Leaving the European Union
Pat McFadden Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
There have been a number of analyses of the impact of leaving without a deal. I think there would be an immediate impact economically of leaving without a deal. Over time, of course, we could restore our fortunes, but I think it is much better to be in a position where we are leaving with a deal, which will unleash, I believe, significant business investment in this country and see that positive future for our economy that is possible by leaving with a deal.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I have been listening to the Prime Minister respond to several questions about the consequences of no deal. Given what is likely to happen in the European Parliament elections tomorrow and in the Conservative party leadership election to follow, on which she has fired the starting gun, does she regret legitimising and normalising a no-deal outcome in the minds of the public through the repetition of the mantra, “No deal is better than a bad deal”?
The Prime Minister
No, I do not. No Government could have said they would accept whatever they were offered, rather than be willing to see no deal. If it had been a bad deal, I stand by what I said in relation to that matter. I also say to the right hon. Gentleman that anybody sitting in this Chamber who believes that we should not have a no-deal situation has to support a deal. That is the only way of making sure we do not leave with no deal. The vehicle for doing that, for determining the details of that leaving, is the withdrawal agreement Bill.
Death of John Smith: 25th Anniversary
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate today. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing it and on his wonderful opening speech. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).
I did not work for John Smith for a huge length of time—for about a year before he died. One of the truisms of life is that we do not know what we have until it has gone. Many people felt that about John Smith after he died. I remember well the tributes paid in this Chamber by MPs from both sides on that day and how moving and genuine they were.
It could be said that the podium at our conference or an outside event was not John’s natural habitat, but this Chamber was—particularly when he was at the Dispatch Box, holding forth in debate. He enjoyed it, the challenge and the back-and-forth. He loved to take interventions, like notes in a song to guide the rhythm of his speech. He would challenge the opposition. Having a master of parliamentary debate at the Dispatch Box cheers the troops. It gave heart to the MPs sitting behind John to see him perform. He came up with some memorable lines. I remember him giving John Major a very hard time when things were going wrong—the grand national had failed to start, hotels were falling into the sea, and he called him:
“The man with the non-Midas touch”.—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 292.]
For all the barbs, there was always a glint in John’s eye as he faced the person opposite.
John’s funeral was at Cluny parish church, and I had some part in organising it. It was a combination: it was a private family occasion but it turned into something like a state funeral. We all remember the words of his lifelong ally, Donald Dewar, who said:
“The people know that they have lost a friend”.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may recall that one thing that happened at that funeral and that was subsequently replicated for Princess Diana’s funeral was that the service was broadcast to nine cathedrals throughout the country. People turned up in their thousands at all those different cathedrals to attend and sing the hymns at the same time.
Mr McFadden
That is an eloquent reminder of how deeply John Smith’s death was felt in the country.
A debate such as this is also a moment to consider what John Smith stood for and what he would make of today. When we think about what he stood for, we think of words such as decency and community, which for him was not just a word but something with real meaning—the basic building block of the good society—and we think about the term social justice. One of his main initiatives as Labour leader was to establish the Commission on Social Justice, chaired by Sir Gordon Borrie and staffed by a bright young man called David Miliband. That body was charged with coming up with a platform of ideas that would challenge poverty and inequality, promote social justice and opportunity and, crucially, do so with policies that were properly costed and not dependent on some mythical magic money tree. Responsibility was written through its remit, as well as ambition.
The reason why responsibility was so important was that John understood the importance of trust in politics—of winning the public’s trust—and the truth is that in the early 1990s Labour had a trust problem with the public. We had lost four elections. The trust issues related to things such as taxation, our perceived weakness on defence, and a doubt that we could be responsible in power. He wanted to take away any fears about backing Labour, so those issues of responsibility and trust were hugely important.
The Commission on Social Justice did not issue its final report until after John had died, but many of its recommendations were enacted by the Labour Government who followed. The highly respected Resolution Foundation has recently done some interesting research on the impact of those policies on, for example, child poverty. The research showed that during those years child poverty was reduced by significantly more than was thought at the time, and that—without being too partisan today—it has gone up by more than we first thought in the years since 2010. Those achievements on child poverty had a lot to do with the legacy of John Smith. It was about the difference between winning and losing elections and the difference between governing and protesting, and that difference was felt in the families of some of the poorest households in the country.
