European Union: Future Relationship

The Government is committed to securing a fair and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU while preserving sovereignty over UK laws, borders, taxes, tariffs, trade relationships, security, and democratic accountability. Talks will begin next week focusing on fisheries, internal security, aviation, law enforcement, judicial cooperation, environmental standards, workers' rights, civil nuclear cooperation agreements.

The Government's Brexit ambition is underwhelming, scaling back from securing the exact same benefits to Canada-style trade. They have rejected their own commitment to a level playing field and are unwilling to make commitments on standards maintenance despite business desires. The Treasury analysis predicts a Canada-style FTA would shrink the economy by up to 6.4%. I ask the Minister about new analysis, economic impact assessments of proposed deals with the US, Japan, and others, and clarity on border checks.

We are committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and securing a comprehensive free trade agreement without tariffs or quotas. We do not believe maintaining EU legal order is necessary for environmental protections and workers' rights, which should be guaranteed by a sovereign UK Parliament. Our approach will allow sectors like manufacturing to flourish.

I congratulate the Minister on his view that since our standards are higher than those in the EU, we should not be demanding that the EU aligns with ours. He is right to confirm that state aid provisions will not leave the UK under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The Government's approach amounts to a route map for no deal, which is unacceptable. The EU expects full implementation of the political declaration including a level playing field. Any deal will be inferior to current arrangements. A hard Brexit will hurt Scotland's economy and independence support is at sustained majority levels due to these policies.

Welcomed Michael Gove’s statement and agreed that tethering to EU rules would hinder Britain.

Asked about the Welsh Government's stance on level playing field with the EU for international exports, noting 60% of Wales' international exports go to the EU.

Inquired if free trade agreements would be pursued with countries beyond the EU and confirmed that negotiations were underway or about to commence.

Noted Brexit's financial cost, questioned on future economic impact including gendered effects and demand for an equality impact assessment from the Government.

Asked about protection of interests in financial services during free trade negotiations.

Inquired about the UK’s future relationship regarding musicians and performers, seeking assurance on their ability to move freely and continue performing across Europe.

Agreed that an agreement by year's end was feasible, pressing for EU negotiators to recognise the UK’s sovereignty post-Brexit.

Challenged Michael Gove on feasibility of concluding a comprehensive free trade deal within 10 months, questioning if the UK would exit with no agreement.

Asked about EU's earlier stance on post-Brexit trading arrangements akin to South Korea and Canada, seeking clarification on current position.

Inquired about concerns in highland tourism industry and fish processing regarding EU nationals' employment and market access. Invited the Secretary of State to visit the constituency.

Requested clarity from Michael Gove that fishing rights would not be traded off in negotiations, reassured communities on continued access to UK waters.

Stressed the importance of controlling UK resources independently, compared to other sovereign states like Norway and Iceland. Reassured about avoiding tariffs on automotive products and maintaining high agricultural standards in trade agreements. Emphasised no border down the Irish Sea for fishing rights. Concluded that a clear approach backed by an electoral mandate increases optimism for securing a deal.

Asked about potential 10% tariffs on motor vehicles, expressing concern among automotive workers about job security and future prospects.

Inquired about the maintenance of high food production standards in any free trade agreements for British farmers.

Sought confirmation that Northern Irish fishing fleets would have equal rights as those in Scotland, Wales and England without being disadvantaged by the border down the Irish Sea.

Believed unity and clarity going into negotiations with a strong mandate from the recent election would increase optimism for securing a deal.

Challenged the government's prioritization of sovereignty over economic arguments, questioning if long-term consequences could undermine the goal of achieving meaningful sovereignty.

Inquired about distinctions between EU regulations and European technical standards, expressing hope that British expertise will continue to influence international standards post-Brexit.

Critiqued the government's statement on financial services equivalence, stating it was asking for something additional beyond existing agreements between EU and other countries.

Asked if principles outlined in the statement would remain unchanged even when faced with rejection from the EU.

Critiqued government's approach to Brexit negotiations as belligerent, suggesting removal of arbitrary deadlines for negotiation conclusions.

Suggested it might be useful for EU to recognise UK having higher standards than the EU in areas such as maternity and social rights.

Asked if divergence from EU environmental standards and workers’ rights would inevitably lead to restrictions, questioning the government's plan of blaming the EU for lost jobs.

Welcomes the statement, focusing on fisheries sovereignty and the best deal for UK fishermen despite EU assertions. Criticises SNP's stance.

Defends the Government's approach to post-Brexit negotiations, emphasising opportunities for coastal communities and financial services sectors. Stresses adherence to referendum results and respect for UK-wide democratic decisions.

