Legislating for the Withdrawal Agreement

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I shall come on to say, we need urgent, rapid progress on this issue, given the time constraints that we face.

Many Brexiteers—although, I must make clear, not all—continue to belittle the Irish border issue on the grounds that it is a problem that has been exaggerated by nefarious Brussels bureaucrats or those at home who seek a close future relationship with the EU. Having initially dismissed the issue as posing no threat to the peace process, they now seek to talk down the Good Friday agreement. Their behaviour is not only irresponsible, but misunderstands the significance of the open border as the manifestation of peace on the island of Ireland. The border is a deeply political problem, not just a technical problem. It is about not merely how we avoid a hardening of the border, but how we ensure continued co-operation in a range of areas—economic and social as well as political—as set out in the Good Friday agreement.

Anxiety on both sides of the border and across all communities about the risk of no deal, or the failure to agree a legally binding backstop, is very real, and it is growing. Of course, the best means of solving the issue would be to secure agreement on a future relationship that is compatible with protecting north-south co-operation and avoiding a hard border, thereby ensuring that any legally binding backstop that might be agreed will never be used, yet the ideological red lines that the Prime Minister outlined in her Lancaster House speech are fundamentally incompatible with securing a future relationship of that kind.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration that although the UK Government agreed in December last year that their primary responsibility was to introduce specific proposals for the Irish border, in the intervening period we have seen next to nothing of substance from them? All they are doing is throwing stones at the partly completed proposal that the EU has had to introduce out of sheer desperation because the UK has offered nothing in return.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, over recent weeks I have seen some of the most ardent Brexiteers—people who wanted to take back control of our borders, incidentally—saying that they would just leave the border completely open. They are not going to be the ones who erect infrastructure. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has made it clear that because we chose to leave, the onus is on the UK Government, as well as the EU27, to come up with a solution that avoids any hardening of the border.

The Chequers proposals were designed to move the negotiations on, but it is patently obvious that they cannot command a majority in this House and would not be acceptable to the EU without further significant modifications of the kind that the Prime Minister cannot deliver because of the bitter divisions in her own party. The negotiations on this issue are at an impasse. Despite a summer of talks, little progress has been made on agreeing a legally binding and operable backstop. It is imperative that progress on this issue is now made and made quickly. With the second week of October being the effective deadline for sign-off at the October EU summit, there are now only a matter of weeks before the issue must be resolved. Both sides have an obligation, based on the solemn commitments they have given, to defuse the tensions that have built up around this issue, and both sides must now redouble their efforts to deliver a solution. What would make a legally binding backstop easier to agree, because it would ensure that it would be less likely to be used in the future, is a very clear signal on what the future relationship is likely to look like. That point was made at the end of last month by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs.

That brings me to the final issue I want to touch on before drawing my remarks to a close—the framework for the UK’s future relationship with the EU, or, more specifically, the political declaration that will accompany the divorce settlement if agreement is reached across all outstanding areas. Arguably, it is the contents of that political declaration, more than the details of the withdrawal agreement itself, that the House will focus on when it comes to pass judgment on the deal that we all hope—genuinely hope—the Government are able to conclude and put before us later this year.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have noticed that the notion of a so-called blind Brexit has received a great deal of attention over recent weeks, yet it has always been a distinct possibility. That is partly because there is every incentive for the Government, practically and politically, to bring back a withdrawal agreement that contains a political declaration that is highly ambiguous. To do so would be unacceptable. A vague political declaration on the future framework would not be a solution to the problems that we are grappling with; it would be tantamount to avoiding those problems altogether. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said earlier—she is not in her place now—that would leave the UK in a far weaker position during the transition than we would otherwise be, and we on the Opposition Benches would not accept that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

That is completely true. I am very concerned about the suggestion that the Chequers proposals somehow or other end up creating more certainty—it is just not the case.

[Peter Grant]

When I was in the Netherlands with the Exiting the European Union Committee a few months ago, we had the opportunity to meet members of the Dutch Parliament’s equivalent committee. Halfway through that meeting, we had to stop because the Dutch Members were called to a vote. The Dutch Parliament had an absolute, binding vote on how its fisheries Minister would conduct himself or herself at an EU Fisheries Council vote later that week. The equivalent process in the United Kingdom is that the European Scrutiny Committee expresses a view, and then the Minister ignores it and does what he or she likes, and nobody can touch a Minister as a result. Is not it the case that the reason why so much EU legislation appears to be done over the heads of the people in the United Kingdom is because it is done over the heads of those in this Parliament? Other EU countries have much better parliamentary oversight of what their Ministers are up to than the United Kingdom.

[Sir William Cash]

I am bound to say that the system in this House involved much more transparency. For example, we do not have decisions taken by Parliaments that are determined by proportional representation. We do not have a system under which there are no transcripts of the proceedings. In this House, the Bills that go through Parliament set out all the provisions, and all legislation is subject to amendment by both Houses. Everything is printed. Hansard is available. Proceedings are filmed and shown on the parliamentary channel. People know where and how decisions are taken. The proposed joint committee will be no more than a consultative operation, and that does not mean that anything will come out of it.

A letter from the Secretary of State was put before my Committee on 5 September—more or less as we sat down that morning—regarding the discussions that we were going to have with Mr Olly Robbins and the Secretary of State. The letter says that there will be a

“working assumption that we would continue with the current model for providing written evidence to the committees through Explanatory Memoranda”.

My Committee is quite clear that that will not be anything like early enough. We want to know that we are going to get an explanatory memorandum at a very early stage. With regard to the scrutiny of the EU’s legislative proposals during the proposed joint committee procedure, the Secretary of State goes on to say:

“we will work closely with Parliament to agree upon a scrutiny system which, in the first instance, facilitates Parliament’s role in scrutinising EU proposals that may affect the UK during the implementation period.”

There is nothing, of course, about the fact that the process will go on afterwards. This is a pig in poke. We do not know what the scrutiny system will be, but we are being asked to approve it. Today’s debate is just a foretaste of what is to come. Working closely with Parliament to agree a scrutiny system but not actually telling us how the joint committee will work in practice is absolutely fundamental in this debate.

