Early Parliamentary General Election (No. 2)

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am pleased to be called in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth).

I have lost count of the number of times in my travels through the beautiful constituency of Thirsk and Malton when I have been approached by people saying, “What on earth are you lot doing down there? Why can’t you simply sort it out together?” The reality is that there are three reasons why we cannot do so.

The first is, of course, that there are an awful lot of remain MPs in this Parliament, and I speak as a remain Member of Parliament. I voted to remain and if there was another referendum I would vote to remain again, but I do not advocate a referendum. I have had my fill of referendums. I also voted in this place to give the people a vote to decide whether we stay or we leave. Nevertheless, if people are straightforward, when push comes to shove, a number of MPs in this place do want a second referendum, whatever they might say.

The second reason is party politics, and the Leader of the Opposition is of course the worst culprit. He claims now that to leave the European Union with the wrong deal would be catastrophic, despite the fact that for decades he campaigned to leave the European Union on any terms possible. The reality is that when the previous Prime Minister’s deal came back before the House—a fair deal, in my view—90% of my colleagues on the Government side of the House voted to pass that deal, while only 2% of Labour Members voted for it—five Members of Parliament. Too much party politics got in the way of a sensible deal.

Finally, on Brexit perfection, 10% of my colleagues on this side of the House, for whatever reason—the deal was either too hot or too cold—did not vote for that deal. It was not seen as the Goldilocks deal. Some people said that it was not Brexit. Some said that the people had voted for a completely clean break. The reality is that the Vote Leave campaign said clearly in its manifesto that there is a European free trade zone that stretches from Iceland to the borders of Russia, and when we left we would be part of it.

It is quite reasonable for people to expect a deal when we leave, which was why the previous Prime Minister set out her red lines and brought back a deal, which respected the promises that were made before the referendum. To settle the issue, Opposition Members often ask for a people’s vote. Now is the right time for a people’s vote.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a brilliant point. The only sadness about proroguing is that we will not have the Treasury Committee chairmanship elections. Many members of the public are opening their front door and finding on the doormat a Labour leaflet that says, “We want a general election, and we want it now.” Is that not confusing for them?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is very confusing. I, too, regret that we will not be here on Wednesday to complete the final election process for the Treasury Committee.

Nevertheless, now is the perfect time for a general election. If Opposition Members are right and the public do not want deal or no deal, the public will vote in their favour. They will return a coalition Government or another Government who can take their choice forward. If they feel that they want to move down the track of deal or no deal, they will vote for the Conservatives and their policy of delivering Brexit on 31 October this year. Now is the right time to trust the people to make that choice. Is it simply political advantage that is getting in the way of that? There are two imperatives in keeping the deadline of 31 October. The first is getting a deal with the European Union with that deadline of 31 October, and the second is that when the deal returns to the House—I believe the Prime Minister can deliver that—Members across the House will have a choice either to vote for a deal or to vote for no deal. Surely they will choose a deal and we will leave on 31 October.

National Security Council Leak

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The various tests for a criminal offence are set out in detail in the Official Secrets Act. Whether or not that threshold has been breached depends on harm tests, and those harm tests are different depending on the category and the content of the information we are talking about.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Surely one risk of this leak is that it effectively predetermines the public mood on the substantive issue of Huawei in a more hawkish fashion before we have come to our own policy conclusions. Of course the Five Eyes are our most important allies, and we have to do everything we can to reassure them, but we are also a sovereign country, and we have our own unique circumstances and our own more nuanced position with Beijing, so can I urge my right hon. Friend to continue all the work across Whitehall in a calm, deliberative and, above all, objective fashion so that we come to the right policy on the point of substance?

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, and he is right. In carrying out that work, it is vital that we have a forum in the National Security Council where the intelligence chiefs can talk frankly to Ministers about their assessment of the balance of risks and threats this country faces and where Ministers, taking account of the best advice available to them, can weigh up how to strike the right balance between this country’s future and developing security interests and our future and developing economic interests to try to steer a way forward that delivers the best outcome for the people of the United Kingdom.

European Council

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, what I said was that “as things stand”, I was not bringing back the meaningful vote, but

“I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the House to build support, so that we can bring the vote forward this week and guarantee Brexit.”