Criticises the Government for ignoring Scotland's voice in the Brexit referendum, compromising proposals from the Scottish Government, and disregarding the Sewel convention. Questions the Minister on his commitment to strengthening the Union.

Welcomes the statement but questions why a separate treaty for financial services is not mentioned if there is one for fishing, and seeks clarity on the Government's position on equivalence in financial regulation.

Asks for more detail on regulatory co-operation regarding online harms in digital policy chapter of the report. Seeks clarification from the Minister on data adequacy and data flow agreements with the EU.

Welcomes the statement's clarity and optimism, emphasising that Wales will benefit from not lowering food standards post-Brexit. Invites the Minister to meet with Welsh farming unions for reassurance on access to markets.

Questions the Minister's approach regarding Northern Ireland, seeking clarity on how the aims of the Northern Irish protocol will be reconciled with UK-wide interests. Asks for clarification on negotiations with devolved administrations.

Supports the Minister's reassurances to fisheries, emphasising democratic accountability as a key benefit of leaving the EU.

Highlights the importance of SIS II database for security and questions how the Government will protect access if insufficient progress is made by September. Criticises potential loss of European arrest warrant.

Asks for confirmation that UK and EU will trade under an Australian-style agreement if no comprehensive free trade deal is reached.

Warns against damaging the economy by walking away from negotiations in June, questioning loss of access to databases crucial for security. Criticises the statement's stance on CJEU jurisdiction.

Highlights the risk to financial stability if UK becomes a rule taker post-Brexit, emphasising the need for sovereign control over regulation.

Yesterday, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I heard from Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute that 'the risks to the UK’s essential alliance relationships are greater now than they have been for many decades.' Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster advise the House on why the statement on our future relationship with the European Union says absolutely nothing about maintaining and improving defence?

When it comes to maintaining and improving defence, we have a network of relationships, including, of course, our membership of NATO—the strongest and most durable alliance for freedom the world has ever known. When it comes to defending this country, one of most perilous things we could do would be to follow the Scottish Government’s approach of breaking up the United Kingdom and of unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am afraid that the SNP’s position on defence, like its position on so many other issues, would mean the Scottish people were less safe.

In the light of the Minister’s remarks on a level playing field, can I ask him about competition policy and governance arrangements? Would the Government accept commitments on workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer and social standards being subject to any dispute resolution mechanism agreed to as part of the wider agreement?

The hon. Gentleman has given a list, and I will come back to each of them in correspondence. Some will be covered by dispute resolution mechanisms, and others may not.

Scotland cast its biggest ever vote on a proposition when it voted by 62% to remain in the EU. More people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU than voted to remain in the United Kingdom—and that was using the UK Government’s franchise; had the Government trusted 16 and 17-year-olds in the way we trust them in Scotland, a bigger proportion of voters would have voted to remain in the EU. Does the right hon. Gentleman truly believe that withholding the sovereign right of the Scottish people is a sustainable position? While protecting the sovereignty of the UK, is he prepared to deny the sovereignty of Scotland?

It is the case that the Scottish nationalist party—[Hon. Members: “National!”] I am sorry, but as Robert Burns said, 'facts are chiels that winna ding'. I am afraid that the representatives on that Bench are nationalists. They put separation—the smashing up of the United Kingdom—ahead of anything else.

It is estimated that if agreement is reached, there will be a need for about 50,000 new customs officers. Is it feasible to recruit and train that many people in less than six months, and who is going to foot the bill for it?

Yes, it is, and the Government stand behind that.

Does the Minister recognise that even the most far-reaching and comprehensive free trade agreement will sadly still mean regulatory and rules of origin checks down the Irish sea. As such, beyond simply giving a rhetorical commitment on the implementation of the protocol, will he assure not just the House, but his negotiating partners in the EU, that the Government are preparing to implement that protocol?

We will ensure that the protocol is appropriately implemented, and we will also ensure unfettered access for businesses in Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK market.

Brexit will be extremely damaging for Scotland in a range of ways. The difference between me and the Minister is that he is a British nationalist, whereas I am a Scottish nationalist. Does he think that Brexit imposed on Scotland will increase or decrease constitutional tensions across the UK?

Britain leaving the EU will mean that there is a greater degree of harmony between every part of the United Kingdom. I recognise that that will be a disappointment to the SNP in its restless search for grievance, dissension and division, but one thing I cannot help saying is that even though I profoundly disagree with the SNP, it is so lovely to have so many SNP Members here in the Westminster Parliament.