Some speakers in this debate have talked about how the tone of the debate has changed in recent days, and that is a fair point. Part of that change in tone is the inevitability of the fact that the bill will receive its third reading tonight. Another remarkable aspect is that there has been, if at all, an even greater inflation of assertions about what will be possible. Time will tell. The debate and amendments have largely focused on the interface between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, not least because it is much more under the control of the British government. However, britain`s process to Northern Ireland – and even beyond the European Union – is just as important, if not more important. I think that these plans have not been so much tested by amendments, because that work depends on the revision of the future free trade agreement. In this regard, it should be stressed that a free trade agreement – even if it is very broad and inclusive – is not identical to the agreements we currently have as parts of the European Union; It is not the same as a customs union and an internal market. A free trade agreement is a concept of different quality.
We currently have a free trade agreement that gives us access to trade agreements with the rest of the world, and we are abandoning it for an unfavourable future. I also congratulate Mike Amesbury for leading the vote on the Private Members` Bill today; I hope that he will choose a subject that has reached agreement in this House. A long time ago, in 2005, I took 16th place in the election. I must acknowledge the role played by my neighbour in the neighbouring constituency, Sir William Cash, Hon`s friend. He and I worked closely together in drafting a bill for private members, the European Communities Act 1972 (Disapplication) bill, which used the memorable phrase “displeasure” in paragraph 1, paragraph 2: if, as the woman says, all these regulations and agreements are really pushed by industry, what can be gained by disengaging from the EU? The Conservatives say the government is taking back control, but they think the industry is fuelling all of that regulation. The UK`s removal of the common fisheries policy remains in the political declaration. Nor is it in the agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister. Although we never heard the reason, I suppose there was no political will to include it in the withdrawal agreement. With regard to the Brexit demands on the future of the fishing industry, we will have to wait.
It will take the political will to deliver on these promises, probably at the expense of commitments to other communities and sectors. The amended bill was passed by his peers on Tuesday evening without a vote and will return to the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon after questions from the Prime Minister. It was promised that the rights of vulnerable refugees – children whose rights were removed from the Eu`s Withdrawal Agreement Act – would be enshrined in the Immigration Act. Why remove from the law the reunification of children with their families? I am as perplexed and perplexed as everyone else on the opposition benches. Families go together. Politics had an agreement between the parties. There are not many children. I have seen the conditions in which young refugees live, and I have seen the traffickers go into orbit and exploit them.