“A better deal and a better future” is the title of a paper written by the European Research Group (ERG) of Parliamentary MPs following the defeat on Tuesday of the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Bill.
Written before Tuesday’s vote and released following it, the paper lays out the prospect of leaving the EU and trading under World Trade Organisation rules. It is written by the deputy leader of the group, Steve Baker MP, with help from others.
It starts by laying down the history of our exit from the EU, from the referendum in June 2016, through the various Bills that have been passed by the House to the defeat on Tuesday.
But it warns:
“There is no democratic case for stopping or delaying the process of leaving the EU. It is a democratic and legal imperative that the Government and Parliament implement the decisions already taken. Any delay risks corroding trust in democratic politics and voters’ trust in politicians even further.”
The paper reiterates that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March this year and adds that the Government firstly will work towards an advanced free trade agreement with the EU and secondly will make preparations to leave on WTO rules if no agreement with the EU can be agreed.
The first thing should be to scrap the Northern Ireland ‘backstop’ arrangement and replace it with a customs-free border under either a new free trade agreement or WTO rules. In addition, rights of EU citizens will be maintained and the £39 billion ‘divorce bill’ will only become payable once progress has been made towards a free trade agreement. There will be an implementation period on the terms but that will not extend beyond the end of 2020.
The paper goes on:
“The UK will have the status of an independent third country, enjoying mutually-beneficial, close cooperative and equal partnership with our neighbours. The framework will be amended to match the offer made by the EU Council on 7 March 2018 to deliver a Free Trade Plus agreement.”
And outlines the areas in which our Government will wish to liaise and co-operate with the EU such as terrorism and international crime, research, innovation, education and culture. Resolutions to any potential issues such as flights, data exchange, borders, driving licences and pet passports will be sought.
But it is free trade between the EU and the UK that is highlighted:
“The Government will propose an advanced FTA covering all sectors, with zero tariffs on goods, no quantitative restrictions, including services and full cumulation under rules of origin.”
It also states that if a free trade agreement can’t be reached:
“In default of such an agreement, the UK will take such measures on agri-food tariffs and quotas as are necessary to avoid inflation in the UK, including on agri-food products.”
And the paper goes on to say it will open agreements with agricultural exporters such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The paper warns:
“The Government does not intend to harm EU agricultural exports into the UK market, but in the absence of an interim FTA to avoid tariffs, this would be the unavoidable consequence of our need to ensure that we do not suffer food price inflation on exit from the EU.”
It also lays out the UK’s determination to defend its fish:
“The UK will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and negotiate reciprocal access to EU and UK waters for EU and UK fishing fleets in the same way as other non-EU countries as an independent coastal state.”
But the paper lays out warnings:
“In the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement, the Government will not consider the UK to be liable for the estimated £39 billion payable to the EU under that Agreement, according to the doctrine that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. This decision reflects the terms of Article 50, which make clear that the EU Treaties cease to apply to the exiting state after the expiry of the two year period. The decision also reflects the advice of the House of Lords European Union Committee Brexit and the EU budget, published on 4 March 2017, which concluded that in such circumstances, the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all.”
In defence and security, the paper assures the EU that we will co-operate:
“but not in the direction envisaged in the White Paper or Political Declaration of participation in PESCO or EU Defence regulation.”
And assures the EU that immediately upon our withdrawal we will transfer into UK law all EU law and regulations. However:
“If the EU unreasonably refuses to recognise on day one of our withdrawal the equivalence of UK regulations which are identical to the EU’s, and discrimination can be shown, the UK will take action in the WTO for violation of the WTO’s Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS).”
If no free trade agreement is finalised and the UK leaves on WTO rules, the paper explains where the £39 billion pounds will be spent:
“The Government will apply a substantial part of the estimated £39 billion saved from cancellation of the Withdrawal Agreement on measures, including tax cuts, to mitigate the effects of leaving the EU on WTO terms, to compensate businesses and sectors for exceptional costs of adaptation, and on measures to increase business investment, training and research and development, and economic growth.”
“An additional £39 billion spent in the UK economy and not transferred to the EU over the next two years is expected to boost economic growth, alongside the immediate improvement in the UK balance of payments. The prospects for economic growth will also be enhanced by a shortening the period of uncertainty for business.”
And the paper ends with a further warning:
“As the UK leaves the EU, neither the EU nor its member states are entitled to seek to break apart the UK, nor to retain the power to direct how Parliament legislates or regulates the UK economy.”