In the letter, the Secretary of State goes on to say:

“Given the way the EU’s legislative process works, most Council directives and regulations which will come into force during the implementation period have already been agreed or are being negotiated now, while the UK is still a Member State.”

Now, I know that the Minister referred to that point in her opening statement but, unfortunately, this does not deal with changes to the rulebook.

Let us suppose that it is the case that the 27 member states—with us not even at the table—will be able to make changes themselves and then effectively impose them on us, and that we are going to have a committee system. That system has not yet been agreed with us, and the details of it are extremely obscure but involve no more than consultation. If that is the case, when the negotiation of treaty obligations has been completed and we have entered into international obligations, which is what this will amount to, how on earth are we supposed to accept it when we—or the Committee or Committees scrutinising those questions—are then told, “Oh, this has all been agreed by international obligation behind closed doors”? We will have accepted the fact that that something will happen, but we will not actually be in a position to do anything about it at all. We are not merely buying a pig in a poke; we are also being bound and shackled by European law, and I have not even touched on the question of the arbitration arrangement.

Although I am in favour of arbitration in principle, the real question is whether it will be subject to European Court of Justice interpretation. I do not have time to go into all that today, but I simply put it on the table that that is a really serious problem. I know that the matter is currently under discussion, but it looks very much as if we will be buying into a reshackling of our Parliament and our businesses. The certainty that is being offered would be absolutely catastrophic if, in fact, the process went wrong and rules were imposed on us. That is what I am most concerned about in this context.

As for the parliamentary lock, the Prime Minister herself, in a pamphlet published by Politeia in 2007, was very explicit about the failures of the European system of oversight in the UK Parliament. Anyone can read it for themselves. All I am saying is that it is absolutely catastrophic. I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 33 years, and not once in all that time—and certainly not at any time before that—has Parliament ever overturned an EU decision that has been taken in the Council of Ministers. What confidence could we possibly have that that would ever happen, particularly as the Prime Minister said herself in her pamphlet that parliamentary sovereignty in this context was a fiction?

It is all very well to fall back on the concept that under our constitution we have the power to overturn legislative arrangements by Act of Parliament—that no Parliament can bind its successors and the rest of it. However, if, in practice, as with the European Communities Act in the first place, we voluntarily agree that we are going to accept what is being done, that situation is made worse by the context—a referendum in which the British people agreed by common consent that we will leave the European Union, with the Government accepting that; and the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed by Members of the House of Commons by six to one and the withdrawal Act was passed by 499 to 120, or whatever it was. It is crystal clear that we should be in control of making of our own legislation on our own terms, not supplicants to the European Union.

What this is all about is that we are supplicants to the European Union, and I put that to the Secretary of State and Mr Olly Robbins. We are going to the European Union and saying, “What is it that you are prepared to give us?” And that is just not good enough. I say that because, apart from anything else, under this White Paper, the scrutiny process—during the implementation period and even afterwards—leaves us extremely exposed. That is the problem. It leaves us in a position whereby we are effectively engaging in a form of legal re-entry into the European Communities Act 1972. I do not believe—I have to say this in all candour—that the Government did not know that. I believe that they did know it, unequivocally, before the repeal of the ’72 Act was passed via the withdrawal Act’s Royal Assent. No one is going to kid me that the White Paper, which was produced 14 days later, did not get written in anticipation that we were going to repeal the ’72 Act through section 1 of the withdrawal Act at the end of June but then end up undermining that repeal within a matter of 14 days. I find that absolutely extraordinary. It was Chequers that did it. Up until Chequers, I was 100% behind the Government. Chequers ended up undermining the basis of the collective responsibility, as I understand it, of members of the Cabinet, because they did not know about that either.

I come back to the simple point: this is an unacceptable arrangement. We do not know how the joint committee will operate. We have no confidence whatever that it is going to be more than a mere consultation, and what is COREPER going to be doing about all this in the meantime?

There is much more that I could say, but others want to speak. I regard this as a very, very serious breach of trust. I am afraid that that is the basis on which I approach this debate. I think that a lot of people outside—the punters; the real people of this country—know and understand this. We decided on 23 June 2016 that we would leave the European Union. We did not agree that we were going to come back with some form of legal re-entry to satisfy the whims of the European Union, and particularly the country that dominates it most—namely, Germany.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. First, I invite Members to spare a thought for our good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), whose husband passed away recently and his funeral is taking place today. I have no doubt that otherwise a lot more of my colleagues would have been here. Certainly, my thoughts are very much with Marion and her family today.

We are talking about legislating to leave the European Union, but I find it very difficult to know how even the best drafter of legislation that we have—and there are some pretty good ones in this place—can have a chance of drafting legislation when the Government still have not quite decided what they are legislating for. The first thing that anybody asks if they are asked to draft something, whether legislation or a legal contract, is, “What do you want it to say and what do you want it to do?” The Minister talks about the overwhelming majority of the draft agreement now being in place. That overwhelming majority is 80%; it has increased from 75% about three months ago. Even if we accept that it is the hard bits that are still to be done, if it takes us three months to do 5%, we can see that 20% before the end of March is pushing it a wee bit. Even if the Government knew what they wanted the legislation to say, it would be difficult; when they cannot decide what they want the legislation to achieve, it is a potential recipe for disaster.

That is not talking down Britain. I thought it was quite funny that when the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) spoke earlier, the Minister suggested that he was failing to get behind Britain and told him to get behind British businesses and British institutions, because he was highlighting some of the not only potential but now very real and present-day difficulties, problems and downsides to Brexit. Although I disagree with quite a lot of what he says about Brexit, I would suggest that his comments are a lot closer to the comments of British business, British universities and British civic society than some of the platitudes that we continue to get from Government Front Benchers—let alone some of the stuff we get from their so-called allies on the Back Benches.

