United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

When I voted to leave the European Union, it was not primarily over concerns with immigration or concerns about how we would divvy up the money that came back from the contributions we would not be making to the European Union; it was entirely as a constitutional lever. I believe in the principle that the people who live under the law should have the right to choose the people who make the law. Incidentally, that also shapes my views on how the House of Lords should be reformed. However, that principle could not survive as soon as we had the direct application of EU law and the use of the ECJ. Therefore, for me that meant that there was only one choice, which was to leave the EU. I explained that to an American audience by saying that, if in the United States there was a court in Ottawa or Mexico City that could override the US Supreme Court and there was nothing legislators could do in the US, how would they like it? They said, “Absolutely, we would never ever accept it.” That, for me, is the key principle.

When I first heard of this internal market Bill, I was at the World Trade Organisation in Geneva and, frankly, I was shocked to hear that the Government were intending to break international law. That was until I came back and looked at the provisions themselves, and found out that nothing whatsoever was actually being broken in this Bill. In fact, nothing was actually being done in this Bill, other than setting out a set of contingency measures, which is of course a well-accepted legal principle.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Fox]

I will give way once—to my right hon. Friend.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

There has been virtually no discussion during this entire debate about the fact that this is a safety net, which we hope will never be used. If we are on the high wire—and when we are dealing with the EU, we are on the high wire—we may not want to use a safety net, but it does no harm to have one.

[Dr Fox]

I entirely agree. I have used the analogy myself that this is a lifeboat that we hope we never have to launch. We hope the ship will never go down because we will reach a trade agreement, and we should reach a trade agreement because, as I said earlier in the House, there has never been a trade agreement that has begun with the two parties in complete identity of trade law, of tariffs and of regulation. It should be, if it was only about trade, an easy agreement to reach, but it is not just about trade. The main stumbling blocks are constitutional—the very constitutional issues that made me want to vote to leave the European Union in the first place.

There are those who have said that this Bill is outrageous and that it sets new precedents, but in fact it says only that, under certain circumstances, domestic law might have to be used to overrule treaty law. Is it revolutionary? Is it unprecedented? Well, on 12 February 2016, the German federal constitutional court said:

“Treaty overrides by national statutory law are permissible under”

the German constitution. It added:

“Under the system of the Basic Law, international treaties have the same rank as statutory federal law. Therefore, they can be superseded by later federal statutes that contradict them.”

That is merely the power that the United Kingdom Government are seeking to use as a contingency power, should they need it, yet nobody screams about the German Parliament being able to exercise an identical power.

In the short time that I have, I want to make a couple of comments about the value of free trade in the internal market to the Union itself. The 1707 articles of Union between England and Scotland, and those between Great Britain and Ireland in 1800, abolished all customs duties between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Free trade across the whole of the United Kingdom was not only integral to the development of the whole of the United Kingdom from the industrial revolution on, but it was particularly important to Scotland and Ireland, whose citizens could freely trade with the much bigger English market—something that exists today. That point was made very well by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) earlier in this debate.

It is easy, given how successful it has been, to forget how important that single market is, and how easily it could be damaged and what the what the implications would be if it were interfered with or restricted. Of course, that is why the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—I am sorry that he has left his place—was unwilling to engage in debate with me last week when I asked what estimates had been made by the Scottish nationalists of the break-up of the UK internal market in terms of the Scottish economy. He said, “We will come and make those arguments in due course,” because they do not want to hear those arguments aired in front of the Scottish people at the present time.

The devolved legislatures were created after the UK joined the European Community and then the European Union. Because the single market rules apply to regional Governments and legislatures as well as central Governments of member states, there was no pressing need during our membership of the European Union for specific UK-based rules maintaining the UK internal market against fragmentation. Brexit changes all that, and that is why I believe that we should reject the Lords amendments tonight.

