tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN February 26, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EST
just a couple days ago. if he were to reverse that decision, would you -- would you support his decision to do that, if you were? both of you. >> yes, sir, i would. it brings a very specific set of capabilities to the theater. as you just stated. i would just say that general milley as you know with the downsizing of our force has got to make a decision to take that someplace. and with that comment, i would just say i think my personal opinion is that we need to reconsider the downsizing of the army at this point given the challenges that we have around the globe. we've got a mismatch between the requirements and our strategy and the force that we have today. >> i couldn't agree more with you on that, general. and, you know, general milley to his credit is looking hard at the ratio and wanting to cut. if he has to cut anybody the
infantry, armor, tooth element of our forces but i think your broader point on not drawing down the 450 is a really good one. admiral harris, do you have any thoughts on that? >> sure, senator. i'll be the first to say it's much more fun to be an insatiable co-com han a service chief. so, i don't envy the other service chiefs are in because they have to make the difficult decisions. but i will say our nation has an insatiable desire for security and rightfully so. and so i welcome general milley's decision to reconsider the reduction of the 425 and that great capacity that's resident in alaska. these are follow-on search forces that without them, you know, i don't know where we'd be if we had a major fight on the korean peninsula. >> thank you for that. and i was just out at ft. polk at the jrtc, the 425 is doing
their monthlong training there and to watch close to 1,000 airborne soldiers drop out of the sky in the middle of the night on a four sentry military exercise shows what an awesome instrument of american power this unit is, and i certainly think it's a strategic mistake for the country to be getting rid of them. let me ask one final question just switching gears here. in csis in their report, i know both of you have reviewed it, recommended that we should consider offering an explicit guarantee to the philippines that the united states will respond under the u.s./philippine mutual defense treaty to an attack on the philippine military in the disputed waters or territory. i think to the president's credit, he did this with regard to one of the islands with regard to our treaty obligations to japan recently.
should this option be considered, and what do you think the effect of such a declaration would be and what do you think the effect of the president's previous statement vis-a-vis japan and our treaty obligations to japan on one of the islands, what do you think the impact of that was? >> yeah, so trying to decide which question to answer first. i'll start backwards, then. so, i think that the secretary of defense and the president's declaration, unequivocal declaration that the senkaku islands had a positive effect on the situation in the east china sea. and i responded to a question earlier about the csis's recommendation on the philippines -- >> i'm sorry, i was -- >> no, no, no, no. and so -- and i believe that our obligations to the philippines under that treaty, which is
different than, you know, every treaty is different, it's clear, and i understand my obligations. i think we should consider it for sure. we should consider clarifying our position on the philippine marines that are on the shoal. we have maintained as a nation that territorial maritime dispute there, the maritime dispu dispute, you know, we don't take a position on that. and so, you know, we're going to have to study this and get into it. but i think it clearly should be considered. >> why do you think -- your first statement about the president's statement, you said you thought it was positive. why? why do you think it was positive? what did it do? >> it sent a clear signal to china that we would protect -- we would protect the senkakus or den the senkakus just as we
during campaign 2016, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and cspan.org. on saturday, south carolina holds its democratic presidential primary. and at 7:30 p.m. eastern, c-span will bring you results from south carolina along with speeches from the candidates and your reaction on the phone and on facebook and twitter.
and two days later super tuesday, when 12 states hold presidential primaries or caucuses. it's also been called the s.e.c. primary because many of the states holding contests that day participate in the u.s. collegiate southeastern conference. results from those races and candidate speeches are live on tuesday, starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. how can we best get people to pay attention to wasteful spending. so, we tend to find things that are interesting, a little different, easy to understand, because the government is so large. an organization like caew has to cut through the noise and a lot of the other things going on, and try to get people to be more involved and make it a little more personal so that they understand the impact on them and their families and their children and grandchildren. >> sunday night on "q & a"
thomas shatz talks about bringing attention to wasteful wasteful spending. citizens against government waste compiles a list of unauthorized government programs. >> we worked with a bipartisan coalition of members of congress, which then was called the congressional pork busters coalition, and they came up with us with a definition of what was then called pork barrel spending and really still is, eventually became the term earmarks. and we went through
would campaign for britain to exit the eu. >> order. statement. the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, with permission, i'd like to make a statement on reached in t brussels last week. but let me say a word on the migration crisis. we need to strengthen the eu's externalgr borders to make sure nonrefugees are returned promptly and back the new mission to disrupt the criminalt gangs working between greece and turkey who are putting so many e people's lives at risk. britain will continue to g contribute and step up our he f contribution in all ofou these areas. turning torefo rm abritain's pl europe, mr. speaker, i've spent
the last nine months setting ou the four areas where we need reform and meeting with all other 27 eu heads of state and government to reach an agreement thatfirst, delivers concrete ren all four areas. a let me take each in turn. first, british jobs and busines, depend on being able to trade r with europe on a level playing a field so we wanted new br protections for our economy, toe safeguard the pound, to promoten our industries, including our ue financial services industries, e to protect british taxpayers from the costs of problems in ll the euro zone and to ensure we have a full say overwe the rule of the single market while remaining outside the euro zonee and we got all of those things.. we've not just permanentlyly protected the poundth and our right to keepep it but we've the b ensured we cannot be ins discriminated against. responsibility for supervising the financial stability of the u uk will always remain in the euros of the bank of england. we've ensured that british dermn taxpayers will never be made to
bail out countries in the euro r zone and cannot act as a block to undermine the integrity of . the free trade single market and we guaranteed that british business will never face any f discrimination for being outside the euro zone. a for example, our financial be services firms, our number one services export, employing over a million people, can never be . forced to relocate inside the t euro zone if they want to underd takein trades in euros because e they arember based in the uk. these protections are not just set out in a legally binding an agreement. all 28 member states were also e clear that the treaties would be changed to incorporate the protections for the uk as an economy that is inside the eu but outside the euro zone.rn, we also agreed a new mechanism to enable noneuro zone countrie, to raise m issuer. of concern al won the battle to ensure this could be triggered by one the country alone. of course, mr. speaker, none ofm these protections would be available if we were to leave i fae ngeu. second, we wanted commitments to
make europe more competitive, l creating jobs,et and making british families more financially secure.ces, again we got them. of europe will complete the single- market in key areas that will te really help britain. euro in services make it easier for thousands of uk service-based i companies like i.t. firms to trade in europe, in capital so t uk start-ups can access more s h sources of finance fore their o businesses and energy allowing t new suppliers into our energy market meaning lower energy ost bills for families across the country. we've secured commitments with r trade and investment agreementsi with the fastest growing economies in the world including usa, japan, and china as well as our common wemwealth allies. d these deals could add billions of pounds and thousands of jobsd to our economy every year. and, of course, they build on weedeals already have with bei 53ng countries around the world. through which britain has benefitted from the negotiatingr
muscle that comesse from being part of the world's largest trading bloc.f mr. speaker, of course, countrya after country havelso said to me that, of course, they could sign trade deals with britain. t but they also said that their d priority would be trade deals wh with the eu, by their nature these eu deals would be bigger e and better and a deal with r, britain wouldn't even be possible until we'd settled our position outside the eu.de so, mr. speaker, forethose members who care about signing cew trade deals outside the eu we would be looking at years and years of delay. last but by no means least on b competitiveness, one of the biggest frustrations for british business is the red tape and bd bureaucra bureaucracy, we agreed there would be targets of cutting the total burden made of eu regulat business. this builds on the progress we've already made with the commission already cuttingng b number of new initiatives by 80%. and it means that the cost of ee red tape will be going down, not up.ith
of course, if we were to leave e the eu s but ultimately achievee deal, with full access to the eg single market like norway, we would still be subject to all of the eus regulation when selling into europe but with no say oven the rules. as the former europe spokesman for thefe norwegian conservativ 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 theh european economic area.igh third, third, we wanted to ment reduce the very high level of migration from within the eu bye preventing the t abuse of free e movement and preventing our welfare system from acting as a magnet for people to come to ouo country. after the hard work of the home secretary, we've secured new to powers against criminals from dy other countries, including powers to stop them from coming here in the first place, and ad powers to deport them if they mm are already here. we agreed longer re-entry bans . for fraudters and people who
collude in sham marriages and ai end to the frank ter ridiculouse situation where eu nationals can avoid british immigration rules when bringing their families from outside the eu. the mr. speaker, this agreement broke new ground with the a european council agreeing to emo 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 sal europe. we've already made sure c that f migrants cannot claim the new t unemployment benefit, universal credit, while looking for work.s those coming from the eu who wi haven't found work in six monthf can now be required to leave ann thishis council we agreed that eu migrants working in britain o can be prevented from sending m child benefit home at uk rates.h this would apply first to new a claimants and then to existing i claimants at the start of 2020.r we also established a new emergency break so that eu aker- migrants will have to wait four years until they have full chiee
access to our benefits. mr. speaker, people said it waso impossible to achieve real change in this area. and that a four-year restriction benefits was completely out of the question and yet that is what we have done. and once -- and once activated, once activated, the emergency break will be in place for sevee years. so, if it be begins next year, will still be operating in 2024n and there will be people who won't be getting full benefits outil 2028. mr. speaker, all along we have said people should not be able w to come heree and get access to our benefit system straight pea, away. no more something for nothing and that is what we have achieved., i'm now, mr. speaker, i'm sure the discussion sure, about welfare immigration will i'm sure be intention. w but leti meth just make this po. no country outside the eu has w been agreed full access to the e
free market i without accepting paying into the eu and accepting free movement. fre in addition our new safeguards thpse if we vote to leave the eu, so we might end up with free movement but without these new protections. the fourth area where we wantedl to make significant changes wasr to protect our country from furtherev european political hs integration and to increase to powers for our national parliament. ever since we joined europe hasn been on. the path to something called ever closer union. and it means a political union. we have never liked it. we have never wanted it and nowd britain will be permanently and legally excluded from it. e the text says that the treatiest will be changed to make clear, g and ido quote, the treaty references to ever closer union do not apply to the united kingdom.supers so, mr. speaker, as a result ofr this negotiation, britain can n never be part of a european thr
superstate. agreed that lso ever closer union which has beee referred to in previous e of judgments from the european court of justice, does not offer a legal basis for extending thet scope of any provisions of the r treaties or eu secondary legislation. mr. speaker, people used to talk about a multispeed europe. now we have a clear agreement that not only are different d countries able to travel at is 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 memenworks. a we've also strengthened the rolt of this house and all national e parliaments. we've already passed a referendum act to make sure thal no powers can be handed to tish brussels without the explicit consent of the british people in a referendum and now if brussel, comes up with legislation we t don't want we can get together poss other parliaments and block it with a red card. and we have a new mechanism yer
finally to enforce the principle as far as possiblele powers shod sit here in westminster, not ing brussels. and so, every year the european re union has to goce through the e powers they exercise and work out which are no longer needed and be returned to [inaudib nation-states. ininon j recent years we've als attempts to bypass our opt-out e on justice and home affairs by bringing legislation under a different label. for example, the attempts to c interfere with the way the uk rm authorities handle fraud, thes w agreement at last week's council ensures that this can never happen again.ternatio mr. speaker, the reforms we've secured will be legally binding in international law andhout wie deposited as a treaty at the e. u.n. they cannot be unpicked without the agreement of britain and every other eu country. and as i've said, all 28 memberh states were also clear thate th treaties would be changed to incorporate the protections foru the uk as an economy outside thc euro zone and our permanent
exclusion from ever closer union.be mr. speaker, our special status means that britain can have thec best of both worlds.fect we will be in the parts of europe that work for us, flubs i influencing the decisions that affect us, in the b drivingut w of the world's biggest single market and with the ability to t 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 euro zone bailouts, out of the passport-free no borders area and prmnently and legally 'm the protected from ever being part of an ever closer union.is o of course, there is still morer to do. i'm the first to say that theren are still many ways in which this organization needs to improve. and the task oftus reforming eui does not end with last week's agreement. but with a thenother special std this settlement gives us, i do believe the time has come to fulfill another vital commitment this government made and that i] to hold a referendum.
