EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Exiting the European Union

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Motions)

Toby Perkins Excerpts
Wednesday 27th March 2019

(5 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marcus Fysh Portrait Mr Fysh
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am not going to give way because I know that a lot of people want to speak.

In a customs union, we would not be in control of various aspects of the process. We would not be in control of the conditions of the border formalities, nor of the tariffs collected. For example, if goods were coming to our market via Rotterdam, the tariffs on those imports—effectively to us—would be collected and kept in the European Union. A customs union would not give us control over our money, our trading partners’ access to our market, or our traders’ access to our trading partners’ markets. It really is inconceivable that we should even be considering any recognisable description of a permanent customs union as a feature of leaving the EU. That is one reason that people outside this place are quite confused by some of the suggestions that the House has been coming up with.

Many of the single market and customs union proposals on the table tonight would not obviate the need for a backstop in the withdrawal agreement, so the problems of the withdrawal agreement highlighted by some Conservative Members and others would remain anyway. There is the problem of being hostage to fortune within the further negotiation of how these customs union or single market arrangements might work. For example, exemptions on fishing and other matters would still be up for negotiation, as we heard earlier, but we would be in a relatively weak position in those negotiations. Defence manufacturing would be prejudiced by the backstop, should we end up having to go into it. The same is true for agriculture, as the restrictions on state aid for our agriculture, while the EU is allowed to subsidise its agriculture, would still remain. The issue of Northern Ireland—what happens to Northern Ireland should we not be able to agree—would still remain. I do not really see those motions as solutions. It is also possible, to come to the circumstances of my motion—

Toby Perkins Portrait Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for five minutes, but he has not yet had an opportunity to tell us why we should vote for his motion. Would you encourage him to tell us about motion (O), rather than what is wrong with all the other motions?

John Bercow Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, and it would be best if the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) would expedite the process in the light of the number of colleagues who wish to contribute.