Live Brexit Strategy Statement Questions and Statements

Live Brexit Strategy Statement

Live coverage of the statement by exiting the EU secretary David Davis on the government's strategy for withdrawal from the European Union and the publication of the White Paper.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Live Brexit Strategy Statement. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



raise this with the Minister then. The secretary of state for exiting


the European Union, secretary David Davis. With permission I wish to


make a statement on the Government plans to exit the European Union.


Today we are publishing a government white paper on the exit and a new


partnership with the European Union. The Government has made clear it


will honour the choice made by the people of the United Kingdom. On the


23rd of June 2016, the United Kingdom will leave the European


Union. Note that is wrong. By April of, on the 23rd of June 2016 the


people voted for the leave of the European Union. This house... We


have two years of this to go don't worry.


LAUGHING This house is currently considering


a straightforward bill which would give the Prime Minister at the


authority to trigger article 50 of the European Union to begin the


negotiations of our exit. It is not a bill about whether or not we leave


the EU or if we do so but about implementing a decision taken of the


UK. We always have said we would eat out these aims and seek to build a


national consensus were possible. This paper sets those aims and the


thinking behind it. It confirms the Prime Minister's vision of a truly


global UK and Anna Bush 's future relationship with the European


Union. This is based on the 12 principles which will guide the


governments. Taking control of our own laws and statue book.


Maintaining the Common travel area. And the rights of UK nationals


living in the European Union. Protecting and enhancing existing


workers' rights and ensuring free trade with European markets was


forging a new strategic partnership with the European Union including a


bold and ambitious agreement and a beneficial customs agreement.