so, mr. speaker -- 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 there's the 23rd of june. the foreign secretary has laid i in bothon houses a report setti out the new settlement the government has negotiated. and this fulfills the duty to th publish information set out in l section sixl 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. mr. speaker, mr. speaker, this is a vital decision for the future of our country, and i pt believe we should also be clear that it is a final decision. an idea has been put forward n a that ifnd the country votes to leave, we could have a secondart negotiation and perhaps anothero
referendum. mr. speaker, i won't dwell on the irony that come people who t want to vote to leave apparently want to use a leave vote to remain , but such an approach - but such -- but such an appro h approach -- such an approach also ignores more profound raigt points about democracy, no diplomacy and legality.gnore this is a straight democratic decision.tiation staying in or leaving and no government can ignore that. having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendumt is not on the ballot paper.o wrg and for a prime minister to ignore the express will of the british people to leave the eu would not just be wrong, it t would be undemocratic. ma the diplomacy, the idea that other european countries would w
beha ready to start a second ise negotiation is for the birds. many are under pressure for what th theave already agreed.d. then there is the legality. to and i want to spell out this to point for the house carefully because it is important. abrtic5 if the british people vote to rs leave, there's only one way to bring that about and that is to trigger article 50 of the t treaties and begin the process of exit. and the british people would ts rightly expect that that should start straightaway. let me be absolutely clear aboue how this works. thi it triggers a two-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit. unless at the end of this period, if nm agreement is in place, then exit is automatic unless every one of the 27 other eu member states agrees to a delay. a and we should be clear that thi. process is not an invitation to rejoin, it is a process for leaving. any sadly, mr. speaker, i've known c number of couples who have begun
divorce proceedings, but i do not know any who have begun divorce proceedings in order to renew their marriage vows. now, i want to just -- let me .xplain i want to explain what happens with section 50. we should also be clear -- we should also be clearwasn what w happen if that deal to leave to wasn't done within two years. tr our current access to the single market would cease immediately after two years were up.ed our current trade agreements with 53 countries around the world would lapse.he this cannot be described as y anythingear other than risk, uncertainty and a leap in the dark that could hurt working people in our country for years to come.tt and this is not some theoretical question, this is a real ni
decision about people's lives.gh when itt, a comes to i people's it is simply not enough to say t it will be all right on the a c mrght and we will work it out. and i believe in the weeks to e come we need to properly face u, to the economic consequences of a choice to leave.d beformed mr. speaker, i believe that strn britain will be stronger, safern and better off by remaining in a reformed european union. stronger because we can play a d leading role in one of the dete world's largest organizations from within,future helping to me big decisions on trade and security that determine our future. safer, because we can work with our european partners to fight i cross-border crime and terrorism, and job better off nd mrcause british business will have full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower is prices. mr. hespeaker, there will be mu debate about sovereignty and rightly so. to me what matters most is the e power to getfl things done for r people, for our country and fore our future.wer, leaving the eu may briefly make
us feel morere sovereign, but would it actually give us more r power, more influence and a greater ability to get things done? if we leave the eu, will we hava the power to stop our businessee being discriminated against?nd no. powerr to insist that european countries share with us their border information so we know what terrorists and criminals are doing in europe? l 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.but i we are a great country. and whatever choice we make, we will still be great.or but i believe the choice is between being an even greater e britain inside a reformed eu or into the unknown. the challenges facing the west today are genuinely threateningv putin's aggression in the east. islamist extremism to the south, in my view this is no time to divide the west. when faced with challenges to our way of life, our values andi our freedoms, thisng is a time r
strength in numbers. mr. speaker, let me end by saying this, i'm not standing r for re-election. i have no other agendary. -- i e no other agenda than what is sa best for our country. i i'm standing here telling you what i think. the my responsibility as prime i cm minister is to speak plainly about what is right for our country and that is what i do every day for the next four months. and i commend this statement to the house.aker.ould >> thank you, mr. speaker.g i would like to thank the prime minister for advance notice of s this statement. it obviously took him a long time to write it because i only received it at eight minutes t past 3:00 this afternoon.he p the people -- the people of britain now face an historic we choicewelc on the 23rd of june p whether to remain part of the
european union or to leave. l we welcome the fact that it's r now in the hands of the people of this country to decide that issue. the labor party and the trade union movement are overwhelmingly for staying in.hb because we believe -- because w, tolieve that the european union has brought investment, jobs and protection for workers, in consumers and the environment and we are t convinced that a va to remain is in the best interests of the people.s in the 21st century, mr. issu speaker, as a country and as a d continent and indeed as a human race we face some challenging o issues. how tooinsure tackle climate cha how to address the power of global corporations. how to ensure they pay fair taxes. how to tackle cybercrime and global terrorism. how we we trade fairly and prote jobs and pay in an era of how globalization. how we address the causes of the huge refugee movements across d
the world. how we adopt to a world where people of all countries move more frequently to live, work and retire.ntly cannation all of these issues are seriousu pressing and self-evidently can only be solved by international cooperation. the european union will be a vital part of how we as a has country meet those challenges. therefore, mr. speaker, it's more than disappointing that the prime minister's deal has failew to address a single one of those issues. last week, like him, i was in oo brussels meeting with heads of government and leaders of -- european socialist parties. one of whom said to me -- no. ty no. no. what they said -- what they said, mr. speaker,
mr. speaker, if t mr. speaker. mr. speaker, if the party heposite would care to think for a moment about what's going on, one person said to me, and i thought it was quite profound, e he said, we are discussing the future of a continent. and and one english torey has reduced it to the issue of taking away benefits from workers and children. the the creality, mr. speaker, is , that this entire negotiation hag not been about the challenges pr facing our continent, neither has it been about the issues il facing people of britain.ingase indeed, mr. speaker, it's been a theatrical sideshow about trying to appease or failing to appeasw
half of the prime minister's own conservative party. that's not to say that there na haven't been some worthwhile changes. the red card system to strengthen the hands of nationai parliament is something that we on these benches have long the backed. indeed it was in the labor ifeso conifesto in the last general, election. it was not actually inhere it to conservative manifesto for the e election, but we welcome u conversion where it takes place. we would also welcome the anding symbolic amendment on ever join closer hunion, britain's long-standing decision not to e join the euro has been settled f and accepted a long time ago. but, mr. speaker, we see the influence of t torrie party funders on the prime minister'sn special status, not for britain but the city the of london urope interests. it's the same ithincentive that caused his friend the chancellor of the exchequer to rush to europe with an army of lawyers p
to oppose any regulation of the grotesque level of bankers' bonuses. it's necessary to protect the ue rightsff of non-euro zone state but not to undermine eu-wide efforts to regulate the fing i financial sector, including thed boardroom pocket stuffing in the city of london. labor stands for a different approach.ment are that's why our members of the neropean parliament are opposing the dangerous elements of the very secretive transatlantic d, trade investment partnership negotiations, which threaten to undermine national sovereignty,t push down -- push the privatization of public services, drive down standards for workers, believconsumers, environment and public health.ra mr. speaker, human rights oughtr to be part of that treaty. brak. indeed i believe it should be ap feature of all trade treaties. then there is the so-called emergency break. we support the principle of fait contribution to social security.
