Asked by Lord Robathan To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are
their red lines in their negotiations with the European Union over
Brexit. Baroness Goldie (Con) My Lords, the Prime Minister has set
out the goals for our future relationship with the EU—to create a
long-term...Request free trial
Asked by
-
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their red lines
in their negotiations with the European Union over
Brexit.
-
My Lords, the Prime Minister has set out the goals for
our future relationship with the EU—to create a long-term
relationship through which the EU and UK can work
together for the mutual benefit of all our citizens—and
the Government are conducting these negotiations with
that ambition, with due regard to not undermining our
position by providing a continuing exposition of our
negotiating position.
-
My Lords, we can probably all agree that things, shall we
say, could have gone better in Brussels on Monday. Will
my noble friend reassure the House that the Government
remain unwavering in their commitment to honour the
decision made by the British people in the referendum
last June to leave the EU, and that they furthermore
stand by the manifesto pledge, for which nearly 14
million people voted only in June, to leave both the
single market and the customs union?
-
I can certainly say to my noble friend that, while I
cannot go into red lines which are germane to the
negotiating process, our clear objectives have been
frequently restated: leaving the EU, leaving the single
market, leaving the customs union, restoring the
supremacy of the British judicial system, preserving the
integrity of the United Kingdom and forging a strong
relationship with the EU for the future with an ambitious
free trade arrangement.
-
My Lords, anyone who has been involved in negotiations
knows that one of the most important things at the outset
is to establish the good faith of all the parties—in
other words, their ability to conclude the deal that they
are purporting to negotiate. Last week, the Commission
and the Irish Government clearly assumed that the Prime
Minister was negotiating on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Actually, she was not: she was negotiating ad referendum
to the DUP. In those circumstances, why did she not
explain the position to her counterparties on the other
side of the table, and why did she not get the DUP
alongside, negotiating on their behalf?
-
The Prime Minister is negotiating for the national
interest of the United Kingdom and all its parts with
rigour and determination—a determination, I may say,
acknowledged by no less a person than President Juncker,
who described her as a tough negotiator. That is what I
want in Brussels; thank goodness, that is what we have in
Brussels.
-
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are many
border crossing points between the EU and territory which
is outside both the customs union and the single
market—namely in Switzerland? Many of these borders are
not just soft but completely imperceptible, because
Switzerland has trading agreements with the EU. Does that
not illustrate what the Government have always said: that
the issue of the Irish border can be finally and
substantively solved only in the context of the trade
negotiations, part two?
-
I agree with my noble friend that the trade negotiations
are critical to the end point, the final shape of what we
want to see. We have always been clear that we do not
want a hard border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland and that we want to ensure that the
particular needs of Northern Ireland are recognised, but
equally we are clear that whatever solution we come up
with must be a solution for the whole United Kingdom.
-
My Lords, should not the only red line that the
Government be working to be the prosperity and well-being
of the British people, not the dogmatic obsessions of the
Brexiteers? When will the Cabinet discuss and decide on a
sensible policy, which the Chancellor admits it has not
done yet, one backed by evidence, which the Brexit
Secretary admitted yesterday it has not got?
-
I think that there are two strands to that question. What
was the phrase, “dogmatic”—
-
Dogmatic obsessions of Brexiteers.
-
Yes, well that is interesting coming from where it comes
from, that observation. I repeat what I said. The Prime
Minister is on record as negotiating—and, I think indeed,
with what has been achieved—is demonstrably illustrating
that she is negotiating for the good of the whole United
Kingdom, and I applaud that.
On the specific issue of the impact or sectoral analyses
to which the noble Baroness referred, the Government have
always been very clear that we do not have a series of
impact assessments. We never have had that. But we have
been clear that we have had a series of sectoral
analyses, and we have taken time—
-
-
Well, anyone who takes the trouble to go into the Reading
Room—which, given the interest in this Chamber, I would
expect to be stowed out, with a queue back into the
street—will find details of those analyses. We have been
clear that it is an overall programme of work that we are
engaged on; it is comprehensive, and the sectoral
analyses are simply one part of it. It is not exhaustive
or the final say on any of these issues.
-
My Lords, following up on the question from my noble
friend Lord Lamont, paragraph 5 of the EU guidelines for
the negotiations, which were published on 29 April, makes
it abundantly clear that the overall understanding on the
framework for the future relationship between the UK and
the EU would be dealt with solely in the second phase of
the negotiations. Given that, would my noble friend give
the assurance and remind the House that the EU cannot
insist on any reference to that future relationship as
part of the agreement currently being negotiated on
citizens’ rights, the budget or the Irish border?
-
I think that my noble friend will understand, and
understand better than anyone, that I am very hesitant to
dwell on details of negotiations. Everyone will
understand that they are at a sensitive and very critical
stage. You can lay me over that Table and flail me with
Dods Parliamentary Companion, but I am not going to be
drawn on detail.
-
My Lords, the truth is that, whoever we trade with, we
will have to go along with their regulations. If we trade
with the Americans, we will have to go along with their
regulations. Given that there is this great big market of
500 million near us, could the Minister distance herself
and her Government from the extraordinary comments of
that the
regulatory divergence between the UK and EU should be an
indelible red line?
-
At the risk of being tedious, I say to the noble Baroness
that negotiations are currently at a very sensitive
stage, and it is important that I am not drawn into
terminology which can lead to profound misunderstanding.
What I want to see happen is the now recognised mutual
good will from all parties. We see the mutuality of
interest in getting a deal, and I want to see that
crystallised during the negotiations—and I am positive
that something positive will be coming out of that.
|