Forging free trade agreements with others across the world. Ensuring


the United Kingdom is the best place and cooperating against crime and


terrorism and finally delivering a smooth and orderly exit from the


European Union. These amount to one goal, a new positive and


constructive partnership with Britain and the European Union that


works in our mutual interest. All of them are qubits lets me highlight


some specific issues its reiterate our firm view that it is in the UK


interest for the European Union to succeed politically and


economically. That cannot be said to firmly. We want the EU to succeed


politically and economically. We want to work to an outcome for our


mutual benefit, we recognise the European union has principles for


freedom so United Kingdom will leave the single market, instead we seek a


new strategic partnership including a bold and ambitious free trade


agreement and a mutually and vicious trade agreements that insurers


free-trade and services as much as possible. That'll be to our mutual


benefit. As the white paper notes, we export billions of goods to the


EU while import billions from the EU every year. It also sets out how


after we leave the UK will look to increase its trade with the


fastest-growing export markets in the world. It cannot sign a new


trade deals were being a Member, we are preparing the ground freight


which means updating membership of the WTO. Modern free-trade


agreements are to stop disputes on both sides of the white paper


examines the precedence of this area and makes clear we will negotiate an


arrangement that respects UK sovereignty, in terms of clarity and


certainty will recognise the need to provide it wherever we can during


the period when and is inevitable. This legislation will mean the


repeal of the communities act or converting the existing EU law into


domestic law. That means the position we start from, a Common red


glittery framework is unprecedented. The negotiation will not be bringing


two divergent systems together, it is about finding the best way of the


comments to the Mac for the current system to trade with and operate in


each other's markets to continue and we leave the European Union. The


white paper also sets up that we will take control of our own laws,


to ensure that we can control the number of people coming to the


United Kingdom from the European Union. In a jurisdiction of the


European Court of Justice, the UK will come to an end. ... I have


stood at this dispatch box before and said there will be a number of


votes on policy to that earned the white paper makes clear that we will


bring forward separate legislation in areas such as customs and


immigration. Delivering smooth and mutually beneficial exits and


avoiding a disruptive cliff edge which will be the key. A


never-ending transitional status is emphatically not what we seek. But a


phase process of process of implementation of new process of


immigration controls, custom systems, the way we operate and


incorporate on civil justice matters and legal frameworks of business


will be necessary for both sides. As the white paper says, this time may


vary. One of the most important actors in Global Affairs, we will


continue to work with the European Union to preserve the security,


fight crime and terrorism and uphold justice. We must work more closely,


not less in these areas. We will continue to seek to build a national


consensus so we are talking another time to business, civil society,


public services, representatives. We have engaged the devolved


administrations and whilst part of the UK can have a veto, we are


determined to live an outcome which delivers for the whole of the


country. We continue to analyse the outcome of Brexit to shape our


negotiating position and to conclude, the referendum result was


not a vote to turn our back on Europe but was a vote of confidence


in the UK's ability to succeed in the world that our best days are


still to come, whatever the outcome of the negotiation we seek a more


outward looking and ferry UK that works for everyone. The white paper


is available on the Government website.


Mr Speaker, Norman Underwood thank the secretary of state that the


statements is nothing. A week ago the Prime Minister said there would


be a white paper, yesterday she said there would be a white paper


tomorrow and the white paper has not been delivered until four minutes


ago so we can meaningfully ask questions. For months we have been


calling for a plan. That was refused on the basis they would not be a


running commentary. Then the government agreed a plan but


delivered a speech. Then they were forced to concede under pressure


there would be a white paper. No white paper produced too late in the


day for us to ask meaningful questions here. That is completely


unacceptable. And the first fight about Brexit is great player, it is


a fight about giving this house a meaningful role in holding the


government to account. The government has been forced by the


supreme court to involve parliament at all, it has been forced to


produce a white paper and to concede a final vote. Before Christmas the


Secretary of State refused to confirm there would be a vote in


this house at the end of this exercise. The decision to leave was


taken on June 23 but what matters now is the terms agreed under


article 50 and the nature and extent of our new relationship with the EU.