however, does the evidence not back up the claim that in work s benefits areec a significant dr for workers whoho come to britain from the european union. the changes the prime minister e has secured do nothing to address the real challenges of y low pay in britain, undercuttina of local wage rates and industrywide pay agreements. theyue won't put a penny of ther pocket of workers in britain, a. nor will they stop the grotesque exploitation of many migrant eue workers or reducing in-migration to britain. will the prime minister tell us what he did to protect the going rates and to stop agencies to bringso in cheap labor to britan while exploiting the migrant force. did he speak to other eu leader about outlawingke the so-calledy swedish delegation from the scru agency workers directive which threatens to undermine the er
achievement of the last labor government by allowing unscrew s p unscrupulous people from and undercutting workers. it would reduce in-work benefite cost and protect workers. we must on all sides, mr. rom speaker, be clear that britain n has benefitted from migration. from eu workers coming in to foe work inxa our industry and in ow public services to fill gaps. h for example, the thousands of doctors and nurses who work in e prr national health service, savingot lives every day they'ra atbo work. the european union has delivered protection for workers in to britain. it was labor that made sure that britain's eu membership gave workers' rights to minimum paidl leave, protection on working time rights for agency workers, paid maternity and paternity leave, equal pay, s anti-discrimination laws and protection for thehat workforces when companies change ownership. it was labor working in partnership with sister partiese
and unions across europe that primee minister's attempts to diminish workers' rights was kept off the agenda of these eu negotiations.t. labor has supported moves to ing reduce child benefits to nonresident children as a ave s reasonable amendment.ta incom however, we also welcomed iniste protection forr' existing migras until 2020 so that families have stability of income.t the prime minister's deal rrele includesva elements we welcome t others that concern us. but is single largely irrelevan choice facing the british people. not one single element has a significant impact on the case we are making to stay in. is ove we welcome the fact that the rl theatrical sideshow is over so that we can now get on with iend making the real case, the real case, which will be put by my friend who will be leading our o campaign. labor believes the the eu is a . framework for european trade anp cooperation in the 21st century. a vote to remain is in the
interests of people, not only il what the eu delivers today but d pa a framework through which we can achieve much more in the th. future. but to deliver that's progressive reforms that i've m referred to we need to work with our partners in europe to a achieve them. therefore, we must ensure that s we remain a member. that's the case we're going to be making for a europe that is socially cohesive, a europe thau shares the benefits of wealth and prosperity amongst all its citizens. >>at's the case we're making as a labor party and as the trade e union movement in this country and we lookokho forward to that heblic debate. >> prime minister. many, >> let me thank the gentleman for his contribution.olicy, look, he and i disagree on many, many ethings, about economic policy, about social policy, about welfare policy, indeed we even disagree about the approace we should take within europe as he's just demonstrated in his a response. but we do both lit agreetl on ol thing which is that britain e should be in there fighting for a good deal for our country.
i worry a little for the right old gentleman because he's going to be accused all sorts of e things, some of them fair, some of them unfair, but i fear if he takes this course he would be accused of being a member of tho establish and that's the me unfairest attack of all. what he said about the deal, i want to make two points about why i think actually he should u welcome the deal. the first is it does actually implement as far as i can see almost every pledge on europe iy the labor manifesto and i'm looking at the former leader.thy they've pledged to complete thee single.u market.intere they've pledged tougher budget . discipline. they said wean willd th ensure rules protect the interests of non-euro members.tribute absolutely right. and they went oneco and said th people coming to britain from the eu to look for work are expected to contributete to our economy and to our society so we will secure reforms to immigration and social security rules. quot so, i hope they will welcome the things in this agreement that we have. i it also says, and i quote, we
will -- look, i thought, you know -- we would work to strengthen -- well, i'm just l reminding my -- my -- my new friends what they said at the election. arg they said this. card we will work to strengthen the anfluence of national warliaments over european legislation byhe arguing for re card mechanism for member n states. w excellent. another thing that has been achieved. where i thinkas unfai he saihat. gentleman was unfair is he said that this -- this deal was really all about britain and not about anyone else. i would point out the slovakianr prime minister has said good, n the myth aboutaged ever closer e has fallen.wer, po the hungarian prime minister said the ukk managed to put an end to the practice of creeping power withdrawal from national states. the former o president of the commission said this, the real quens of the summit is an tain. extraordinarily important. brussels has officially
enshrined a dmultispeed europe. where i disagree profoundly with the right old gentleman is i in think these trade deals are good for braitain and the sooner we o the deal with america the better. i think he's wrong about financial services. there are morerecoy than peoplen financial services in our country outside the city of london than inside the city of o london and crucially what the au single market means is that witr one establishment in britain you can trade throughout the european union. lose that and you'll see jobs going from britain to other ding countries. let me end here, on a note of wa consensus. look, to labor government stand here, conservative government standing here, we've all had our difficulties with europe.ur l we've all wanted to get the budget down. so we've all wanted to get powers b returned. we all found because of our loe for this house of commons and r 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 off fighting from the inside.
>> kenneth clark. >> will the prime minister agree and jolly will that if he refers to the continental press -- he will see that he's demonstrated the influence of prime minister as he's actually for some concession which can be quite difficult for fellow presidents and prime ministers to sell to their own political establishments and does he agree with me that future benefit -- generations will benefit from some of those concessions particularly those on enlarging the single market, guaranteeings our access tos, parts of it, deregulating and actually engaging in major trade deals with outside? o and does he also agree it is not the politics of fear to point ad outvo that those who advocate ao vote don't seem to know what a no vote means.e mean and they -- they continually imply that somehow all the
benefits that flow from europe in terms of jobs, investment, o and security, will somehow y h continue to come here when they have swept away the obligations that previous british ov governments have always accepted?erave n. >> i'm grateful for what my ng right old friend says. in terms of what -- it's been interesting actually having a s. look at what some of the foreign newspapers have made of this. let me just give you one example.each spanish paper has saided that n. british exceptionality reached m new heights yesterday. no other country accumulates sou many exceptions in europe. i'm proud of the fact that whih actually we do have a different status ine europe and that state has become more special with the changes we've made. but i think the point my right e old friend makes is absolutely f right.the look, i recognize there are c disadvantages from being in thep european leunion. i make no bones about that.to but i can look the british people in eye and say this is what it's going to be like if we stay in. hav it's going to be better because of the deal we've done. the people that are advising us
to leave have got to spell out l what the consequences of leavinr are. think the absolute lodestar here is this.olute no country has been able to get full access to the single market without accepting either payinge into the eu or accepting free movement. now, if you don't want to accept those two things, i think you have to start accepting you're not going to get as good a tradt and business position as we have today.g so, people that want to leave have got to start making up their mind, do you want a norwa deal, do you want a switzerlandv deal, do you want a canada deal. frankly, i don't mind which deal you go for. but frankly you've got to stop e telling people because they deserve an answer. >> angus robertson. >> thank you very much. may i begin by thanking the ntig prime minister for advance sigh of this statement.e the referendum choice before thf electorate is a huge one which will define our relationship with the rest ofte europe and indeed between the nations of the united kingdom. scotland is a european nation
and the snp is a pro-european party. we willl campaign positively to remain within the eu, hopefully the prime minister can confirm j today that he will reject the p tactics of project fear and makp a positive case for remaining part of a reforming european union. it is hugely important to be part of the largest market in the world and be able to influence its rules and laws. it really matters that we can cooperate with our shared rom challenges from the environmenti to crime and security to workers and citizens' rights. we should also never forget the lessons of european history, mrt speaker, and not turn our backs on european neighbors who need help at this time to deal with w huge challenges including -- mr. speaker, public opinion in scotland by majority supports membership of the european union. every single scottish mp supports remaining in the eu as
does almost every member of then scottish parliament and all bare one scottish mep. does the prime minister have any idea who the consequences would be of scotland being taken out of the eu against the wish of w thean scottish electorate? i want scotland and the rest of the uk to remain within the european union. however, if we are forced out or the eu, i am certain that public in scotland will demand a referendum on scottish independence and we will protect our place in europe. >> well, first of all, i can e confirm i will make, as i have i done today, a positive case, a case based around britain being stronger, britain being safer, t britain being better off. but this is a choice and i thinc it's very important that we set out the choice and the alternative to the british people, because this is the mos important decision that people are going to make on a politicl issue poe tenlcially in their rh
lifetimes and i don't want anyone to take a step into the dark without properly thinking through what the consequences are. one thing i absolutely agree with the honorable gentleman inb about is although brussels and r the institutions can be frustrating, we should never t t forget what brought this institution into being in the first place, and even at the oor mostou frustrating times of tal, i always find -- you look round the table and think of how thesa countries fought each other and killed each other for so long and the dialogue and the actione we take together is positive. in terms of the vote in scotland, this is one uk vote. >> mr. speaker, my right old friend just spoken about national parliaments, democracyt and our sovereignty. h in the bloomberg speac berberg it clear that he regarded our national parliament ass being te root of our democracy. yesterday he referred to the y h illusion, the illusion of sovereignty. will mymyex right honorable fri
please explain and repudiate n that statement specifically in s relation to the question now before us, in relation to our i parliament and our democracy and the making of our laws. which at this moment in time under the european communities , act are made by a majority vote of other countries, are ced introduced by an unelected commission and are -- and are enforced by a court of justice. does he notning accept the only of getting out of that and returning our democracy is to >h leave the european union.. >> well, first of all, i have huge respect for my honorable friend who has campaigned on this issue for many, many years and i know the one thing he wily welcome we are now allowing the british people a choice whether to stay in or leave the europeat union. let me confirm to him, yes, this parliament is sovereign. me we've chosen to join the european union, we can choose ty leave. let me explain exactly what i meant by saying there would be, in many cases, the illusion of
soverei sovereignty. let me take one issue.s, we now have bri safeguards so tr british banks, british businesses cannot be t discriminated against if we stau in the european union, they can't be discriminated against because we are not in the n eurd if we were to leave obviously we would not have that protection. they could discriminate against us, frankly i think they would discriminate againstst us so we therefore in that w way we might feel more sovereign but it would by an illusion of sovereignty because we wouldn't have the power to save the businesses ant livelihood in our country. >> it's worth mentioning that e this referendum is about -- is about -- is actually about the future of our country, not the future of a divided, d cons conservative party. would the prime minister agree with me that it's also not just about britain's place in the european union, but also sidento britain's place in the world.bri president obama has been crystal clear that if britain were to on leave the european union it e
