Debates between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Bates during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Brexit: Economic Impact

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Bates
Wednesday 20th February 2019

(5 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In some sense they did that, because the analysis benchmarked against the status quo—our membership of the European Union. It then went through the options and said that, over a 15-year period, if the White Paper model were accepted there would be a 0.6% impact on GDP, 2.1% modelled on White Paper sensitivity, 4.9% on a free trade agreement and 7.7% on no deal.

Lord Bridges of Headley Portrait Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, when the Government publish their tariff schedule for what would apply in the event of a no-deal scenario, will they also publish an impact assessment of those tariffs?

Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend puts forward an interesting idea. Of course, the tariff schedule has not been published yet. It will be published shortly, and I am sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and others will have heard my noble friend’s suggestion.

Brexit: Financial Settlement

Debate between Lord Bridges of Headley and Lord Bates
Monday 13th November 2017

(7 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley Portrait Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord Spicer’s question, does the Minister agree that Monsieur Barnier’s position today seems entirely contradictory to the position he set out in the negotiating guidelines published in April, which state:

“In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately”?

Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My noble friend has great experience in this area. He draws my attention to a significant part of the setting out of the principles which the Prime Minister’s speech of 22 September chimed with exactly. Some of the comments coming from the other side do not necessarily recognise that, so it is good to be reminded of it.