EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Michael Tomlinson

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Let us start with the hon. Lady’s opening comments. She said that I did not mention the Northern Ireland agreement. I will read the paragraph from my opening statement: “In particular, on the issue of Northern Ireland and Ireland, we have been clear that we want to protect all elements of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement to maintain the common travel area and the protected associated rights.” So much for that. [Interruption.]

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Despite the noise from many Opposition Members, is not it right that, at this stage of the talks, we are closer to an agreement than we have ever been, that that is a good thing—progress has been made—and that we should want to move on to talks about trade, which will be in our national interest and also in the EU’s interest?

[Mr Davis]

Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. That is pretty much what Jean-Claude Juncker said yesterday.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Michael Tomlinson

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman’s fitness regime—he is too far away from me to tell. If the House did as he describes, I guess that the Government would take that as an instruction to go back and speak to the European Union. Whether that would deliver any outcome, I do not know.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, especially his confirmation from the Dispatch Box that there will be a separate agreement and implementation Bill. Does he agree with me on two points: first, that any amendment to that effect in the Committee stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which starts tomorrow, will be unnecessary; and, secondly, that this will ensure we have a meaningful vote, but one that does not undermine our negotiation?

[Mr Davis]

On the latter point, my hon. Friend is right. On the former point, there might well be some minor consequential changes, but I do not think there will be any major changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Michael Tomlinson

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

It is nice to have a question from a co-conspirator from my freer days on this subject. Yes, we will look at these issues together. I have spoken briefly to Guy Verhofstadt about this, although not at great length, and I will be interested to hear from him what is being proposed. Of course we will listen to anything of this nature. The aim of this exercise is to be good for Europe and good for Britain, which means good for the citizens of Europe and Britain. That is what we intend to do.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Is this question not somewhat ironic, coming from the Labour party that voted against the withdrawal Bill on Second Reading—the very Bill that will protect workers’ rights? We do not need to be in the EU to protect workers’ rights; we pass legislation in this place to protect those rights, and will continue to do so.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is of course exactly right. I remember that the last time he asked a question on this subject he reminded the House that it was the Conservative party that introduced the first employment protection legislation, way before the Labour party was created, and it will still be doing that way after the Labour party is gone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

While aiming for an open free-trade arrangement with the EU, is it not simply sensible planning to prepare also for a no-deal scenario?

[Mr David Davis]

Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is precisely what we are doing. As I said to a Labour Member earlier, we are planning for all options: the deal option; the bare bones, or basic deal; or the incredibly improbable no-deal option. We are prepared for all of them.