would weaken, not strengthen, the special relationship.onsh the indians, the chinese are mystified that we're even risking exit from the european union. would he agree with me that if n britain in the future wants to stand tall in new delhi, in beijing, in washington, in other global capitals britain must continue to stand tall in our n own european neighborhood.eman >> prime is minister. >> i think he is -- i think thes right honorable gentleman is right that we should make this decision ourselves ass a sovereign nation and a sovereign people, but i think it is wortht listening to our friends and listening to what they think is best for our country.eaders and i have to say in all the leaders and politicians i've met around the world, i can't think of any of our friends, not leav australia, not new zealand, noti canada, not america, who want uv to leave the eu. the only person who i think don might want us to leave the eu is vladimir putin and i don't thinf that is someone who -- as for
the right honorable gentleman and myy former colleague said about the need for this 010 referend referendum, i would make the slighty cheeky point that we are keeping the manifesto by holding it. >> mr. jones.] >> yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> my right honorable friend the prime minister, to explain to the house and to the country in exactly what way this deal returns sovereignty over any field of lawmaking to these >> houses of parliament. >> he just told you that. bring >> this deal brings back some rg welfare powers. it brings back some immigration powers. it brings back some bailout powers. but more than that, becausese it union carves us forever out of ever r closer union, it means that they rachest of the european court
taking power away from this s country cannot happen in the re future. for those who worry, and people do worry, that somehow if we vote to remain in the consequence could be more actioe in brussels to try and change a therr arrangements house we have. we have a lot o o in this house commons. can be passed from britain to brussels without a tt referendum of the british o people.ma so we have a better deal. we have a special status. we have a chance to make sure wc build on what we have. we protect our people. we enhance our prosperity and that's the choice we should make. >> mr. speaker, let me thank the prime minister for quoting and indeed implementing parts of thp 2015 labor -- >> yeah! >> i want to go, mr. speaker, t the big picture question here which is about how we influence things in our national interesta and iteme want to draw the prim minister out on the powerful end
of his statement which is this question. of course by being a member of the european union we don't rig always get our own way, but as r he said to the honorable member, on all the major issues, whether it's climate change or terrorisa and security, he can tell us because he's been the prime e minister, what does he believe. we have more influence ineuro tr european union or outside. mr. speaker, surely the answer is moreunio influence inside th european union, not outside.belv that's why i passionately believe we must remain in the european union.euro >> i'm grateful to the gentleman for what he says and i can't d promise to implement many other parts of the labor manifesto bui i'm glad to have been of n assistance here.o ge but i absolutely agree with him. the big picture is this. saf that when it comes to getting bi things done in the world that can help keep people safe in oue country, a bigger better deal on climate change,maki dong we get because we're in the e.u., yes.i making sure we have sanctions h
against iran that really work i? and getting to abandon the nuclear program, do we get to dw that through thee e.u., absolutely. making surelinc we stand up to russian aggression in the ukraine. we have been the linchpin euro between the european union and d the united states of america ing maki maki making those sanctions count. we were making thebetween decis driving them again europe and e america, and that's how we get things done for our people. >> mr. speaker, according to the website today, there is a letter appearing in tomorrow's times which has been written by a chris hopkins onos behalf of organizations across the u.k. supposedly wishing for us to remain. chris hopkinse is prime apparenw civilho servant. could the prime minister tell us who is chris hopkins, which department does he work for, and what authority does he have as a
civil servant? >> i can answer very simply. he's a civil servant working in number ten and his authority comes from me. anxcelis is he's doing an excellent job.the the reason is, this is not a nts free for all. the government has a clear view. the government's view is that we should remain an informed to su european union, and the civil et service is able to support the o government in that role.o now, of course members of parliament, ministers, cabinet g ministers, are able to make ba their own decision, but the ha government is not holding back and hanging back from this.hey we have a full throated view that we should put forward in kc front of the british people so they can make their choice. >> allen johnson? >> i'm attempted to ask does the prime minister thinks that blonds have more fun, but i wilo ask whether he remembers the hee analysis that his own government did in 2014 about the european r
arrest warrant and its act conclusions that a the europeans arrest warrant acts as c a deterrent for offenders coming to this he country.o th can he point this out to his pension secretary and can the reasons whyhy>> t britain is sae more secure. >> i think the arrest warrant io a case in point. all of us who have this concernb look at what happened in practice. in one.2005 terrorists tried tob our city for a second time. one of them escaped and was n arrested and returned to britaio within weeks under european arrest warrant. t before that ithe could have tak years. i think we can all seeeechan tht practical application of these changes definitely keeps us morr safe. when it comes to thisc question of fighting terrorism and cross
border crime, obviously people i are going to have different d of opinions. i would urge people though, listen to the head of acpo, the former director of mi 5. these are people that know what they speak are and they are very clear. these measures help us to stay safe.e.ker.spent >> mr. speaker, having spent thc best part of recess in the arctic circle with the royal marines, i'm extremely consci s consciousus of -- t i am extrem conscious of the need to ensure that every one of our serving e military personnel will be able to cast their vote to remain in the forthcoming referendum which the prime minister has worked to hard to get onto the books for e us. can thef the prime minister ple confirm that every serving a member of our armed forces, wherever they are in the world,h will be entitled to vote, and can he guarantee that they willt receive their ballot papers in good time and confirm how we will ensure that everyone will
be counted. fr >> you had a more clearly entertaining recess than i did. i'm rather jealous. there were moments i wished i was in the arctic circle. i believe the arrangements are p absolutely the same. as for a general election, we have four months until the ge referendum so there's plenty of time to put into place the rime arrangements that she seeks. nit >> mr. speaker, i pay credit to the prime minister for delivering a referendum to the british people. i well remember the time he came to this house and argued against it but he came to supporting those of us who believed it was the right thing to do. he will know that we are extremely disappointed in these benches that we don't have as a result of hisis deal the contro over our sovereigty, our stat borders, or our finances. but he has said today in his ghr statement and i t quote, it is simply not enough for those on the leave side to say that it
will be all right in the night and we will work it out. he wants definite facts. on the issue of migrants coming towh enbritain, coming to the ud kingdom, when will they first h begin to be eligible for or benefits? don't tell us he's going to work it out. tell us today in this house when are they going to first become eligible for any kind of roac benefit? >> we have a phased approach so that over four years they get access to benefits. no access to benefits to start with and full access only after four years.th that is a huge advance. if i compare that with the lack o certainty that we're being offered from people whoth want leave, who can't tell us whethek they favore a model like norwa or switzerland or whether they want a trade deal like canada o. beha whether just to reclaim a thwt position. we need to know the answer to ar that because frankly it's only when we know that that people can make a proper judgment about the security of staying in and the dangers of getting out. o'sd
>> mr. speaker, last week's decision requires treaty changel to be bother reversible and t legally binding.if when will the ratificationic procedure begin? >> it is already legally binding and irreversible because this is a decision of 28 governments to reach a legally binding decisiot that is then deposited as a ree local document at the u.n.rs so this can only be reversed ifa all 28 members, including the om u.k., were to come to a different decision. but the document sets out very clearly that in two specific areas, the changes that we need to the treaty on the union and safeguards for businesses and countries outside the eurozone t will be put into the treaty as well. >> mr. l speaker, the mayor of e london who has been touted as the leader of the campaign said yesterday that bring would be able to easily negotiate a large
number of trade deals at great t speedes because we used to run e greatest biggest empire in the world. will he invite thee mayor to wae up to the 21st century in whichr the european economy is six yea times larger than the british de economy and in which it took seven years for canada to get a trade deal, and does he agree that with so much uncertainty ie the world economy it would be deeply destructive to increase the risks for british exporters, british manufacturers and british jobs?and f >> let me say where i share theo frustration of many of those wh are questioning whether we should say in is that britain does need trade deals to be tran signedg rapidly and we do find. frustrating that europe is not w movinge faster because the koren free trade agreement has been ha excellent. we want toec push ahead with canada, japan, america, china and because of this document all those things are more likely. ct where i think the lady has a e
good point is this. you can't sign trade deals with otherr countries until you've determined the nature of your relationship with the e.u. from the outside. now that would take at least two years and then you have to think how long does it take to sign trade deals. the canada deal is i think now in its 7th year and is still no put in place, so i worry that i. this is a recipe for uncertaint and risk. businesses literally wouldn't know what the arrangements were for year after year and british business, british jobs and our country would suffer as a result. >> the pam plets are calling for us to address the question of .. our role in the world by a referendum may have escaped the prime minister's attention but he will understand why i'm delighted that he has provided us an opportunity to resolve this question ford aoe generati. does he agree with me that if
the country votes to remain, w must positively commit to the institutions of the european union and to move on from the grudging tone that has so dominated our discourse and equally the establishment he leads must positively engage with a potential decision to leave and be undertaking reasonable contingency planning now? a couple of e points to my honorable friend.ht first of all, one of the things this renegotiation does is it does address some of the principle grudgesh that i thinko this country has rightly had. so much of a single currency club, too much political union, too much in terms of migration and lack of respect for welfarer systems, not enough of yet competitiveness and removing bureaucracy. having dealt with some of these grudges it may, yes, be possible to make sure we get more things done that suit us. w
i'd also agree with something that the mayorto of london said which is we do need to make surv that we have high quality so british officials in every part of this organization so that we can actually help to drive its t agenda. but he's for a right, this sho to settle the issue for a tives generation. he's also right that we will ber publishing the alternatives to membership so that people can re see what they are and also people can see that there are plans that could be made. >> prime minister said that there's been great reform eg granted in the renegotiation.h i why then did the french president say the european uniou has not granted the united kingdom any specialdeal he dispensations from the deals ct struck and he went on to say that the prime minister had accepted that the city of london would not have special status compared to europe's other stock exchange. why is there a difference between what the french president is saying and what the
prime minister is saying?oreign >> the french foreign minister r said theee agreement with the british is a recognition there is a differentiated europe. i've already quoted the slow vac yan, hungarian prime ministers t and the former italian commissioner. they are recognizing that bring has a special status in europe.s >> while the referendum decision in or out is a matter for the british people, as an atlantaist party, does the prime minister recognize and acknowledge the concerns from the s the white hr the pentagon, the state oned, department, and international players as has already been uns mentioned, that britain and europe need to stand together in an unsafe world? >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point.
