tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN2 February 23, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EST
export to be forced to relocate inside the just because they're based in the u.k.. . . protections for the u.k. as an economy that is inside the e.u. but outside the eurozone. we also agreed a new mechanism to enable non-eurozone countries to raise issues of concern, and we won the battle to insure this can be triggered by one country alone. of course, mr. speaker, none of these protections would be available if we were to leave the e.u. second, we wanted commitments to make europe more competitive, creating jobs and making british families more financially secure. again, we got them. europe will complete the single market in key areas that will really help britain. in services, making it easier for thousands of u.k. service-based companies like i.t. firms to trade in europe, in capital so u.k. start-ups can
access more sources of finance for their businesses and in energy, allowing new suppliers into our energy market meaning lower energy bills for families across the country. we have secured commitments to complete trade and investment agreements with the fastest-growing and most dynamic economies around the world including the usa, japan and china as well as our commonwealth allies, india, new zealand and australia. these deals could add billions of pounds and thousands of jobs to our economy every year. and, of course, they build on the deals we already have with 53 countries around the world through which britain has benefited from the negotiating muscle that comes from being part of the world's largest trading bloc. mr. speaker, of course, country after country has said to me that, of course, they could sign trade deals with britain, but they have also said that their priority would be trade deals with the e.u. by their nature, these e.u. deals would be bigger and
better, and a deal with britain wouldn't even be possible until we'd settled our position outside the e.u. so, mr. speaker, for those members who care about signing new trade deals outside the e.u., we would be looking at years and years of delay. last but by no means least on competitiveness, one of the biggest frustrations for british bids is the red tape ask bure bureaucracy. so we agree there will now be targets to cut the total burden of event u. regulation on business. this builds on the progress we've already made with the commission already cutting the number of new initiatives by 80%. and it means that the cost of e.u. red tape will be going down, not up. of course, if we were to leave the e.u. but ultimately achieve a deal with full access to the single market like norway, we would still be subject to all of the e.u.'s regulation when selling into europe. but with no say over the rules. as the former europe spokesman for the norwegian conservative party said, if you want to run
europe, you must be in europe. if you want to be run by europe, feel free to join norway in the european economic area. third, third, we wanted to reduce the very high level of migration from within the e.u. by preventing the abuse of free movement and preventing our welfare system from acting as a magnet for people to come to our country. after the hard work of the home secretary, we've secured new powers against criminals from other countries including powers to stop them from coming here in the first place and powers to deport them if they are already here. we agreed longer reentry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages and an end to the, frankly, ridiculous situation where e.u. nationals can avoid british immigration rules when bringing their families from outside the e.u. mr. speaker, this agreement broke new ground with the european council agreeing to reverse decisions from the european court of justice. we also secured a breakthrough
agreement for britain to reduce the unnatural draw that our benefit system exerts across europe. we've already made sure that e.u. migrants cannot claim the new unemployment benefit, universal credit, while looking for work. those coming from the e.u. who haven't found work within six months can now be required to leave. and at this council we agreed that e.u. migrants working in britain can be prevented from sending child benefit home at u.k. rates. this would apply, first, to new claimants and then to existing claimants from the start of 2020. and we also established a new emergency brake so that e.u. migrants will have to wait four years until they have full access to our benefittings. mr. speaker -- benefits. mr. speaker, people said it was impossible to achieve real change in this area and that a four-year restriction on benefits was completely out of the question, and yet that is what we have done. and once, and once activated, once activated the emergency
brake will be in place for seven years, so if it gips next year -- begins next year, it will still be operating in 2024, and there will be people who won't be getting full benefits until 2028. mr. speaker, all along we have said people should not be able to come here and get access to our benefit system straight away. no more something for nothing, and that is what we have achieved. now, mr. speaker, i'm sure the discussion about welfare and immigration will, i'm sure, be intense. but let me just make this point. no country outside the e.u. has agreed full access to the single market without accepting paying into the e.u. and accepting free movement. in addition, our new safeguards lapse if we vote to leave the e. u., so we might end up with free movement but without these new protections. the fourth area where we wanted to make significant changes was to protect our country from
further european political integration and to increase powers for our national parliament. ever since we joined, europe has been on the path to something called ever closer union. it means a political union. we've never liked it, we have never wanted it, and now britain will be permanently and legally excluded from it. the text says that the treaties will be changed to make clear, and i quote: the treaty references to ever closer union do not apply to the united kingdom. so, mr. speaker, as a result of this negotiation, britain can never be part of a european superstate. the council also agreed that ever closer union, which has been referred to in previous judgments from the european court of justice, does not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any provisions of the treaties or e.u. secondary legislation. mr. speaker, people used to talk about a multi-speed europe.
now we have a clear agreement that not only are different countries able to travel at different speeds, but they are ultimately able to head to different destinations too, and i would argue that is a fundamental change in the way this organization works. we've also strengthened the role of this house and all national pardon mements -- parliaments. we've already passed a referendum act to make sure no powers can be handed to brussels without the explicit con end of the british people -- consent of the british people, and now we can get together with other parliaments and block it with a red card. and we have a new mechanism, finally, to enforce the principle that as far as possible power should sit here in westminster, not in brussels. so every year the european union now has to go through the powers they exercise and work out which are no longer needed and should be returned to nation-states. in recent years we've also seen attempts to bypass our --
[inaudible] on justice and home affairs by bringing forward legislation under different labels. the way u.k. authorities handle fraud, they would try it under the guise of e.u. budget legislation. the agreement at last week's council insures this can never happen again. mr. speaker, the reforms we've secured will be legally binding in international law and will be goes ited -- deposited as a treaty at the u.n. they cannot be unpicked without the agreement of britain and every other e.u. country. and as i've said, all 28 member states were also clear that the treaties would be changed to incorporate the protections for the u.k. as an economy outside the eurozone and our permanent exclusion from ever closer union. mr. speaker, our special status means that britain can have the best of both worlds. we will be in the parts of europe that work for us, influencing the decisions that affect us, in the driving seat of the world's biggest single market and with the ability to take action to keep our people
safe, but we will be out of the parts of europe that do not work for us, out of the euro, out of the eurozone bailouts, out of the passport-free/no borders area and permanently and legally protected from ever being part of an ever closer union. of course, there is still more to do. i'm the first to say that there are still many ways in which this organization needs to improve, and the task of reforming europe does not end with last week's agreement. but with the special status this settlement gives us, i do believe the time has come to fulfill another vital commitment this government made x that is to hold a referendum. so, mr. speaker -- [inaudible conversations] so, mr. speaker, i am today commencing the process set out under our reformation act to propose that the british people decide our future in europe through a referendum on thursday, the 23rd of june.
