(Derby South)
(Lab):...Other trade deals would not be consequence-free
either. India and China, to name but
two, would, again understandably, want additional visas for their
citizens—I have no quarrel with that—but the Prime Minister’s
emphasis on the end of free movement may give some people the
misleading impression that she is offering an end to immigration.
She is not. According to the most recent figures, it is non-EU
immigration that is increasing...
Sir (Twickenham)
(LD):...On the specific issue of trade deals, the
countries that really matter are the United States, India, China and possibly Russia. We know
about the United States, which has made it absolutely clear that
an “America first” trade agreement will mean fewer British
exports to the United States and more imports to Britain from the
United States. It is quite unambiguous about how it defines a
successful trade deal. When the right hon. and learned Member for
Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and I negotiated with the United States on
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement,
even the milder Obama Administration made it clear that they
wanted British food standards to be shredded and that they could
offer very little in return because public procurement, which is
a key issue in the United States, is a state function.
Agreement with India is also difficult to achieve, as we
have already heard. It is a very protectionist economy, and it
would offer limited access for whisky and financial services in
return for a substantial increase in visas for relatively
low-paid Indian professional workers, which the Prime
Minister has already specifically ruled out. The Chinese might
reach an agreement, but only if we turned a blind eye to Chinese
practices on intellectual property and the rest, and we are
trying to impose more sanctions on Russia, so what kind of a
trade deal could we possibly get there? This really is a fantasy.
However, we need to be careful—this is where the amendment of the
right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) is so
important—that we do not allow the development of the argument
that we must have the possibility of no deal. There was an
argument for saying that the no-deal option must be kept on the
table when we were negotiating with the European Union, but an
agreement has been reached and no better terms are going to be
obtained. The Prime Minister is now negotiating with the House,
and that is why no deal is there. It is not to threaten the
Europe, but to threaten us, and we must stand up to that and
reject it absolutely...
Mr (North Shropshire)
(Con): My hon. Friend (Mr (Wycombe)), having been a
Minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, knows
this subject in great detail and he is spot on. We cannot be in
any customs territory like that because it is a breach of the
promise to the people, and we will never do trade deals around
the world. Sadly, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince
Cable) is not in his place; it is pathetic to say that we cannot
do trade deals with India, America and China, when we are the
great international country and these people want to buy from us.
We will not be able to do this if we are in some sort of customs
territory...
(Eltham) (Lab):...The
WTO has rules. It recognises us under EU trade deals. If we want
to begin trading without any problems, we will have to stick with
them. All those who make the argument that leaving is simple have
failed to explain the complexities of WTO rules. They ignore, for
instance, the most-favoured nation rule, which means that, if we
cut our trade tariffs with another country without having a trade
deal in place, we have to offer that opportunity to every other
single member of the WTO. That would effectively make us a
tariff-free nation. We would then be open to cheap imports,
undermining jobs and local businesses. The notion that we will be
completely free agents if we walk out of the European Union is,
and always has been, a complete fabrication. If we do not leave
with an EU deal in place, we will not be able to start
negotiations to do deals with economies as large as the US, China
or India...
Mr (Wantage)
(Con):...Another thing that has annoyed me about this
whole process is the sudden rising up of free trade deals that
can be done overnight without any concern about how the public
might react when we do deals with huge economies such as China,
the US and India...