i don't believe the american view ismeri based simply on sor it's easier to make one phone sn call rather t than many.be i think it's based on the fact that they believe that britain will be astronger partner, more able to getet things done, more able to bend the will of other countries in our and america's direction when itt comes to solving great crises. if you ask yourself how we managed to reduce massively pirate attacks off smoel ya, to these e.u. partnerships are worth a lot. >> the pound has slid to its lowest level for seven years. aren't we just 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 best interests of our country should come ahead of party politicking or personal ambition?na >> what i'd say to the gentlema is i think it is important we look at in detail the full economic impacts of either staying in the e.u. or choosingb to leave the e.u., and we will d be setting out that approach in the weeks and months to come sod people can see what the dangers are, what the risks are, and also what the case is.ltur >> don't the common agriculturai fishing and energy policies do damage to domestic producers an add to the colossal deficit we always run with the rest of the e.u. while running a trade est surface with the rest of the world?st what canay we do about these unfairnesses if we stay in the european union? >> we have made a lot of progress in recent years.mon fih we've made big reforms to the ht common fisheries policy. i know my friend studies these h
things closely. on of course, while we have a e a deficit with the e.u. on goods,a we have a substantial surplus when it comes to services and we have to thinkk about the future and how we safeguard those services industries as well as making sure our position in the single market is open. >> opening up e.u. markets in ca areas like energy and digital services could create hundreds of thousands of jobs in future.s does the prime minister agree that remaining part of the e.u. will give the u.k. a strong cop voice in making sure the t t completion of that single market happens and get the best deal t forhe british businesses and jot >> i think the honorable lady makes an important point which is not only that britain is a strong voice in the e.u. but e.. also if we weren't there, not p only would the e.u. continue top
exist and have a very big impact on our lives but i think it would probably head in a very different and more protectionist direction, and that would actually affect us in many ways quite badly.ee >> mr. speaker, my honorable friend will no doubt have been deluged with advice during his negotiation. on the subject of the union, can uss an he example of a single case that would have had a different outcome if the measures he agreed with last week had been in place at the j time?stice a >> it's been mentioned in a series of judgments by the european court ofof justice.ct, there are two things in what we haveis t agreed that i think wi1 have an impact.10, th the most eye catching and i quote fromomagre paragraph one e ten is that the substance of these agreements will be incorporated into the agreements and will make clear thatth the references do not apply to the
united kingdom. that's a carveout for us but in many ways as significant and something that many other efer countries didn't want is the next paragraph that says the references in the treaties and l the preambles of creating the union do not offer a legal basin for extending the scope of any provision of the treaties or of e.u.'s secondary legislation. i this redefinition of the union i think is really quite a an fundamental change to the way this organizationon has worked. one way to think of it is therei have been two threats to our sovereigty. one fromhappen treaty n change powers from britain to brusselst can't happen now because of our lock. the second onegrows is using te like the union to make sure that the e.u. grows its powers. can't be done, now we've got this change.er it one of the reasons why this deah took whatever it was, 40 hours, is not everybody likes this. mak it's not meaningless words.i am it's words that mean something that matter that make a difference and that's why i was so determined to secure them.
>> the prime minister was elected on 37% of the vote whice means that even if half of these people are to vote in, this w referendum can only be won on the basis of people who voted. there isn't a reasonable supposition that these people will be more interested in the positive articulation o of the case for europe than the arguments for the conservative party, entertaining though they are. when is the prime minister going to put forward that case, that positive case for europe? >> i don't want to upset the ive right old gentleman because i'm hoping he'si ma going to be supportive. i would sayca in the speech tha i've made today i've set out a positive case. yes, it is the case of someone e who ispt euro skeptical in the genuine sense.ations, i'm skeptical about all organizations, about all engagements. we should alwaysqu -- we should
always question -- we should always question whether organizations work for us and be doubtful about these things.s fm that's what being skeptical means. so s yes,do i come at this fromo someone who has their doubts yea about brussels and about the e.u., but i have an absolutely clear eye about what is best for britain. if p others want to argue this from a more positive stance about the nature of the e.u., fine, go for it. it's up to everyone to make cas their own case but i'm going to make my case in a clear-eyed ink determination of what is in britain's interest and i think i did that today. i t >> the prime minister centered much of this negotiation on immigration. so can he tell the house in hi estimation by how much the g yer welfare changes will reduce immigration from the e.u. in the coming year? >> i think anyone who looks at this who knows that at the moment you can come from the e.u. and get up to 10,000 pounds in in work welfare benefits in
the first year knows that that is a big incentive to come to et britain. many people said we would never be able to get changes to in work benefits. we have got those changes. as i said, if we pass this legislation, we're then going to see in 2017 a seven-year period. up to 2024 when we're going to be restricting these welfare claims. that plus all the changes that the home secretary helped to jue securent in many cases reversine ecj judgments, they actually restore to our country powers over welfare and powers over immigration that can make a real difference. ase >> we support further reform and we will campaign accordingly. were we to leave, what would happen to measures suchch as convergence funding which has ar provided large amounts of f we funding for the poorer areas ino the valleys? >> if we were to leave the e.u. then we wouldn't be able to gets those funds which have made a
big difference in parts of wales and parts of england and in antt other parts of our country. i also think, look, i'm someonei who wants tost keep the e.u. budget down and we achieve that historic decision to cutut it. we should be frank that actuallo some of the work that the e.u. has done in poorer countries in other parts of the e.u. has cuo actually helped those economies to grow. they are all customers of ours, and so whether it's bulgaria or romania or greece, their economic development is in our interest.terest >> in january i put down a field to try and protect our children from flammable costumes and children going up in flames. i pulled the bill this month because after discussions their officials told me this is a rect harmonized piece of legislation. thousands of directives are spewed out from brussels every c year that this government has to comply with. therefore i called my bill.no we cannot even protect our own
children on something as fundamental as this because we s do not have the control withoutt the permission of brussels.ting >> i looked very carefully at the case because i know these i things can be frustrating. in the area of foam-filled ve tk furniture anden mattresses, we' actually taken steps over and above what other e.u. countries have done which has kept our own people safer. the other thing i'd say because a lot of figures are bandied around but as she looks at the house of commons library, far from being the very high figuret quoted, it's much more like 13, 14 or 15% of laws that come to us from this direction. >> could i commend the prime minister for his statement and congratulate him on successfully persuading his european counterparts to sign up for renegotiation. it would be less successful if it was the conservative party ts support him.ir though his renegotiation may he's oen successful and
not central to how most people make up their minds, the realitn is when we belong to a europeano single market worth 80 billion pounds a year to this country, are we better off alongside our friends and neighbors or outside on our own? when we face up to huge international challenges like r climate change and the refugee crises, are we better off working with others or isolated on our own. will he join with me in our shared am brigbition for britai europe and for a blonde ambition behind him?> aime >> the renegotiation was aimed e at dealing with some of the legitimate grievances that we've had in the u.k. for many years about the way in which the e.u.l works. we felt it was too much of a nes single currency club, too much n of a political union, not enough about competitiveness and s a protections in terms of l welfai and immigration.thos i believe this e renegotiation d
this agreement goes a long way to dealing with each of those problems. nowumen is the time, as he saysr the even bigger argument about the future of our country and what sort of country we want to live in for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. it is a huge issue, and i think the points he makes about a? britain being strong in the world and able to get things th done, i would argue, our . al membership of n.a.t.o. matters, our member with the u.n. matters but our membership with the e.u. gives us force and power to get things done in the world. >> mr. speaker, these benches are proud of our record in the drop in unemployment, the record growth, reduction in our even deficit. during his many meetings did hee find anybody, even a single person, that might suggest we would get better terms on our exit to achieve even better t outside the european community?