However, in supporting the Government, I just ask this one question: when did the Government’s legal advisers advise Ministers that the withdrawal Act indeed, by direct application, threatened the internal market of the United Kingdom? It was not something that I heard discussed at the time, but I would like to know the answer to that question, as would many of us who are supporting the Government tonight and who believe that what we are seeing is proportionate contingency planning, fulfilling the duty of the maintenance of the UK internal market, the key part of the United Kingdom itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

7. What his priorities are for the upcoming G20 Trade Ministers meeting in Japan.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

At the upcoming G20 trade and digital economy ministerial meeting I will voice the UK’s continued support for the multilateral trading system. I will work with other G20 members to reduce trade tensions, support WTO reform, and advocate new rules on e-commerce and services trade liberalisation.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Relations with Japan matter enormously. Our termination of the Anglo-Japanese treaty 1923 was probably one of the worst geo-strategic mistakes we ever made, propelling that country into autarchy and nationalism. Will the Secretary of State confirm that post Brexit his priority will be to ensure a global free trade world, with us and Japan leading the way?

[Dr Fox]

It is absolutely essential, particularly given the rise of protectionism globally, that we commit ourselves to a rules-based system based on the WTO. Of course, we have abilities to augment that by other regional relationships, which is why we have had the public consultation and the debate in Parliament about the potential accession to the CPTPP—the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Japanese Government have been key in encouraging the United Kingdom to seek such a membership.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

10. What recent progress the Government have made on their export strategy.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)]

This is the first time that I have spoken in the House since the death of Sir Jeremy Heywood. He was a dedicated public servant to whom I, among many, owe a great debt. I am very fortunate to have been able to call him a friend as well as a colleague. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would join in a tribute to Sir Jeremy.

The export strategy launched in the summer consists of the four ways in which Governments can make a difference: encourage, inform, connect and finance. It is only by making it easier for businesses that we will increase our exporting performance. Governments do not create wealth, businesses do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When I was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, the Trade Minister had no control over trade policy—they just went on jollies around the world promoting trade. As we will now be stuck in the EU customs union for years to come, with no ability to make our own trade deals, will the Secretary of State change the name of his Department to the “Department for International Trade Promotion and Engagement with the Customs Union”?

[Dr Fox]

The Government’s intention is that we will leave the European Union in March, we will exit the implementation period in December 2020, and we will have a fully independent trade policy. We have already begun—and finished—the first four consultations on independent trade agreements with other countries.

Trade Policy

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My old mum told me that I should not cherry-pick rules. When we try to make free trade agreements with America, for example, will the Secretary of State confirm that, following the Chequers agreement last week, we will have to accept the common rulebook in its entirety and that nothing in those deals can deviate from it?

[Dr Fox]

If that is the agreement that we come to with the European Union, that would be the case, and my hon. Friend is right that there would as a result be some restrictions in the offers that we could make in a free trade agreement—it is pointless to state otherwise. However, there would still be considerable freedom on agricultural tariffs, for example, and on quotas, and many of things that many of the countries with whom we will be negotiating want would still be entirely within our gift.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

There are two elements to that. Of course we want to maintain a completely tariff-free trading environment in Europe, and that is what we should be able to do, given that it is the starting point—that, of course, is unique in any trade negotiation. On the Bombardier case, we have made our views very clear to the United States. I spoke to Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce, only last week.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T2. The Government’s approach, based on the Florence speech, is entirely sensible and pragmatic. Of course we want a free trade deal, but it takes two to tango. May I press the Secretary of State further on earlier questions relating to what happens if there is no deal and we leave the single market at the end of March 2019? Is the Treasury giving him all the resources he needs to prepare for no deal—for schedules and making deals with other countries? That is absolutely vital.

[Dr Fox]

I do not really wish to trumpet this to other Departments, but our Department has a unique agreement with the Treasury: we are able to increase staffing levels when that relates to Brexit issues, and we will continue to do so. As I said, we want to ensure that we get a good deal. There is no difference between the Chancellor and me. The Chancellor says that we need to spend money only as necessary. I think that that is correct, but we also need to ensure that we spend money on all areas where contingency plans are necessary.

