Before we get to the topic of the debate – I know we are talking about Brexit; I will get there – I would like to draw attention to some important points for Putney and the country. The first is the environment. This has to be the climate parliament. I have worked with humanitarian organizations around the world, and in Bangladesh I have partnered with women`s communities whose jobs, livelihoods and lifestyles have been devastated by the increase in seawater due to climate change. It`s already been done. I have also met parents like me, who know that our London children have been constantly invaded by air pollution. In both situations, it is always the poorest who are most affected. We urgently need action against climate change. We can`t wait five years. In this day and age, exaggeration is commonplace. Exaggeration permeates the debate and colours the discourse. Superlatives spread our language.

Yet few in this House contradict my assertion that it is almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of the law and what it facilitates – our exit from the European Union. The case I am doing today is that it is even more important than the provisions of the act. More important than leaving, that`s why we`re leaving. It is the rejection of the dominant political paradigm by the people, which the Chatterati and the Paillettes, the inhabitants of the liberal elite, believed for years, has not been questioned. At the heart of this perversity was the attachment to pannationalism and a consequent affection for supranational governance. This led, under the liberal establishment, to a decrease in the sense of place. They felt that it was not only permissible, but also desirable to undermine the known test stones of sustainable safety. On 20 December 2019, just after the opening of Parliament after the 2019 British general election (in which the Conservative Party won a large majority of 80 seats), the government introduced a new bill to ratify its draft withdrawal agreement. She also moved another guillotine motion to limit debate on the bill. Gentlemen, I am grateful to the Head of Government Whip for facilitating a substitution on our bench and I am pleased that the minister is very interested in it today. Will the noble master allow this House to debate the content of the technical documents as a result of the agreements reached? We know that the statement in the House of Commons was only one part.