the foreign secretary has laid in both houses a report setting out the new settlement the government has negotiated. this fulfills the duty to publish information set out in section six of the european union referendum act, and as the cabinet agreed on saturday, the government's position will be to recommend that britain remains in a reformed european union. and, mr. speaker, mr. speaker, this is a vital decision for the future of our country, and i believe we should also be clear that it is a final decision. an idea has been put forward that if the country votes to leave, we could have a secondary negotiation and perhaps another referendum. mr. speaker, i won't dwell on the irony that some people who want to vote to leave apparently want to use a leave vote to remain -- [laughter] but that's an approach. [inaudible conversations] but such an approach, such an
approach also ignores more profound points about democracy, diplomacy and legality. this is a straight democratic decision. staying in or leaving and no government can ignore that. having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. and for a prime minister to ignore the express will of the british people to leave the e.u. would not just be wrong, it would be undemocratic. on the diplomacy, the idea that other european countries would be realize to start a second negotiation is for the birds. many are under pressure for what they have already agreed. then there is the legality x i want to spell out this point for the house carefully, because it is important. if the british people vote to leave, there's only one way to bring that about, and that is to
trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit. finish and the british people would rightly expect that that should start straightaway. let me be absolutely clear about how this works. it triggers a two-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. at the end of this period, if no agreement is in place, then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other e.u. member states agrees to a delay. $and we should be clear that this process is not an invitation to rejoin, it is a process for leaving. sadly, mr. speaker, i have known a number of couples who have begun divorce proceedings, but i do not know of any who have begun divorce proceedings in order to renew their marriage vows. [laughter] now, i want to just -- let me explain. i want to explain what happens
with section 50. we should also be clear, we should also be clear what would happen if that deal to leave wasn't done within two years. our current access to the single market would cease immediately after two years were up. our current trade agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse. this cannot be described as anything other than risk, uncertainty and a leap in the dark that could hurt working people in our country for years to come. and this is not some theoretical question, this is a real decision about people's lives. when it comes to people's jobs, it is simply not enough to say it will be all right on the night, and we will work it out. and i believe that in the weeks to come we need to properly face up to the economic consequences of a choice to leave. mr. speaker, i believe that britain will be stronger, safer and better off by remaining in a
reformed european union. stronger because we can play a leading role in one of the world's largest organizations from within, helping to make the big decisions on trade and security that determine our future. safer because we can work with our european partners to fight cross-border crime and terrorism. and better off because british business will have full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower prices. mr. speaker, there will be much debate about sovereignty, and rightly so. to me, what matters most is the power to get things done for our people, for our country and for our future. leaving the e.u. may briefly make us feel more sovereign, but would it actually give us more power, more influence and a greater ability to get things done? if we leave the e.u., will we have the power to stop our businesses being discriminated against? no. will we have the power to insist that european countries share with us their border information so we know what terrorists and criminals are doing in europe?
no, we won't. will we have more influence over the decisions that affect the prosperity and security of british families? no, we won't. we are a great country, and whatever choice we make we will still be great. but i believe the choice is between being an even greater britain inside a reformed e.u. or a great leap into the unknown. the challenges facing the west today are genuinely threatening. putin's aggression in the east, islamic extremism to the south. in my view, this is no time to divide the west. with faith, with challenges to our way of life, our values and our freedoms, this is a time for strength in numbers. and, mr. speaker, let me end by saying this: i'm i'm not standig for re-election. i have no other agenda, i have no other agenda than what is best for our country. i'm standing here telling you what i think. my responsibility as prime minister is to speak plainly
about what i believe is right for our country, and that is what i will do every day for the next four months. and i commend this statement to the house. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank the prime minister for advance notice of this statement. it obviously took him a long time to write it, because i only received it at eight minutes past three this afternoon. the people, the people of britain now face an historic choice on the 23rd of june on whether to remain part of the european union or to leave. we welcome the fact that it's now in the hands of the people of this country to decide that issue. the labour party and the great union movement are overwhelmingly for staying in. because we believe -- because we believe that the european union has brought investment, jobs and
protection for workers, consumers and the environment, and we're convinced that a vote to remain is in the best interests of the people. in the 21st century, mr. speaker, as a country and as a continent and, indeed, as a human race we face some challenging issues. how to tackle climate change, how to address the power of global corporations, how to insure they pay fair taxes, how to tackle cyber crime and terrorism, how we trailed fairly and -- trade fairly and protect jobs and pay in an era of globalization, how we address the causes of the huge refugee movements across the world, how we adapt to a world where people of all countries move more frequently to live, work and retire. all of these issues are serious, pressing and self-evidently can only be solved by international cooperation. the european union will be a vital part of how we as a
country meet those challenges. therefore, mr. speaker, it's more than disappointing that the prime minister's deal has failed to address a single one of those issues. last week, like him, i was in brussels meeting with heads of government and leaders of european socialist parties. one of whom said to me -- [inaudible conversations] no, no. no. what they said, what they said, mr. speaker -- [laughter] mr. speaker? mr. speaker, if the party
opposite would care to think for a moment about what's going on, one person said to me, and i thought it was quite profound, he said we are discussing the future of a continent, and one english torrey has reduced it to the issue of taking away benefits from workers and children. the reality, mr. speaker, that this entire negotiation has not been ability the challenge -- about the challenges facing our continue innocent, neither has it been about the issues facing the people of britain. indeed, mr. speaker, it's been a theatrical side show about trying to appease or failing to appease half of the prime minister's own conservative party. that's not to say that there hasn't been some worthwhile changes. the red card system to strengthen the hands of national parliament is something that we in these ventures have long backed. indeed, it was in the labour
manifesto for the last election. it was not in the conservative manifesto, but we welcome conversion where it takes place. we would also welcome the symbolic amendments on ever closer union, britain's longstanding decision to not join has been settled and accepted a long time ago. but, mr. speaker, we see the influence of torrey party funders on the prime minister's special status not for britain, but for the city of london interests. it's the same incentive that caused his friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, to rush to europe with an army of lawyers to oppose any regulation of the grotesque level of bankers' bonuses. it's necessary to protect the rights of non-eurozone statements but not to undermine e.u.-wide efforts to regulate the financial sector including the border -- [inaudible] stuffing in the city of london.
labour stands for a different approach. that's why our members of the european parliament are opposing the the dangerous elements of the very secretive transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiation which threaten to undermine national sovereignty, push down, push the privatization of public services, drive down standards for workers, consumers, environment and public health. mr. speaker, human rights ought to be part of that treaty. indeed, i believe it should be a feature of all trade treaties. then there is the so-called emergency brake. we support the principle of fair contribution to social security. however, does the evidence not back up the claim that in work benefits are a significant draw for workers who come to britain from the european union. the changes the prime minister has secured do nothing to address the real challenges of low pay in britain, undercutting of local wage rates and industry-wide pay treatments.
they won't -- agreements. they won't put a penny in the pockets of workers in britain, nor will they stop the grotesque exploitation of many migrant workers or reduce migration to britain. will the prime minister tell us what discussions he had to get european rules in place to protect the going rates and to stop agencies bringing in cheap labor to undercut workers in britain while exploiting the migrant force? did he speak to other e.u. leaders about outlawing the so-called swedish derogation from the agency workers' directive which threatens to undermine one of the key achievements of the last labour government by allowing unscrupulous employees to use temporary agency staff to undercut other workers? these would have been positive and worthwhile discussions to tackle low pay, reduce in the-work benefit costs and -- in-work benefit costs and protect workers. we must, on all sides, mr. speaker, be clear that britain
has benefited from migration. from e.u. workers coming in to work in our industry and in public service to fill gaps. for example, the thousands of doctors and nurses who work at our national health service saving lives every day they're at work. the european union has delivered protection for workers in britain. it was labour that made sure that britain's e.u. membership gave workers rights to minimum paid leave, protection on working time rights for agency workers, equal pay, anti-discrimination laws and protection for the work force when companies change ownership. it was labour working in partnership with sister parties and unions across europe that made sure the prime minister's attempt to diminish workers' rights was kept off the agenda of these e.u. negotiations. labour has supported moves to reduce child benefits to non-resident children as a reasonable amendment. however, we also welcome protection of existing migrants until 2020.