The process that will take place in the absence of a meaningful vote and in the absence of agreeing the deal this week will be referred to by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the debate that will take place after this statement, and, of course, there is the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), which gives an indication and a timetable that would operate were that amendment to be passed. I will be whipping against the amendment, for the reasons that I set out earlier.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

If we go to indicative votes and we look at other options, the issue of free movement is likely to feature. I strongly agree with the Prime Minister that the public want us to end free movement, but must we not recognise that immigration into this country from outside the EU is now running at a 15-year high of 261,000? That is more than the population of Ipswich and Colchester combined. Should we not therefore have some candour and say to the public that if we end free movement immigration is unlikely to fall but will simply come from much further afield?

[The Prime Minister]

Over time, the Government have taken a number of actions to ensure that we can deal with introducing more control into our immigration system. One of the advantages of ending free movement is that we can put an entirely new immigration system in place that enables it to be skills-based rather than based on the country somebody comes from. But I also believe that for many people what underpinned their vote and decision to leave the EU was a desire to see free movement end and that is why it is absolutely right that the proposals the Government have put forward would indeed do that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is novel for me not to have a time limit, so I am used to those strictures.

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Brexit Committee. He made the clear point that we have shown what we are against, but at some point, we as a House will have to show what we are in favour of. Speaking personally, I still think that the best deal on the table is the Prime Minister’s deal. It respects the referendum result, which is critical, and it deals with the complex problem of how on earth a country that has such integrated supply chains, with thousands of lorries coming through Dover, can maintain frictionless trade as far as possible, yet take back sovereignty in the key areas of the single market and the customs union. It is very difficult, but that circle has been squared in the Prime Minister’s proposal and I would like to vote for it again. However, I have to accept that it may not come back, and that so far it has been defeated very heavily indeed.

Although procedure is important—the amendments before us are about how Parliament brings forward the next stage of the debate—I do not want to focus on it. I believe that we must focus on first principles—the underlying principles of how we will deliver on the referendum result.

The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said that we should consider a second referendum, a single market plus customs union and so on. However, there is one fundamental problem with all those proposals, which my constituents who voted to leave would raise. It is an issue that we all have to grapple with—free movement. I want to focus on two principles: free movement and free trade. Free movement is not an easy one, because it forces us to discuss immigration, to which we have so far failed to give anything like enough attention.

I feel strongly about the subject. In justifying a second referendum, it has been said that the facts have changed since the 2016 referendum and that therefore there should be another vote. We must consider what has changed, and whether, if it had been known in the referendum campaign of 2016, it would have led to a different result. I suggest that the single fact, if it had been known in advance, that would have had the most impact—whether we like it or not—is that Brexit has directly led to an unprecedented increase in immigration into this country from outside the EU.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Free movement is of course a double-sided coin. The hon. Gentleman mentioned immigration, but there is also emigration. We have seen on the television some people who voted for Brexit and then decided to retire to Spain now ruing the day of their rash action when they followed some of the crasser tabloid newspapers. When we talk about freedom of movement, we must remember that we are talking about rights that the hon. Gentleman enjoys, which he is perhaps trying to take away from everybody else and himself.

[James Cartlidge]

It is fair to say that freedom of movement works both ways. Of course, if we end free movement for those coming to this country, there will be an impact on our rights when we go to our nearest neighbours. We must ask ourselves a profound question in the context of the EU debate: would our country still vote to leave on the basis of concerns about immigration if people knew that the result of ending free movement would be that immigration would not decrease, but that we as citizens would face reduced rights in going to other countries in Europe, such as having to pay charges and fill in visa applications, at least for work and reasons other than tourism?

Let us look at the facts. The latest figures show that net migration into this country from the EU is down to 57,000. Net immigration into this country from outside the EU is up to 261,000. A year ago, the two top countries in the list were Poland and Romania, and they are now India and China. We are not talking Liechtenstein in population terms here. That is a serious point.

I remember the referendum campaign, in which I took an active part. I did home and away debates with my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). To anyone who claims that immigration was not a reason for the vote, I say that, yes, there are many people who for many years believed in leaving the EU for reasons of sovereignty—I strongly respect that view, which is based on a noble principle of democracy—but I know that what swung many undecided people in my constituency was house building in the countryside. Why? Because they believed that if we left the EU, there would be no immigration and we would not need those houses. It sounds crazy, but I have got the emails to prove it, and colleagues will know it.