The Prime Minister adopted a risky approach, with gaps and


inconsistencies and an unacceptable fallback position. We need time to


debate this white paper properly and we need a vote on its content. And


on the question of vote, flicking through the white paper IC at


paragraph 1.12 is all that is said is that the final deal that is


agreed will be put to a vote in both houses. We have amendments down next


week seeking a meaningful vote. A vote in this house before a vote is


taken in the European Parliament otherwise all honourable members


will have to watch on their screens as the European Parliament debates


are deal before we get to express any views on it. That is completely


unacceptable and is demeaning of this house. Finally Mr Speaker I


note there is nothing that progress is the position of EU nationals in


this country. We have been calling for unilateral action to be taken


before article 50 is triggered and yet the white paper disappoints on


that front. Let me start with the purpose of the white paper, that is


to inform all the debates, not just today, in the coming two years. The


shadow Brexit spokesman is exactly right, what matters above all else,


not the Labour Party or whatever, what matters are the terms we get


for this negotiation. That is about the future of Britain, that is what


this has should care about, first and foremost. Secondly he talks


about the meaningful vote, I have not yet understood that. I have


voted thousands of times in this house and I have never yet voted on


something I considered not meaningful. Every vote in this house


is meaningful. And there will be a meaningful vote at the end, he makes


much of the time it took. I was saying for a long time to the select


committee that it was inconceivable, the words are used, that we would


not have a meaningful vote at the end of this process. His last point


on the care of EU nationals, I also make you have got a track record of


defending the interests of people who are under pressure and indeed


the last thing pretty much the leader of his party did was go with


me to Washington to get lost grip out of Guantanamo Bay. I am not


going to throw people out of Britain and for him to suggest that is


outrageous. But let me say this, the European Union nationals I want to


see you have all the rights they currently have. But I also would sue


British citizens have their rights. And we owe a moral responsibility


and moral dared to EU nationals but also a moral and legal threats to


citizens of Britain abroad and we will protest vote. -- I will see. Mr


Speaker, I deeply welcome my right on and friend's statement and also


the white paper which is most emphatically in our national


interest. Tomorrow the heads of government of the 27 other member


state will convene in Malta and they propose to make a declaration about


their vision for the future of Europe. President task's letter of


January 31 is not bode well. Will my right honourable friend encourage


the 27 -- President Tusk. By promoting ever closer and more


centralised political union they are creating the very circumstances


which they claim they want to avoid and they are depriving themselves of


the trust of the other citizens who they claim to represent? The


effectively going in the wrong direction. Boyce my right honourable


friend is labelled this issue for 20 years at least, and he has always


said and honourable, straightforward and insightful view of the EU. On


what we have said is that we are going to be full members until the


moment we leave that means responsible members until the moment


we leave. That means we will exercise our influence on what we


think is the best interest of the EU until the moment we leave. Because


we want to see a European Union strong, stable and effective. In


this time of difficult international relations we need them as an anchor


and that is what we will pursue. I thank the Minister for his


statement. He is not a man of few words but I a man of few meaningful


words. This is just another panicked U-turn. It is not much of an


achievement to be the second most chaotic party in this chamber when


it comes to matters of Europe. They have only had seven months to pull


it together and yet we only read it one minute before the minister got


on his feet. The secretary of state is more experience than me, but it


is very striking we get a white paper after the second reading and


two sitting days before the committee stage. We got this before


he got on his feet. The latter respect to Parliament we need to


question him on it but I find it an astonishing disrespect to Parliament


and one that the secretary of state would not put up with were he not on


the front page. But what I find surprising is what are they afraid


of? They do not want to give us the opportunity for scrutiny, they do


not have the courage of their convictions. Maybe Mr Speaker the


Secretary of State will tell us that since Scotland voted to remain, is


the red, white and blue Brexit, civil servants having to pull


together their approach and the secretary of state has said that


legislators will face the Mexican changes to the statement. Does that


mean that a legislative consent motion will now be required but not


-- significant changes. This is a mess and it is going to have an


impact on each and every one of us and people deserve better. Let me


start by saying that we have been in the EU for 40 years, this is that


reversing, not reversing but amending and dealing with 40 years


of accumulated policy and law. As for the second reading, he is


talking about the second reading of a bill to trigger the process, to do


no more than put into effect the British people's decision of June


last year. So I cannot see how he thinks that the white paper being


after the second reading is problematic at all. There will be


any number, any number of occurrences in this house when the


50 odd SNP members will have a chance to hold the government to


account, to make their views known on policy, to put the interests of


Scotland forward, whether it is with the great repeal Bill or other


legislation that follows from that. I do not think he can complain about


matters of democracy in this respect. Whatever his extensive


interest in the statement which I'm keen to come, that, to do so will


require relative from back and front benches alike, especially in light


of the subsequent business, which is very well subscribed and to which I


have to have regard. If we could have short questions and answers