so that families have stability of income. the prime minister's deal includes respects we welcome -- elements we welcome but others that concern us, but it's largely irrelevant, the choice facing the british peep. not one single element has a significant impact on the case we are making to today in. we welcome the fact the side show is over so we can now get on with making the real case which will be put by my friend who'll be leading our campaign. labour leaves the e.u. is a vital framework for european trade and cooperation in the 21st century. a vote to remain is in the interests of people not only what the e.u. delivers today, but as a framework through which we can achieve much more in the future. but to deliver these progressive reforms that i've referred to, we need to work with our partners in europe to achieve them. therefore, we must insure that we remain a member. that's the case we're going to be making for a europe that is
socially cohesive, a europe that shares the benefits of wealth and prosperity amongst all its citizens. that is the case we're making as the labour party, as the trade union movement in this country, and we look forward to that public debate. >> prime minister? >> let me thank the right honorable gentleman for his contribution. he and i disagree on many, many things, about economic policy, about social policy, about welfare policy. indeed, we even disagree about the approach we should take within europe as he's just demonstrated in his response. but we do both agree about one thing which is that britain should be in there fighting for a good deal for our country. i worry a little for the right honorable gentleman, because he's going to be accused of all sorts of things, some of them fair, some of them unfair, but i think if he takes this course, he'll be accused of being a member of the establishment, and that would be the unfairest of all. [laughter] what he said about the deal, i want to make two points about why i think, actually, he should
really welcome the deal. the first is that it does actually implement, as far as i can see, almost every pledge on europe in the labour manifesto, and i'm looking at the former leader. they've pledged to complete the single market. they pledge to offer budget discipline. they say we will insure e.u. rules, protect the interests of non-euro members. absolutely right. and they went on and said this: people coming to britain from the e.u. to look for work are expected to contribute to our economy and to our society so we will secure reforms to immigration and social security rules. so i hope they will welcome the things in this agreement that we have. it also says, and i quote: we will -- well, i thought, you know -- we would work to strengthen -- [laughter] well, i'm just reminding my new friends what they said at the election. [laughter] they said this: we will work to strengthen the influence of national parliaments over european legislation by arguing for a red card mechanism for
member states. excellent. another thing that has been achieved. where i think the right honorable gentleman was unfair is he said that this deal was really all about britain and not about anyone else. i would point out the slovakian prime minister has said, good, the myth of our ever closer union has fallen. the hungarian prime minister has said the u.k. managed to put an end to the practice of creeping power, power withdrawal from national member states. the former president of the commission said this: the real consequence of the summit is an extraordinarily important, brussels has officially enshrined a multi-speed europe. so this is beneficial to europe as well as to britain. where i disagree profoundly with the right honorable gentleman is i think these trade deals are good for britain, and the sooner we do the deal with america, the better. i think he's wrong about financial services. there are more people working in financial services in our country outside the city of london than inside the city of london. and crucially, what the single
market means is that with one establishment in britain, you can trade throughout the european union. lose that and you'llç see jobs going from britain to other countries. let me end on a note of consensus. look, labour government standing here, conservative government standing here, we've all had our difficulties with europe. we've all wanted to get the budget down. we've all found because of our love for this house of commons and our love of british democracy we sometimes find this process trying, but at the end of the day, we've always known when it comes to our economy and our prosperity and our security, we're better fighting from the inside. ..
guaranteeing access, deregulating and engaging in major trade use. and is not the politics of fear to point out that those who advocate a no vote do not seem to know what a no vote means. they continue to imply that somehow the benefits flow from europe in terms of jobs, investment and security will somehow continue to come here when they have swept away the obligations that previous british governments have always
accepted. >> i am grateful my right hon. friend says -- it is interesting looking at what the foreign newspapers said. spanish paper has said british exceptionalism reached new heights yesterday. no public company accumulate so many in europe. we have a different status in europe which has become more special with changes we have made. the point my friend makes is absolutely right. i recognize there are disadvantageds from being in the european union, but i can look the british people in the eye and say this is what it is going to be like if we stay in because of the deals we have done. people inviting us to leave have got to spell out what the consequences of leaving our. the absolute loans are in this is no country has been able to get full access to the single market without accepting either paying into the e.u. or accepting free movement.
if you don't want to accept those two things you have to start -- you are not going to get as good a trade and business position as we have today so people who want to leave have got to start making up their mind. you went to norway deal, switzerland dealer candidate deal dq i don't mind which deal you go for but you have to tell people because they deserve an answer. >> may i begin by thanking the prime minister preventing the statement, the referendum choice before the electorate is a huge one which will define our relationship with the rest of europe and between the nations of the united kingdom. scotland is a european nation. we will campaign positively to remain within the e.u.. hopefully the prime minister can confirm that he will reject project fear and make a positive case for remaining part of a
reforming european union. it is important to be part of the largest markets in the world and influence rules, it matters we can cooperate with shared challenges from security, for workers and citizens of rights. we should not forget the lessons of european history, mr. speaker and not turn our backs on european neighbors who have held at this time to deal with huge challenges. mr. speaker, public opinion in scotland by majority supports membership of the european union. every single scottish mp supports remaining in the e.u. almost every member of the scottish parliament, and one scottish ndp. does the prime minister have any idea what the consequences would be of scotland being taken out
of the e.u.? i want scotland and the rest of the u.k. to remain within the european union. if we are forced out of the e.u. and i am certain public in scotland will demand a referendum and scottish independence. >> i can confirm a positive case based on britain being stronger, safer, better off. this is a choice and it is important to set out the choice and the alternatives to the british people because it is one of the most important issues people have in their lifetime. i won't let anyone stepping to the dark, properly thinking through what the consequences are. brussels can be frustrating but don't forget what brought this
institution, the frustrating talks, you look around the table and think about how countries killed each other for so long and dialogue and the action we take to get there is positive. this is one you cave vote. >> my right hon. friend has just spoken with national parliament, democracy and sovereignty. in the bloomberg speech he made clear he regarded national parliament as being the root of our democracy. yesterday he referred to the delusion of sovereignty. my right hon. friend please explain and repudiate that statement, specifically in relation to the question before us, in relation to our parliament and our democracy and the making of our laws which at this moment in time and the the european community's act are
made by a majority of other countries, are introduced by the commission and enforced by a court of justice. the only way of getting out of that returning our democracy is to leave the european union. >> i have a huge respect for my hon. friend who has campaigned on this issue for many years and the one thing he will welcome is the we are now allowing the british people ageless on whether to stay in or leave the european union. this parliament is sovereign. we have chosen to join the european union and we can choose to leave the european union. let me explain what i meant by saying it would be in many cases the illusion of sovereignty. we have safeguards of british banks, british businesses cannot be discriminated against if we stay in the european union, but not in the euro. were we to leave, we would not
have that protection. they could not discriminate against us. they would discriminate against us. in that way we might feel more sovereign but it would be an illusion of sovereignty because we would not have the power to protect the businesses that create jobs in the country. despite assurances it is worth remembering this referendum is about -- the future of the country, not the future of divided conservancy. it is not just about brit naps place in the european union but its place in the world. president obama has been crystal clear is that if britain were to leave the european union weakened, not strengthen the special relationship. the chinese are mystified the we are risking exodus from the european union, that it threatened in the future what stands tall in beijing, and
other global capitals, britain must continue to stand for all in our own european neighborhood. >> the right hon. gentleman is right that we should make this decision ourselves as a sovereign nation and the sovereign people but it is worth listening to our friends and what they think is better for our country. i have to say all the leaders and politicians i have met around the world i can't think of any friends, australia, new zealand, canada, america, who want us to leave the e.u.. the only person who might want us to leave the e.u. is vladimir putin and i don't think that is someone -- as for what the right hon. gentleman and my former colleague said about the needs of this referendum, we are implementing the 2010 manifesto
by holding it. [shouting] >> my right hon. friend. to explain to the house after the committee, exactly what way this deal return sovereignty over any field of lawmaking to these houses of parliament? >> this deal brings back some welfare power, and brings back some immigration powers, brings back other powers, but more than that because is an ever closer union it means the direction of the european -- taking power away from this country cannot happen in future. to those who worry, people do worry that somehow we vote to remain in, the consequence could be more action in brussels to change the arrangement we have,
we have a vote in the house of commons, no power can be passed from britain to brussels with a referendum of the british people so we have amended deal, special statement, a chance to make sure we build on what we have, protect our people and that is the choice we should make. >> ed milliband. >> mr. speaker, let me thank the prime minister for implementing parts of the 2015 -- i want to go, mr. speaker, to the big picture question which is how this influence is our national interests and i call the prime minister on his statement which is the question, by being a member of the european union we don't always get our own way but as he said to the right hon. member, all the major issues whether it is trade or climate change or terrorism and
security, what does he believe? we have more influence in the european union or outside? mr. speaker, surely the answer is inside the european union. not outside. that is why i passionately believe we must remain in the european union. >> grateful to the right hon. gentleman for what he says and i can't promise any part of the labor manifesto but glad to have been here. i absolutely agree, the big picture is this. when it comes to getting things done in the world that can keep people safe in our country, a big deal on climate change, do we get more because we are in the e.u.? yes. making sure we have sanctions against iran that really work and getting to the nuclear program do we do that through the e.u. and other bodies? absolutely. making sure we stand up to russian aggression in the ukraine, we have been the linchpin between the european union and the united states of america for making sanctions count.