Immigration was front and centre of the leave campaign. We remember Nigel Farage standing in front of a poster of the new Untermenschen. Mr Speaker, you know the meaning of that word—it has a very serious meaning. The poster showed a whole column of people and the implication was that if we left, what it depicted would not happen. We know that that campaign played with fire. It opened Pandora’s box, and somehow we have to put the lid back on. When I raise the matter, I do not do it happily. I am personally relaxed about immigration to this country because I recognise the huge contribution immigrants have made and will continue to make.

However, we must now be honest and say to the country that in the coming days, options will come before us in which free movement is back on the table. What if it is the case that keeping free movement will enable us to control immigration in future by having the strictest possible rules on immigration from 90% of the world population?

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I come from a nation that is positive about the benefits of immigration. Indeed, my constituents embrace immigrants in their communities. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about immigration about China and India, but he has not mentioned that those people are generally international students, who leave at the end of their degrees. Those students should be taken out of net migration figures.

[James Cartlidge]

That is a perfectly fair point, but of course the reason they are in there is that many do choose to remain. [Interruption.] I take the figures as they are. I remember your time strictures, Mr Speaker, so I will move on to my second point, which is on free trade.

The reason we have the situation with immigration is that it is a discriminatory system. We allow free movement from the EU, but not from non-EU countries. The reason it is discriminatory is that we have a trade deal with the EU called the single market. Of course, it was in the Lancaster House speech that the red line on the single market was first stated, but I want to return to a Lancaster House speech in which the Prime Minister was addressing an audience of business leaders. She said:

“Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it. It’s not a dream. It’s not a vision. It’s not some bureaucrat’s plan. It’s for real. And it’s only five years away.”

That was the Lancaster House speech of Mrs Thatcher in 1988. There are only three MPs left in the House who voted against the Single European Act. One is the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), one is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), and the third one is the Leader of the Opposition. The single market is not some socialist conspiracy; it is capitalism and it is free trade, and I believe fundamentally in free trade.

In the days to come, we will have to look at other issues. We will have to be prepared to flex our red lines, to be blunt, to deliver on the referendum result in a way that preserves free trade and gives us the best possible deal for our constituents.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. A lot of focus has been put on legal changes, and I will come on to the fact that there are legally binding changes as a result of the discussions since the House’s vote on 29 January, but he is absolutely correct—the danger for those of us who want to keep faith with the British public and deliver on their vote for Brexit is that if this deal is not passed tonight, Brexit could be lost.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend may have slightly lost her voice, but is it not true that were we to have a second referendum, 17.5 million people would have lost their voice?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. My hon. Friend will not be surprised, given what he has heard me say from this Dispatch Box, that I entirely agree with him. I believe it is absolutely imperative that this House meets the decision taken by the British people in June 2016, that we deliver on the referendum and that we deliver Brexit for the British people. As I say, there is a danger that with a failure to agree a deal we could end up in a situation where we have no Brexit at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I very much agree with what he had to say. Like him, we have no objections to the Irish backstop. It is one of the redeeming features of the Government’s agreement—their having foolishly and unnecessarily drawn red lines around the customs union and the single market, it was an inevitable and necessary measure to protect Ireland from a new, disruptive frontier. Our concern is much more fundamental—the fact that Brexit, as currently devised, will make this country poorer, weaker and less secure.

We have all heard a lot of general rhetoric about this issue, so I want to home in one particular aspect of the economics of it—the nature of the single market and how it originated. Thirty-five years ago, there was an insight in this country around the Prime Minister of the time, Mrs Thatcher. I do not know whether it was her or her advisers who saw that the future of business and trade rested on two s’s—standards and services—and that the traditional preoccupation with tariffs and quotas was of course very relevant, particularly for agriculture and manufacturing, but the future lay in another area.

For three decades, successive Governments—Conservative, coalition and Labour—have beavered away trying to create this structure of a single market, recognising the importance of those key drivers. That has been done on two levels. It was attempted at a global level through the World Trade Organisation, which is often called in aid by Government Members. That achieved virtually nothing, because the World Trade Organisation is essentially a weak organisation that brings together countries with massively divergent standards. It was also pursued through the European Union, with very great success.