that would help. Can I ask first of all commend the paper to my right


honourable friend. The complaints about it not being detailed enough


on about it only coming at the last moment are of course nonsense. The


Prime Minister set out most of the elements of this in her 12 point


speech so those who missed that need to go back and see that reflected in


this comment. But can I ask my right honourable friend the key concern in


areas like academia and the high added value low-volume areas are


that they get a much earlier statement about how flexible the


kind of permit system would be and I wonder if my right honourable friend


would take it a little further and say that these errors themselves


will see next to no change. It is below value and high-volume areas


that we need to control? If you were not here at the start you should not


be standing, that is an established part of proceedings. My right


honourable friend is another member of this house who has spent a long


time on this issue. The issue of migration is my job as it were to


bring the decision back to this house. It is not my job to make the


decisions thereafter but what is clear to me is that the policies of


controlling migration after our exit would be ones designed to further


our national interest. Britain is a science superpower, Britain is a


leading scientific centre in Europe and as a result we will want to


encourage petition for talent. In finance, and in engineering and


medicine, all the areas where there are skills that are at a premium we


will want to encourage the attraction of those people. So we do


not expect a policy to have any deleterious effect on industry at


all. The Secretary of State said we would have meaningful votes on a


whole range of things. How can it be that paragraph 8.43 commits us to


leaving the customs union, which will have a devastating effect on


manufacturing without any analysis or impact assessment? There has been


considerable analysis of this. They we just finished the point. The


point that is made in the policy paper is that we want to have the


customs grimmer. That will impinge directly as a result of the free


trade area and if we are successful in the free trade agreement and get


low or near zero tariffs, we should succeed in getting the customs


agreement which reflect that and makes it very straightforward to


continue trading. Can I say that I think we would be wise to get to the


end of the negotiations before we draw conclusions on what we have


come to. That would be the meaningful way, those who use the


word meaningful for times and speech are being rather meaningless. The


key point is that what we're after is what in these circumstances the


EU members will be after, which are arranged with that before then,


before us and before world. Here's exactly right and that is the aim of


our policy. He is right also that and be entered the house will be


able to hold the government to account and make the meaningful


decision about the policy. That will not be the only element, there will


be many points along the way that will debate everything from customs


grimaced through to immigration and other policies which arise out of


this process. And the house will be very, very much in control. My


honourable friend for Cockburn and St Pancras in the 60 seconds he had


to look through the white paper was spot on to zone in on the


obfuscation on page 11 about the lack of a meaningful vote for


Parliament at the end of the process. There is no point in having


a vote after he's already signed off with the EU, treating Parliament as


some sort of afterthought. So can he rule out now the government showing


such contempt for Parliament? This is now my sixth statement to this


house in less than six months. Let me finish. The house will have the


opportunity to vote on any number of pieces of legislation before we get


there and it'll have the vote at the end to decide whether or not it's


acceptable. On page 49 of the white paper, the


Government says we have an open mind on how we implement the new


arrangements with the European Union. For the avoidance of doubt,


will the Secretary of State confirm... He will see we exclude


ourselves... Can I welcome the principles in the white paper in


particularly protecting and enhancing workers' rights, would he


confirmed during the negotiations that there is nothing to negotiate


with other EU countries on workers' rights and protection because we


will be protecting them because they are already in our law and we must


stop the people telling us that this will be threatened. She is


absolutely right. The approach of the Government is to maintain every


single piece of protection that is, which is incidentally much better


than most European countries. And also to enhance that. Can I urge the


Secretary to give priority to the matters in chapter six of the white


paper in securing the rights of EU nationals, I have in mind one of my


constituents who was in EU national and for many years she has been


receiving a treatment for cancer and she wants to know if she will


continue to have access to the NHS. It is not just residents write or


talk about but access to health care. Thank you Mr Speaker, the end


is not yet and the best is yet to be, which is what any presbyteries


on the Ulster bench will welcome. Can I say I welcome the white paper


that he has produced today and particularly the three chapters


refer to the union, strengthening the relationship with the Republic


of Ireland and the other chapter on combating terrorism. Is he familiar


with the commentary of Ray Bassett, the former Irish ambassador and


Irish diplomat who made it clear that Ireland's position should be on


forging a new relationship with the United Kingdom because the other 26


parts of the European Union don't listen to Ireland. I'm not familiar


with the commentary he talks about but I welcome his views. It has been


one of the most important part of the preparation which has been


striking the relationship with Ireland which ensures we underpin


the peace process, maintain stability, keep an open border and


so on and I think it is incumbent on us because the Irish government in


the most difficult position and that is what we are doing. The white


paper paragraph eight point 43 makes it clear that we want to leave the


customs union so we can negotiate free-trade agreements around the


world, the actual position is if we leave the customs union then we will


