Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship — House of Commons, 2020-07-15
Topic: International Affairs
Paul Christopher Blomfield (Labour, Centre-left): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just reflecting on "something else" I am pleased to be able to respond to the debate and remind the House that when we debated the withdrawal agreement Bill in January, the Opposition warned of the foolishness of the Government tying their hands by committing the date for the end of transition to law. We argued that unforeseen events might result in the Government needing some flexibility, although clearly no one expected a crisis on the scale that we face with covid-19. However, our amendment was rejected and the departure date was locked in law. Clearly, the Government could have changed that before 1 July, but they did not and they must live with the consequences We are now past the date when an extension could have been agreed. The Government did not seek one and nor did the EU propose one. That ship has sailed and, frankly, it is the wrong focus for a debate on the negotiations that we need today. The issue is not the time available to the Government, but their approach to the talks. If, instead of the motion, the SNP had tabled something seeking to protect Scottish whisky or Welsh lamb, or to avoid non-tariff barriers in manufacturing, we could have worked together on it, because the country needs the best possible agreement—now more than ever—and we hope the Government will secure that, but it is now five months since we left the European Union. We have had four rounds of formal negotiations. We have had a high-level summit between the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament. We are into our third week of intensified talks. But judging by the Government’s own statements, we have seen very little progress It was not supposed to be like this. Remember the election campaign? Time and again, the nation was told by the Prime Minister that he had an "oven-ready deal". That is what the people voted for: a deal negotiated by the Prime Minister himself and signed off last October —the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The withdrawal agreement delivered our departure from the European Union and the political declaration set out the principles for our future relationship. The two went together: a single package. As the Prime Minister said: "The ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised political declaration".—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 572.] That was the deal promised to the British people. I quote from it: "an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership" with "no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors" It was a deal that would safeguard "workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection" and keep people safe with a "broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership" There was a promise that the Good Friday agreement would be protected through the proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol Those are the promises against which the Government’s deal will be measured, but it is not going well. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chilled British business when he warned that the UK may accept tariffs on some goods if that is the price we have to pay to avoid the level playing field provisions. And let us not forget what exactly the level playing field is about: food standards, workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer protection The Government’s proposals in this area have been described as "a giant step away" from the political declaration. The UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, has said there is "fundamental disagreement" in most of the important areas. He went on to say: "there is a big gap" The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), warned her successor that he will not be able to keep our people safe without access to the quantity and quality of data that is currently available through Prüm, passenger name records, the European Criminal Records Information System and SIS II, but her successor will not commit to that. Just yesterday, the Met police Brexit lead said that UK police forces’ ability to detain criminal suspects from the EU will become slower and less effective if the Government fail to secure a Brexit security deal. At the same time, Northern Ireland businesses are saying: "we are really in a quandary as to what way to turn…We need a bit of clarity because we haven’t a clue where we’re heading—It’s like walking out into the fog." The Government have not even managed to negotiate the continuation of the pet passport The weeks ahead are crucial. The Government need to double their efforts to deliver the deal that they promised to the British people. They need to listen to business, whose voice, the CBI, said recently: "A good deal with the EU will be just one strand of a national recovery plan as the UK responds to the coronavirus pandemic, but it will be one of the most important for the future of our economy, jobs and livelihoods." They need to listen to those reeling from the Government’s announcement on the border arrangements, which left the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association saying that he was "completely at a loss to understand how this framework can be achieved by 1 January 2021." They should listen to the TUC, which has called on the Government to "prioritise negotiating a deal with the EU that guarantees good jobs, rights and other protections rather than a deal with the US that stands to undermine these standards."