One of the central problems of Brexit is that it potentially unravels much of the regulatory framework that has been put in place over those three decades. I have a very simple example, which gives us an indication of what is coming down the track. It actually relates to one of the Government’s success stories. The Government have been trying to roll over the 30 or 40 association agreements we have with the European Union. It would be disastrous if they were not rolled over. Quite a few important countries, including Japan and Korea, are making it very clear that they are not willing to get a move on, as the Foreign Secretary instructed them to, but one of the countries that did is Switzerland.

Switzerland is an interesting case. It is a British success story, with rapid growth in exports of 40% over five years. Britain has a big trade surplus with Switzerland. That is all under the existing arrangements. The Secretary of State for International Trade presented the roll-over agreement as a great success, and indeed it was. It is one of the few things that has actually worked for the Government in this area. But when some of the trade federations affected by the agreement started unpicking it, they noticed that it is not the same agreement that the European Union had.

Central to the European Union agreement was that it brought together about 19 key technical standards across the European Union and Switzerland, which enabled European countries to trade on a common basis. In the revised agreement, there are only five such standards. The companies in the UK that will have to deal with Switzerland in the future will do so at a competitive disadvantage. I have no way of knowing how important that is or how many jobs are at stake, but that small experience will be reproduced on a massive scale as Brexit proceeds, and we should take note of it.

[James Cartlidge]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a very good point about Switzerland, but surely the most important point about the Swiss is that they are one of the only examples of a country that has maintained very strong links with the European economy but has been able to go out and get very good trade deals, which have significantly boosted its export penetration around the world. We could achieve that, too.

[Sir Vince Cable]

I do not think that Switzerland is a very encouraging example when it comes to external trade deals. Its trade deal with China consisted of opening up the Swiss market to everything and getting virtually nothing in return. Actually, that illustrates a much wider point: one of the things that we sacrifice with Brexit is bargaining. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) has now disappeared from the Chamber, but he pointed out a week or so ago—and he is a hardline Brexiteer—that our bargaining power with the United States over food standards is massively weaker than it would be if we continued to be a member of the European Union, and very poor standards will be inflicted on us. That is the kind of debate that we ought to be having, but we are not.

All the costs associated with the unravelling of the single market will be compounded by the loss of the customs union—I know that the Labour party has given that priority, and it is important, but it is not as important as the single market—and also by uncertainty. Had the Government done what they promised to do, which was to have a clear picture of the endgame before they completed Brexit, all that uncertainty would have gone. British firms with a time horizon of more than two years will now be afflicted by massive uncertainty about whether to invest in this country, and many of them will not do so. The future is wholly uncertain.

The combination of those factors has major economic consequences. I have taught economics for many years and worked in it for many years, and I know that it is not a precise science. However, one of the most fundamental principles of economics, going back to Adam Smith—and, indeed, before—is that if you put up barriers to trade, you make yourself poorer. That will now be compounded many times over.

In addition to all the economic costs, there is the unravelling of the collaborative arrangements. One of the best institutions in my constituency is an organisation called the National Physical Laboratory, which is a centre for key metrology standards. Alan Turing did much of his professional work for it, and I attended and spoke at its annual dinner a few days ago. The people who work there are absolutely horrified at the breaking up of their scientific network, and their inability now to attract European staff. That is being replicated in campuses, universities and scientific institutes across the country.

The European Investment Bank has hardly been discussed here. Crossrail, which has been one of the big innovations in London in recent years, was substantially financed by it, but it is now being dismantled. Those are some examples of the damage that has been done, and that is why the Government must go back to the public and put the deal to them. If they cannot get their deal through Parliament, they must give the people the final say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Boris Johnson]

I will come to that, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for conceding that it was always infantile to pretend that there was no risk of getting into the backstop, because that was, for a long time, the contention of those who proposed that the backstop should be instituted.

I am afraid that this deal has now reached the end of the road. If it is rejected tonight, I hope that it will be put to bed and we can all face up to the reality of the position and the opportunity that we have. What we need to do then—now—is to behave not timorously but as a great country does. We have broadly two options. We can either decide, if the EU is unwilling to accept the minor changes that we propose, that we will leave without a deal—yes, I accept that that is, in the short term, the more difficult road, but in the end it is the only safe route out of this and the only safe path to self-respect—or we can decide to take a route that will end in humiliation by accepting arrangements with the EU that seem to limit disruption in the short term but will leave us as an EU protectorate with many important rules set elsewhere.