John Smith was a champion of the national minimum wage at a time when the cause was not fashionable and there was no consensus, even within the Labour movement. It is great that there is consensus now across the parties in favour of the national minimum wage, but it is one thing to accept consensus and another entirely to create it and John Smith played a great role in creating consensus on the national minimum wage.
John was also a party reformer. When I worked for him, he was engaged in a titanic battle with some of the major trade unions in the Labour party on the principle of one member, one vote. He had to face down accusations that if this reform went through, it would mean the end of the union link and a break in the relationship between the Labour party and the unions. That was not true, but it was what opponents of the reforms he was advocating maintained at the time. It took great bravery to carry that battle through. It was not a battle that he always relished, but it was one he was determined to win, and in the end, he did.
John was a passionate supporter of devolution. He believed that there should be a Scottish Parliament and he never believed that that should mean breaking up the United Kingdom. His belief in devolution sat alongside a belief that we have far more in common throughout the United Kingdom than anything that sets us apart.
John was an internationalist, a passionate pro-European who broke the party Whip to bring the United Kingdom into the European Community within months of being elected as a young and no doubt ambitious MP. The reason he was so passionately in favour of that was fired by social justice: he understood that in a world of international capital, there was a social justice benefit to be gained by controlling markets internationally, and that no country could do that on its own. He would have been very clear in his rejection today of the right-wing nationalism that has driven the Brexit agenda, but he would have been just as clear in his rejection of the ossified fantasy of socialism in one country that drives support for Brexit in some corners of the left, too.
John was a believer in strong defence, a supporter of the nuclear deterrent and a supporter of NATO. He understood the post-war Labour Government’s achievement in creating a system of collective defence. He would never have found himself parroting the lines of the country’s enemies or attacking NATO as an aggressive or expansionist organisation. That was his politics. That was his democratic socialism. The tradition that he represented was the internationalist social democratic tradition in the Labour party. Of course, those were different times. It was just after the end of the cold war, and South Africa was emerging from apartheid. There was a middle east peace process that people could really believe in, about which he was passionate.
I believe that the causes that called John Smith are still relevant today: the battle for social justice, the battle against poverty and inequality, the battle for community to mean something, the battle for the United Kingdom’s European identity, and the battle for strong defence and keeping people secure—for collective security. These things are all relevant today and, in line with his tradition, there are still people prepared to stand up and fight for them.
European Council
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
This House and I can honour that commitment by voting for a deal that enables us to leave before 30 June.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has applied for and now been granted two extensions to the article 50 period. She did that to avoid the consequences of a no-deal Brexit. Those consequences were laid out by the Cabinet Secretary two weeks ago: rising food prices, shortages of food, stockpiling medicine, huge damage to manufacturing and the weakening of our national security. Yet for two years she talked up that outcome, saying that no deal is better than a bad deal. That irresponsible rhetoric helped to normalise those consequences in the minds of the public. Does she regret talking up no deal, legitimising an outcome that she knows is bad for the country and which, through the acceptance of these extensions, she is desperate to avoid?
The Prime Minister
I stand by what I have consistently said in relation to no deal being better than a bad deal, but we have a good deal. I have voted on three occasions in this House for us to leave the European Union with a deal. All Members of this House who wish to deliver on leaving the European Union need to think about how we can come together and find a majority that enables us to do just that. I have voted to leave with a deal; I hope the right hon. Gentleman will want to vote to leave with a deal in the future, too.
European Council
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It is very good indeed to see the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) back in his place and manifestly in rude health.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Pitching Parliament against the people undermines parliamentary democracy and feeds the far right. Does the Prime Minister regret her use of words last Wednesday?
The Prime Minister
First, may I echo Mr Speaker’s comments and say how good it is to see the right hon. Gentleman back in his place?
I was trying to make a very simple point last week, which is that this is a moment of decision for Parliament. We gave the people the choice. The people gave their decision. Parliament needs to deliver on that decision. The time has come for Parliament to decide.
UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
When the Prime Minister set out the timetable for this week a couple of weeks ago, she did not say that the vote on an extension was to be linked to acceptance of the deal. When she set out those arrangements, the premise was that we would come to this point after the defeat of her deal, which is what has happened. Now we find, from her reaction to the vote last night, that the Government’s proposal to extend article 50 is linked to their strategy of one more heave, two more heaves, however many more heaves it takes.
The amendments that I will support tonight are the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench or the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). They seek to remove that conditionality and to extend instead for the purpose of clarifying our future direction. That is the reason why we should extend. For four months we have been having the wrong conversation with Europe. Instead of disappearing into five different levels of legality over the backstop, which looks to the rest of Europe as if we are trying to wriggle out of our commitment to no hard border in Northern Ireland and to supporting the Good Friday agreement, we should have been having the conversation that we need to have about what Brexit really means, what the choices are and what the trade-offs are. Let us not pretend that the reason that has not happened is that somehow it is impossible until we leave. The reason it has not happened is that to do so would expose the deep divisions within the Conservative party, but the public deserve better than that. That is why extension should be for the purpose of clarification.
As for timing and other conditions, far too often in our discussions we forget that there are two sides at the table. An extension has to be applied for and agreed unanimously. It will not just be up to us how long it is for. Whatever happens in the votes tonight, it is important that we understand that.
I understand the public impatience with politics right now. It is our job to get stuff done, but the leadership response to parliamentary votes matters. We heard a great speech yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who defended parliamentary democracy. It is just a pity that our Prime Minister, the leader of our country, never defends parliamentary democracy. Continually setting Parliament against the people is at best disappointing. It is thoroughly irresponsible and it is not the leadership that we need through these troubled waters.
Mr Speaker
As the clock strikes 4.44, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) must sit down.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I wish to address my remarks to what should perhaps happen after tonight’s vote, because it looks as though all the drama of recent days has not persuaded a majority in this House to support the Government tonight. That has happened because they were on too flimsy a ground. The attempt to dress up some bad faith provisions as almost a whole new treaty was never going to work for two reasons. In part, it was because the vast majority of it was already in the withdrawal agreement. There is already an arbitration process and already provisions to suspend temporarily things that that arbitration process judged, so none of that is new. The grounds are so narrow. This happens only if there is a proven accusation of bad faith, as distinct from a political disagreement, and only then if one party—the European Union—acts in defiance of a ruling of the arbitration process. That is highly unlikely to say the least. Otherwise, if there is no agreement on the future relationship reached by the end of the transition period, the backstop kicks in.
For us, it has never been about the backstop, because we understand that this is a necessary consequence of a commitment that the UK Government have made to having no hard border, and we should value that commitment and we should value the Good Friday agreement. For all the energy in the discussions with the European Union since November, those discussions have been about the wrong question. The question should have been about not the backstop, but the future of our relationship with the European Union.
Our main objections to this agreement are that it leaves this country less empowered than we are at the moment, that it leaves us poorer than we would be otherwise, and, most of all, that there is no clarity on the future. The Prime Minister said so today. What is the answer to the car industry or the aerospace industry that says, “What does the future hold for us?” What is the answer to a young person who says, “What will happen to my rights in the future?” The Prime Minister told us today, after three years, that the answer is that there will be a spectrum of different outcomes. That is the answer: a spectrum of different outcomes. That is not good enough.
We have heard plenty about elites and the people in this debate, but there is nothing more elitist than driving through a withdrawal agreement while deliberately keeping from the people the true nature of the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom after that happens, and that is precisely the strategy of the Government. Let me say to Ministers that if they lose the vote tonight and we are in the position of looking at an extension of article 50, let us not have a sterile debate about whether that is for one month, two months or a particular number of weeks. Let it be for a purpose. Let us recast this process so that we can level with the public about the choices that Brexit entails. Let us lay them out, all their pros and cons. We know the pros and cons of remaining; it is time that the choices and the trade-offs of leaving are laid out before the public. That is the opportunity of extending article 50, not simply another few weeks of the same parliamentary merry-go-round.