be bound by an external tariff unless we negotiate otherwise, is


that the correct position? And WTO rules, this is the most favoured


negotiation but you are allowed to make free-trade agreements at


whatever level you seek. One of the things we seek to do is to ensure as


many of the existing free-trade agreements carry straight over so


that will also be lower. Given the old age dependency ratio and it's


important for the public finances and the absence of any concrete


information of paragraph 5.9 of this white paper, can the Secretary of


State inform us what he anticipates the level of net migration to be


across future years? It'll be a sustainable level, that is the


policy but the point to understand here is that those decisions you


make in a year by year basis because what is no part of the policy to


make the British economy suffer, or any of the above, it is perfectly


proper that the Government should control any migration property and


not leave open ended. The solution to the problem is she cites is not


just managing the problem. When the Government says its notice on the


European Union under Article 50, will the Government take that


opportunity to frame the negotiation by making it clear that we expect to


agree the framework of our future relationship as a specifies an


article 50 otherwise we are negotiating in the dark about the


divorce arrangements and indeed I don't think the European Union will


be have a sincere cooperation. What my right honourable friend conferred


tee refers to is the need to negotiate in parallel the ongoing


departure relationship and article 50 refers to having regarding the


ongoing relationships you cannot include negotiation departure before


concluding the ongoing arrangements. I've made this point already, I


think the Prime Minister has made the point already to a number of her


opposite numbers around the European Union, this'll be the first issue


that we need to resolve at the beginning of negotiations. Will


Parliaments get a vote on the Government's intended final deal


before they deal is struck with the European Union? I suspect the final


vote here... Their ratification process is much lower than ours. I'm


extremely pleased that the white paper is being published and I would


like to say thanks to him and his team as well for listening to


honourable friends on the side of the House in our calls for a white


paper, but would heal so join in sending a message to my constituents


at their views. Willie also clarify if they will report for me back to


the House? I'm not sure what well overall friend means by former


reporter this is my sixth statement to the House, I have said at every


opportunity what is going on, there will be substantial debates policy,


there will undoubtedly be other Brexit debates, we have more plans


already there is no question that the House will not be fully


informed, this an illusion we have given them a white paper and as we


said we have given them the answer on customs union and an answer on


single markets. I don't know how much more open and Booth without


being dissected. This government seems to be in a constant state of


delayed reaction, we finally do have a paper on strengthening trade with


the world that reads the retreat, a conspicuous amount of the space is


totally blank, does that reflect the thinking on Brexit. The Government


thinking on Brexit is very clear, one of the problems is when you


disagree with it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that is the


problem the SNP have had all the way through, they don't like it. I think


it occurs in every book I own. In welcoming this white paper I hope it


heralds both unity in the party and the approach in leaving the European


Union. May I commend all members the speech of the right honourable


friend from North East Bedfordshire who yesterday spoke as the epitome


of grace. I agree with him entirely on both accounts. Does Secretary of


State except that the best way for the benefits of the common system


and framework that enable UK and EU businesses, would be to stay in a


single markets, there will need to be mechanisms to ensure UK


regulations don't diverged from EU regulations and can explain what


happens to sovereignty. The answer to the first question


is no in terms of what the best relationship, we have laid this out


in the paper and bearing in mind we are starting from a position of


identity. He makes a good point we will publish that in due course, it


is perfectly possible without reject to. Could my honourable friend


inform the House so what the House will do to ensure the Gibraltar


position and the free trade deal between passenger brothel which


could happen before we leave? My honourable friend was giving


evidence at the House of Lords on precisely this. We will protect


their interests rigorously. The Secretary of State observes that the


UK was a founding Member of the WTO but forgets that we were the driving


force behind the completion of the single market. Does he understand


how angry British businesses are that he should abandon that before


negotiations even start. There is a lot of conflation that goes on


between membership of single market and access to single markets. What


British business wanted unfettered access, what German, French and


Italian businesses want our unfettered access to our markets.


In... Almost by definition because of coming out of the union that will


happen, that is not to say we will not be making your, -- new


arrangements, will be making arrangements with very clear in our


mind to keep terrorism, crime under control but we will no doubt protect


them. The local government Association has been asking for


meetings with ministers about the impact on these processes on


councils and how more powers can be devolved yet in the speech today I


didn't a single reference to a local council and I can't see a single


reference in the white paper having read it through quickly, or the


Secretary of State now commit that the Government will have meaningful


discussions with the LPGA and commit to the principle of subsidiarity as


well. In a limited statement there is only so much you can do. The


Minister of State in the department has already met with the LGA and has


said he cancelled the local councils. I said I am willing to


meet the mayors in the next round of elections so we're not putting the


regions to one side, the very first meeting I heard after became


secretary of state was in Blackburn talking to people in Lancashire.