>> i think you make an important point. there is good will towards britain because of the contribution we make to the e.t there is understanding of the problems and difficulties that we've had, and therefore with an huge amountd of diplomacy and travel and meetings and everything else it has been possible to get, i think, a good agreement for britain.were i don't believe, as i've said ir my statement, that if somehow we were to kick over the table and ask for a second one, i don't think it is remotely feasible. >> mr. speaker, can i particularly welcome the equalization of spouse visa disc rules which discriminated the unfairly against british citizens and can i ask the prim minister to recognize the work e for the minister for europe. i only managed two years in the job. he's done six and still retained his sanity. almost.lmos on the other big issue which is the migration crises, the
british head said there were 5,000 jihadists within the itio european area. many had come through the aly in external border of the e.u. try what additional help is being given to greece and italy in particular with trying to deal with protecting the border?let >> firstme of all, let me thankr outi who was with me in brussels. has b his eyes were shutting for a minute there, but he has been doing the job for six years and has done it extremely well. the point about spousal visas is important. for many years we argued this needed to be sorted out and for many years the e.u. said if you want to equalize the rules, change your own rules and we've managed to change effectively their rules. it is a real breakthrough.io in terms of the help we're giving to italy and greece, the discussions in brussels were
very intense because the numberd really do have to be reduced any reduced radically and that is why i strongly support and ons britain will contribute to the l maritime operation that will o r have strong n.a.t.o. support as well as e.u. support to try to o bring together greece andn turky with a common information sto picture, common intelligence about what's happening so we can stop so many of these criminal gangs operating in the area. i think without that, there isn't going to be the right chance of getting the situation under control. the >> for decades, british ment ministers who had involvement with europe have been attempted and i include myself to exaggerate the influence we bring to bear and to conceal ou inability to achieve british interest. is that why it tookk a freedom f information request to establish that over the last two decades britain has voted against 72 e measures in the european councin and been defeated 72 times, and
the pace off defeat is stak accelerating. if we make thee th mistake and k the risk -- if we take the risk of remaining in the e.u., how so manyes defeats does the prime minister expect in the next two decades? >> i don't for one minute tions. underestimate the frustrations of being in this organization. deep analysiss whether a show country achieves its position, actually i think shows that britain does in 90% of cases 9 which even i think outranks the germans. i've seen for myself when we work hard and form alliances we can get things done.ings the other point is this, if cou we're outside the single market, the same countries but without us, will write the rules.rope, we will then have to comply wity them when we sell into europe
and we'll have absolutely no say over what they are. that to me is the illusion of sovereigty rather than real sovereigty. >> i accept the symbolism of removing the phrase ever closer union, but it has consequences. i do think the prime minister owes this house to give at least one or two examples of where this was the sole legal basis for a decision. >> i'm very happy to because it's been used in a whole series of cases these words. i'm very happy to write to her with the details. >> on the question of article 50, can i first point out e article 50 didn't exist in the treaties until the lisbon treat which my honorable friend used to oppose and now he agrees leav with. and can i point out that there are many ways of leaving the european union that might not involve article 50 and he art
doesn't want to bind himself nd into the article 50 framework, o can he give it some thought rather than commit himself to at policy which he obviously doesn't support? >> the point i'd make to my it honorable friend is that like it or like it not and frankly i don't particularly like it but the treaty of the european union sets out the way that you leave. it's called article 50, and i a think people should read it. this is what i find slightly odd.. if you want to leave, leave. if you want to stay, stay. to le but the idea of voting to leave to try and half stay, i don't think the british public will understand it. i don't understand our european partners will understand it. i'm at a loss to understand it i either. i thought we wanted ah referendm and make a choice. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister think that president putin wouldwr rather see a stroy britain stay in a strong europet or would he rather see britain break away from the european
union and to see europe potentially break apart? >> i think it's certainly true that vladimir putin likes to sea disunity in the west, whether it is about syr sanctions, whethers about syria, or whether it's about russian conduct on other issues. there's no doubt in my mind having sat in those european council tables that the alliance that they are between the baltie states and poland, who see it firstst hand the problems being created by putin and countries like britain that always, in myn view, should stand up to aggression, that that alliance u together with the french and the germans has made europe's position stronger. if we weren't there, i don't think you could guarantee thata would be theositio case and i d believe that's an overstatemen of the position. >> mr. er, thspeaker, in octobed rose, the chairman of the pro er euse campaign said nothing is
going to happen if we come out of europe in the first five years, there will be absolutelyh no change.s i hope you find that reassuring to stay in. will hee agree that it's enevidentable that there will bp a period of informal discussions before the formal process? >> i have to say i have great ld respect for my honorable friend who's leading the campaign with great vim and vigor and passion. surely if you want britain to he leave the e.u., you want thingsy to change rather than not change.nd article 50 is the w only way to leave, and what it says is thatg you spend two years negotiating your status outside the e.u. and if that can't be agreed, at thee end of those twoav years, you leave unless all 27 other membea states agree to extend the s process. on leaving, if you haven't got h deal, you don't know what your relationship is with the single market or with the 53 countriess covered by the trading deals,
you don't really know very mucht my argument is don't take that risk. stay in a reformedxpla european union. what the campaign will have to n do is explain what it is that you want once you've left. >> i thank the prime minister em for hisent, detailed statement, does he accept thatconnec with e and britain so closely connecte economically and living in each other'swould shadow that a u.k. in the european union would have implications for the north and south? indications suggest new that th may be some initial financial savings for the u.k. but huge ea losses likely to follow. we have seen the impact today. yet, we know that the financialt impact would be negative and slow. mr. speaker, with recent polls suggesting that 75% of people in
northern ireland want to stay in the e.u., does the prime e.u. minister agree w with me that a u.k. exit from the e.u. will have a detrimental impact on northern ireland's economy? >> let me pay tribute and thanks to the leader of the republic who is probably one of the strongest voices in support of britain's renegotiation and in making sure we achieved a good settlement.e c in terms of northern ireland, everyone will have a vote and g every vote counts the t same.ecl i would urge people to exercisew that right.hy i look forward to going to northern ireland to talk directly to people about why i believe we should stay. >> acknowledging that some people believe that european neighbors want to do us down atp every turn, is it credible to suppose that these same people, if we were to leave, could believe that our former partnerc would fall over themselves to e give us free access to the whic
single market which is the vital foundation for our business and industry to trade across the ort world? >> i think my honorablehe. frie makes anha important point. i feel that very deeply because having tried to build up the good will for a special status l for britain within the e.u. a which is what we've achieved, i don't believe that good will in any way be there were we to decide to leave. saf i think he makes a very good n point and that's why the safe option, the option of that risk is to stay in the reformed e.u. rather than take this leap in n the dark. >> as theis prime minister aving outlines the potentially grave o consequences for the u.k. of leaving in terms of our economy and our security, we can perhaps all reflect on the wisdom of the leadership decisions that led uh to be facing those consequences in a few month's time. sover the side that want to leave have
put sovereigty and control at the heart of their argument.e sp does the prime minister agree with me that if we swap a e position where we are a decision maker at the top table, we willr be moving from a position of s being a rule maker to a rule no taker and that is not sovereigty. it is not control. and it is not the best future for the united kingdom.he >> i don't agree with what the . honorable gentleman said in the first part of his question. i think it is time for a referendum. i think we had too manyhr treats passing through this house wher there was no referendum, whether it was more strict under the conservatives or lisbon under labor, and i think that sapped r people's faith in our democracy and in our accountability. ton i particularly remember the moment when tony blair stood f a here and said let battle be awy joined and we really thought a referendum was coming and then it was taken away. it's right to have this referendumng and the p we shoult frightened of asking the people and trusting the people.
but i absolutely agree with him that if you want to ask the question how do we haveve greath control, greater influence, it'h by being in there helping to make the rules, rather than il outside simply takingle the rul. >> mr. speaker, can i congratulate the prime minister for securing for britain the special status that he talked about earlier on, and does he agree with me that the problem with the debate so far is that those who want to leave europe are completely unable to agree on an alternative arrangement o for britain in the e.u. that would deliver the same sort of e economic and security benefits that his renegotiation secures? >> my honorable friend makes anl important point.y ment what today's discussions have revealed is not only is there t not agreement about what er britain's future looks like outsidereal the e.u. but there e an agreement about whether we t should leave, some people voting
to leave in the hope of a different deal and there's an argument about article 50 or no some process to be followed. the only way of leaving is we n through article ow50.e there is no second decision or referendum. the choice is in or out and we now need to move to the debate y about what those things really mean. >> can the prime minister tell us beyond which was specifically addressed in the deal last weekr in which ways his government's plans have been constrained by t european legislation or regulations? >> there's noo doubt we do face t constraints because the way thee single market works is a common set of rules that have to be ot agreed. as has always beenn said, we th don't always get our way. we get our way far more often w than we don't. by but there are occasions when wet lose a vote and we are constrained by e.u. regulation or legislation. but the questionpu i think wet s to put in a very hard-headed
politics sense is if you're co outside, does that actually give you the full control and trade sovereigty that you seek? it doesn't because you still got to trade with europe and accept the rules. the only thing you've done is remove yourself from the conversation and take away your vote.way yoyo wil >> mr. speaker, the prime ministeri said this will settl the issue for a generation. i have five grandchildren and ie is in their best interest that i will be voting to remain within the european union. there's another generation that does need some concern.iona thousands of people have paid n u.k. taxes and national pe. insurance over the years and are now living in other parts of europe. you know that a i've fought to e represent the interests of those people. they are very frightenedhapp in. can he tell them what will happen to themfu if we leave thn european union? >> i'm grateful that my remain honorable friend has decided toe support the case for remaining
in the e.u. cou i think he raises an important o point because of course we oftem look at free movement in terms t of people's decision to come here. we do also need too think abou the many british people who p chose to work, to live or to he retire in other parts of the e.u. w and the short answer to his but question is that i can tell them what it will be like if we stayw but i can't be absolutely certain if we leave.ult nego it would depend on a complex an difficult negotiation. i think there would be a lot of uncertainty. i would urge those people to opi make sure they exercise the right to vote and in particular perhaps we should think of people in jib bral ter. >> i welcome the prime minister's statement that over the next four months to speak w plainly about what he believes n is right for our country and will he bear in mind that 9 million people voted labor at pe
thes last general election and . the sympathies and values don't naturally lie with his party. he does need to develop a conversation with them as well. >> i certainly take on board thn point of the right old gentleman but this is not a political issue. this is now something for all people, all voters to get e c involved in. they might vote conservative in a general election but decide t vote in or decide to vote out and ditto with laborer what have you.t so this should be a giant democratic exercise in accountability. this is a huge by sovereign decision by the british people. while i know i can sometimes de upset labor voters, i would say to them, look, put aside what you think about this governmente or that rule or that law. abo think about the future of your e country. think about the big picture and then make the choice.