if we had been outside the european union during that period we would be waiting at the end of the phone to find out what the decision was going to be. instead we were driving them between europe and america and that is how we get things done for our people. >> mr. speaker, according to the web site, the lecture in tomorrow's times being written by chris hopkins, on behalf of organizations across the u.k. supposedly wishing for us to remain, chris hopkins is apparently a civil servant. could the prime minister tell us who is chris hopkins, what department does he work for and what authority does he have to campaign for the remainder of it? >> i can ask simply he is a civil servant working in number 10 and his authority comes from me. he is doing an excellent job. the reason is this is not a free for all. the government has a clear view. the government's view is we
should remain an accord with the european union and the civil service is able to support the government in that role. members of parliament, ministers are able to make their own decisions but the government is not holding back and hanging back from this. we have a full throated you we should put forward in front of the british people so they can make a choice. >> i am tempted to ask if the prime minister thinks blondes have more fun but i realized -- whether he remembers the analysis his own government did in 2014 about the european arrest warrant and its conclusions that the european arrest warrant act as a deterrent for offenders coming to this country can he point this out to the treasury secretary? let me ask the home secretary to work on all the other reasons
why britain is safer and more secure in the european union? >> the open arrest warrant is a case in point. if you have this concern about sovereignty, concerns about the arrest warrant, look what happens in practice. in 2005 terrorists tried to bomb our city for the second time. one of them escaped and was arrested and returned to britain within weeks under european arrest warrant, before that could have taken years. i think we can all see the practical application of these changes keeps us more safe when it comes to this question of fighting terrorism across border crime, obviously people will have different opinions. i would urge people to listen to the head of the former director of am i 5, these are people who know what they speak of and are very clear these measures help
us to stay safe. >> mr. speaker. having spent the best part of recess with the royal marines in the arctic circle i am extremely confident -- i am extremely conscious of the need to ensure that every one of our serving military personnel can vote whether to leave or remain in the upcoming ebitda and referendum. can the prime minister confirm every serving member of the armed forces wherever they are in the world, can he guarantee they will receive their ballot papers in good time and confirm how to ensure that everyone will become free? >> rather jealous. in the arctic circle i can tell you. they are absolutely the same.
absolutely insane as for a general election, plenty of time to put in place the arrangements that she seeks. >> i give credit to the prime minister for delivering a referendum to the british people. he came to the house and argued against a referendum but supported those who believed it was the right thing to do. he will share and know that we are disappointed in these benches. we have control over sovereignty and our borders and finances. what he said today in a statement, quote, is simply not enough for those on this side to say it is all rights and we will work it out. he wants definite fact. on the issue of migrants coming to britain, the united kingdom, when will they be eligible for benefits? don't tell us he will work out. tell us today, when will they
become eligible for any kind of that. >> the phased approach, and no access to benefits to start with. had no access after four years. if i compare that with lack of certainty being offered to those who favor a model like norway or switzerland, or a trade deal like canada, and a purely wto position. we need the answers to that. it is only when we know that that people can make a proper judgment about the security of staying in and dangers of getting out. >> mr. patterson, speak up. >> last week's decision requires >> reporter: to be both irreversible and legally binding. when will the ratification procedure begin? >> it is already legally binding
and irreversible because this is a decision of 28 governments to reach legally binding decision in positive as a legal document that the un so this can only be reversed if all 28 members including the u.k. were to come to a different decision. the documents found very clearly that in two specific areas to changes we need to the treaty on the close of the union and safeguards for businesses and countries outside the euro zone will be put into the treaty as well. >> the mayor of london, the leader of the campaign said yesterday that the -- britain would be able easily negotiate a large number of trade deals at great speed because wheat used to run the greatest empire in the world. he invites the man to wake up to the 21st century in which the european economy is six times
larger than the british economy and it took seven years for canada to get a trade deal. does he agree with so much uncertainty in the world economy it would be deeply destructive to increase the risk of british exports, british manufacturers and british jobs. >> where i share the frustration of many of those who question whether we should say, britain does need trade deals to be signed rapidly and we find it frustrating europe is not moving faster. the korean free trade agreement is excellent and we want to push ahead with japan, canada, america, china and because of this document all those things are more likely. wear the right hon. lady has a good point is you can't sign trade deals with other countries until you have determined the nature of your agreement with the e.u. from the outside. that would take two years, does it take to sign trade deals.
the canada deal, in its seventh year and does it put in place and i worried that this is a recipe for uncertainty and risk. businesses would not know what the arrangements are for year after year and british jobs in the country would suffer as a result. >> a pamphlet calling to address the role in the world by a referendum on e.u. membership, may have escaped detection. he will understand why i am delighted that he has provided us an opportunity to resolve this question for a generation. does he agree with me if the country votes to remain we should positively commit to institutions of the european union to assure success, and a grudging tone that so dominated this course.
and equally, the establishment must positively engage with potential decision to leave and the undertaking, reasonable contingency planning now. >> let me make a couple points to my hon. friend. one of the things this renegotiation does is address the principal grudges i think the country has rightly had. too much single currency, too much political union, too much in terms of migration and lack of respect for welfare systems, not enough competitiveness in removing bureaucracy. having dealt with some of these it may yet be possible to make sure we get all things done that suit us. i also agree something the mayor of london said which is we need to make sure that we have high quality british officials in every part of this organization so we can help to drive the agenda but it is should be settling the issue for a generation.