[Tom Brake]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about his colleague. Is he aware that British businesses are already finding that when they are dealing with EU suppliers with a lead-in time for orders of six months, those suppliers are saying, “Well, of course we can sign a contract with you, but you’re going to have to bear all the risk of things like no-deal tariffs and delays on the border, and we’re not going to carry any of that risk.”? That is already happening to British businesses.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

If Members are down to speak, I do not want to hear their speeches in interventions. Can we please just stick to interventions?

[Peter Grant]

The right hon. Gentleman touches on something that Members on both sides of the House have referred to in the past. We know that a lot of very significant businesses right across the whole spectrum of the UK economy have serious concerns. They are telling Ministers in private what their concerns are. They are bound to be saying it in private, because they do not feel that they can go public for various reasons. Obviously, businesses do not like to go public about things that they think might bring down their business. That is how the Government can get away with simply pretending that there is not really a problem, or claiming that anyone who highlights a problem is somehow being unpatriotic or not getting behind British business.

The Minister talked in glowing terms about all the trade deals that we will be able to negotiate in the blink of an eye after we leave the European Union at the end of a transition period—or implementation period, or whatever it is being called this week. Of course, an implementation period does not give us certainty; all it does is extend the period of uncertainty by a year or so. It is bit like someone who is heading towards the edge of a cliff thinking that maybe it is good if they can prolong the uncertainty about just how high the cliff is until the last possible moment, but who does not use that period to back away from the worst potential consequences of their decision. An implementation period that causes a cliff-edge Brexit at the end of 2020 is not really much better than a cliff-edge Brexit at the end of March 2019.

The Minister talked about all these trade deals that somehow we cannot do just now. I cannot understand how Germany manages. Germany seems to manage to trade very effectively and very profitably with a lot of countries that the United Kingdom does not trade with or trades with on very poor terms. What are the Germans doing right? What are the German Government good at, with regard to running their economy, that this Government are not good at? I do not have time to give all the answers.

[Sir William Cash]

Of course, there is a simple reason for that. First, Germany calls all the shots in the European Union; and secondly, it hides behind the euro currency and therefore has an enormous trade advantage, as Mr Trump has identified. That is demonstrated by Office for National Statistics figures that show that we run a deficit with the EU27 member states of about £80 billion, and Germany has a surplus of £104 billion a year.

[Peter Grant]

An alternative explanation might be that Germany has had a succession of Governments who actually believe in investing in the long-term stability and sustainability of its economy, whereas the United Kingdom, for decades, has not had Governments with the ambition, the imagination or the long-term vision to do so.

In answer to a question from an Opposition Member about the 65 trade deals that we are currently party to, thanks to our membership of the European Union, the Minister suggested that the European Union has already agreed that all those 65 deals will be extended to a non-EU member after we have left. Well, the European Union might have agreed to do that. However, it does not have the right to do it unilaterally, because every one of those 65 deals has got somebody on the other side of the table, so the second signatories to all those 65 deals will have to be asked if they agree as well. Some of them will agree, but if any one of the 65 says no, we are immediately in a worse bidding position than we are as part of the European Union. Anyone who suggests that we can replicate all those 65 trade deals by March 2019 or December 2020, or at any time when most of us are still active in politics, is being wildly optimistic. It is almost as ridiculous as suggesting that these negotiations will be the easiest trade deals in history and it will be all done and dusted within six months.

We hear all the platitudes from the Government. The latest buzzword is “broadly”. It used to be that EU nationals living in the UK would have “approximately” the same rights as they currently have; now they are to have “broadly” the same rights as they currently have. I do not want them to have broadly the same rights; I want them to have exactly the same rights. In fact, I want them to have at least the same rights, because in some areas they should have more rights than they have just now. The Minister did not give way when I wanted to ask a question earlier, so I hope that her colleague will tell us explicitly, without any prevarication, what the Government mean when they continue to say “broadly” the same rights. Will he give us the specific areas in which EU citizens currently living in the UK will have fewer rights after we leave the EU than they have just now? These people are entitled to know which of their rights they will lose that are being hidden behind the word “broadly”, which the Government have started using all the time.

There has been mention of the question of the Irish border. Like other speakers, I find it astonishing that the only way that some people, including a growing number on the Government’s hard Brexit side, can reconcile what is happening is just to pretend that the problem does not exist. We are told that people are using false concerns about the Irish border to play out some kind of clandestine political agenda.

I remind Members about a couple of things that this Government willingly signed up to in December last year, as part of the joint report with the European Union—namely, that the United Kingdom will accept in all regards that the Republic of Ireland will continue to be a full and integral member of the European Union for as long as the Republic of Ireland wants to and that the United Kingdom will accept that the Republic of Ireland will and must comply with all aspects of European Union law. The United Kingdom has already committed itself to accepting that the Republic of Ireland is bound by European law as it applies to the enforcement or the observance of the European Union’s external borders.

The Republic of Ireland would love to get an agreement endorsed by the rest of the European Union that allows the border to be kept as it is now. The Republic of Ireland does not have the option of doing what so many Government Members blithely suggest, which is to sweep aside EU border legislation unilaterally, by keeping an open and uncontrolled border, contrary to European law and contrary to the commitments that this Government have already made. Let us have no more of this nonsense of trying to blame the Republic of Ireland for a mess that has been wholly created by the UK Government. Let us have no more of this nonsense of saying that somehow the European Union is usurping British sovereignty over Northern Ireland by trying to force a backstop agreement that the Government do not want.

As I said in an earlier intervention, the UK Government undertook in December last year to bring forward specific proposals for a solution to the question of the Irish border that would comply with all the requirements of Ireland’s continued membership of the European Union and with all the requirements of the Good Friday agreement and the peace process. In the intervening period since December 2017, the UK Government have utterly failed to live up to that promise. That was why the European Union brought forward a solution that I do not think it thinks is particularly good, but it was a desperate attempt to get the UK Government to put their money where their mouth is and bring forward one of the specific sets of proposals that they had willingly promised to produce as a basis for discussion.

Again, let us have no more of this nonsense of claiming that somehow there is a conspiracy between the Irish Government and the EU to take Northern Ireland away from Britain against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. The European Union will support the Republic of Ireland because the Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Union, in exactly the same way as the European Union would support the UK in a trade dispute, border dispute or customs dispute with any non-EU member if we asked it to.