Exiting the European Union and Global Trade

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I would distinguish between trade deals and trade rules. We of course need rules to govern the global trade environment, which is why we are committed to the World Trade Organisation—a subject to which I shall return later—but we do not explicitly need free trade agreements in order to trade. The trading environment is regulated in lots of other ways, such as mutual co-operation agreements. The hon. Lady is quite right that we can use several tools to shape the global environment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right that, even if there is no free trade deal, we will be no worse off than the USA or Japan. May I ask him a direct question? The Lancaster House speech was admirably clear, and I am sure he can confirm that we are leaving the EU and the single market, but there was some doubt and comment about our status inside the customs union. Is he happy to confirm today that we are leaving the customs union?

[Dr Fox]

Our manifesto talked about what would happen when we had left the customs union. That was the basis on which I was elected, and, I assume, on which all Conservatives were elected.

Most of us in this House and, according to the polls, in this country believe in the principles of free trade and the benefits that it brings, yet in today’s world free trade is in need of a champion. For the first time in decades, the established order of fair, free and open global commerce, which has done so much to enrich and empower the world’s nations, is under threat. In April, the World Trade Organisation noted that, in 2016, world trade in goods grew by only 1.3%—the first time since 2001 that trade has grown more slowly than GDP. Yet the threat to growth and prosperity is going largely unrecognised. Globally, there are signs of an increasing tendency towards protectionism. Barriers to trade are going up across the world. A particularly worrying report by the WTO highlighted the acceleration in protectionist measures since the 2008 financial crash. Some of the worst culprits are the countries of the G7 and G20. The nations, including our own, that have gained the most from free trade are at risk of forgetting their own principles, yet protectionism hurts those whom it purports to help. That is especially important as the expansion of global production chains sees intermediate goods cross multiple borders before a final product is made. It means that barriers on imports damage a nation’s exports.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. In recent days, we have made it very clear through NATO that we intend to continue to degrade Colonel Gaddafi’s command and control capability, including his intelligence network. The regime needs to understand loud and clear that the international community is very resolute: it will continue its military activity as long as this absolutely unacceptable slaughter of the civilian population continues. I hope that the whole House will also be resolute in sending out a very clear message on that front.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding what the Chief of Defence Staff said over the weekend, our mission in Libya is humanitarian, and is about seeking a ceasefire and not about regime change?

[Dr Fox]

Security Council resolution 1973 authorised the use of force for three different purposes: enforcement of the arms embargo, enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, and the protection of civilians. Those are the clear delineations of our mission, and all the activities in which we have engaged, including our target sets, have fallen within the requirements of resolution 1973.

Afghanistan

Debate between Edward Leigh and Liam Fox

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

“Victory” is a word I do not use; I talk instead about success in Afghanistan. On the national security mission we have set ourselves, I would describe success as a stable enough Afghanistan that is able to manage its own internal and external security without the need for external intervention. There is of course the Pakistani problem to be dealt with as well, which will require us to give considerable help in a number of different areas to the Government of Pakistan. There is not going to be a moment when we can hoist up a flag say, “This is a victory.” There will be ways in which we measure success in terms of national security, but the regional problems are likely to continue for some time, and if we are serious about the national security of the United Kingdom we cannot simply turn a blind eye and wish them away.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that we went into Afghanistan on the wrong premise? We were told we were going there to protect Londoners going to work. We now know that al-Qaeda has moved most of its operations to Pakistan, and that most of the Taliban whom we kill die within 20 miles of where they were born, so why are we there? Is it to hold territory, which nobody has ever succeeded in doing in Afghanistan—not even the Soviets with 240,000 people? If it is to fight a dirty war and keep heads down, why do we not place more reliance on special forces, rather than let the British Army carry on bleeding to death?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend knows that we never comment whatsoever on special forces and what they do, but we are in Afghanistan to give the Afghan Government space to develop the skills in governance and security, so that when we do leave we do not leave behind an ungoverned space into which, as a security vacuum, elements of transnational terrorism are once again drawn.

I sometimes wonder whether the general public remember the chronology correctly. I was in the United States last week, where a woman said to me, “If we hadn’t been in Afghanistan, we would never have had 9/11.” We need to remember that we did not seek this confrontation; it was brought to our streets and cities against our will. We did not seek this conflict, but we will see it through to its conclusion.