he is also right do we will be publishing the alternatives to membership so people could see what they are and people could see that there are plans that could be made. >> prime minister said there has been great reform in the renegotiation. why the french president said the european union has not run to the united kingdom any special dispensation and the deal was struck and went on to say the prime minister having said the city of london will not have special stages compared to stock exchanges. why is there a difference between what the french president said and what the prime minister is saying? >> the fringe foreign minister said the agreement is recognition, differentiated europe, i have already quoted the hon carian prime minister's and italian commissioner, and
francois hollande that we recognize britain's position, not in the euro zone, and fundamental rights, they are recognizing britain as a special statement. >> the referendum decision is a matter for the british people. does the prime minister recognize and acknowledge concerns from the white house, the pentagon, the state department and international players have already been mentioned, that britain and europe need to stand together in an unsafe world q >> i think my hon. and makes an import point. i don't believe the american view is based simply on the need is easier to make one phone call rather than many. it is on the fact that they believe that britain will be a stronger partner if it is able to get things done or able to
bend to the whim of a country's when it comes to solving a great crisis. we ask how we manage to reduced attacks in somalia or fix problems of libya's border. beacon act unilaterally and there are valuable partnerships in a about the e.u. partnerships are worth a lot too. >> news of the pound slid to its lowest level in seven years on the news did the hon. member joined the leads campaign. are getting a glimpse of the major economic upheaval that could follow if we leave the european union and isn't it a timely reminder that the long-term message of the country should come ahead of party politics for personal ambition? >> what i said to the right hon. gentleman is it is important we look at the full economic impacts to stay in the e.u. or
choosing to leave the e.u. and we will be setting out that approach in weeks and months to come so people can see what the dangers are and the risks and what the case is. >> don't the common agricultural and fishing policies do damage to domestic producers and the colossal deficit, we always run with threats to the e.u. with trade surfaces to the rest of the world. and if we stay in the european union. >> we made a lot of progress in recent years in the past, a thing of the past, big reports to the common fisheries policy and i know my right hon. friend thinks closely, when we have a deficit with the e.u. on goods, we have a substantial surface when it comes to savers and the future and how we safeguard those service industries as well as making sure our position
single market is open. >> they create hundreds of thousands of jobs in future. does the prime minister agree it will give that you pay us from voice in making sure the completion of a market happens and get the best deal for british business and jobs? >> the honorable lady makes an important point which is not only that britain has a strong voice to make single market completed and the declaration competitiveness from the commission is worth reading but also an important point, if we were there, not only with the e.u. continue to exist and have a big impact on our lives but it would probably head in a very different and more protectionist direction that affect us quite badly. >> dr. lee m. fox. >> my right hon. friend is
deluged with advice and e.u. law during his investigation so can he give us an example of a single case of a different outcome if the measures he agreed last week had been in place at the time? >> it has been mentioned in a series of judgments by the european court of justice and there are two things that would have an impact, obviously the most eye-catching is the fact i quote from paragraph 1 on page 10, that the substance of these agreements, the treaties, the term and that would make sure references do not apply to the united kingdom. in many ways as significant, something many countries didn't want is the next paragraph that says the references in the treaties and the preamble, creating across the union do not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any
provision of the treaties or e.u. secondary legislation. this redefinition is quite a fundamental change to the way this organization has worked. one way to think of is there have been two threats to our sovereignty, one from tree >> reporter: passing hours from britain to brussels, can't happen now because of our law. the second one is using the union to make sure the e.u. grows in power. it can't be done, now we have the change. one of the reasons this deal took whatever it was is not everybody likes this. is not meaningless words. it is words that mean something, that matter, make a difference and that is why i am determined to secure them. >> the prime minister was elected on 7% of the vote which means half these people, this referendum can only be won on the basis of people with labor -- there isn't a reasonable
supposition that these people are more interested in the positive circulation of the case for europe and the fractional outcome of the conservative party entertaining those they are. when will the prime minister put forward that case? >> i don't want to upset the right hon. gentleman. he is going to be supportive but i would say in the speech i made today i set out a positive case. it is the case of someone who is skeptical in the genuine sense. i am skeptical about all organizations, all engagement. we should always question. we should always question whether organizations work force and be doubtful about these things. i come at this from someone who has doubts about brussels, doubts about the e.u. and a clear eye about what is best for britain. if others want to argue this
from a more positive staff about the nature of the e.u. go for it. is up to everyone to make their own case but i will make my case in a clear determination of what is in britain's interests and i think i did that today. >> the prime minister said much of this renegotiation on immigration, can he tell the house in his estimation by how much the welker changes reduce immigration in the e.u. in coming years? >> i think anyone who looks at this who knows at the moment you could come from the e.u. and get 10,000 pounds in welfare benefits in the first year knows that that is a big incentive to come to britain and many people said we would never get changes, we have got those changes and as i said if we passed it, legislation in 2017, a 7 year period up to 2024, restricting
these welfare claims. that plus all the changes in many cases reversing judgments, ought they restore to our country powers over immigration that can make a real difference. >> supports our membership and we also support for a responses to campaign accordingly. we believe what would happen to measures like convergence spending provided on somebody in poor areas. >> the short answer is if we were to leave the e.u. we would not be able to get those funds which have made a big difference in parts of wales and england and other parts of our country. i also think i am someone who wants to keep the e.u. budget down. we achieved that historic position to cut it but we should be frank that the work the e.u. has done in poor countries in
other parts of the e.u. has helped those economy is to borrow. they are customers of ours. whether it is bulgaria or romania or greece, their economic development is in our interest. >> in january, protecting children from -- going inflames. after discussion there officials told me this was a harmonized piece of legislation. thousands of directives from brussels every year this government has to comply with so i said we cannot protect our own shall burn because we did not have the control without permission in brussels. >> i look at the case my right hon. friend says because it can be frustrating. in that area of furniture and mattresses we have taken steps
over and above what other countries have done which is kept our own people safer. the other thing is a lot of different figures if she looks at the house of commons far from being the five figures it was more like 13, 40 or 15 that come from this direction. >> the prime minister's statement and congratulate him unsuccessfully persuading his european counterparts to sign up for renegotiation, less successful, half the conservative party to support him. and the renegotiation may have been successful in central to how people make up their minds. when we belong to a european single market, 18 million pounds a year, and in or out. are we better off alongside friends and neighbors or outside on aaron?
keith international challenges like climate change and refugee crisis. and will he join with me with shared ambition. >> aimed at dealing with the legitimate grievances. in the u.k. for many years in the way e.u. works. the single currency club, too much political union, not enough about competitiveness and not enough protection in terms of welfare and immigration. i believe this renegotiation, this agreement goes a long way to dealing with each of those problems. now is the time as he says for the bigger argument for the future of the country and what sort of country want to live in for ourselves, children and grandchildren is a?
and the points he makes about britain being strong in full world, membership with nato matters and membership of the u.n. matters but our membership of the e.u. also gives us power to get things done in the world. >> mr. speaker, these bingees are proud of the record and the drop in unemployment, the record growth, production in our deficit, during his many meetings did he find anybody, even a single person that might suggest there would be better terms on our exit to achieve even better outside the european community? >> my right hon. friend makes an important point. there is goodwill towards britain because the contribution we make to the e.u. there's understanding of the difficulties that we had and therefore with a huge amount of diplomacy and travel and
meetings and everything else it has been possible to get a good agreement for britain. i don't believe as i said in my statement that if somehow we were to be at the table and ask for a second one i don't think it is remotely feasible. >> can i particularly welcome the equalization of which discriminated unfairly against british systems and can i ask the prime minister to recognize the work of the minister for york? i only managed two years in the job, he has done six and still retains his sanity. >> almost. >> the other big issue, the migration crisis, the british heads said there revive thousand within the european union area that had come through the border of the e.u.. what additional help has been given to "oxford handbook of religion and american politics" and italy in particular to try
to deal with protecting the external border with the support of the process? >> let me thank him for the remarks in brussels for the negotiation. his eyes were shouting for a minute there. he has been doing the job for six years and done extremely well. we have managed to change their rules which is a real breakthrough be in terms of the help we are giving to italy and greece the discussions in brussels were very intense because the numbers have to be reduced and reduced radically and that is why i strongly support and britain contributes to the maritime operations that will have strong nato support as well as support to bring together and -- greece and
turkey with a common information intelligence about what is happening so we can stop these criminal gains from operating in the area. without that, there will not be a chance of getting the situation under control. >> for decades british ministers who had involvement with europe, to exaggerate the influence we bring to bear and conceal our inability to which the british interests. is that why the freedom of information request to establish that over the last two decades britain has voted against 72 measures in the european council and been defeated 72 times and the pace of defeat is accelerating. if we make the mistake, take the risk, if we take the risk of remaining in the e.u. how many defeats does the prime minister expect in the next two decades?
>> i don't for one minute underestimate the frustrations and challenges, there were challenges and frustrations. the research i have seen is deep analysis until the country achieves its position, shows that britain does in 90% of cases which to formalize the we get things done. outside the single market, the same countries but without as will write the rules. we have to comply in europe, and have no say over what they are. the illusion of sovereignty rather than real phones. >> the symbolism of removing the phrase, but the lead of consequences i think the prime
minister owes the house to give it one or two examples of the basis for its decision. >> i am happy to write to the hon. lady is in a series of cases, to give to us. >> on the question of article xv and a point out to my right hon. friend didn't exist in the treaties until the tree my right hon. friend used to oppose and agrees with. can i point out there are many ways of leaving the european union that might not involve article xv. doesn't want to find himself in the article l framer, divots and fought rather than submitting to a policy that he cannot support? >> the point i make to my right hon. friend is like or like it
not, the treaty of the european union is called article 50 and i think people should read it and this is what i find odd. if you want to leave, leave. if you want to stay stay. the idea of voting to leave i don't think the british public would understand. >> reporter: does the prime minister think president putin would rather see a strong written stay in a strong euros zone or would you rather see britain broke away from the european union and seek your a potentially break apart? >> it is certainly true that vladimir putin likes to see disunity in the west whether it is about sanctions, syria, or
russian conduct inert is no doubt the problems being created by vladimir putin and countries like britain that always in my view should stand up to aggression, that the alliance together with french and germans have made europe's position stronger and if we weren't there i don't think you could guarantee that would be a case and that is not an overstatement of the position. >> mr. speaker, the chairman of the campaign says nothing is going to happen if we come out of europe, there will be absolutely no change. i hope my right hon. friend find that reassuring. will he agree with me that it is inevitable after the public vote to leave that there will be a period of informal discussion before formal protest is driven?
