Remember: if the UK and EU can't reach agreement on the length or purpose of an extension, No Deal next month remains the default outcome, regardless of how parliament votes
aye, the biggest selling paper in the kingdom. with near half a mill copies sold daily before the reff. with just a fraction of those sales now. after it became apparent is was a load of bollox the editor quit and now stands with us. that will learn em. they came out with that as the polls swung in favor of indi. now yer stuck with us and all the grief that comes with it. nae luck.
Surely it doesn't matter what they want because they have already voted for it. They voted to leave on March 29th and now they are all bickering about how they are going to leave. But unless someone pulls the handbrake, leaving is still what is going to happen. What we need is Grommit laying out more track so that Wallace's train doesn't pile into a wall.
MPs have voted by 502 to 20 to back Yvette Cooper's amendment, seeking to pin Theresa May to the commitments she made on Tuesday, including allowing the Commons to delay Brexit if her deal is rejected again next month.
4.53 pm Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) To reply immediately to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), it is not actually the duty of this House to surrender parliamentary government to government by Parliament. In fact, that is well established in our constitutional arrangements. Furthermore, any attempt by shenanigans to rearrange the procedures to give private Members’ Bills an advantage over Government business is itself reprehensible for that very good reason. I want to turn to another question, which is to do with the issue of control over laws. I think it is very important for every Member of this House to ask themselves whether they would be prepared to tell their constituents that, under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, we would be expected—in fact, we would be required by an Act of Parliament—to surrender control over our laws. If people have not had the time or perhaps the opportunity to read article 4, may I suggest that they do so? To do otherwise would be utterly and completely irresponsible. Share Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. If we do not have control of our laws, we do not have control of our country. Is that not right? Share Sir William Cash That is completely right. That is what we are here for. We are not here to voice our own opinions or to fragment into factions and then impose views on others by virtue of deals done across the Floor of the House. We are elected on manifesto commitments, and we have an obligation to our constituents to make laws in their interests, not in ours. I therefore suggest that looking at article 4 is extremely important. I accept that it is said that the article would apply only during the implementation period, but that in itself would put us at the mercy of our competitors. Share Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con) It is worse than that, because it would apply not only during the implementation period but during the whole period of the backstop, which is potentially unlimited. The European Court of Justice would therefore remain—against our manifesto commitment—the supreme arbiter of our laws in that area. Share Sir William Cash I am so glad that my hon. Friend has made that point, because I was about to make it myself and now will not have to. I am as much against the backstop as I am against the article 4 arrangements, for reasons that both of us agree on. We have to grapple with the fact that article 4 will apply across all the EU treaties, laws and legal positions adopted by the ECJ over recent years. It is inconceivable that the House would hollow itself out in such a manner as to preclude itself from being able to control such things. I am Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and we get these regulations and directives week in, week out. We received one last week that intends to turn the veto procedure—or unanimity rule—over the making of national tax policy into qualified majority voting. If people really think that that is a minor matter, let them think again what effect it would have on their constituents. Under article 4, our country would be reduced, as I said in my intervention on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to an undemocratic subjugation to the decisions of 27 other member states. In fact, not only that, but as I said, it would put us at the mercy of our competitors. In addition, the article would have the same effect with regard to the question of state aid during the backstop. I do not think that the businesses that argued so strongly for this transitional period had any idea that this would be the consequence of the withdrawal agreement. That agreement emerged from the Chequers deal, which itself was an overturning of the withdrawal Act that we passed in June 2018 and had been planned long before that Act was given Royal Assent, without any reference to the Cabinet and in defiance of collective Cabinet responsibility. If we do not control these laws, who will? It will be the 27 member states. In an important book, “Berlin Rules”, by our former ambassador to Germany, Sir Paul Lever, he says that before decisions are taken by European member states, or indeed by the Council of Ministers, they are cleared with Germany. He also says that it is a German Europe. He does not mince his words. Share Angus Brendan MacNeil I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is aware of the utter irony of this situation. He moans and complains and raises grievances about Europe—he has a chip on his shoulder—but the reality for Scotland in the United Kingdom is worse than everything he says. We have a party in charge that we have not voted for in 65 years. The European Union is nowhere near as bad as what he is going on about. Share Sir William Cash I do not concede what the hon. Gentleman says for one very good reason: it is part of the United Kingdom. That is my first point on control over laws. Article 4 is so offensive because it hollows out this House and hollows out our democracy. On that basis alone, one should not vote for the withdrawal agreement. As I said in my exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State, I want to know why anyone would want to undermine the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which is the law of the land and is contained in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act itself. I would also like people to be honest enough—those who wish to rejoin the European Union, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—to say why on earth anyone would want to rejoin the European Union when it is in complete and total implosion. People are voting with their feet in so many countries, including in Italy. In a nutshell, the withdrawal agreement is deeply, deeply flawed and we ought to vote against it. I believe that the decision at the moment—as I understand it, it has not been concluded—is that the amendments are going to be withdrawn, but I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). https://hansard.parliament.uk/…/78B98FAF-F95B-42F6-848F-
aye, i think you should. its one of the easiest yet to discredit Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) To reply immediately to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), it is not actually the duty of this House to surrender parliamentary government to government by Parliament. In fact, that is well established in our constitutional arrangements. Furthermore, any attempt by shenanigans to rearrange the procedures to give private Members’ Bills an advantage over Government business is itself reprehensible for that very good reason. . the UK doesn't have a constitution, it just makes it up as it goes along, its effectively a banana republic by any other name. . Share Angus Brendan MacNeil I wonder if the hon. Gentleman is aware of the utter irony of this situation. He moans and complains and raises grievances about Europe—he has a chip on his shoulder—but the reality for Scotland in the United Kingdom is worse than everything he says. We have a party in charge that we have not voted for in 65 years. The European Union is nowhere near as bad as what he is going on about. . the uk gov changed the scotland act retrospectively via the HOL during last years scot gov V westminster ECJ case, removing powers from us up here for a minimum of 7years,(the big ones). the UK gov lost but the changes made in the HOL made the ruling unenforceable. then you get this. Share Sir William Cash I do not concede what the hon. Gentleman says for one very good reason: it is part of the United Kingdom. That is my first point on control over laws. Article 4 is so offensive because it hollows out this House and hollows out our democracy. On that basis alone, one should not vote for the withdrawal agreement. . As I said in my exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State, I want to know why anyone would want to undermine the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which is the law of the land and is contained in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act itself. I would also like people to be honest enough—those who wish to rejoin the European Union, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—to say why on earth anyone would want to rejoin the European Union when it is in complete and total implosion. People are voting with their feet in so many countries, including in Italy. . there is no EU implosion, remember the EU doesn't vote by country, it votes by coalitions of party's across boarders. the kippers and torys have made some pretty repulsive coalitions over the last 5-6 years to garner support from righting party's to speak up against scotland joining the EU. for them, its payback time.