Members have asked, “What’s the worst that could happen?” I will give two examples, but there is any number of rules and regulations. The financial services industry would be subject to laws set by its leading competitors, which is emphatically not what the City wants. The Commission has already made it clear that it wants to use the passerelle clause of the existing treaty to bring in qualified majority voting on taxation. We would be subject to that, under a qualified majority vote in which this country would not participate. I urge Members to think hard and to see that that predicament would be democratically intolerable. We would have to tell our constituents that they had no power or influence in setting some of the rules that govern our country.

[James Cartlidge]

I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend, but he said that there were two choices. In terms of WTO rules, which he has advocated, there are two choices; that is correct. We can either have tariffs that hit our consumers, or we have no tariffs on imports, which would leave our exporters and industry at a terrible disadvantage. Which of those two options would he go for?

[Boris Johnson]

In any circumstances, we would have the freedom to decide what our tariffs were going to be, and under this—[Interruption.] Under this deal, we would lose the power to decide what tariffs we levied on the perimeter of the UK.

The most powerful argument that has been made this afternoon is the threat that some Members are apparently ready to hijack the long-standing rules of the House in order to take our constitution hostage, with Parliament to direct the Executive in international relations. That upends hundreds of years of constitutional practice and makes a nonsense of relations between Parliament and the Government. I believe it would lead to an even greater gap between people and this place. Let us abandon that project of dismantling our constitution in the name of making this country an effective colony of the EU.

Instead, we should take what now seems to be the more difficult route but is, in the end, the only one that preserves our self-respect, which is to leave as we are required by law on 29 March and to become once again an independent country able to make our own choices. I am not in favour of crashing out, as many call it. The Malthouse compromise indicates the way forward—the UK observes single market rules and customs duties and restrains our right to compete for a period of three years while we negotiate a free trade deal. I believe the EU would be open to that.

As we come to the final stages, it is vital that we retain our freedom of manoeuvre and do not rule out no deal. A delay will achieve nothing except to compound the uncertainty for business. Now is the time to behave as what we are—the fifth biggest economy in the world, the second biggest military power in NATO and, by many counts, the most influential cultural and intellectual force in Europe—and not to accept what I believe would be a humiliation and the subordination of our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to be called to speak in this debate. If I had my speech written on a piece of paper, I would now metaphorically tear it up.

I will simply respond to the quite extraordinary comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), of whom I am a great admirer. He was a very good Mayor of London. However, we have to appreciate that he is the primary spokesman and advocate for the idea that basically we should now leave on WTO terms, and many thousands of people in my party look to him and admire him for that and think he is right, yet I asked him the most basic question about the WTO today and he got it wrong. In my view, he did not understand it.

My point is that when it comes to WTO tariffs, if we go to a WTO no deal, which many Conservative Members who vote against this deal tonight will want, we have to understand there are only two choices. We are not taking back control of other countries, only this one, so we cannot affect the tariffs levied on our exports; we can only control the tariffs on our imports. It is the devil and the deep blue sea. We can either have a policy of WTO most favoured nation tariffs on imports, which could mean inflation of up to 20% on many foodstuffs and other consumer goods, or we can take the approach I understand we will be announcing tomorrow if this deal is defeated, which is to have nil tariffs on most imports. That is described as unilateral free trade but, in my view, it is not unilateral free trade but the unconditional surrender of British industry and British farming.

I want to talk about British farming, because I understand that, within the schedule we are poised to announce tomorrow if we lose this vote, arable farming—wheat—will be set with a nil import tariff. That is not a minor detail in South Suffolk, because there are currently no shipments of wheat booked out of the port of Ipswich after 29 March. That is not “Project Fear” but absolute reality, because the WTO tariff on wheat is €95, or £80, a tonne. The max to be had for milling wheat is £180 a tonne. Nobody is going to buy that. Even if we get quota, it is €12 a tonne, but we will not get it because under the WTO—guess what?—although we may come to deal with the EU on quota, New Zealand, our other friends in the Commonwealth, Australia and the United States are protesting against it in the WTO. People have to understand that the WTO ain’t no panacea.