>> i have great respect for my hon. friend who is leading the campaign with great vigor and passion. but surely if you want britain to leave the e.u. you want things to change rather than not change. and article 50 is the only way to leave and what it says is used and two years negotiating your statements outside the e.u. and if agreed, at the end of those two years you leave and 27 other member states extend the process. on leaving if you don't have a deal you don't know what your relationship is with a single market, don't know what your relationship is with 5300 covered by the trading deal, you don't know very much. my argument is don't take that risk. what i think the lead campaign will have to do is explain what it is that you want once you
left. >> dr. mcdonald >> mr. speaker, could i thank the prime minister for his statement, does he accept with ireland and britain so closely connected economically and living in each other's shadow, and exit from the european union would be the protector of applications for the north side? if you look at the financial stock indications suggest there may be initial financial savings for the new k or huge losses likely to follow to have seen the impact yet we note of financial impact, and 75% they don't want to visit them is the prime minister exit from the e.u. will have a detrimental impact on north american
economy. >> the leader of a republic, one of the strongest voices of the renegotiation, everyone in northern ireland will have a vote, every vote can't sustain and i urge people exercise the democratic vote, going to the campaign to talk directly to people about why i believe it should stay. >> some people believe european neighbors want to do it down at every turn. is it credible to suppose these same people if we were to leave could believe our former partners would fall over themselves to give us free access to the single market which is the vital foundation for business and industry to trade across the world? >> my hon. friend makes an important that the. i feel that deeply because having tried to build up the good will for a special statement for britain within the
e.u. which is what we have achieved i don't believe that good will would in any way be there were we to decide to leave so i think he makes a very good point and that is why the safe option, the option without risk is to stay in the e.u. rather than sleep in the dark. >> as the prime minister outlines the consequences of leaving in terms of the economy and security, we can perhaps reflect on the wisdom of the leadership decisions leading to the consequences in a few months time. the second you want to leave, good sovereignty and control in the heart of their argument. does the prime minister agree with me that if we swapped a position, the decisionmaker at the table, you will be moving from the position of being a rule maker to a rule taker and that is not sovereignty, it is
not control and it is not a good future for the united kingdom. >> i don't agree with what the hon. gentleman said in the first part of his question. it is time for a referendum. we had too many treaties passing through the house where there was a referendum, wall street under conservatives or lisbon under labor and i think people's faith in our democracy and our accountability, particularly remember the moment when tony blair stood here and the rest of it and we fought a referendum was coming and it was taken away, right to have this referendum but we should not be frightened of asking people and trusting the people but i absolutely agree that if you want to ask the question how do we have greater control it is by helping to make the rules rather than outside simply taking rules. >> murray at miller. >> i congratulate the prime minister for securing for
britain what he talked about and says he agree with me the debate so far is for those who want to leave europe are completely unable to agree on alternative arrangements in the e.u. the same sort of economic and security benefits the renegotiation secures? >> my hon. friend makes an important point. today's discussions reveal not only is there not agreement about what britain's future looks like outside the e.u. but is contextual the agreement about whether we really should leave, some people wanting to vote leave in the hope of a different deal and there isn't agreement about how we should leave whether it is article 50 or some other process that could be followed. the only way of leaving is through article 50, there is no second renegotiation or referendum. the choice is in or out. we now need to move the debate about what those things really
mean. >> can the prime minister tell us beyond the edict suggested last week, in which his government's plans have been constrained by legislation or regulation? >> no doubt we do face constrained because the way the single market works is a common set of rules that have to be agreed and as has been said we don't always get our way. i would argue we get our way more often than we don't but there are occasions when we lose a vote and we are constrained by e.u. regulation legislation. the question i think we need to put in a hard-headed sense is if you are outside, does that actually give you the full control that you see? it doesn't because you have to trade with europe and accept the rules. the only thing you have done is remove yourself from the conversation and take away your
vote. >> the prime minister says this will settle the issue for generations. i have five grandchildren and i believe it is in their best interest that i shall be voting to remain within the european union. there is another generation that need some concern. children of people who pay u.k. taxes, national insurance over the years, now living in other parts of europe. my right hon. friend knows about the interest in those people. they are very frightened indeed. can he tell them what will happen if we leave the european union? >> very grateful my hon. friend decided to support the case for remaining in the e.u.. he raises an important point because of course we often look at free movement in terms of people's decision to come here but you also need to think about the british people who chose to work, to live or retire in other parts of the e.u..
the short answer to the question is i can tell from what it will be like if we stay but i can't be certain if we leave. it would depend on a complex difficult negotiation and uncertainty. i would urge all those people who have the right to vote to make sure they exercise that right and particularly think about people in gibraltar who are able to vote in this referendum. >> i welcome the prime minister's commitment today to over the next four months speak plainly about what he believes is good for the country. as he develops will he bear in mind 9 million people voted labor the last year of the election? and sympathies and values don't naturally live with this party. he does need to develop a conversation with them as well. >> i take on board the point the right hon. gentleman takes. this is not a political issue. this is now something for all
people, all voters to get involved in. they might vote conservative in a general election but vote in or out, same with labor or liberal democrat or green or what have you. this should be a giant democratic exercise in accountability. we are asking about sovereignty. this is a refuge sovereign decision by the british people. i can sometimes upset labor voters, i would say put aside what you think about this government for that rule or that law. think about the future of your country, think about the big picture and then make the choice. i am always nice. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister in the foremost of our thoughts when we are voting in a referendum. can the prime minister tell us how many crimes were committed in the u.k. by e.u. nationals?
the year before free movement of people came in and how many were committed by -- hall of many other e.u. nationals in the uk system before free movement of people and how many there are now? if he hasn't got it. >> i don't have those figures but what i can say to my hon. friend is hard work by the home secretary we are going to have to buy criminals from coming to britain on the reentry brands but solving problems in our way and as for prisoners the prisoner transfer agreement that we negotiated, that will get foreign prisoners out of our present plan attending to their jails outside the e.u. that would be more difficult, possibly impossible to achieve.
>> the only member elected to the european party, the mayor of london. and a lot more sense of its self. and his father was in favor of it. i changed my mind. after two years in the european parliament, working with people with other nations. 6. talking about acid rain. talking about free structures, the structural defects of restructuring in these industries. i think enormously of other
nationalities to emphasize again and again the importance of internationalism. >> i thank the right hon. lady about her honesty how she changed her mind when she was sitting with sandy johnson, two blond bombshells in the same european parliament which i remember campaigning with sandy johnson and the good people who decided to vote the right way in 2005 or 2010. sitting here, we would have been able to hear from him. >> sir edward lee. >> why does the prime minister bank on so much? some much about european migration? so many wonder people coming not for benefits the integrate. much more worrying, the billions
pouring into europe from north africa and middle east. does the prime minister have any idea what proportion of these people will exercise their right to come here once they get their german passports? if we remain here it is as useful as macedonian streets in stockholm? >> i do promise to bang on for the next four months and i hope after that to bang on considerably on this subject but my hon. friend makes a very important point. we have the advantage of being outside the foreign nationals coming to the european countries don't have automatic access to the u.k.. we can stop the coming in and we can stop european systems that may be a risk to the country but the fact will answer to his question is if you look at refugees and others who have a riveting germany after ten years, only around 2.2% have german citizenship so the
evidence to date is there isn't she huge risk to citizenship to these people but i quite agree that we do need to act and we are more likely to act if we are involved to stop the flow, stem the flow of migrants in the first place and what is happening right now with this nato led operation between greece and italy is partly because of u.k. intervention in this debate taken with the french, the germans, the italians, we can't get things done. >> does the prime minister agree with me that staying in the european union would make an attack on our shores more likely, is deeply irresponsible and wrong? >> i am struggling to find the right page of my notes which is the quote, here we are. i think this is important because we should be clear about
the advantages and disadvantages of this organization. i have become very convinced when we're fighting terrorism, fighting crime we rely on the security intelligence services, our partnership with america, i have seen it firsthand, incredibly powerful when it comes to keeping us safely what i have seen in recent years how much the european cooperation matters with things like the information systems, the european criminal records system, the passage of information between organizations and you are very clear former president of the association of chiefs of police officers said this, staying in europe and cooperating with european allies are essentials in keeping british people say, the european arrest warrant and deport terrorist suspects to their country of origin, helps our police and their counterparts in e.u. data sharing which allows security services to access information on threats from anywhere in europe within minutes. it is a powerful statement from
someone who clearly knows what they are talking about and outside the e.u. you could try to negotiate bilateral agreement by the win every country or with every system and every organization. i do think people last why a give up what is a system that is working to keep us safe when it could take so long to try to replicate it indeed and when you replicate it, as norway tried to do, a very clear, they don't get the accent, the personnel, the extra safety that we get from being a full member. ..
