I questioned the Brexit Minister about the nature of the Brexit transition period. The response I had was sad and pathetic, where the Minister tried to impugn my motives.
Stephen Kinnock: Paragraph 17 of the directives for the negotiating team states clearly that
“any time-limited prolongation of the Union acquis requires existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply, including the competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union.”
Will the Minister please explain what exactly will be implemented during the implementation period?
Mr Walker: Very clearly, as the Prime Minister set out, the aim of the implementation period is to implement the future relationship between the UK and the EU, and to allow us to put those structures in place for that future relationship. As the hon. Gentleman so often does, he speaks eloquently in this House on behalf of the EU, but we need to make sure that we are negotiating on behalf of the UK.
Stephen Kinnock: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you will have heard during this session, I asked the Minister a perfectly reasonable question. Unfortunately, he chose to respond by impugning my motives and questioning my patriotism. I assure him that I speak only in what I see as the national interest and the interests of my constituents. I therefore ask him to retract those comments and apologise, and we will leave it at that.
Mr Speaker: I said that I would hear the hon. Gentleman. The Minister is not under any obligation to respond, although he may if he wants to.
Mr Walker: I am very happy to give a quick response.
Mr Speaker: Quick is good—much to be said for it.
Mr Walker: I did not mean to impugn the hon. Gentleman’s motives. I would only point out that he was reading directly from the EU’s negotiating guidelines, and that today we are, of course, discussing the UK’s policy.
Stephen Kinnock: That is not an apology.
Mr Speaker: No, it is not an apology. It is an explanation. But we will leave it there.