On Brexit, the Lords and the speech I would have made
Today the bill to trigger Brexit began its journey through the House of Lords. 190 of my peers in the Lords opted to speak in the opening two day debate. I decided not to make it 191 and to offer my view here instead.
I want to explain a little about the procedure for the Bill in the Lords, as well as giving my own opinion.
The Lords is unelected. Even in its bloated form of over 800 members, it knows its place. In the Commons they begin the scrutiny of legislation with a Second Reading debate on the principle of the bill, which they then would normally vote on. We also have a debate on the principle at Second Reading but, as a revising chamber, our convention means we do not vote on the principle of a bill agreed by the elected representatives in the Commons.
We will therefore not have an opportunity to vote down the bill that was agreed by the Commons. Our job is to try to improve it. And given that Brexit is both the will of the majority of the people who voted in the referendum, and then overwhelmingly voted on by their representatives in the Commons, it would be wrong for the unelected Lords to block it in principle.
I say this, not out of some self preservation as a result of bullying by the Brexiteers and their friends in the media. If the Lords choose to block the Bill at some point it is not an option for the Government to then abolish us or pack us with compliant Lords, and still meet their timeline for Brexit. As Baroness Smith, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lords, said in a great speech today
“it would take about two years to introduce 1000 new peers.”
I have previously spoken in the Lords on this issue. As well as talking about democracy, I also make clear my clear view that Brexit is an awful mistake. In my opinion it is not in the national interest.
I agree with Tony Blair in his speech last week:
“the British people voted to leave Europe. And I agree the will of the people should prevail. I accept right now there is no widespread appetite to re-think.”
In that context there is no point in now trying to block Brexit or to secure a second referendum. For unelected Lords to do so smacks of a privileged few imposing their will on the people, when the people believed they have imposed their will on us through a referendum.
But Tony also finished by saying:
“This is not the time for retreat, indifference or despair; but the time to rise up in defence of what we believe — calmly, patiently, winning the argument by the force of argument; but without fear and with the conviction we act in the true interests of Britain.”
That is what we should now do in the Lords.
I will support amendments to this bill. To do so is not to subvert the will of the people as some believe. It also does not tie the hands of negotiators, it simply sets out slightly different boundaries for the final deal.
I will therefore support amending the Bill to give those EU citizens currently living and working here the unambiguous right to remain after the UK leaves the EU. A poll published for yesterday’s Observer showed strong majority support for such a guarantee — just 5% thought they should be asked to leave.
I believe that many who supported leaving the EU did so, in part, because they wanted the UK Parliament to be sovereign over the politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg. I therefore see no problem in requiring the Government to report more regularly and fully to the UK Parliament during the process of negotiation.
Equally I think it a fundamental point of principle that the British Parliament should have the same right to veto the final deal as the European Parliament. This then has to be sufficiently in advance of the deadline for leaving the EU, for a new deal to be agreed.
To do otherwise invites the UK leaving with no deal agreed and therefore the hardest of Brexit options. No trade agreement, no customs union, no rights for UK citizens abroad or EU citizens here, no border arrangements to preserve the peace in Northern Ireland — to list just a few of the consequences.
Such an outcome would be a catastrophe for the people of the UK.
So over the next few weeks up to the last scheduled day on this Bill on March 7th, I will vote to improve this bill that triggers Article 50. I will do so out of respect for the outcome of the referendum, out of respect for the limited power of unelected Lords, and in keeping with my sworn duty to act in the Lords out of the public interest.