there hasn't been a successful round for 22 years. so if we are interesting in driving free trade and market access in the world today, you need to be part of a block that can sign good and effective deals. we have seen it with korea, we have seen it with singapur. and as i said, you could sign deals, but the information i have in country after count, yes, we do a deal but only after we fix our deal with eu. i think the argument on this trade-deal issue goes one way. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 60 pounds a year, a million jobs and half of those to germany.
isn't it obvious that it needs us much more than we need it? >> i think the problem with the statistics that the honorable gentleman gives is this, obviously 50% of the trade is with the eu, if you take the eu as a whole, 7% of their trade is with us, where we could leave eu and contemplate negotiation that is would follow, clearly, we are not in the stronger position. i think that's important, second point i make, and i made this earlier, yes, we have a trade deficits in goods but we have massive trade in surpluses. it is in the single market in services where the progress are greatest today so there would be a danger if we were to leave that maybe you would get the deal on goods relatively quickly but if they held deals on services, where would all the service companies be?
what would we say to those companies about how long it would take to safeguard income to families across the country. >> thank you, mr. speaker, may i congratulate my right honorable friend spending 40 years, four clean shirts in implementing the labour party manifesto in brussels. doesn't this actually show the problem that for so much labour, he has achieved so little, the european union is a failing organization, a failed common policy, a failed common agriculture policy, a single market that shackles us with regulation that makes uncompetitive, an immigration system that's betraying people when they get to europe, in this
failed organization prime minister said to make one final decision, a final decision as to whether we stay with a failed body or whether we leave and make our own, is the government's policy basically always keep up verifying something worth? [laughter] >> obviously my honorable friend and i have a profound disagreement on this issue. i very much respect his views because he has held them in good faith. i'm sure we can respect each other in the months of debate ahead. where i do want to take issue with my honorable friend is about manifesto delivery. we will legislate for referendum. we will protect our economy from further integration covered in
the settlement, we wanted to see powers covered in the settlement. we want national parliaments and europe legislation covered in the settlement. we want to end covered covered e settlement. we will ensure the defense policy national security remains under british national control, covered in the new settlement. migrants that pay tax credits must live and contribute to our country for four years, covered in the settlement. i'm proud of manifesto and the team that put it together. so what i say, yes, let's have this vigorous argument, let us not pretend that we haven't delivered the manifesto that we have stood to the british people with. >> i'm very proud to represent more international headquarters of multinational companies investing than any place of similar size. yet, those companies say to me that the reason they come here
is english language and gateway to the european market. the body of those companies aren't saying that publicly. i will invite the prime minister to encourage them to talk to those people whose job depend on that investment to say what would happen if we left europe because they tell me they would leave britain. >> i'm certainly have that conversation. my message to businesses, is if you have a view, make sure you tell people and talk to your customers, talk to your suppliers. above all, talk to your employees, staff and colleagues because this issue is so important. i think the true thing is large and small is very much in favor of british staying. they recognize the dangers particularly in the area of
safeguarding ourselves against discrimination because we are not in the euro. i hope enterprises will clearly in the next four months. >> much of the protection of the euro rests on the safeguard mechanism set out. but this requires nothing as far as i can tell, nothing more than than a discussion be held about the uk's concerns. not even the european council. it leaves euro members to enforce by qmv, can the prime minister explain what beyond discussion, which can be ignored, has been achieved by the safeguard mechanism. >> there are two things here. first of all, there's a set of principles set out in section a, these are principles of nondiscrimination, no cost, no disadvantage, crucially in
paragraph four, bank of england, i know a concern to his committee, the currency not the euro is a matter for own authorities and own budgetary responsibility. these principles are important. what i think is exciting about it is not only is europe for the first time accepted that there are other currencies inside the european union but these changes will be incorporated into the treaty. so the mechanism, if you like, is something over and above a new way of making sure the issues are raised, should we want to at the level of the european council, which is a protection we don't have today. but i think actually making the treaty, making the principles part of the treaty already an international legally binding decision is hugely important. i think speak on matter of law of the financial and this is a
very important piece. >> i think he's right to become for britain to remain in the european union. leaving would cause some business uncertainty while embroiling the government for several years in a thickly process of negotiating new arrangements. diverting energy. [laughter] [shouting] >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman and to everyone is we have really got to examine what these alternatives are, how long the processes would take because therein lies the importance of decision with businesses and families and prospects up and down our country.
>> one of the key benefits is to give legal clarity of britain within the eu, he will be aware of the uncertainties for those advising the governments about the law in the past, which this result and also agree with me that it's wrong to say that this is not legally binding, it is, and it's irreversible unless we choose otherwise. for those who want to look at the legal, there's opinion of professional queen's council, constitutional lawyer in this country, which could be read on the henderson chamber's website. >> i'm very grateful for what my right honorable friend said given that he was a senior law officer in the government. i also listen carefully what my member of beckensfield has said. he couldn't have been more clearer in this point. all of this says this is legally binding and irreversible.
people who question it, should look at the danish protocol which has been in existence and worked well for 23 years. >> does the prime minister share my concerns and my worries that after 70 years of peace and prosperity any nation begins to take for granted and take the i want institutions it created that piece of prosperity. i was born on the august weekend in london at the height of the battle of britain. [laughter] >> but my generation and many people in this country with longer memories know the peace and prosperity are not guarantied unless you work to get across europe to maintain them day after day, months after months and year after year. [shouting] >> i agree with the honorable gentleman. it's worth remembering why this came about in the first place.
i think actually the people of my generation very much postwar children, we should remember that. i think we should then look at fresh of the institutions of the eu and try to make sure -- try to make the organization works, you know, for this century rather than last century. i absolutely agree. i remember the meeting that we had for european council and you can't sit in the building without thinking the similarity that european counties have engaged in the past. >> mr. speaker, may i too salute my right honorable friend to offer them a referendum. also extraordinary stamina for the last week or so while enjoying recess. i'm afraid for me this is not what we were promised. but would he not agree with me that the security of europe is
dependent upon nato and not eu and it's nato that's protecting us from president putin and we do nato no good that the eu has some competence in this area? >> i have huge respect for my honorable friend and he serveed brilliantly in the last government. i might have said the same. it's really about partnership with america and not eu. i think when we consider security around today t way we fight terrorism, yes, it depends on other relations but fends on what we do through eu, i see that every day. just take, for example, the agreement we reached also at this council to make sure that there's a strong nato mission to try and help the situation between greece and turkey. now, if the nato backing up to
his point. where was some of the conversation going on about it? where were the germans and british and french sitting together what assets we could supply and real power into it? it was european council table. the fact is we need both to keep safe in the modern world, to fight terrorism, criminality and stand up around the world, use all the organizations, not just some of them. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister agreed with our social and economic future in europe for concessions which seems to do nothing to satisfy front, would the prime minister guaranty that government will stop appeasing them and will instead focus on the many positives of the eu -- [inaudible] >> focus on immigration and ensuring that the public has effective information for positive and firm choice?