>> the prime minister said thata crime should be in the forefront of our thoughts when we are voted in the referendum. can the prime minister tell us how many crimes were committed in the u.k. by other e.u. nationals in the year before free movement of people came into effect and how many were h committed by other e.u. nationals last year and how many other e.u. nationals were in thw u.k. prison system before free movement of people came into operation and how many there are now. i'm sure he must have that information since crime is such a big thing for him. if he hasn't got it, perhaps hef can write to meig with that at i information. >> i don't have all those hon. figures to hand but what i can say to my honorable friend is because of the very hard work b the home secretary, we're goingn to be able to bomb more criminals from coming to i britain, longer re-entry bans. we're solvingth problemse thatm been put in our way. as for prisoners, the prisoner
transfer agreement that we o thi negotiated will mean that we ca. get foreign prisoners out of our priso prisons. outside the e.u., that would be impossiblee he oembe to achieve. >> the father of the mayor of london talked a lot more sense than his son. we were on opposite sides.is f i was in favor -- against membership. his father was ind. favor of membership. i changed my mind. after two years in the europeanr parliament, i saw the benefits of working with people from other nations who were oth talk about -- cynics.e
talking about acid rain.ts o talking aboutf restructuring, te social effect of restructuring on people who work in the other industries. i think enormously from working with people from other nationalities and i hope the prime minister will emphasize o again and again the importance > of iinternationalism. can i thank the right old lady for her honesty in saying o how she changed her mind when she was sitting with stanley johnson. two blonde bombshells in the same european parliament. if the good people of newton abbott had stidecided the rightm way, he would be sitting here and we would be able to hear d from him as well as the mayor of london. >> with respect, why does the prime minister bang on so much?
so much about east european p migration. theco polls have a wonderful orw recordor of coming here. is it much more worrying the millions pouring into europe y from north africa and the middlt east, does the prime minister have any idea what proportion oa these people will exercise their right to come here once they get their german passports? if we remain in the channel is s about as useful as a macedoniann stream toext stop them. a >> i do promise to bang on for n the next four months and i hopeb after that to bang on considerably less about this subject. my honorable makes a very important point.ide obviously we have the advantage of being outside so that foreigs nationals coming to other european countries don't have n automatic access to the u.k. ri we can stop them as indeed we
can stop european citizens who we think may be a risk to our country. the factual answer to his question is that if you look at refugees and others who have arrived in germany after ten years only around 2.2% have german citizenship. so the evidence to date is that actually there isn't a huge rist of very early grants of citizenship to these people. but i quite agree that we do need to act, and frankly, we'reh more likely to act if we're involved to try and stop the is flow -- stem the flow of ight migrants in the first place. what's happening right now with this n.a.t.o.-led operation part between greece and italy is he partly because of a u.k. intervention into this debate taken with the french, with the germans, with the italians because around that table we can get things done. ag >> does there prime minister agn with me that the claim that n staying in the european union would make an attack on our
shores more likely, is deeply irresponsible and factually wrong? >> i'mh is struggling to find tu right page in my notes which isk the quote. tuse i found it. here we are. i think this is important di because wesa should be clear abt the advantages and the beco disadvantages of this organization. i have become very convinced that of courseterr when we're fighting terrorism and crime we rely on thee police, the securii intelligence services. we rely on the five ice hat partnership, our partnership h with avamerica. how it's incredibly powerful when it comes to keeping us safe.ngs l i've seen just how much this european cooperation matters pa withge things like the informats systems, the record systems, the passage of information between organizations. i think you're very clear from f hugh ward yesterday, former president of the association ofi chief of police officers who in said staying in europe and k cooperating with our european ei
allies is social to keeping the british people safe.elps it lets us deport terrorists back to theirir countryco of or and e.u. data sharing measures allow our security services to access information on threats rm from anywhere in europe within e minutes. i think that's a very powerful c statement from someone who t clearly knows what they're bil talking about. of course outside the e.u. you couldldev try to negotiate bilaa agreements either with every a country or with every system orp organization. i do saf think people will ask give up what is a system that's working to keep us safe when it could take so long to try and te replicate it and even when ver you've replicated it, as norway tried to do with euro poll, mee they're very clear they don't get the access, the personnel, the extra safety that we get by being a full member. >> 200,000 of our u.k. firms trade with the e.u. and accounts for just under half our total trade. given that the e.u. is the only
of the big world's trading blocks in which we have a say in assessing the rules, would it not be absurd to give away that say? would it not betray those 200,000 firms and lead to fewer jobs, less growth and damage to our economy? >> i think my friend makes an important point which is while it would be good if the world trade organization was signing more multi-lateral trade deals,a there hasn't been a successful round for 22 years. if we're interested in driving k free trade and market access ind the world today, you need to be part of a block that can sign ve good and effective deals.h we've seen that with korea. s we've seen it with singapore ane we now need to see it with all yes,other countries that the e.u. is doing these deals with.l outside the e.u. you could sign deals but the information i have is yes, we would do a deal but only after we've fixed our deal
with the e.u. the argument on this trade issue very much goes one way. >> britain has an enormous trade deficit with the rest of the lin e.u. amounting to over 60 billion pounds a year, equivalent to over 1 million jobs exported from britain and half of those to germany.eed isn't it obvious the e.u. neesds us much more than we need it and the last thing they're going to do is start a trade war with britain. >> theob 50% o problem with the statistics is this. obviously 50% of our trade is s with the e.u., but if you take the e.u. as a whole, something like only 7 percent of their trade is with us. soarly were, we to leave the ed contemplate the negotiation thas would follow, clearly we're not in the stronger position. i think that's important. second point i'd make and i made this earlier, yes, we have a trade deficit in goods but we e have a massive trade surplus in
services. it is actually in thehea da sin market in services where the prospects for progress are greatest today. so there would be a danger if wy were to leave that maybe you seuld get that deal on goods relatively quickly because of our deficit, but if they held up the deal on services, where would all our service companies be, where would those jobs be, what would we say to those companies about how long it would takencome to get a deal ty safeguard theou incomes and families across the country. >> thank you, mr. speaker.rs, fu may i congratulate my honorable friend in spending 40 hours apparently four clean shirts in implementing the labor party manifesto in his conversations in t brussels. doesn't this actually show the problem that for so much labor he has achieved so little, that the european union is a failings organization, a failed fisheries
policy, a failed common agricultural policy, a single market which shackles us with regulation which makes us noncompetitive, an immigration system that's betraying people who get to europe and not to mention the eurozone which thank he ha heavens we're not a partner of. the one sentence of his we statement i fundamentally agree with, a final decision to be o, made in june as to whether we stay with a failed body or whether we leave and make our own path. is the government's policy basically always keep ahold of nurse for fear of finding something worse??ly myssue. >> obviously my honorable friend and i have a profound disagreement about this issue. i very much respect his views because he's held them in good faith for many years. i have held my views that we c need reform but reform within n
the e.u. for many years and i'm. sure we can respect each other e in the months of debate ahead. the only thing i would say whern i do want to take issue a little with my honorable friend is about manifesto delivery.n we said we'll slalegislate for refer ren dumb.arliam we delivered it. we said we want to see powers flowing away from brussels. we want parliament to work together to block unwanted polin legislation. covered. we want an end to our commitment to the union. covered in the settlement.n th we will ensure that defense policy, national security remains firmly under british national control. covered in the new settlement. we'll insist that migrants who want to claim tax credits must f live here for four years. covered in the settlement. time and time again, we all stood on thisis manifesto, i'm proud of it. w i'm proud of the team that put it together. yes, let's have this vigorous
argument and not pretend that we haven't delivered the manifesto that we'veve stood in front of the british people with. mul >> you will beti aware that i'm very proud to respect more international headquarters of multi-national companies investing in britain than any other place of a similar size. yet those companies say to me is that the reason they've come odo here is that the english we're a gateway to market.rime the bosses of those companies aren't saying that very publicly and i would invite the prime minister during this election campaign to encourage them to f talk to those people whose jobst depend on that investment to say what would happen if we left europe, because they tell me ave a vuld leave britain.. >> i'm certainly having that k o conversation. myour message to businesses is you have a view, make sure you r tell people and talk to your customers, your suppliers. above all, talk to your employees and your staff and
your colleagues because this te issue is so important. fav i think the truth is the business voice large and small s is very much in favor of britain staying. many of them have said generous things about this renegotiationu because they recognized the eur dangers, particularly in the area of safeguarding ourselves e against discrimination because t we're not in the euro. given that i hope the business and enterprise will speak euearly in the next four months. >> much of the protection of the euro out in this agreement restt on a safeguard mechanism it set out in annex two but this requires as far as i can tell nothing more than a discussion be held about the u.k.'s concerns. not even the european council. n and it leaves eurozone members t free to enforce its will by qmv. so can the prime minister complain what, ach beyond the discussion, which can be m. ignored, has been achieved by es the safeguard mechanism? o
>> i absolutely can answer that and i think it's a very ou important question. there are two things here.tion a first of all, there's a set of f principles set out in section a on economic governance and these are principles of nondiscrimination of no cost, no disadvantage, crucially in paragraph four which was of real concern to the bank of england and i know will be of concern tt his committee is making clear the financial stability of member states whose currency is not the euro is a matter for their own authorities and own u budget tear responsibility.pe f these principles are very ncies important. what is exciting is not only peu have they been setni out for th first time, not only is europe for the firstst time accepted ti there are other currencies inside the european union but these changes will be es are incorporated into the treaties.t so the mechanism is something over and above a new way of prt making sure that issues are raised should we want to at the level of the european council which is a protection we don't a have today but i think actuallyn