Exiting the European Union
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend is tempting me to go beyond the subject matter of the statement that I have been able to give the House this evening. I have said that the talks are ongoing, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will personally want to address the points that he has raised tomorrow.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
If this is a fig leaf, it does not cover very much. It certainly does not cover the Government’s desperation to give the European Research Group and the Democratic Unionist party an excuse to come in off the ledge. So when it comes to arbitration, can the Minister confirm that article 174 of the withdrawal agreement will still stand? It states:
“Where a dispute submitted to arbitration…raises a question of interpretation of a concept of Union law…the arbitration panel shall not decide on any such question. In such case, it shall request the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a ruling on the question. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel.”
Does that still stand?
Mr Lidington
I think I answered that question earlier—[Hon. Members: “No, you didn’t!”] The key point is that the withdrawal agreement, and the obligations that are incorporated within it and within the joint instrument, are obligations binding on both parties in international law.
UK’s Withdrawal from the EU
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lidington
I genuinely do not fear that, because what I am finding increasingly in my conversations with politicians in different parts of Europe is that they want this issue sorted out. Frankly, they have politics of their own. They have important decisions to make on a range of subjects: the future of the eurozone; the negotiation of a multi-annual financial framework without a UK contribution; the tensions that exist between some of the central European and western European powers within the EU; and the continuing problem of the very large-scale movement of people from Africa into southern Europe. It would be a mistake for hon. Members to think that the leaders of the other 27 countries spend every waking hour thinking and worrying about Brexit matters.
Mr Lidington
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, for old times’ sake. Then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman and then the hon. Lady, and then I will move on.
Mr McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman is being typically generous in giving way to Members from all parts of the House. He was just referring to the position of other member states. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us, for the first time, that she would countenance an extension to the article 50 period, but today President Macron of France is quoted as saying:
“We would support an extension…only if it was justified by a new choice of the British”.
He continued:
“we would in no way accept an extension without a clear objective.”
Is it not the case that if there is to be an extension, it must be an extension with a purpose, rather than for two or three months of the same parliamentary gridlock?
Mr Lidington
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that what he has just said is any different from what the Prime Minister or other Ministers have been saying at this Dispatch Box for several months.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We need to begin by acknowledging that we have made a little bit of progress. Yesterday the Prime Minister finally acknowledged that there is no support in the House of Commons for leaving with no deal. It was interesting that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in most difficulty in his contribution when he was trying to avoid answering questions about how the Government will vote if we get to that point. I will make a prediction to ease his pain: if we do get to that point, I think the Government will vote against us leaving with no deal. How could they do anything other than that given the document released yesterday, which predicts £13 billion of cost to British businesses? For what? To fill in customs declarations, with no benefit to their trade whatsoever. It also predicts rising food prices and delays at the ports. At the moment, French customs officials say, “Go on, go on,” but the moment they put their hands up and say, “Arrêtez”—“Stop”—the chaos will begin.
At the industrial coalition meeting to which the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) referred, the most striking moment for those of us who were there was when representatives of two major parts of manufacturing industry said simply, “If there’s a no-deal Brexit, it will be catastrophic for us.” The thing I always find it hard to understand is why people who do not run things and make things for a living think they know better about the consequences of a no-deal Brexit than people who do.
The other truth that has finally hit home—I hope the Government understand it—is that it does not matter when we are asked to vote against a no-deal Brexit. We will do it in March, we will do it in June and we will do it in October of whatever year, because the House will not allow that to happen.
If the Prime Minister’s deal is defeated when it comes back, there will be an extension to article 50, and the question that has not really been addressed yet is: for what purpose will we use the time? The amendments that probably will not be pressed to a vote today will be very important in the weeks to come, because they will provide us with the means to answer that question.
I think that only three options will face us in those circumstances. The first is to try to reach a consensus on a different kind of Brexit deal. The second is again to extend article 50, to enable us to negotiate the future partnership. The third, if we remain deadlocked, is to take the question back to the British people. None of them will be easy–there are no benefits to the British economy from Brexit. I will turn to each of those options.
The first—Norway plus or Common Market 2.0—would at least minimise the damage to our economy. It would represent a painful compromise for many people, but it would be a much better way forward than the Prime Minister’s deal. Do I think that she will ever agree to it? Sadly not, because she has shown herself to be completely inflexible.