I am asking the Minister who sums up to confirm in terms that the UK Government still respect absolutely and unreservedly the sovereignty of the Republic of Ireland and its position as a full and integral member of the European Union, because too much of what we have heard being supported by Conservative Members appears to undermine that position.

Let us not forget that the people of Northern Ireland have spoken twice on this issue. When they spoke in 2016, they said, “We want to stay in the European Union.” When they spoke in the referendum on the Good Friday agreement—which did not bring peace to Northern Ireland, let us not forget, but it certainly brought peace a lot closer than it was before—the agreement reached at that point was that nobody could take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and that nobody could force Northern Ireland to stay in the United Kingdom against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. How on earth is it within the spirit of that agreement for anyone to take Northern Ireland out of the European Union against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, especially when it is becoming increasingly clear that it is difficult, if not impossible, to deliver the kind of Brexit the Prime Minister is obsessed with without having to go back on some of the promises that have saved so many lives on both sides of the Irish border over the past number of years?

The Irish border question cannot be easily solved if Northern Ireland is out of the EU and the Republic is in. It can be very substantially solved within the terms of the question that was on the referendum ballot paper if the Prime Minister is prepared to see sense, listen to sense and listen to the businesses and so on that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington was accused of not supporting. Those businesses are saying to us, “Why in the name of goodness are we coming out of the customs union and the single market?” Customs union membership makes the solution to the Irish border question so much easier and so much more achievable. If that was the only benefit of being in the customs union, I would say to the Government that they should at least think about it.

People did not vote to leave the single market or the customs union. They voted to leave the European Union. [Interruption.] I still have a photograph of the ballot paper at home, if Members want to see it; it does not say anything about the single market or the customs union. We do not really know how many of the 17 million people who voted to leave wanted us to leave the customs union and how many wanted us to stay in it. How does the Minister think Members should vote on the deal, assuming a deal is brought back, if they want to respect the wish of the majority—the majority being the 16 million who wanted to stay in the whole package and the unknown but undoubtedly significant number who wanted us to leave the European Union but not the customs union and the single market? Which option is the Minister saying we should support? Should we vote for a proposal from the Government that will involve us leaving the customs union and the single market on a rotten deal, or should we vote for a proposal that says we will leave the single market and the customs union on no deal at all? That is not a choice that respects the sovereignty of the people or, indeed, the alleged sovereignty of Parliament.

If the Minister is as confident as she appeared that the deal brought before the House will be one that we can all enthusiastically get behind, why do the Government not commit to make that vote a proper, meaningful vote, with alternatives for those who do not want the Prime Minister’s deal because it is too destructive and who do not want no deal? If the Government are so confident that we will accept the deal anyway, why not offer to put a third option to Parliament, which is to let the people decide? If we cannot agree what the people really meant about leaving the customs union, borders in Ireland, passport queues at Brussels and all the rest of it, why not ask them again what they really meant?

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any views about the conditions before there would be an opportunity for people to determine whether they support the terms of a deal. For example, we heard this weekend that two out of three members of the three biggest unions support having a say on the deal. Are those the sort of conditions?

[Peter Grant]

I come from a tradition where the people are sovereign, and if Parliament cannot decide what the people actually meant when they voted, Parliament should ask the people. I am not that bothered about going back to ask the people in my country what they wanted, because they made it perfectly clear by a majority of almost 24% that they wanted to stay.

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman comes from a political tradition where accepting referendum results is a philosophical problem.

[Peter Grant]

I love it when somebody who hardly knew I existed 18 months ago knows more about my political philosophy and political motivations than me. I suspect that I have lived in this body for longer than the hon. Gentleman has. I want to make this quite clear to him yet again, although I cannot say that I will only use words of one syllable, because “syllable” is too big a word to use. The Scottish National party is founded on the principle of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. That principle has been unanimously endorsed by this House during this Parliament. If he did not agree with the sovereignty of the people, he could have spoken about it and voted at the time. He did not, and therefore, according to the rules of this most sovereign of palaces, he has endorsed the principle of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland said that they want to stay in the European Union. That creates a difficulty, but ignoring the will of the people when it does not suit is not a solution to the problem.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Is the problem with the people’s vote not the talk about having a vote on the deal but the fact that if the vote involves the same Hobson’s choice that we will get here—a rubbish deal or no deal—it will not help to put that to the people? If there is no option in that vote to not do this, that will give it a false legitimacy and actually weaken the fight against Brexit, not strengthen it.

[Peter Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of my concerns about the growing campaign for a people’s vote is that if it is as meaningless and as flawed a process as the 2016 referendum, it will not bring us any further forward, regardless of the result.

What the Government can be in control of is the wording of the motion that they bring forward and demand we give our unanimous support to, otherwise they will say that we are failing to get behind British businesses, British institutions and all the rest of it. We will be given the option to vote for a deal of some kind, and we will be given the option—by implication, if no other way—of opting for no deal, but we should be given a third option. I remind the Minister and the Government again that, as far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned, constitutionally and by international treaty, they do have an option, and the indications are that more and more of them are seriously considering that option. [Interruption.] The Minister can tut all she wants. One of her colleagues admitted last week that she did not know that people in Ireland vote on unionist and nationalist lines, and if that is the depth of the Government’s ignorance about how politics in Northern Ireland works, it really does not surprise me.

The people of Northern Ireland are guaranteed that they will always have a third option before them, and the people of Scotland always have a third option before us. I would like the people of England and the people of Wales, and their elected representatives, to have another option as well. I do not want the MPs representing constituencies in England and Wales to be forced to decide between a catastrophic deal and a catastrophic no deal. My very real worry is that the political games—the musical chairs and musical Cabinet offices—being played within the Conservative party just now are leading to a position where the deal offered will be so different from no deal that it really will not make any difference, and we will end up with a result that fewer than 17 people in these islands, never mind 17 million people, would really have wanted.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I am not suggesting that at all. That gentleman’s pension pot is a liability of the European Union. They entered into it, so I think it is something that they need to sort out. I do not think that the European Union should be the kind of body that stops people getting their pensions. I do not remember when we joined the European Union being given a big pot of money to reflect all the liabilities we inherited, so it is a bit difficult to understand why the reverse has to happen when we leave and we have to pay for the others. We simply were not given a whole load of money at the beginning to reflect the fact that we were going to have to pick up some of the pensions of civil servants who had been working in the EU before we arrived.

