This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/07/transitional-deal-that-keeps-uk-in-eea-is-worst-of-possible-worlds-says-davis

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Transitional deal that keeps UK in EEA is 'worst of possible worlds', says Davis Transition deal keeping UK in EEA is worst of all worlds, says David Davis
(about 5 hours later)
A Norway-style transitional deal that keeps the UK in the European Economic Area would be the “worst of possible worlds”, David Davis has said, as MPs began to debate the first major piece of Brexit legislation of the parliament. A Norway-style transitional deal that keeps the UK in the European Economic Area would be the “worst of possible worlds”, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, has said.
Speaking at Brexit questions in the Commons before the debate on the EU withdrawal bill on Thursday afternoon, Davis said the government had considered the benefits of retaining membership of the European Free Trade Association. Speaking ahead of the debate on the EU withdrawal bill on Thursday afternoon, Davis said the government had considered the benefits of retaining membership of the European Free Trade Association (Efta).
“The simple truth is membership of Efta would keep us within the acquis [EU law] and it would keep us in requirements for free movement, albeit with some restrictions but none have worked so far,” he said. “The simple truth is membership of Efta would keep us within the acquis [EU law] and it would keep us in requirements for free movement, albeit with some restrictions, but none have worked so far,” the Brexit secretary said.
“In many ways it’s the worst of possible worlds. We did consider it, maybe as an interim measure. But it would be more complicated and less beneficial.”“In many ways it’s the worst of possible worlds. We did consider it, maybe as an interim measure. But it would be more complicated and less beneficial.”
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are members of Efta with varying relationships, which allows full access to the single market but means acceptance of some, though not all, EU law and regulation, without voting rights.Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are members of Efta with varying relationships, which allows full access to the single market but means acceptance of some, though not all, EU law and regulation, without voting rights.
Labour’s Keir Starmer has said his party backed full participation in the single market and customs union during a transitional period that could last between two and four years after the day of departure, which would mean continuing to pay into the EU budget and accepting freedom of movement.
During the debate, Davis said he believed the European commission was open to the “mutual benefits” of a transitional deal after March 2019, when the UK formally quits the bloc, in order to avoid a cliff edge.
The European Economic Area is made up of the EU’s single market, plus three European Free Trade Association members, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway; they trade freely with the single market in exchange for accepting its rules. Switzerland is in EFTA but not the EEA; bilateral accords give it special access to the single market. The four EFTA countries are not in the customs union: they can negotiate trade deals with third countries, like China. See our full Brexit phrasebook.
“I believe the benefits of a transitional arrangement are both ways – they apply to France, Holland … as they do for us,” he told the Commons.
“That’s the readback we have been getting. We’ve found the commission is open to the idea of transition. We’ve only raised it briefly because it doesn’t fit with the four parts of the negotiation, but I think there’s a very good prospect.”
Although Davis ruled out membership of Efta, he said seeking “a transition based on maintaining the important components of what we currently have is the best way to do it”.Although Davis ruled out membership of Efta, he said seeking “a transition based on maintaining the important components of what we currently have is the best way to do it”.
Introducing the withdrawal bill for its second reading later, Davis described it as “an essential step” in the Brexit process and sought to allay some MPs’ fears that it would grant excessive and summary powers to MPs to amend laws and regulations as they become UK statute. The subsequent debate on the withdrawal bill, one of the key pieces of Brexit legislation, saw complaints from a series of Conservative MPs about both the timetable to scrutinise the measure, and the sweeping powers it grants ministers.
“This bill is vital to ensuring that as we leave we do so in an orderly manner,” Davis said, saying the aim was to create “the maximum possible legal certainty and continuity” for people and businesses. The second reading has been given two days of debate, ending in a vote on Monday, although the close of the Monday session was later extended from 10pm to midnight.
Saying a “large part” of UK law would cease to exit when the 1972 European Communities Act was repealed, Davis added it was vital for ministers to be able to amend laws without the approval of parliament using so-called statutory instruments. The European Economic Area is made up of the EU’s single market, plus three European Free Trade Association members, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway; they trade freely with the single market in exchange for accepting its rules. Switzerland is in EFTA but not the EEA; bilateral accords give it special access to the single market. The four EFTA countries are not in the customs union: they can negotiate trade deals with third countries, like China. See our full Brexit phrasebook.
David rejected concerns that the powers granted under the bill were too sweeping, which is the reason Labour has pledged to oppose the measure. Davis was challenged several times over why the subsequent committee stage, in which bills are examined in detail, would last eight days, as against 23 days for the Maastricht treaty bill in 1993 and 22 for the 1972 act that saw Britain first join the EU.