But there is a way we can influence the tariffs on our exports, which will otherwise be very high, and it is old-fashioned: we make a deal with other countries, because we cannot directly control them. We do not have sovereignty over their tariffs, so we make a deal. Under the deal before the House, the good news is that we will continue tariff-free and quota-free trade with our largest market. Let us be honest, some of my colleagues will vote against the deal because they are getting the same emails I do, which say, “Go for WTO. Go for no deal.” They have to understand that that means that we, as Conservatives, would be saying that within a matter days the desirable outcome is the return of tariffs—and all the red tape that comes with tariffs—and non-tariff barriers across the whole of British industry. Do we think that is a good idea, as the party of enterprise? It is madness, and it will be damaging and destructive.

Here is the good news. People talk about why we voted for Brexit and all the issues around sovereignty, and I profoundly believe, because I am by nature an optimist, that if we get a sensible deal—if this vote passes —we will be successful, and I will briefly explain why. We may be the fifth largest economy, but we are 22nd or 24th in GDP per head according to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We are low ranking because we do not have the sort of sustainable growth in exports that gives the higher GDP per head that our competitors enjoy.

If we take a sensible deal that secures our industrial base so that we have some industry to make those trade deals, then and only then, once we have sorted out the border, can we start making those trade deals. We will become more export-oriented and, if we control immigration sensibly, including from outside the EU, we will eventually see higher GDP per head. To really get that, we need the investment to come with it. That needs certainty, which means voting for this deal, being confident and being optimistic about the negotiations that follow on the FTA. It means backing Britain and saying, “Do you know what? We can do this. We are confident. We don’t fear the backstop. It is a risk, but we don’t fear it. We are confident.”

I believe that if we pass the vote tonight, we will be a very successful country.

No Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, I am not. Two years ago, we were told by the Prime Minister that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed and that everything was going to be agreed within two years. We now know that effectively nothing has been agreed, certainly as far as the future relationship is concerned. Just trying to buy more time will not solve the problem; we need to leave the European Union on 29 March and then we can have negotiations following on from that where we will be standing on a level playing field and able to stand up for our own interests. We will have called the European Union’s bluff. It is trying to undermine our ability to be able to do what we want.

If someone is unsuccessful in a conflict, we expect the victor to impose conditions on the vanquished. What is happening here is that the European Union is seeking to impose conditions on us because we have the temerity to want to leave the European Union. That is wholly unacceptable and the Government’s negotiating position has been supine throughout.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

In terms of imposing conditions, if we go to no deal, we will go immediately to default WTO terms, including tariffs on lamb exporters, for example, of 40%, and we will not have a Trade Bill—it will not pass at the moment—to enable us even to do anything about it. Does my hon. Friend not see that there are serious risks in going down that route?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

No, I will not engage in trying to respond to all the scaremongering. My hon. Friend is good at the scaremongering. Let us recall the fact that our Prime Minister has said that no deal is better than a bad deal. The House of Commons has said that this is a bad deal, so why do we not have no deal and get on with it, thereby delivering for the people the result they wanted in the referendum? Certainly, my constituents are looking eagerly towards the prospect of having no deal on 29 March.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I am sure that at some point in your life, Mr Speaker, it is possible that you have owned a copy of that famous political book “The Downing Street Years” by Margaret Thatcher. If so, given your memory, you may well recall its very first words: “Ayes, 311. Noes, 310.” That was the result of the no-confidence vote in 1979 that brought Margaret Thatcher to power. How would my colleagues feel if, as they browse in a bookstore a few years from now, they see a copy of “The Downing Street Years” by the Leader of the Opposition and the opening sentence is a narrow victory in a vote of no-confidence that led to a new era in British politics? We all know that new era would not be like the previous one to which I have referred.

That vote in 1979 ushered in an era in which free enterprise returned to the heart of British politics. We went through a difficult period of adjustment in our economy, which culminated in the end of socialism and the fall of the Berlin wall—the greatest victory in the history of modern conservatism. Such a vote tonight would bring in a different era and all that would be turned back. There would be a return to nationalisation, command and control, the idea that the state knows best and confiscatory tax rates. Not education, education, education but regulation, regulation, regulation.