[Peter Grant]

It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we went into the European Union on the basis of a referendum in which people did not understand the question but we are not allowed to use that argument now. Is it not the case that when new members join the European Union, they become liable for liabilities that occur only after they join? In the same way, if any member is daft enough to leave, they are liable only for those liabilities that occurred before they left.

[John Redwood]

No, I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I think that he will find that we were responsible for the existing pension liabilities jointly and severally with the other members. We cannot really complain about that; we were joining the club, so we had to help pay the club bills. When we leave the club, the remaining members pay the bills—it is a fairly straightforward operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).

This House finds itself, 18 months after article 50 was triggered, with the Government having no credible Brexit plan, no viable solution for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland, and apparently no majority in Parliament for the Chequers proposals. This debate comes on the same day as an e-petition debate in Westminster Hall on rescinding article 50 if it is found that the vote leave campaign broke electoral laws. The petition attracted 398 signatures from my constituency of East Lothian. My constituency voted, on a turnout of over 72%, 64.6% to remain and 35.4% to leave. The petitioners are of the view that if laws have been broken the validity of the referendum is questioned and article 50 should be withdrawn. The Government’s response to the petition included a quote from the Prime Minister:

“This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.”

The Government’s response went on to state:

“The British people can trust this Government to honour the referendum result and get the best deal possible. To do otherwise would be to undermine the decision of the British people.”

I raise that as a warning about the proposed legislation for the withdrawal agreement. Our law, like our paper currency, works only because there is universal agreement and consensus to follow and obey it. The confidence of the British people has been undermined. None of us here will be forgiven: neither those who seek to undermine the public’s confidence nor those who allow it to be undermined unchallenged.

The White Paper intends to give legal clarity to people and businesses, along with a political declaration, on the future relationship. To understand the significance of what is required, I want to look at my constituency’s relationship with Europe. East Lothian has many links with Europe. There are thousands of EU citizens who live and work in and around East Lothian. They work in education, the NHS and agriculture, from co-ordinating sheep-breeding programmes across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to the provision of saplings, vegetables and grain. Whisky is exported from my constituency, both as a single malt and blended, to France. Thistley Cross cider travels around Europe and the world.

Chapter 2C of the White Paper discusses the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. There is a clear assertion that the Government wish them to be honoured and represented, but will the Minister say whether there is a guarantee that we will have access to the databases that hold that information? This will cause problems in Scotland, particularly with registered teachers, and for the safety of our children in relation to access to police databases regarding people.

East Lothian’s interconnection with Europe is complex and nuanced. It is vital to the future of my constituents, from the European workers who tend the fields with skill and expertise to the hospitality sector that makes our “golf coast” a success. Musselburgh racecourse relies very heavily on horses bred and trained in southern Ireland. The interconnections run at family and community level dating back to migrations from the previous century and earlier, from the manufacture of ice cream to modern cutting-edge IT companies that rely on today’s European students. Will the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to the avenues of enforcement for EU citizens here, as compared with UK citizens in Europe, regarding their rights and obligations? What will happen when there is a conflict in judgment between an EU country and the UK?

The disarray of the Government is causing distress, worry and fear for families and individuals. There is talk about having just one set of changes to the rulebook to stop any panic. I would like to look at that in relation to a constituent, Scott Sutherland. He runs an extremely successful chemical coatings company in East Lothian, Marott Graphic Services, which has been family-owned for over 30 years. It develops, produces and sells lithographic pressroom chemistry: high performance additives to put into machines to make sure corrosion is prevented. In 2011, it established XCP Corrosion Technologies, which sells successfully across Europe.

Scott is a classic example of an entrepreneur who is developing and growing his small and medium-sized enterprise. He is a practical man who welcomes technical and market challenges. He has more concern about the governmental challenges that are being put in his way. His view of Brexit is harsh, but based on facts. He read the initial technical papers put out in case of a no deal. They basically confirmed his fears that moving to a no deal will result in an immediate 6.5% tariff on his products, as well as other associated costs relating to delays, customs controls and the bureaucracy of form filling. His conservative estimate is that it will hit his margins by between 10% and 15%, which is the difference between his family business being viable and not being viable.

Scott is making active plans and preparations to transfer production to continental Europe. The loss of highly skilled technical jobs, the loss of personnel, and the possible loss of the business’s potential for East Lothian is devastating. It is an SME, and if that is replicated across the UK it will be a devastating blow to our economy.

The responsibility of those making the decisions is crucial. The withdrawal legislation we are debating today and provided for in the article 50 notice will implement an agreement we have not seen, proposals or a no deal—or some chimera of all—reached for political reasons rather than the benefit of the UK and Europe. The new legislation must amend earlier legislation, as we have heard, and it must deal with the question of a meaningful vote, either here in Parliament or a people’s vote on the deal. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) say that the SNP Government now agree on the need for a meaningful people’s vote.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman may have misheard me. I said that we could not have a meaningful vote here until we knew what the terms of any supposed people’s vote would be. I do not think anyone could sign up to that. We certainly want to see a meaningful vote in Parliament, not the Hobson’s choice that the Government intend to impose on us.

[Martin Whitfield]

I apologise: my understanding was that the hon. Gentleman spoke about a meaningful vote for the people as a third option, if there was no agreement here. I am grateful for the clarification.

The majority of people in East Lothian and I believe that the original decision to leave Europe was wrong, but there is a variety of solutions, from a no deal, WTO, hard Brexit through the Chequers agreement to what is looking less like a deal for the country than a deal to keep the Conservative party together. The proposals from the Government will damage the UK—the whole of the UK—and, in particular, they will damage our young people. That damage will last for generations.