Thank you Mr Speaker. There are three British ambassadors in


Brussels, can I ask my right honourable friend if he thinks our


ambassador to the European Union will have his staff enhanced or


indeed might he be scrapped after we leave the European Union? I assume


he is talking about the upper ambassador and has 120 brilliant


staff who will work for me. I don't know what the arrangements will be,


what he refers to is an ambassador to Belgium, the Nato I assume and to


our crab, the UK representation. We will undoubtedly have close


relationships with the European Union and thereafter so it will be a


pretty sizeable embassy I would think that it's won't be what it is


now. Our current membership of the single market is governed by the EEA


agreement and a note is the Government contention we are a


Member by virtue, that may may not prove to be the case but can the


Secretary of State be clear about the implications of our own domestic


legislation in this regard, specifically the act of 1993, is the


Government going to repeal it, if so when and will we get a vote? The EEA


as it stands, once we are outside the European Union, whether we


automatically cease to be a Member or not, as far as I'm concerned, it


becomes an illegal empty vessel so we will look at that and if we do


propose to withdraw will come back to the House.


When European subjects have come to my surgery about their rights they


have left an agreement that those rights must go hand-in-hand with


UK's subjects living in their own countries. I hope he's got the


message. I've got the message and so, incidentally, have the leaders


of most of the countries. They also understand we have to protect


British rights at the same time as we protect their citizens' rights.


There is no question this is going to happen, it is a question of when


and we are doing it as quickly as possible. We welcome the White Paper


today and links with Ireland and trade and security and the wish for


unfettered access. At the Northern Ireland affairs committee this week


a custom specialist said the Irish for trading in goods would have to


have board appoints either between Northern Ireland and Ireland, or


much worse between Scotland and England and the island of Ireland.


With the Minister guarantee we will not have hard borders of that type?


We will not have hard borders. Two different levels, first the Common


Travel Area exists already and has existed since 1923. In that respect


nothing will change. In terms of goods there will be the softest and


most invisible and frictionless border we can find. There is lots of


technology these days ranging from a NPR ranging through to tagging of


containers and trusted trade arrangements across borders, these


things operate in Norway and Sweden, the US and Canada and so on,


countries with very amicable relationships and open borders and


we will do the same with Ireland. Doctor Andrew Mieres and. I thank


the Secretary of State, the Venn diagram on page 48 is particularly


insightful. People will know the European Union has concluded that


stomach pathetically small numbers of free-trade agreements with other


countries but there are some. Will he confirm there will either be a


continuity arrangement with those countries on Brexit, or that that


agreement will be the basis for an accelerated relationship with those


very few countries? Yes, my Right Honourable friend, the Secretary of


State for International Trade, has already been in touch with the most


important ones, South Korea and others like that, and they seem very


keen, both to maintain as it were grandfather rights, but also to


improve on the deal and make it very much more tailored and specific to


both our interests. Mr Speaker, I wanted to ask the question about the


so-called Great Repeal Bill. The White Paper says it will preserve EU


law which stands at the moment that we leave the European Union but goes


on to say it foresees two pieces of primary legislation being brought


forward. Then it goes on to say: they will be a problem with


secondary legislation of the great repeal Bill, deficiencies. What


deficiencies does he have in mind? Because the Great Repeal Bill will


pass through in its official wording it were referred to Europe


institutions or British institutions where necessary also it may refer


to, for example, local government has to publish its procurement


contracts in the European Journal. That would no longer be appropriate.