He said he was “ready to listen to those who would offer improvements to the bill in the spirit of preparing our statute book for withdrawal from the European Union”. He defended the timetable, arguing that the withdrawal bill was “primarily technical” and was only about transposing laws, not making or amending them.
Davis took a notable swipe at George Osborne when asked in an intervention about an editorial in the Evening Standard, now edited by the former chancellor, which called the powers granted by the withdrawal bill “rule by decree”. Rapid progress was vital to secure “the maximum possible legal certainty and continuity” for people and businesses ahead of the moment Brexit happened, Davis said, at which point “a large part of our law would fall away”.
“I don’t read the Evening Standard, I have to tell you, and it sounds like with good reason,” Davis said, to laughs from MPs. “And I have to tell him that if I’m going to take lectures on rule by decree, it won’t be from the editor of the Evening Standard.” He told the Commons: “Without this legislation a smooth and orderly exit is impossible.
Davis faces likely opposition from some backbench Tory MPs. One of these, Dominic Grieve, asked why the bill gave no basis for a legal challenge to the way EU laws were transposed, saying: “That seems to me to be a marked diminution in the rights of the individual.” “We cannot await the completion of negotiations before ensuring this legal certainty and continuity at the point of our exit. To do so or to delay or oppose the bill would be reckless in the extreme.”
The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, rejected what he said was Davis’s assessment of the bill as “a technical exercise”. He said: “Nothing could be further from the truth.” Introducing the withdrawal bill, which he called “the most significant piece of legislation to be considered by this house for some time”, Davis said the powers it gives ministers to amend laws under what is known as secondary legislation, without a debate or vote from MPs, were vital for a smooth Brexit process.
The shift of law to the UK statute book would affect “every facet of national life” for years, Starmer said, and the withdrawal bill gave ministers vast powers with almost no oversight. Labour has tabled an amendment opposing the bill at the second reading, arguing that the powers are too sweeping, and unnecessary.
He said: “So, the widest possible power, no safeguards, channelled into the level of least scrutiny. That is absolutely extraordinary.” Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, dismissed Davis’s argument that the process was mainly technical. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said, calling it “a colossal task likely to involve a whole host of choices”.
The section of the bill giving ministers “Henry VIII” powers to amend legislation were drafted so broadly and with so few safeguards they could even be used to arbitrarily change the very law that created them, Starmer argued.
“The delegated legislation can amend the primary act itself,” he told MPs. “That is as wide as I have seen in my experience. What are the limits? What are the safeguards?”
A series of Conservative MPs – most of them limited to five-minute speeches due to the time constraints – said that while they would be most likely to support the second reading vote they expected concessions later in the process.
Kenneth Clarke, the veteran former minister and long-time Europhile, said he had yet to decide how he would vote: “I’m actually going to listen to the debate, which is a very rare feature in this house.
“And if the government isn’t going to move in the next two days of debate, well I think we may have to force it to go back to the drawing board and try again.”
Nicky Morgan, the former education secretary and another prominent backbench warning voice on Brexit, rejected the argument by some of her fellow MPs that seeking to amend the withdrawal bill amounted to frustrating the verdict of last year’s EU referendum.
“Parliamentary scrutiny is not an affront to democracy,” she said. “It is its very essence. The true saboteurs of Brexit are those who would sanction the exclusion of parliament from this process. The debate on this bill has only just started.”
The former attorney general Dominic Grieve was more explicit still in his criticism of what he called “in many respects an astonishing monstrosity of a bill”.
He said: “The government needs support and it will have it from me. But equally, I have to say, that unless this bill is substantially improved in the course of the committee stage, I regret to have to say I will be in no position to support it at third reading in its current form.”
Davis signalled a willingness to be flexible, saying he welcomed suggestions for change “from those who approach the task in good faith and in a spirit of collaboration”. But he condemned Labour’s move to oppose the second reading, calling this “cynical [and] unprincipled”.
Iain Duncan Smith, the strongly pro-Brexit former Tory leader, said Starmer’s position ran counter to Labour’s backing for the wider Brexit process.
“To come out and vote against the principle of this bill is to vote against the idea of having to make the changes to European law to transpose them into UK law,” he said. “And that is the absurdity that they’ve got into.”
Hilary Benn, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons committee on Brexit, rejected this, saying: “This is not about defying the will of the British people. This is about how sensibly we are going to give effect to it.”