There is another solution, which would protect our United Kingdom. I look to Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies to stand up and ensure that the United Kingdom remains so. It is a deal that would protect the staff and users of our NHS, protect our chemical industry and our manufacturing industry, protect the Northern Ireland border and the Good Friday agreement, and protect our reputation abroad as a law-abiding society, and it must involve staying in the single market and the customs union. It does not really matter what we call it, but what does matter is that it preserves our relationship with the EU and our stance as an open, outward-looking, supportive partner.

History gives the opportunity to review, consider and analyse. Leadership gives the privilege of decision making today, even if that decision begins with an admission that this might not be the best route for our journey after looking at the map.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill). It was great to hear about his admirably level-headed constituents; my constituents in Gordon are equally level-headed.

I was inspired by the paper on the withdrawal Bill that the Secretary of State published in July. He expressed a very positive view, referring to

“a smooth transition to a comprehensive future economic and security partnership for business and citizens”.

I could not agree with him more.

Fundamentally, the Government have, in good faith, prepared for an amicable Brexit. They have reached out; they have bent over backwards; and they have pushed colleagues to the limit to work with the EU. We need a sustainable plan, welcomed by the EU and by this Parliament. We need an agreement that would lay to rest the divisions on both sides of the House. The paper states that

“it remains our firm view…to reach agreement on a good and sustainable future relationship.”

That agreement must be legally robust.

The Government are publishing papers in preparation for no deal. I am a pragmatist—a long-time business person—and I know that we cannot afford a cliff-edge no deal. As the Minister said in her opening speech, the withdrawal agreement recognises that a deal is still being negotiated; but can we explore existing EU and international rules-based agreements? They are numerous and have been signed up to by major economies—valued trading partners of the EU.

This is a balance. Is the EU willing to accept a proposal that it claims undermines its founding principles—it does not look like it—or can we cut and paste from existing, tested free trade agreements such as the comprehensive economic and trade agreement and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to facilitate a deal honouring article 50, respecting the right to withdraw, upholding World Trade Organisation rules, recognising regulatory equivalence, protecting the union of the United Kingdom and, fundamentally, respecting the will of the people of Britain, the EU’s closest trading partner and historic ally?

We must debate the merits of a hybrid deal. I do not accept that there can be no deal. I believe that there is time—within the timetable that has been specified—to agree a framework modelled on proven free trade agreements, allowing withdrawal as laid out in article 50 and outlined in the July 2018 exit document, and leaving 18 months in which to negotiate the detail. That could be welcomed by the EU and embraced by the British Government. It would be in line with their stated aims, and it would be vastly superior to a cliff-edge so-called hard Brexit.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned a super-Canada, CETA-plus arrangement, which would be a comprehensive free trade deal. An enhanced basic Canada deal could deliver 99% access to the EU single market, with no fees and no free movement. President Tusk himself mentioned it.

As the Minister said, we have made significant progress in protecting the rights of EU citizens. The oil and gas industry in Gordon values them very highly.

[Peter Grant]

Everyone knows that one of Scotland’s major challenges is the fact that the age profile of our population is all wrong. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the free movement of people is such a bad thing for his constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will begin by commenting on some of the earlier contributions. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). I am not aware that anyone has said that all women are against Brexit, but I am aware that recent polls suggest that women have switched in large numbers from leave to remain. Clearly, that does not mean that all women support remain, but there has been a switch.

I was going to suggest that the hon. Lady should perhaps get out more, but that would have been rude, because I am sure that she does get out among her constituents. However, I am rather surprised that she has found no one who has changed their mind on Brexit. There are people who have switched from supporting leave to supporting remain, but equally others have gone in the other direction. I am not quite sure about the circles in which she has been moving—perhaps they are particularly set in their ways—but I suggest that, even in her constituency, there are people whose thinking has changed in both directions.

I corroborate the analysis of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) of where the Government are at. However, he was far too generous about the legacies that David Cameron and the Prime Minister are going to leave us and about the assessment of their contribution to history, because I think things will be even bleaker than the situation that he portrayed.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said that he did not support a people’s vote due to his worries about how badly the first vote was conducted. However, something is significantly different now. Over the past two years and three months, we have had the debates that we should have had in the run-up to the referendum. Issues such as no deal meaning that Health Ministers will require pharmaceutical companies to stockpile medicine is something that should have been in the debate before the EU referendum took place. The current debates about the impact on the economy, the pharmaceutical sector, the automotive sector, aviation and so on should have happened before the vote. I therefore hope that there will be a final say on the deal or a people’s vote and that it will be better informed debate. I accept that some players will seek to muddy the waters, but at least some of what we should have been talking about two years has been aired.

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is not in his place, because he said—I have heard him say this often—that the people he spoke to during the referendum campaign only talked to him about the single market and the customs union and understood perfectly what they both meant. Well, he and I actually shared a platform during the campaign and, although I do not have perfect recall, I am reasonably certain that the people in that exchange focused on immigration, which was clearly a major factor. Yes, there may have been some who referred to the single market and the customs union—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman referred to them many times during that debate—but for the audience it was about immigration. People were not saying that they wanted to come out of the customs union because that would enable us to do trade deals. I appreciate the irony of the Prime Minister going to Nigeria, which is trying to negotiate a customs union with its neighbouring countries. We are leaving the customs union while Nigeria and the countries in that region are trying to establish a customs union, but such is the illogicality of much of what we are doing at present.

The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), was present for the earlier debate in Westminster Hall about article 50, but he came and sat here in the Chamber too. I was hoping that he would answer the question that I put to him during an exchange in Westminster Hall about whether article 50 was revocable, because the House is entitled to know the Government’s view. Even if the Government are not willing to reveal their hand—although they should, because Members of Parliament are entitled to know something that will be key to some of the decisions that we might be taking —I hope that the Wightman case in the Scottish courts may lead to the matter being decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which will determine whether article 50 is revocable. I think it will determine that article 50 is revocable, and I hope it can do so on a timescale that is pertinent and helpful to this debate. Of course if that happens, at least we will have demolished one of the Government’s arguments, that they cannot revoke article 50. Hopefully the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) will be able to clarify whether the Government are now willing to take a position on this or whether they will simply run with, “We are not going to answer this question, because it is not something we intend to do.”