The second option, which is really the obvious thing to do, is to go to the EU and say, “Why don’t we negotiate the future relationship now and extend article 50 for that purpose?” The House refuses to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal because each of us, for different reasons, says that we do not know what the future will look like, and therefore we are not prepared to take this enormous step of leaving the European Union on the basis of a prospectus that is completely vague and uncertain. How do we answer that question? We negotiate the future partnership.
Mr McFadden
On the point about the purpose of an extension, what does my right hon. Friend think of President Macron saying that there is no way the EU would accept an extension without a “clear objective”? In his view, what should that clear objective be?
Hilary Benn
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a challenge the House will face the moment it has voted for an extension, because I am sure that is what the European Union will say to us.
I am setting out what I think are the three alternatives that would be available to the House at that point. The first requires agreement. I do not think the Prime Minister is prepared to give that; that is what the evidence shows. The second would require the European Union to change its approach to the negotiations completely. It would be the sensible thing to do, but the EU may not agree. The third—the one we will be left with if we cannot agree—will be to go back to the people and ask them what they think.
I simply want to say that I welcome the decision that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced on Monday. It cannot have been an easy decision to make, and I do not at all underestimate the difficulties of holding a second referendum. However, it would in those circumstances answer the question from the European Union about what the extension is for. When it comes to the question in such a referendum, to me it is clear: the only deal that has been negotiated to leave—the Prime Minister’s—even though it would have been rejected by Parliament, and the alternative of remain, because there is not an alternative leave on the table. Let me say to those who might want to jump up and say, “What about no deal?”: first, if we go back to the referendum of 2016, nobody on the leave side argued for leaving with no deal—nobody; secondly, we know how damaging it would be; and, thirdly, why should an option that was never before the British people in 2016 suddenly appear on a ballot paper in 2019, if we have a referendum?
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), although I shall take a somewhat different tack. I shall make a couple of points about what the Prime Minister said yesterday about how things would be voted on in March, and about the related amendments on that issue that are on the Order Paper today.
Yesterday, for the first time, the Prime Minister was forced to admit that we do not actually have to leave the EU without a deal on 29 March, unless that is an outcome for which Parliament explicitly votes. That admission could, of course, have come much earlier, and was only dragged out of her by the threat of ministerial resignations, but it was an important admission all the same. She added that any extension must be short and limited, and must not go beyond the end of June, because that would create
“a much sharper cliff edge in a few months’ time.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 167.]
In other words, she told us that if March was a legal deadline, the end of June was a brick wall. However, there is no point in applying for an extension for a couple of months just to carry on the same parliamentary gridlock in which we lurch from one vote to another every fortnight without the fundamental issue ever being decided.
The Prime Minister is right about one thing. She was right to say that an extension like that on its own will not take no deal off the table. Unless something else changes, it will just give a bit more road for can-kicking. If we are to have an extension, it must be for a purpose, and that purpose should be clarity about the future relationship between the UK and the EU. We are having a huge argument about the withdrawal agreement when the fundamental choices about the future have not been faced up to, let alone decided.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am generally sympathetic to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I should point out that at the start of the negotiations, it was the EU, and specifically the French, who insisted that we separate the leaving deal from the future deal. They are therefore now being a bit harsh in trying to pull them back together, are they not?
Mr McFadden
I think that it was a mistake to split them in that way, and I think that they need to be brought back together.
The future has been left blank. We know that we are leaving, and we are told that leave means leave, but leave to where, on what basis? Are we going to have a loose relationship that will mean significant economic disruption, especially for our multinational manufacturing supply chains, and different arrangements for Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the UK, or a closer relationship that will mean the UK’s obeying a whole series of rules over which it no longer has a say? That is the essential Brexit choice, and it has been the Brexit choice since day one. It ought to be spelt out clearly to people.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr McFadden
I will not, because others want to speak.
The fact that that is not being done is not because it is in the national interest to keep things vague or to have a blindfold Brexit. It is because facing up to those options would mean exposing the divisions in the Cabinet and the Conservative party on which of them to pursue. It would mean slaying the Brexit unicorns that imply that there are no fundamental choices to be made. We must expose the reality of what the choices really are. Doing that would mean that the Government would have to level with the public before we left—but that is not their plan. Their plan is to get us out before all this becomes clear, on the pretence that if we agree the withdrawal deal, we can somehow move on and talk about other issues. Sometimes we see Brexit portrayed as a project for the people, and criticism of it as a project by the elite, but planning a Brexit where we hide the true reality of what it means until after we have left is the most elitist thing of all, and that is precisely what the Government are planning.