Not on the government website and so on. It's that sort of concern we


principally aimed the secondary legislation at. The major areas of


policy change will be primarily in primary legislation and that's why


we cited both examples. I welcome my Right Honourable friend's


constructive approach and in that light could I draw his attention to


a report by the European Parliament, highlighting Europeans' reliance,


and urged negotiators to approach it in a constructive fashion. We intend


to do so and it's in the interest of ourselves and European Union we do


so. We don't want anything which causes instability in the Eurozone


anymore that anything that damages the city. Margaret Ferrier.


Remarkably the White Paper does not contain a single reference to


Eurojust or any real indication of our future cooperation with the EU


on criminal justice matters. It begs the question if something is so


significant has been omitted what else is missing? Never mind a White


Paper, this is a lightweight paper. She worked very hard to get her


sound bite out. There is a whole section on justice and home affairs


and we have made it very plain, over and over again, that we intend to


maintain close Corporation, I even said in my statement at the


beginning, closer cooperation with Europe, not less cooperation with


Europe on matters of security and crime and intelligence. Understand


that Europe has a great deal to gain from this. We are the intelligence


superpower in Europe, we have the most powerful intelligence agencies,


and therefore in things like crime and terrorism we are very important


to them, as we think they are to us too. Glyn Davies. Thank you, Mr


Speaker, my hearing is a bit defective. There has already been


significant discussion between the Prime Minister and Welsh government


following the referendum last June. And discussion within the Welsh


Parliament. I welcome this. In the interests of UK unity wells's


interests must be taken into account, including discussion of


this White Paper -- Wales's interests. Can you guarantee the


involvement of Wales and continued to feature in our discussions,


accepting that there can be no veto? He is absolutely right and that has


been the approach we have taken. We have had a number of meetings of the


joint Mysterio committee, two shared. Mike Cherry by the Prime


Minister and three of them by me -- joint ministerial committee. We have


been to Wales to see the Welsh government and talk about some of


these issues. My Right Honourable friend is appearing before the Welsh


Parliament, Welsh committee, sorry, on the 14th. We are taking the


interests of Wales extremely seriously. We will operate this


negotiation so that no part of the United Kingdom loses. That's the


aim. Madeleine Moon. If we are leaving the Single Market and


Customs union, can the Secretary of State guarantee that my workers who


make the steel for Nissan cars, two thirds of which are exported to the


European Union, will have tariff free access to the European Union


markets, or is it only promise to negotiate and seek? If she reads the


White Paper she will see it lays out the European export of goods and


services is 290 billion and hours to them is 230 billion so they clearly


have a strong interest from as we do, in a tariff free goods access.


For them goods are a much bigger part of it as well. This disparity


is over 60 billion. There is every reason to expect we will succeed in


what we want to do which is to protect jobs. Martin Vickers. My


Right Honourable friend will recall last week at promised questions I


asked about the seed sector that sector will be pleased with the


comment in paragraph 8:1.6 giving full support but he will also be


aware of the long-standing grievance of the fishing communities


up-and-down the country following their sell-out in the original


negotiations. Can he reiterate once again that that will not occur on


this occasion? Yes. Martin Docherty-Hughes. Thank you, Mr


Speaker. The Secretary of State makes much of the process and joked


that we might be at this for another two years, yet in that time the


unelected and unaccountable House of Lords will have more influence on


the implementation of the White Paper and the negotiations in


relationships we must forge for trade agreements than the


governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How does that


strengthen the union? It's simply not the case. As I just said to my


honourable friend, we have regular monthly meetings with the Scottish


Government, the Welsh government, the Northern Irish executive when


they are in play and we are taking what they say very seriously. We


won't agree with everything they say, as you well know. We had the


Scottish Government's paper presented at the last meeting and


there were areas of agreement on employment protection, areas of


agreement on environmental to. There were disagreements over the concept


of a carve out of the Single Market and a discussion on the question of


how devolution will work. That is hardly not paying attention to the


Scottish Government. Mr Speaker, thank you. I welcome the White Paper


and I am glad the government has listened to members and may I say


that EU nationals play a vital part in a university's workplaces. Can I


ask the Secretary of State while I support the need for some control of


freedom of movement, will he ensure in negotiations that workers,


students, family members find that our borders remain open if they are


from the EU? After all, control does not mean arbitrary restrictions?


