Extracts from
second reading debate (Lords) of the European Union (Withdrawal)
Bill
(UKIP): ...With the gloomsters so comprehensively
defeated, why do our negotiators in Brussels persist in the
pre-emptive cringe approach? I do not understand it. We have a
strong hand to play, but we are playing it very badly. Why are we
agreeing, for example, to pay the EU any money at all to access the
single market? No other country does this—not
Switzerland, India or America. Why are we
doing it? We are in a very strong position. We have a trade deficit
with all the other major economies in the EU. Perhaps we should be
charging them for access to our markets. I do not see why we should
not do that, on the same basis as they are trying to charge us for
access to their markets...
(CB):...We are the
highest recipient of inward investment in Europe but, now, the
Government and the Brexiteers are talking about going global.
What is this “going global” nonsense? Fifty per cent of our trade
is with the European Union. Another 20% on top of that is through
the free trade agreements we have through the European Union,
including, now, with Japan. That leaves 30%. As a businessman, am
I going to give up 70% for 30%—and a 30% that I may never
get? India and the Commonwealth account for
less than 10% of our trade. Canada has a free trade deal with the
EU but the EU accounts for only 10% of Canada’s trade. Its
biggest trading partner is the United States—next door to
it. India has nine free trade deals with
countries around the world but not one is a western country. And
what about the £8 billion that we have paid into the EU? I would
pay that for the peace that we have had over the last few
decades, including through NATO. As for sovereignty and taking
back control, what a lot of nonsense. The laws that affect us in
our day-to-day life are not the 20,000 regulations that the noble
Lord, Lord Pearson, spoke about but the ones that we make here in
this House every day.
I turn to this European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—or great repeal
Bill, or whatever it is called. In the debate that we had last
week on devolution, I challenged the Minister to explain how we
are going to deal with the Northern Ireland situation. He did not
have an answer. Phase 1 has just kicked the can down the road.
Scotland will say, “We want to be treated on the same terms”. Can
the Minister tell me how we are going to deal with Clause 11, to
which the noble and learned Lord, , referred?
By the way, at the time of the referendum UKIP got 12.5% of the
vote. Today, the figure is 1.8%, and let us not talk about its
leader. What really upsets me is that Brexit has damaged our
standing in the world and I see this all the time. I was with the
Prime Minister of India earlier this month and I have
seen India’s reaction to Brexit. We were flying
before the referendum; now, look at Davos, where we were
overshadowed by Macron and Trump. The whole world, except for
Trump, thinks that we should remain in the EU...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
Extract from Committee
stage (Commons) of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill
(Sixth sitting)
(Bootle)
(Lab):..Currently, only nine of the 30 remaining
anti-dumping users in the WTO have a mandatory lesser duty rule.
They include: Australia, Brazil, India, Israel, New Zealand, Turkey and
Thailand. Only three have both the public interest test and a
mandatory lesser duty rule, which is what schedule 4 proposes.
That includes the EU, Brazil and the Eurasian Customs Union.
Detailed evidence given by Cliff Stevenson to the Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy using the Eurostat
update looked at four cases where the lesser duty rule was
applied over the dumping rate. In the case of the dumping of
cheap aluminium road wheels from China, to which I referred
earlier in relation to TUC evidence, the EU adopted the lesser
duty rule in 2010, with the injury margin of 22.3%. It is
important to look at that in relation to the amendment...
To read the complete debate, CLICK
HERE