It is an illusion to pretend that vagueness achieves closure. Vagueness does not achieve closure; it just carries on the argument after we have left, and it does so when we have been placed in a much weaker position as a third country. People talk about taking no deal off the table undermining our negotiating position. It does not undermine our negotiating position; it removes a gun held to our own head. What undermines the negotiating position is agreeing to pay a £39 billion divorce settlement without having the foggiest idea of what the future relationship looks like.
If there is to be an extension to the article 50 period, let us use it for a purpose: let us set out properly what leaving means, and let us tell the people clearly once and for all whether we are going for a Canada-type model or a Norway-type model, and let us be candid with the public about the consequences of each option. Clarity would also mean the EU having to be more flexible than it has been until now about the phasing of the discussions; it would have to acknowledge that clarity about the future was in its interests too. This would be a much more honest way of proceeding.
The Prime Minister yesterday, as always, did the absolute minimum to keep the show on the road—to make any extension short and limited so it does not really change anything. But that is not good enough. Having opened the door, there is now an opportunity to do this differently, and we should seize it by making sure that any extension is focused not on a particular timescale but on the key purpose of clarity about the future.
Leaving the European Union
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I recognise the concern that Members will have. Of course, the bulk of the proposals that will be put back would be the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, which have already been considered by the House, but I am clear that Members will need to have an opportunity to look at any changes that have been made and to consider them before they vote in the House.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has been forced to admit today for the first time that we do not have to leave without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament explicitly approves it. However, there is little point in applying for a two-month or three-month extension simply to carry on the same circular discussions with the same parliamentary gridlock. If we are to apply for an extension of the article 50 period, would it not be better, rather than specifying a time, to secure an extension for a purpose, which should be clarity on our future relationship with the EU? The lack of clarity is not down to the national interest, but because it is in the Conservative party’s interest not to have to face up to the fundamental choices posed by Brexit.
The Prime Minister
No. We have considerable detail in the political declaration—more than many people thought it would be possible to achieve at this stage. It is not possible to have a legal text, but the EU cannot agree legal texts with us until we are outside the EU. People are focusing on an issue at the heart of the future negotiations, which is the question of the balance between alignment with rules on goods and agricultural products and checks at the border. The spectrum is identified in the political declaration, because the UK Government’s clear position is that we are aiming for and want to work towards frictionless trade, and the EU is concerned about the impact of that on the single market. It is that discussion between the UK and the EU that is at the heart of the political declaration.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hilary Benn
I fear that my hon. Friend is right, as the Prime Minister will find out. She will have to return to the House, I suspect, and say, “I am sorry, but I could not get the thing to which some Members object removed.” I simply say that if Members do not want Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to have different rules, and if they want to ensure that, in all circumstances, goods can flow freely without tariffs, delays, paperwork or checks then it is the political declaration that needs to be changed.
Mr McFadden
In supporting amendment (n), the Prime Minister has driven a coach and horses through the deal that she asked us to endorse a fortnight ago. If my right hon. Friend is right that she cannot secure legal change in the withdrawal agreement, what can she come back with on 13 February?
Hilary Benn
Well, in truth, it is very hard to see what she can come back with if my right hon. Friend is correct in his assessment. It is odd, to put it very gently, that we are spending so much time on the backstop, which is something that the Government signed up to more than a year ago, when we really should be debating the most important issue: the future of our relationship with our European neighbours. The reason why the defeat was so large, certainly in relation to those on the Opposition Benches, is that we are not prepared to sign up to a deal that, far from giving the nation certainty about the future of that relationship, has shrouded it in fog and mist that is entirely of the Government’s own making. My preferred approach, as Members will probably know, is to be part of the European economic area and a customs union. Other Members have different views, which is why I put down the amendment calling for indicative votes as recommended by the Select Committee. Although the Prime Minister today appeared to be unenthusiastic about indicative votes, she spent most of her speech hoovering up indicative suggestions, mainly from those on her own Benches. I gently say to her that, one day, she may find herself climbing into the “little rubber life-raft”—to quote a former Prime Minister—of indicative votes. Until that central issue is addressed and until the Government are honest with the House about the choices that we have to make, we will continue to remain in our current state—businesses will continue to remain uncertain about their future and, frankly, the public will continue to ask us, “What on earth is going on?” That brings me to the amendments that seek to prevent us from leaving the EU without an agreement in just 59 days’ time.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister came along this afternoon and encouraged Parliament to drive a coach and horses through the agreement that she spent two years concluding and hour after hour at the Dispatch Box defending. She had a choice when the House rejected that agreement a couple of weeks ago. She could have tried to form a coalition across the House for common ground, but instead she chose to throw her lot in with the ERG to try to revise the backstop—something she has repeatedly said could not be done. She made it clear today that she is talking not just about the future political declaration but about legal change to the withdrawal agreement itself.