[Peter Grant]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that possibly the reason the Government will not tell us their view is that they know perfectly well that article 50 can be revoked and that the European Union would be quite willing to talk on those terms? It is not a question of legality; it is a question of obduracy and obstinacy on the part of Her Majesty’s Government.

[Tom Brake]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who has of course provided the Minister with an opportunity to get rid of that obduracy by providing some transparency so that we all know the Government’s view on this.

I will speak briefly, which I am sure Conservative Members, and possibly some Opposition Members, will welcome, in part because I have a nasty feeling that we may have all this debate about a withdrawal agreement that is not then secured. We are having this debate, but the evidence from Conservative Members who are no longer in their place is that they are not going to support the Chequers agreement, and therefore we are very unlikely to have a withdrawal agreement to discuss or to vote on at some point in the future.

I hope that one thing the Minister will do in his response is to go on the record again on the question of whether, when the Government table the motion on the withdrawal agreement and the future relationships, Members of Parliament will be able to amend it to enable us to insert a people’s vote. In the same vein, I hope he will say whether, in fact, it would be in order for the withdrawal agreement Bill itself to be amended to allow a people’s vote, if Members choose to table such an amendment. I put those two specific points to the Minister, and if he has not made a note, I know that people elsewhere will have so that he is able to respond to those questions directly. If he fails to do so, I suspect I will be writing to him to require that he does respond.

The withdrawal agreement includes a transition period or, as the Government prefer to call it, an implementation period—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that it is not entirely clear what the Government will actually be implementing during the said transition period. In many ways it is just a standstill period, as opposed to a transition period or, indeed, an implementation period.

With the transition period and with the fact that we are going to be rule takers, the Government have succeeded in uniting hard-core Brexiters and remainers. Congratulations, because there has not been much unity so far, but on that point the Government have found a way to unite two very different, opposing wings. On the one hand, nobody wants to be a rule taker; on the other, although we might want to accept rules from the European Union, we want to participate in that decision-making process, as opposed to being excluded from it.

On EU citizens and UK citizens, I am pleased with something the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said—I am rarely so—because he called for the rights of EU citizens to be ring-fenced. We have also heard that from Labour Members, and Liberal Democrat Members support it, and I am sure Plaid Cymru and SNP Members do too. We need to park this issue. The Government could do so by saying that they are going to legislate unilaterally to provide full rights to EU citizens, regardless of what happens and regardless of whether we end up with no deal. The Government would then not have to say that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. They could say, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but we have actually agreed the rights of EU citizens.”

I hope that would provide some reassurance to UK citizens in the EU. I am not sure what other Members are finding, but I am on the receiving end, perhaps because I am my party’s spokesman, of a steady stream of emails from people across the EU who might have lived in, say, France for 15 or 20 years but are now being asked to do things they have never been asked to do before. In some cases, elderly people are being told to drive 30 miles to a particular office to get their paperwork, which is causing them some concern. If the Government were unilaterally to agree those rights, the issue could be addressed more quickly and the concerns of many, often retired, UK citizens in the EU would be addressed.

Documents often have pages in the middle saying, “These pages are left deliberately blank.” Well, clearly that is what has happened in relation to Ireland and Northern Ireland, because, after two years and three months, we are still no closer to getting a solution to the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, unless of course the solution is, as outlined in the technical note, that if any business trading across the border has any problems it should talk to the Irish Government. It is an interesting approach from the British Government to advise British businesses that if they want answers to questions about cross-border trade, they should talk to the Irish Government. I have not previously heard of that approach, and it is not one that I would commend, but it neatly sums up the difficulties the Government have got themselves into on this question.

I am sorry that he is not in his place to hear this, but the hon. Member for North East Somerset has previously referred rather glibly to

“our ability, as we had during the troubles, to have people inspected.”

That rather neglects the impact that that might have on peace in Northern Ireland, about which Northern Ireland’s police chief, George Hamilton, has expressed great concern.

George Hamilton revealed the level of chaos surrounding preparations for the border in Ireland after Brexit, claiming that no one is in charge. He told Members that no go-to co-ordinator is actually taking responsibility for the project, which does not sound very positive. I hope that since 27 June a go-to person has been identified.

I made an intervention earlier on the divorce bill, and I was accused by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) of not supporting British business. Well, I talk regularly to British business, which is why I went, long before any DExEU Minister did, to talk to the port of Dover authorities about the impact on that port and on all the business that goes through it.

It would perhaps be more honest of the Government if they were to set it out that not only will there be the £39 billion divorce bill, give or take a little, and that European leaders, contrary to the words of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), are not going to “go whistle,” but that there is no doubt we will be making ongoing payments for a number of years thereafter—one report suggests we will be making payments until 2064. People are entitled to know that, because it slightly changes the parameters of the criteria on which people based their decision two years and three months ago. If at that point people had been told, “Well, it is a down payment of £39 billion, and then an ongoing payment, which will probably continue, certainly in relation to pensions, until 2064,” I think the outcome might have been different. Certainly people would not have swallowed or taken at face value the rather glib statements of the leave campaign.

I have a real worry, as other Members, including the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, have expressed, that what we will get in the framework, and perhaps Mr Barnier will facilitate this, is an almighty fudge—something that enables the UK Government to come back and say, “Peace in our time,” and wave a bit of paper, and that enables Mr Barnier to go on and pursue other interests that he may have. I have written to Mr Barnier and to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union asking some very precise questions about what criteria this political agreement will have to hit so that we can have some substance, a point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). We want a very precise agreement that sets out the terms. What we do not want is a vague undertaking that achieves our getting out of the European Union and then, for the next 15 or 20 years, leaves future Governments the responsibility of trying to unpick the mess caused in seeking to achieve that exit. I hope that that will not happen and that the House would reject it. If the agreement is just the equivalent of a couple of sides of A4 with a lot of clichés and a lot of nice words about how we are going to work closely together in the future, I hope that Parliament will say no to it.