>> we would certainly be fighting a very positive campaign. there's a series of documents, some which were mandated by the other place. we need to set out alternative to memberships, rights and obligations and the obligations you have in the eu. we'll be talking about the economic case. see it's all of those issues and i would say to those interested in some of the cultural or educational arguments, come forward too. i think we need a strong voice from universities. they have a lot to say about the issue. and culture organization should be speaking out too. >> thank you, very much, mr. speaker, will my right honorable friend agree with me that when this country in our national interest makes an international agreement of any kind, it may involve a loss of sovereignty, that may be the case through any trade deal through trading under wto rules
and indeed on the single most important issue that this house of commons could take which is whether or not to engage in military action. we are treaty bound by nato to go to the defense under article 5 of a country, fellow member under armed attack, and that obliges us in that sense we have lost sovereignty, we have lost sovereignty because we believe it is in the interest of the country to enter that agreement and has made us safer. if the claim of sovereignty and the loss of sovereignty were the trump card, would it not fact be the case, that those international agreements would have to be torn up? >> i think my honorable friend makes a very good important point. if your only determination was to never see nor would you be member of un or imf. therefore, the question is what maximizes our power and our
ability to get things done and is the secretary put it so clearly, i expect the eu there too. ie you don't abolish the eu by leaving it, you just simply cut yourself off from something and therefore possibly make yourself in many ways less powerful rather than more powerful. >> can i gently remind the house the people that wish to take part in the exchanges should have been here at the start and remain throughout. people who have gone in and out of the chamber and made a comeback again shouldn't then be standing, that's very much in breach of the traditions of the house. we need to be clear about that. >> one of the boogie hman policy for me was political union f this could be stay in the union,
what guaranties to be put in a treaty, written into a treaty? >> well, first of all, it's already an agreement and will shortly be to sited as -- deposited and therefore it would be legally binding and irreversible. when it comes to the thing about getting out and redefining closer union, i think that's so important that it needs to go into the treaties and the agreement here when the treaties next change that will be written into those treaties. we have a double lock on this vital point. >> john baron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is certainly not fundamental change. the red card is not a veto, it will not stop the majority of the eu forcing unwanting taxes and regulations on this country, but can i put it to the prime minister that he should accept the possibility that the red card can be turned against us in
that it could not stop -- it would stop, rather uk's sponsored initiatives being blocked by the majority of eu, access and further enhancements of the single market? >> well,i don't overstate the red card. what it is it's a new mechanism. not to delay but block initiatives should they want to avail themselves of it. it's another thing that makes the organization more democratic retainable than national parliaments. well, i suppose that is the accountability, democracy. it's going to be more democratic because of my decision rather than less. >> thank you, mr. speaker, mr. speaker, since the prime minister seems to be no part
from his own sides -- [shouting] >> can i command him for coming to chancellor merkel's movement, no impolitic occasion for the hundreds of thousands of uk living in the eu -- [shouting] >> but, of course, if we stay in the european union, british people will continue to be able to work abroad, live abroad, retire abroad as they do now. it's not for me to set out what will happen to them in different circumstances. i think the leave campaign will want to try and address that point. people know with certainty what they get if the remaining side wins. >> david james. >> leaving the eu will make us feel more sovereign. the issue of parliament will be the central one of the debate that we are about to engage on. that follows so long as we have
subject to the european commission and the european court of justice, we will not be truly sovereign and that very little change last weekend in that respect. >> well, i think what changed last weekend in that respect is that because we are getting out of ever-close union, we now know that we can't be forced into further political union against our will. i think that's very important. but on this issue of sovereignty, i will repeat again, of course, if you leave the eu you will feel more sovereign because you can pass this law or pass that law. on the other hand if you want to set into europe you have to meet all the rules over which you have no say. to me that is sovereignty. >> on the issue of sovereignty it has been reported in the media organization that is the prime minister intends to unveil a british sovereignty bill in the next few days, would he confirm that that is the case,
and if so what provision will he make in the bill to recognize that the principle of sovereignty is english principle which has no counterpart in scottish -- [shouting] >> what i have said i think we should do is build on what we did in 2011 when we set out in parliament, parliament can choose to leave the eu and then i think it's good for the whole of the united kingdom. we do have a sovereign parliament. there's way we can add to that as other countries have done and i look forward to bringing proposals in the coming days. >> mr. peter bone. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [laughter] >> the national cross party campaign. amongst the speakers,
mr. speaker, were two and renown commentator a senior trade unionist and the co-chairman of conservatives for britain, four conservative mp's and the leader of respect. [shouting] >> in 2014, mr. speaker, davidson, conservative leader in scottland -- does the prime minister agree that davidson was right and sometimes you have to work with people that you don't like? >> everyone will have to make the choice on what platform they appear on and what platform they
appear with. i think that a disadvantage is when i consider who their friends are. but as i say, this is going to be somebody everyone will have to think carefully about who they want to appear with. [inaudible conversations] >> a lot of talk about the city of london and big multilateral companies investing in the country. sme's export to eu countries. does the prime minister it would be maddens to slam the door in their face? >> i think the overwhelming majority who export support the case that i am making and i also make this point, which is there are many companies that are not exporters but they are involved in a supply chain which companies that do export.
i think this is a point that a lot of the business service organizations, banks and accountants and lawyers are in good place to make. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i would like to thank my honorable friend, prime minister, members of the house who voted for us to have a referendum on the eu membership. can the prime minister say whether the agreement he has reached attars the treaty at all? >> obviously it does. when we change the treaties, this will be one of as it were founding documents of the eu, so the international law agreement and then in time the treaty changes will sit along side the other treaties that have been produced in the past. like him, i regret the fact that treaties in the past with little democratic accountability. one is to getting out of closer
union, a distant dream that many of us argued with this and democratic accountability to holding referendum. >> the prime minister expressed that people who vote the european union -- [laughter] >> i represent many veterans of the armed services whose patriotism cannot be question. would the prime minister apologize to those people? >> i absolutely did not say that. [shouting] >> what i said is i love my country and i think our country, an amazing country will be greater and more powerful if remain in organizations through which we can project our power and influence and do great things in the world. i do question the patriotism of anyone in our country. we are all going to have to make a choice but i actually believe that part of britain's greatness is not simply the parliament democracy that we enjoy, the rights in this country, i'm very
>> good afternoon, everybody. good afternoon. i am pleased to have a packeda packed house for this event. homeland security is protection against and reaction to acts of violence to max of terrorism, natural disasters and all manner of crises that may get the homeland that any given moment. homeland security is also home state security, hometown security, dealing with the unexpected, the surprises, the sudden crises much of what we do at the federal, state and local level. what makes the difference is strong visible, decisive leadership. for me one of the models for that has been rudy giuliani.
hire me to be an assistant united states attorney in 1988, and for a lot of new yorkers was an example and is an example of leadership through crisis because of his visible decisive leadership in the days immediately after. in addition to mayor giuliani we have other leaders across the country who have been faced with all manner of crises whether it is a natural disaster, collapse of a bridge, september 11, mass shooting or natural disaster, tornadoes, floods, blizzards, and the, and the like. here with me today are five gentlemangentlemen who are in my judgment great americans who had the experience of leadership through crisis and in my view have done it well.
this is a bipartisan group and a nonpartisan event. good leadership in crisis is not a democratic or republican phenomenon. it is more about the elected official, less so about their political stripes. so here today are people i respect you appreciate there time for being here today. let me introduce them to you. governor dan malloy of connecticut, former assistantconnecticut, former assistant district attorney in brooklyn. how many ada's in brooklyn. graduate of boston college law school, mayor of stamford connecticut for 14 years and has been governor of connecticut since 2011. on december 142012 governor malloy was faced with