With Mrs May now being forced to table a ministerial statement to the House of Commons setting out how the Government proposes to proceed, the ERG urges her to table its ‘alternative written ministerial statement under the terms of EUWA 2018 S13(4) 15 January 2019’.
The full text of the paper may be read here.
Why all the fuss about leaving the EU with no deal on WTO terms?
Since 1973 the UK balance of trade with the EEC/EU on EU terms to 2017 is a deficit of over £1.639 trillion.
Since 1973 the UK balance of trade on WTO terms with the rest of the world to 2017 is a surplus of £477 billion.
BRING ON LEAVING THE EU ON WTO TERMS!
There are a whole bagful of unacceptable statements statements here I Suppose it is a lot better in total tham Mrs May’s deal.
Have you noticed now that everybodies deals now includes getting our fish back.
This is proof that Mike Hookems work, seperate from mainstream UKIP, has worked….
The same policies used on other fronts could have been used by UKIP. and was advised to do so. . Welcomed in and supported but seperately funded, but given access on some agreed basis. Like subsidiary companies if you like , but not necessarily and I have suggested a few.
Ignoring this re-organisation from fear of losing influence seems to have emasculated Head Office by using varying, usually simple, political tricks .The source of most of these must have been the nec committee. Every committee is a breeding ground for everything except common sense. It’s a natural instinct. The house of commons is one. Many of these possibilities have approached but been rejected or smothered Pure waste.
We have a majority of the British public who support leaving the EU.
We have a majority of the MP’s in the British Parliament who want the Country to remain in the EU.
I am now beyond name calling these MP’s, lets just say I think many have no wish to step off their own gravy train and others see it as a way of continuing with their aim of destroying the British state as we know it.
Although in principal, I do not think we should have a second referendum, we have already had one and leave won, so why do we need a second?
I am however coming to the opinion that a second referendum is the only way to square this seemingly impossible circle.
The crucial factor being that a clean Brexit must be one of the voting options.
No deal on our leaving must be available for voters to choose.
No confusion, no areas that can be misinterpreted.
And the vote must be binding, no room for misunderstanding or discussion.
No opportunity for the unscrupulous to twist and manipulate the outcome for their own ends.
It sticks in the craw to come to this conclusion, but I believe that it is now the only way we can achieve a proper Brexit.
Our only way to defeat our traitorous MP’s and Civil Service.
John Francis,
Your thinking is sound and logical. But it didn’t work for Holland who had 4. and the PM ignored them. However the Dutch are far more law abiding than we are. Could this be why we are ushering criminals onto our streets ..Is there a mole?
Any more than two questions on a future ballot and it will fail us by fragmenting the vote as intended. One of those options must be leave and trade under WTO rules as we should already do after 29 March. The other option should not be stay in the EU or imply any ongoing control by the EU. However one may bet that frantic discussions are already going on to decide how to overturn the original vote.
So why the need for a new referendum except to stop our leaving? It would see electoral fraud as never seen before in our country.
My fear Jack, is that if we do not leave the EU on WTO rules, in reality we will not leave at all.
Any deal that will be agreed by our parliament will in effect, tie us to the EU as a vassell state for ever.
A clear mandate, beyond argument I’m afraid, is needed to stop the ever more Machaevellian shenanigans of the Remoaning MP’s and Civil Service.
If there were to be a second referendum then it would be well and truly rigged.
Yes I agree with you. I think any treacherous politicians should be removed and replaced by honest people who work in favour of the voters.
I had understood that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 did exactly that. This allows immediate continuity. After this cut-off the UK would then be able to repeal Laws or maintain those Laws which suited. This action is referred to in the EUWA 2018 S13(4) 15 January 2019 supplied by the ERG in the section ‘The UK’s future trade strategy’ where it states “The UK will make unilateral reforms to domestic and trade policy. Many EU
regulations impede growth; the UK needs the freedom to do better”
I like the look of this proposal and suggests what our Government should have put forward in the first place.
“…we will transfer into UK law all EU law and regulations.” A worrying statement, the effect of which cannot be quantified without a very detailed analysis.
I am actually more concerned about all the laws passed BY Heath with all the tricks possible including, Lying. Concealment, and Civil service conspiring…Which transferred vast swathes of British technology, methodology, patents and protection to all and sundry. Before we even joined. And I, silly kid that I was, believing in the Prime Minister . I now realise that whatever his motives The man was a slug..