Absolutely, control does not mean slamming the door. As I said before,


it's in the UK interest to actually keep attracting talent, and when you


attract talent you attract their families. That goes without saying.


This is one of the things, I was asked if I could promise something


earlier to be negotiated, this is something we will decide in this


House for the first time in a couple of years' time. One crucial, I think


reasonable, question for the Secretary of State, is how does he


seek frictionless, unfettered trade with the EU continuing after we have


signed free-trade deals with other countries? Surely, Secretary of


State, the greater the divergence between ourselves and Single Market


in terms of external tariffs and standards the greater their need at


some point to impose customs duties on us. We seek to maintain some kind


of standard parity, whether it is by a measure of equivalence or whatever


depending on the product. The area where the deals outside and the


deals with the European Union conflict, if you like, is in the


area of rules of origin. We will have to have a good rules of origin


scheme, just as any other free-trade area has. For example, if you look


at the Canadian treaty it has specific rules of origin and we will


need to do the same. That is a very small burden by comparison with the


sort of things people are worrying about if we get the customs


agreement we seek. Thank you, Mr Speaker. When does my Right


Honourable thing, if ever, the European Union will issue an


equivalent White Paper setting out with equal clarity the agreed


negotiating objectives of the 27 other members? Well, his question


sort of answers itself. But I hope, I hope, once they have received the


Article 50 letter from us in April or May, in their case they will


receive it in March and respond in April.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know that today is Groundhog Day, but why are


we exiting the customs union in order to recreate the customs union?


It is to create a customs agreement, in order to enable us to develop


free-trade agreements with that huge portion of the world where there is


very fast growth and where we have a strong market presence. 40%, as much


of our trade now is with areas where we don't have


as it is with the European Union. It is a very large area and it is


growing, sometimes twice as fast, as the EU is. That's why we have to


talk about the implications of the referendum are young people. The


biggest application is the prospect of jobs in the future and many of


those will come from global markets, not just European ones. Nigel Evans.


Lots of the politicians in EU states say they are against torture but


don't they recognise the fact they are not willing to come to a deal


with him about EU citizens being allowed to stay, live and work here


and British citizens being allowed to live and stay and work in the EU


countries is a form of mental trauma and torture they are perpetrating


upon them? Will he redouble his efforts to get the deal done as


quickly as possible and make the announcement as quickly as possible.


If there is only one or two countries holding out for whatever


reason, will he be prepared to name and shame them in order that The


Citizens here can bring pressure upon them to get a deal done? I will


certainly do the first half, I will redouble my efforts, though they are


pretty intense anyway, to ensure that this happens quickly. He's


right, it's just a few, and I suspect their reasoning is the sort


of community reasoning of not starting anything before the


negotiations start and I hope that will be rapidly resolved thereafter.


Doctor Julian Lewis. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Doesn't the fact that so


many honourable members on both sides of the House who wanted us to


remain in the European Union, but nevertheless last night voted to


trigger Article 50, set a fine example that members of the


unelected upper house would do very well to follow? Mr Speaker, I am


sitting here calculating whether his question today was longer than his


speech yesterday. I think it was. Yes, I hope they pay attention.


Look, this Bill is a manifestation of the will of the people. Nearly


17.5 million people. I would expect the upper house, it has its place


and it has its rights quite properly, but I would expect the


upper house to respect that will. SPEAKER: I'm grateful to the


Secretary of State and two colleagues. We come now to the


Select Committee Statement. In a moment the chair of the public


administration and Constitutional affairs Select Committee of the


House, Mr Bernard Jenkin, will speak on his subject for up to ten minutes


during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of


his statement the chair will call members to put questions on the


subject of the statement and call Mr Jenkin to respond to these in turn.


Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be


questions and should be brief. The front bench may take part in


questioning. I call the