making theat treaty, making the principles part of the treaty already an internationali legaly binding decision is hugely important and to people who and tn behalf of financialal services in the bank of england and others, they will recognize this is really important progress for britain. >> there's still plenty that divides myself and the prime minister politically but on this international interest i think e he's right for britain to remain in the european union. i want to put a quote to him. it leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty while embroiling the government for several years in a process of negotiating new arrangements. so diverting energy from the real problems of this country. that was on the 7th of february. the mayor of london was right 15 days ago, wasn't he? what eally >> what i would say to the hese honorable gentleman and to
everyone is we have really got to examine what these ies alternatives are, how much uncertainty there would be, how long these processes would take because i think therein lies the importance of this decision for businesses, families, for giv prospects up and down our country. >> one of the keyin the benefite his agreement is to give legal clarity about britain's specialw status within the e.u. and he'l, be aware of the uncertainties there have been for those o advising the government about t the law in the past which this resolves. an agreed with me that it's wrong to say that this is legally binding. it is. and it's irreversible unless we choose otherwise. and for those who want to look at the legal niceties, there is a very long opinion by professor sir allen dashwood, queen's council, the leading e.u. hat constitutional lawyer in this country which can be read onn te henderson chambers website? >> i'm very grateful for what my
honorable friend says, given that he was a ame senior law ofr in the government. i've listened carefully about what my honorable member ay beckonsfield said.s thi also rer dashwood and indeed seen the lok government's only legal advice and all of this says this is roo legally binding and irreversible wod i think people who question it should look at the danish protocol which has been in existence and worked very well for 23 years. >> mr. herman. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister share my concerns and my worries that after 70 years of peace and prosperity any nation begins to take it rather for granted and take the institutions that created that n peace and prosperity. i was born on the august weekend in london at the height of the battle of britain.re but my generation and many d unl people ine this country with gt
longer memories know that peace and prosperity are not guaranteed unless you work to together acrossfter europe to maintain them day after day, month after month and year after year. out >> now, i agree with the p honorable gentleman. it's worth remembering why this came about in the first place, the appalling bloodshed on our continent. th people of lly foror my generation very much post-way children, we should remember - that. iy think we should then look afresh at the institutions of w, the eu and try and make sure we can try and make sure the organization works, you know, for thisisi century rather thanm last century and that's part ofr caat this agreement is all about. i but in absolutely agree i simila remember the meeting that we hae with european counsel and you can't sit in that building without seeing the slaughter my that european countries have engaged in the past. >> may i salute my right
honorable friend forxtraordi ho his commitment to the british people for offering them a referendum and also for his extraordinary stamina over the last week or so whilst we've been enjoying the recess. i'm afraid for me it's not the reform we've been promised and t would you not agree with me that the security of europe is dependent upon nato, not upon doe eu and that it is nato which is protecting us from further incursion by president putin ani that we do nato no good by f suggesting that somehow the eu has some competence in this area. >> well, i have huge respect for my right old friend he served e brilliantly in the last gove government helping to strengthen our defenses, and i have to say. perhaps 10, 15 years ago i might have said the same, when it's defense it's really about nato and our partnership with america and not the eu. arou but i think when we consider i defense and security in the s bt realm today, you know, the way that we fight terrorism, yes, it depends on those other
relationships, but it also depends on what we do through cd the eu and i see that every day through thee exchange of t information. just take, for example, the agreement we reached also at ced this council to make sure that e where's a strong nato mission to try and help the situation between greece and turkey.he now, it's a nato mission backing up his point, but where was somw of the conversation going on we suout it. where were the germans and the british and the french sitting t together and working out what e assets we could supply, how we could get real power into it. cm it was done around the european council table, we need to fight terrorism and criminality and stand up to evil around the world and use all of the organizations not just some of them. >> ms. gerry. >> the prime minister has played fast and loose with your roam for the series of concessions which seems to do nothing to l satisfy his front and back
benchers. minister now posi guarantee that his tigovernment case for remaining in the eu e will stop appeasing them and >>c will instead focus on the many t positives the t e.u counter to e campaign's narrow, negative irm focus on immigration and ensureb the public has sufficient information to make a positive informed choice.e.fighositiv >> well, we'll certainly be fightingng a very positive by campaign and in that campaign o there's a series of documents ha some of which were mandated by t the other place when they set out the referendum bill. we need to set out the rights ic andas obligations the things yo get out of and the obligation us you have in the eu, we'll be r talking about the economic case. all of those issues and i wouldn say to those interested in some of the culturall or educational arguments come forward, too, i l think we need a strong voice se from universities. they've got a lot to say about this issue.nk mrey got a lot you, out of eurd cultural organizations should be speaking out, too. >> nick herbert.
>> thank you very much, mr. speaker. will my right honorable friend e agree with mem that when this country in our national interest makes an international agreemenr of any kind it may involve a loss of sovereignty. that may be the case through ant trade deal, through trading under wto rules, and indeed on o the single most important issueu that this house of commons could take which is whether or not to engage in military action. fell we are treaty bound by nato to t go to the defense under articlen five of a country, a fellow member under armed attack and that obliges us in that sense wt have lost sovereignty. we have lost sovereignty because we believe it is in the interest of the country to enter that e h agreement and has made us saferf if the claim of sovereignty anda the loss ofl sovereignty were te trump card, would it not, in u fact, be thep? case that all ofh those international agreements make youre to be torn up? >> now, i think my right old
friend makes a very important point. if your w onlyas determination r never to cede any technical sovereignty you would never joii the international organizations nor indeed would be a trade deal or a be a member of the imf or the world bank. so, therefore, the question really is what maximizes our se power and influence and ability to get things done. and there, as the transport eu secretary put it so brilliantly at the cabinet meeting is, you know, i'd love to live in utopia, but i suspect the eu would probably be there, too, ie, you don't abolish the eu byr leaving it, you simply cut yourself off from something ande therefore possibly make yourself in many ways less powerful here rather than more powerful. >> can i gently remind the housd that people who wish to take part in the exchanges should have been here at the start and -- order -- and remain throughout. gonest in and out of the chamber and may have coms back in 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.w mr. ronnie campbell. >> one of the boogeyman policy for me was across our political union. if this country votes to stay in the union on the 23rd, what y, i guarantees does the prime a minister got that these will bes put into a treaty, written into a treaty, at that time. >> well, first of all, it's already an agreement and will shortly be deposited at the u.n. as an international law decision and so,x! therefore, it is -- g it will already be by then legally binding and irreversible. the thingngim about getting out of ever closer uniot and indeed redefining closer nec union, i think that's so important that it needs to go into thehe treaties and the n agreement here is when the p treaties next change that will be written in those treaties, so if you like we have a double lock on this a vital point.. >> mr. johnnfu barron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. stopt i suggest this is tinkering.
it is certainly not fundamental range. the red card will not stop unwanted taxes and regulations on this country. can i put it to the prime ned minister that he should at least accept the possibility that the red card could be turned agains, us in that it could not -- it could -- it could not stop -- or it would stop, rather, uk sponsored initiatives being blocked by the majority of the eu. initiatives that could be in our best interests such as acsays ' and furthert enhancement of the single market. >> well, look, i don't overstate the red card. what it is, is a new mechanism, not to delay, but to properly block initiatives that's available for national parliament should they want to avail themselves of it. to me this is about another thing that makes this tainab organization more democratically to national parliaments, but ifi my old friend is saying but on
some occasions that might work against us because other national particle limits would m try to stop something we were keen on, well, i suppose that is accountability. that's democracy, but the point is this organization is going tm be more democratic because of me decision rather than less. >> n steven gethens. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, since the prime minister seems to be getting no quarrel from his own sides in terms of these european negotiations and can i commend s him for coming right to t chancellor merkel's view on freedom of movement and can he assure the house that there will be absolutely no implications for the hundred oft thousands ok uk citizens living in the eu because of this deal. >> if we stay in the european t union british people can n continue to live abroad, work l abroad, retire abroad as they d. now.w.pe it's not for meop to set out whf would happen to them in ainin different circumstances. i think the lead campaign will want to try to address that point but people remain with js
certainty if this side. wins. m >> mr. james. >> in his statement the prime minister observed that leaving p the eu might briefly make us feel more sovereign but does he not acceptth for many members t issue of parliamentary sovereignty will be the central one of thehe debate that we're l about to engage on, that so long as we are subject of the fiat of the european commission and court of justice, we will not bg truly sovereign and that very little changed last weekend in that respect. >> well, i think what changed w last weekend ine that respect i that because we're getting out i of evero closer union, we now know that we can't be forced into further political union against our will. i think that's very important. e but on this issue of becau sovereignty, i repeat again, of course, if you leave the eu, you might feel more sovereign because you could pass this law or pass that law. but on the other hand, if you still want to sell into europe, you have to meet all the rules over which you have no say and to me tha