There has been a lot of reference to how EU trade deals will simply be rolled over, and how the EU has said that is fine. I have asked the embassies of the countries involved—I have also asked Ministers in parliamentary questions, but they have not really answered—how many of those countries have written to the UK Government saying that they are happy for their trade deal to be rolled over without any change. I imagine that Members can guess how many have written back to me saying that they have confirmed that: zero. Not a single embassy that has responded has been willing to put it in writing that they will allow their deal to be rolled over. Some have said that they want to reopen aspects of the deal. Good luck to the Government if they think that all 65 trade deals will simply roll over just like that, lock, stock and barrel. That is not the feedback that I have got from the countries involved.

I conclude by putting on record again the questions that I have asked the Minister, so that he really cannot escape answering: whether the Government consider that article 50 is revocable, and whether the motion that they will bring forward or the withdrawal agreement Bill itself will be amendable to allow a people’s vote. I am sure he has listened carefully twice to me asking him those questions, so I am absolutely confident that I will get simple yes/no answers when he responds.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who speaks with great passion and experience on these subjects, even if I cannot agree with much of what he says. I begin in the same vein as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) by extending condolences to our fellow Scottish Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who recently suffered a bereavement.

As we heard earlier, it was inevitable that this Session would be dominated by the method of our departure from the European Union. The conversation taking place both inside and outside the House has left the country with the distinct view that there is little consensus about the details. I have always been clear that I voted to leave the EU, and my constituents knew that. My political opponents in Stirling, where 67% of people voted to remain, often ask me on what basis I can speak up for Stirling in the House as a Member of Parliament who voted leave. My answer is simple: the people of Stirling sent me here on the basis of our manifesto commitment. All Conservative and Unionist candidates at the election stood on a manifesto commitment to deliver Brexit, and to leave the customs union, the single market and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

[Peter Grant]

I respect that fact that someone who gets elected is expected to implement the manifesto commitment on which they stood, but two years earlier the hon. Gentleman stood in the same constituency on a manifesto promise of keeping us in the single market. What caused his personal journey to Damascus from 2015, when he was determined to stay in the single market, to 2017, when he was determined to get out? Or did he just change his mind because he had to so that he was allowed to stand as a Conservative candidate?

[Stephen Kerr]

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. In 2015 I stood on a manifesto commitment that the Conservative party, should it be elected with a majority and form the Government of this country, would hold a referendum on our membership of the European Union. The then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that he would go to Brussels and negotiate a better arrangement with the European Union. In the event, sadly, he came back with much less than he had promised and, in my opinion, tried to oversell it to the British people. The British people will not be sold a pig in a poke, and the inevitable consequence was that they voted to leave the EU.

[Peter Grant]

I am a bit surprised to have to remind a Conservative MP of what was in his own manifesto in 2015. Admittedly it is no longer available on the official Conservative party website—I wonder what the party does not want us to see—but I can assure him that it said:

“We are clear about we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market.”

I ask him again: what changed his view from wanting to stay in the single market when he stood in 2015 to wanting to get out when he stood in 2017?

[Stephen Kerr]

The simple answer is that we fulfilled our election commitment by holding a referendum in June 2016, when the people of this country voted to leave the European Union. That is clearly what changed. The hon. Gentleman was a little thin-skinned in his response when I intervened on him earlier but, unlike his party, the Conservative party honours and respects the outcomes of referendums. We did so in 2014 when the Scottish people voted to remain in the United Kingdom. We stand firmly on the side of the Scottish people in that judgment, as we stand on the side of the people of the United Kingdom who voted in June 2016 to leave the European Union. I have committed to the people of Stirling to come here and deliver on the outcome of that referendum, and I believe it is my responsibility to them to ensure that we in this House get the best possible Brexit for the United Kingdom. That remains my first and foremost consideration.

The electorate expect their politicians to negotiate, finalise and deliver a deal that will have their best interests at heart. I spent most of Saturday in Callander, which I recommend all right hon. and hon. Members pay a visit to—it is the most beautiful place. I was in Stirling Road, Campbell Court, Menteith Crescent and Willoughby Place, and when I knocked on doors, the people there were universally adamant about one thing, regardless of how they voted in June 2016: they want us to pull together and deliver Brexit. The people of our country have become incredibly fatigued by the squabbling and division, and they look to Members of all parties to unite and deliver the result of the referendum with a deal that is in the best interests of people in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Global Britain did some polling in my constituency last month—I am sure it will be covered in the Stirling Observer when it comes out on Wednesday—and the outcome was exactly as I have just described: people want to see us do the best we can for our country, and that we must do. That is why I continue to support the leadership of the Prime Minister. There was some scoffing earlier when my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) talked about how people see our Prime Minister, but I can tell Members that she is admired even by our political opponents, at least in my neck of the woods, because she has stuck to her job and shown a sense of duty and devotion to public service. Whether or not one agrees with her direction of travel, that is deeply admirable in her as a person. I honestly believe—in fact, I have no doubt whatsoever, and nor can any rationally-motivated person—that the Prime Minister is doing everything in her power to secure a Brexit arrangement that fulfils the instructions of the British people that were delivered through the referendum.

The Prime Minister is also dealing with the complexity of leaving the European Union. Despite the comments of Opposition Members, the British people fully embraced that complexity in a pretty full and protracted debate surrounding the EU referendum. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said that the fact that people spoke in a public meeting about one particular issue but perhaps did not dwell on another logically proves—although this is actually illogical—that people did not give any consideration to whether we were leaving the single market, even though that fact was said repeatedly at the time by those on the remain side. In fact, the remain campaign even stopped calling the EU the European Union for a while and simply referred to it in those terms. The situation was well understood.

I admire my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for what she is trying to do, and I wish to make it absolutely clear that my support for her includes my support for what she set out in her speeches about Brexit at Lancaster House and the Mansion House. The Conservative party was united in its response to her Mansion House speech because the principles that she set out in it were founded on pragmatism. At the end of the day, I am a Conservative because I am a pragmatist. The difference between the Conservative party and the ideologies of other parties is that we will do what will work. That is what the Conservative Government are being guided by.