Mr (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op): Does my
hon. Friend agree that UK trade delegations to China and India
have made it clear that any trade deal with those countries will
almost certainly involve a relaxation of the visa regime, so all
we are doing is displacing migration, not cutting it?
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab): My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think the
Prime Minister was quite shocked to discover, when she went to
India seeking a trade deal, that one of the first things that the
Indian Government wanted to put on the table was access to our
labour markets and for students. My hon. Friend was right to cite
other countries, but he missed Australia off his list. Australia
is much heralded as a future trading partner, but it also wants
to make the movement of people part of any settlement...
Mr Bailey: The right hon. Gentleman argues that
our membership of the EU inhibits our ability to trade with the
expanding economies of the rest of the world. If so, will he
explain why Germany exports nearly four times as much as we do to
China and exceeds our exports to both India and Brazil, the other
fast-growing economies, and why France also exports more to China
and Brazil than we do? What is it that they do in the EU that we
will do when we come out?
Kit Malthouse(North West Hampshire) (Con): My
right hon. Friend is concerned about Euratom. Has he considered
the alternative? Given that in the last funding round Euratom had
to fight very hard to try to maintain its funding, a position it
is unlikely to be able to maintain in future, and the fact that
the largest single contributors to Horizon 2020, the Germans,
have taken the decision to phase out their civil nuclear
programme all together, is he not concerned that over the next
couple of decades continued membership of Euratom might expose us
to diminishing research funding? Exit from the EU could provide
us with the opportunity to partner bilaterally with other
countries, as we do already with India and South Korea, and
therefore expose ourselves to a wider pool of research...
(Ilford South)
(Lab/Co-op): The hon. Gentleman will find that
globalisation and the expansion of the wealth of the world, led
by regional trading blocs such as the EU, have led to a
significant change in the types of industries located in
particular countries. Hundreds of millions of people have been
taken out of poverty because of industrialisation in China. The
same thing is happening in Vietnam, the Philippines and India.
Globalisation is affecting everyone. He refers to eastern Europe.
Yes, the days when the polluting Trabi cars were being made in
the German Democratic Republic, and when Škoda vehicles were
regarded as a joke, have gone...
:...I am not sure the
hon. Gentleman is right legally; my understanding is that it is
an intergovernmental treaty between the two countries and will
not necessarily be affected.
We have bilateral treaties with lots of other countries. Just
before Christmas, we signed yet another agreement with the
Japanese to deepen our research into the civil nuclear
programmes. We also have bilateral arrangements with India and
South Korea. These are really where the innovations are happening
in nuclear research, so the idea that somehow by coming out of
Euratom we are going to close ourselves off from the rest of the
world is totally untrue. If anything, it might free us to do more
work across the rest of the globe in developing what I think is
going to be the future of British energy...
(Fareham) (Con):
...Business for Britain has estimated the cost to British
consumers of the damage done by the common commercial policy and
the customs union at some £500 per household. The amendments do
not reflect the absurdity of the current position. British
companies such as JCB are no more able to sell their machinery
tariff-free from India to the UK than Tata can from the UK to
India. Since 1973, Britain’s trade has pivoted from being global
to being European, and that has all been negotiated on our behalf
by the European Trade Commissioner. Why is there no amendment
recognising the influence to be regained by Britain resuming its
own seat at the World Trade Organisation? Why is there no
reference to the fact that EU trade policy has wrecked the ports
of Glasgow and Liverpool, which are on the “wrong” side of the
country, and denied us any chance of determining our own trade
policy? That is a reflection of the one-sided prejudice in, and
misguided nature of, the amendments...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