I am proud to speak from the Conservative Benches tonight. I became a Conservative after seeing what it was like in eastern Europe and because of my experience of the true face of that supposedly compassionate ideology. Those who turned a blind eye to it should be ashamed.

I started with Callaghan and I finish with Callahan—not the former Labour Prime Minister but Detective Inspector Harry Callahan of the San Francisco police department. To anyone who thinks it is a good idea for Labour to win the no-confidence vote tonight and then get into power, all I can say is, “I hope you’re feeling lucky.”

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Consequential sums will flow to the Northern Ireland civil service as a result of the Treasury’s announcement yesterday. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is closely involved in all Government discussions about contingency planning, and I have invited representatives of the Northern Ireland civil service to a meeting with UK Ministers later today where they will have the opportunity to put Northern Ireland’s case directly.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

T4. On no-deal planning, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the contingency of our ending up on the WTO’s default tariff schedule, particularly in terms of the potential impact on farming and industry?

[Mr Lidington]

I discuss these matters regularly with both the Secretaries of State my hon. Friend alluded to. I am afraid that there is no getting away from the fact that going to WTO tariffs would impose very considerable additional costs upon our dairy, meat and livestock exports, and upon our vehicle manufacturers. That is another reason why the House should back the deal on the table and not let us be sucked into the damage that a no-deal exit would bring.

Leaving the EU

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No. The commitment from both sides on negotiating the future economic partnership and future security partnership is clear in these documents.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

When we talk about issues like Gibraltar and the future of fisheries, and so on, should we not remember that it is a very direct consequence of deciding to leave the European Union that we are renegotiating all aspects of our relationship with the EU? Other member states will inevitably try to advance their national interests in those negotiations. In those circumstances, surely the best way forward is to hold our nerve, instead of taking as gospel the warnings of President Macron or the claims of the socialist Spanish Prime Minister, who has regional elections just around the corner.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend brings a degree of realism. Of course, as we go into these negotiations, others will have interests that they wish to put forward and press. The whole point of negotiation is that it is the process by which we come to a result. We have resisted many of the pressures that have been put forward by member states and the European Commission in these negotiations so far, and we will continue to resist on the key issues to which my hon. Friend has referred in relation to fisheries and Gibraltar.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman says that these pension changes were “snuck out”, but that is not the case. This pension issue has been known of for, I believe, two years—it has been under consideration for two years—so it is not the case that this has been snuck out.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Q14. In all my time as a mortgage broker, I never once recommended to a remortgaging client that they should stick with the standard variable rate. They would have more freedom and they could leave the deal when they wanted without penalties, but it was bog standard and nobody ever wanted it. Given that my right hon. Friend is receiving representations to ditch her deal for World Trade Organisation terms, will she explain that, putting aside the worst-case scenario of no deal, in the very best-case scenario, WTO terms are bog standard, average terms, and far worse than the preferential tariff-free access we currently enjoy and which she has negotiated to maintain?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we want to negotiate a trading deal with the European Union that is on better terms than WTO terms, and many people across this House want to see the United Kingdom, as we will do when we have left the EU, negotiating trade deals around the rest of world that are on better than WTO terms. That is because we believe that that is best for the UK economy, and if we are negotiating on better than WTO terms with the rest of the world, it makes sense to be negotiating on better than WTO terms with the European Union.

EU Exit Negotiations

James Cartlidge Excerpts

Thursday 15th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have made it clear in the outline political declaration in relation to fishing opportunities that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state and that we will be ensuring that we take control of our waters. It will be the United Kingdom that will be negotiating access to United Kingdom waters.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Given that there is clearly unease about our inability to leave the backstop unilaterally, surely we have to discuss what credible circumstances could arise where we would wish to leave it and the EU would not wish us to. The only scenario I can see is where we had entered into trade talks with another country and were discussing, for example, lower standards. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is highly unlikely and would not be supported by the public? Although it is not impossible, the likelihood of our being in that circumstance is remote.

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is highly unlikely that we would be in that circumstance. He is right, first of all, that we will not be wanting to lower our standards in any decisions we take in relation to trade deals, but also that the backstop is an uncomfortable place for the European Union. It believes that the backstop has advantages for businesses in the United Kingdom, particularly those in Northern Ireland. These are advantages that it will not want to see continuing. The European Union has an interest in this being temporary, should we be in that position, just as we do.