It should be remembered that this backstop is not some foreign imposition. The commitment to no hard border arises out of commitments that we have made as a country and that we repeated in the December 2017 phase 1 agreement with the European Union, but now we are committed to watering it down or doing something to undermine it.
I speak today to support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), which try to avoid no deal. There are two reasons why I think we should do that.
The first is responsibility. Leaving the European Union without a deal in place would have extremely damaging consequences for the country, and it is our duty as responsible politicians to try to avoid them. There has been a legion of warnings, so let me just mention a couple.
Last week, the chief executive of Airbus, which directly employs 14,000 people in the country and sustains many tens of thousands more jobs, including many in Wolverhampton’s valuable aerospace cluster, warned that leaving on the basis of no deal would be a disaster, and the ideology behind it was “madness”. For his pains, he was attacked on the basis of his nationality. What has happened to our politics when that is what happens?
Also last week, the Road Haulage Association warned of chaos in transport if we go down the no-deal route. Just yesterday, Britain’s major food retailers warned of both shortages of food and higher prices for consumers if no deal happens. Who will pay the price for that? Our constituents on low incomes, who cannot afford higher food prices, will pay, as a result of right-wing nationalist ideology.
David T. C. Davies
I visited the port of Holyhead with at least one of the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on Monday. They said that it was time that MPs dampened down the hysteria about no-deal Brexit, and that they were quite prepared for it. That is what the officials in the port of Holyhead said to us yesterday.
Mr McFadden
I am quoting the chief executive of Airbus, the Road Haulage Association and the country’s major food retailers. These are not my warnings—these are their warnings.
There was a time when such things would have carried some weight, but we are in a time when our politics has so changed that such warnings are simply dismissed as irrelevant. Even worse, there are voices who almost lust for the chaos. I believe that, as responsible politicians, we should not will an end that brings about job losses or rising prices for our constituents. It is not the rich, right-wing ideologues who will pay the price. It is people who work in the manufacturing industry and people who need affordable food prices in the shops.
There is a second reason to avoid no deal. There is the argument that somehow we just need to get this thing over the line; that people are bored of Brexit, and they just want this done. That is irresponsible. It is simply not the case that we will be able to stop talking about this on 30 March, because all the big questions about the future remain unanswered. They have not been left for another day because that is in the national interest; they have been left for another day because to make the fundamental choice would upset one part of the Conservative party and would mean the slaying of the Brexit unicorns.
Of course it is tempting to tick the box and get a deal—any deal—over the line. There is maybe part of us that wishes to say to our constituents, “We have delivered you Brexit, and if it turns out to be not what you wished, well, that is not our problem.” That is an irresponsible illusion. We do no service to the public if we try to pull the wool over their eyes in exchange for a quiet life for ourselves in the short term. I understand the temptations of it, because of course some people are angry and frustrated, but many more will be angry if we are not candid with them about the Brexit future ahead.
The second reason to avoid no deal and to have an extension is therefore the opportunity to give clarity on the future ahead. We have not done that so far. The Prime Minister’s strategy is to avoid that for party reasons, to run down the clock and to have all the questions answered later. We have a greater duty to the country and our constituents, and that is the reason to avoid the strategy of running down the clock and to use an extension for the purpose of giving clarity about the country’s future, on the basis of the reality of Brexit and not the irreconcilable promises made about it thus far.