages that sets out how we will go about leaving the European Union, and a seven-page political declaration about our future beyond that point. It is almost as if we had a technical drawing of the taxi that we will get there in—it might have only three wheels and some of us might not be able to get out at the end, but we will still enjoy ourselves—and only a bland sketch on the back of a napkin of what it will look like where we are going.

That is the context of the petition before us today, which I support and which has been signed by 206 of my constituents. Is it a cry for help—a cry for sense? In the referendum, East Lothian voted by 64.6% to 34.4% to remain in the European Union. That overwhelming majority was reflected across the whole of Scotland. I grant that it was not the view of the whole United Kingdom, but people are very worried about a no-deal Brexit, which is a distinct possibility threatening us if the Prime Minister is unable to get her deal through Parliament in a meaningful vote.

The petition realistically encapsulates the political stalemate between our political Executive and the legislature. Ministers have spent the weekend pushing the idea that this deal is better than no deal. That is a false dichotomy. I remember a time when no deal was better than a bad deal. Hope and expectation rather than cold facts have driven decision makers into this position. At what stage should we hold to account those who promised that such a utopia was down the road, but instead delivered a dog’s dinner—or a dog’s Brexit-fast? It is nonsense to suggest that a democratic decision is binding for ever. People are entitled to change their mind when they find out the facts and when democratic legitimacy is questioned. If no democratic decision could be revisited, Parliament as an institution would be defunct.

[Catherine West]

What is my hon. Friend’s view of the facts that have emerged about how the election was run, particularly the £8 million of electoral funding?

[Martin Whitfield]

It is interesting that as more and more facts become apparent, people’s confidence in politicians seems to be attacked again and again. We seem to fail not only to recognise what has happened in the past, but to offer any way out. What is required is to recover that trust by looking into our constituents’ eyes and saying, “We can sort it.” Whether we leave with a deal or no deal, it is a betrayal of our young people, our communities, our farmers, manufacturers and industry, and our working people. It is a betrayal of people young and old in my constituency of East Lothian.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the timber industries—I refer to my registered interests—I am seriously concerned about the impact of no deal on the timber sector. Last week, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from the Irish timber industry, who spoke about the chaos that could come their way in a no-deal Brexit. They also spoke about the strength of an industry that, over its time in Europe, has created a way of dealing and doing business that means that a piece of wood purchased in B&Q may have started life in the Republic of Ireland, been felled and cut in Northern Ireland, and been transported across the border to be ready in the shop for the purchaser. The additional logistical costs to timber importers will affect not only small businesses across the supply chain, but the wider construction industry, which will play havoc with the Government’s timid housing proposals.

Such worries are spread across every industry. There is a disconcerting sense that the Government believe that they have reached a good deal because they have a seven-page document about the future, but it offers no more certainty or security than a catastrophic no-deal scenario. Neither option provides the certainty or security that my constituents demand, but there is another answer. I believe that, if asked, the people of East Lothian would vote as they did last time—to stay in Europe—but this time it would be a vote for no Brexit.

Let me flesh out my concerns about the no-deal Brexit that will happen if, as expected, the political impasse between the Prime Minister and Parliament cannot be broken. Each impact of leaving without a deal is far worse than not leaving at all—the very essence of the young gentleman’s petition. A no-deal Brexit would put us on WTO terms, which would introduce tariffs and strict standards, potentially blocking businesses from trading across the whole of Europe. We should not leave the EU for that. We would lose frictionless border crossing by people and equipment, and we would lose on-time delivery for manufacturing. We should not leave the EU for that. A no-deal Brexit would threaten the valued rights and protections of workers across Britain. We should not leave the EU for that. It would hamper and harm our environment. We should not leave the EU for that. A no-deal Brexit would put the Union at risk. We should not leave the EU for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I am not sure that I completely understand the question. One cannot promise to carry out something if one is not in government; one can only make the case for people voting a particular way in a referendum. The electorate voted as they did, and that was clearly an instruction for the Government to carry out. They have not been very good at doing it, but it was an instruction. During the debate that set up the referendum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who was on Labour’s Front Bench at the time, gave an absolute commitment: “This is not for Members of Parliament to decide. We’re passing the power over to the electorate to decide.” That was echoed by all the parties. One cannot make promises in a referendum campaign; all one can do is advise people which way to vote, which I did. It is a bogus argument to say that promises were made and not carried out.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between a general election, in which parties stand on manifestos on a broad range of issues, and this referendum, which asked a very specific question? Today, we have a very different level of knowledge of what that specific question means, which was not available when the referendum took place.

[Graham Stringer]

It was always going to be the case that we would have a different level of knowledge and information afterwards, because time goes on; I agree with my hon. Friend. I put it that what has happened since is that our arguments have been validated by the obstructive nature of the EU. I remember many debates and discussions in which the arguments of the leave campaign were, in essence, that the EU had too much control of our democracy and the majority of our laws. My opponents said regularly, “No, it’s less than 10%”; we would argue about the Library documents on what was and was not a law; and they would say, “No, this is essentially just a trading organisation. It has minimal impact.” Now, we see that the EU is trying to hold on to control, not only in Ireland, but over our regulations and laws on manufacturing. We can now see how powerful the EU is, and how difficult it is.

The Prime Minister went to the EU and has come back not, unfortunately, representing the views of the people of the United Kingdom to the EU, but representing the views of the EU to the United Kingdom. She has come back with an absolute constitutional monstrosity, under which, in effect, the EU will keep control of whether Northern Ireland has separate laws from the rest of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

There is no doubt at all that the law in these islands has not kept up with modern campaigning techniques—particularly social media campaigning. There is a legitimate, right and lawful way to use social media to press a political campaign, and there are other ways, which certainly are not moral and should not be legal. We have not yet got the law in the right place for that. In any election, if there are valid and significant questions afterwards as to whether it was fair, the result is tainted for everybody.

For example, we now know there was a dodgy decision-making process about where the World cup would be held in a few years’ time, which tainted that decision immediately. If people are prepared to demand a re-run of a vote about where the World cup would be held, because they think the decision might be a bit dodgy, how much more important is it to at least look at and satisfy ourselves as to whether one of the most important decisions that people in these islands will ever be asked to take was taken fairly, or whether there was serious or criminal misconduct and whether that seriously undermined the legitimacy of the decision.

[Martin Whitfield]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about the use of social media. I point out, with some disappointment, that there are Members in this Chamber who are tweeting about the competence and views of other Members in this Chamber. Is it not the case that, if we are going to improve the quality of debate and the confidence that members of the public have in us as their representatives, we need to be respectful of the debate, as well as the mentions and motions that are made in the House?

[Peter Grant]

I will defend the right of anybody, whether they are a politician or a normal person, to take exception to somebody’s political views and to knock down their views as hard as they can if need be. However, when they begin to knock or mock the person, a line has been crossed. Obviously, I cannot monitor what is happening on Twitter just now and some people have made sure that I cannot monitor what they are doing publicly on Twitter.