Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to offer the
European Union a new treaty, subject to World Trade Organisation
jurisdiction, which would continue the United Kingdom’s existing
trading arrangements with the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union
()
(Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s deal set out in the political
declaration the framework for a comprehensive and ambitious free
trade agreement with the EU. We will of course leave the EU
tomorrow, and we will then begin discussions on securing a new
relationship.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I
would have thought that the Government may need something like
this if the going gets rough in the forthcoming trade
negotiations. For the record, will the Government confirm their
recent Written Answer saying that, if we end up trading on normal
WTO terms, EU exporters will pay us some us some £14 billion per
annum in new tariffs whereas ours will pay Brussels only some £6
billion—an annual profit to us of some £8 billion per annum?
Would this offer not therefore be generous to the EU and, if
accepted, get rid of the Irish border problem, the need for much
of Operation Yellowhammer and masses of lengthy trade
negotiations? Would that not be cheap at the price?
I thank the noble Lord for his interest in these matters, but the
whole point of a free trade agreement is that it is an
improvement on WTO terms. The reason that many nations around the
world want to adopt them is that people do not want to get into
paying tariffs and quotas, which are an impediment to free trade.
We are confident, given the agreement and the political
declaration, that we can reach an ambitious free trade agreement
with the EU before the end of the implementation period, and that
is exactly what we will be doing.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who has managed
to bring back the noble Lord, ,
who had already taken his leave of us last week—well done. I
thank him also for his support for continuing the same trading
arrangements with the EU as we have now. We agree. The problem is
that the Government want to break alignment, and if you break
alignment then you cannot have tariff-free, easy trade. Is not
the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, right on this one occasion?
It is of course always a pleasure to be back in front of this
House. By my rough calculation, this is my 50th Oral Question in
front of your Lordships, who are always extremely inventive in
the points they raise. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right
that we want to have a free trade arrangement with as little
friction as possible. We accept that we are leaving the single
market and customs union, we are not going to go for the dynamic
alignment that the is urging on us, and within
those constraints we want an ambitious arrangement with as few
frictions on trade as possible.
(LD)
My Lords, will the Minister provide the noble Lord, , who thinks
that the UK can keep existing trade arrangements with the EU,
with a list of clubs—gentlemen’s, sporting, golf, dining or
whatever—that allow people to resign and stop paying the
subscription fee but still enjoy all the benefits and advantages
of membership?
I will leave the noble Baroness to have her own conversation with
the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the benefits or otherwise of
various clubs that the two of them might wish to be part of.
Not the same one.
(Con)
Can my noble friend think of a club which the two might wish to
be part of?
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I suspect that the
answer is that they are both part of one of the most exclusive
and enjoyable clubs in the whole of London, in this House.
(CB)
There will need to be a disputes resolution body to resolve
disagreements between the EU and the United Kingdom. The
Government’s position, which I understand, is that it cannot be
the European Court of Justice, but what body is going to perform
this task?
I thank the noble Lord for the close interest he takes in dispute
resolution. Perhaps he should be declaring an interest, with his
long experience of both litigating for, and resolving disputes
with, Her Majesty’s Government. Of course, he raises an important
point. He is right that it cannot be the European Court of
Justice, and we will want to discuss with our European partners a
proper, independent arbitration process for any disputes that
arise, although we hope that none will.
(LD)
My Lords, at the time of the referendum, , now our
Prime Minister, assured voters that frictionless trade would
continue. That has now been completely forgotten, and he has said
recently that we have to accept that there will be barriers to
trade as part of what we have to get used to. Is the Minister’s
commitment on dynamic alignment the same sort of possibly
short-term commitment as that which made three
years ago?
No, our commitment is that we will not be entering into a process
of dynamic alignment; we think that decisions on future laws
governing this country should be made in this Parliament, and we
will not be subcontracting that job to the European Union.
(LD)
My Lords, I understand the Government’s position on dynamic
alignment, but have they made an assessment of the cost to
exporters of the additional controls and checks that will be
required once we are no longer committed to such dynamic
alignment?
We have not concluded the future relationship yet, so we do not
know what impediments or otherwise there will be to free trade.
Our aim and ambition is to make sure that there are as few
impediments as possible. We want unfettered access to EU markets,
as indeed the EU will want access to our markets—that is the
whole point of having the discussions. We will be seeking to
secure an agreement without any tariffs or quotas and with as
ambitious a relationship as possible, and I hope we will have the
support of the Liberal Democrats in doing that.
