simple by luxembourg. my view is we should get out from under that system and have a free trade arrangement that continue to get access to uk goods and services on the european continent. and that is what it's all about. if you look -- >> that's very helpful, because on the sixth of march he gave the impression that you want a deal like that deal the swiss have. on the 11th of march you gave -- >> i don't know who took that depression but my view -- >> that's what you said on the sixth of march. and on the 11th of march you said you wanted to be like the canadians. >> well i think -- as i said earlier, i want a deal for britain. and i think that's what we will

get. >> if we are to end of the period of uncertainty, it isn't terribly helpful for those people who are for brexit not to give a clear view -- >> i'd give you a very clear view. i've given you a very clear view. >> no, you haven't. >> we have 1700 officials in this country who are capable of negotiating trade deals. there's no reason why it should be done very expeditiously. indeed, one of the interesting features of the canadian deal and, indeed, the u.s. us to a deal i just mention they were able to remove huge numbers of tariff barriers. we could do that. we did go ahead. and it would be able to strike other free trade deals around the world which we are currently prevented from doing. >> mr. johnson, the canadian deal does not include financial services. spent i don't want to imitate the canadian deal. i want a british deal. >> so you don't actually want to

negotiate like the canadians. you don't actually want to negotiate like the swiss. >> i want us to do a british deal. and -- >> what does that mean? >> .com specs of the canadian deal, carefree approach without free movement that i think are right in the aspects and this was deal. they just voted against the provisions of free movement as you know. i think that will be free movement will be wrong for us. but i said absolutely no reason at all, given the huge bounces of trade that they have with us, favorable to them, why they would not want rapidly to do a free trade deal with weather, 10% and 15% one of the biggest export markets the remaining of the eu -- >> mr. johnson, on the day it came out for brexit, supposedly because we are very effective

communicator, and that made it more likely that brexit would happen. when the government of the bank of england came and gave evidence to us on the euro, he described brexit ask the biggest domestic risk to financial stability. he said there would be downward pressure on foreign direct investment, on investment particularly in tradable goods and on household consumption. are you not concerned that period of uncertnty in the british economy would have those affects? >> we've heard, first of all, i don't believe, i've looked at fdi in london at the moment, confidence in the city come what's happened with our economy. no sign whatever of people being discouraged from investing, coming to london.

that remained massively strong. i'm not quite certain what the spirit of uncertainty is that you speak of. i seem to remember that, you know, when we were considering whether not to go into the euro and thankfully made the right decision not to do so, people were saying very much the same sort of thing. and it didn't transpire. on the contrary london flourished, prospered as never before. i have to say i think the appellate committee asked me about the pound, the pound will be a strong and as robust as the uk. my view the risks are in remaining in the eu. if you look, why should we remain tethered to this democratic system of -- >> sorry, i'm not now asking you questions about the longer-term but i'm asking you questions about the short-term. the tv before we've agreed our

relationship appeared before we agreed on our relationship with eu. ipv4 we negotiated free trade agreement. when the governor of the bank of england is telling us that they would be volatility in the fourth exchange markets, this ts would have attacked about impact on foreign direct investment, on investment in the british economy particularly the title good sector and on household consumption. now, if you could just look beyond the city of london. in the northeast we have 140,000 manufacturing jobs dependent on exports to the eu. and nissan and petacchi, the two biggest foreign direct investors have both said they would not invest more in the event of brexit. do you think, therefore, it is responsible to dismiss these

concerns about uncertainty and impact on speech actually you are wrong because they have changed their tunes. >> i am not wrong about that. >> nissan has said they will continue to invest their respective -- >> no. nissan has not said that. what nissan has said is that they would not claim the current faction. they would not move it if they would not put any new investment in. and we get 27 billion pounds of foreign direct investment into this country every year. at a period of uncertainty while you were deciding what a british deal meant would undoubtedly mean that we lost investment for a period of perhaps two years. don't you think that that is a worry for those people who have jobs in the northeast in manufacturing? >> i think it shouldn't be a word and i hope very much people

will do their best to persuade those who are interested, no reason for them to worry. i think nissan, as far as i can remember nissan big take a stroll like in favor of the uk joining the euro and said they would close the plant if we didn't join the euro. that did not obvious happened the night of those two things happen and that was the right decision. i think the uk will be more competitive if we leave the eu. i think we'll be able to set our own course, to our own trade deals and legislate in a way that is in the interest of british manufacturers. >> and minute ago you were complaining that they want to structure the rules. now nissan obviously i completely happy with their european rules on car design. surely you can see it's chicken, what is good for the goose is

good for the candidate we have 140,000 jobs -- >> of course when selling into the european markets where there will continue to be standards set at european level, august it would be in the interest of nissan to make vehicles that affect those markets to us as to make them acceptable to the trend with many detailed provisions for what they want into markets. i think of such a deal of negativity about our ability to do this and we are missing, we would be missing a massive opportunity to make this country more competitive to be able to set our own economic course and to restore democracy in this country. >> you've made the point quite thorough, quite early on in those exchanges you were, i

thought, trying to distance yourself from the view that we would want to deal i can that of switzerland the d.c. just over three years ago you said we could construct a relationship with the eu but more closely result of norway or switzerland, still equating. except that we would be inside single market counts, which makes it sound as if you're very supportive of the idea of single market, which you cast some doubts about. >> i think -- >> i'm about to ask you a question. what is the single market council? >> they're usually something called the internal market council and that's as far as i can remember being scrapped in favor of -- i think -- >> what is the single market? >> i don't think it is possible to do that. i was speculating about possible relationship you could have. it doesn't make sense because in

the end you are either part of a single judicial system or you are not. the difficulty i think we would have, coming back to go to referendum idea, some people floated a while back, could you as it were vote to get rid of a lot of the stuff that isn't necessary and then -- in the end, i'm giving you a very, a very, very clear or -- >> are you for or against the two referendums approach of? >> i think we have one referendum and we get on with it. >> and afterwards that's the end of our relationship within the eu. we don't try to engage in another referendum? i want to be clear whether that's your view. >> that's my view. and so that means that you can't -- >> that's all i need.

some months ago, it's very helpful now that we've had a codification spent i think i've been pretty clear about that. i think a baby pretty clear about that before this august committee. >> clarify one more point. do you agree that a large proportion of the trading goods that would come in, as you know, the eu has a service with those. that trading goods would be covered under wto rules speak was yes certainly. >> and, therefore, germany, for example, is more likely to be able to get access and we would to their market for our services which are dependent on much more detail single market negotiations? >> well, it's certainly the case that germans have in my view, a massive interest in making

better use of uk services. and i think that when people say they would discriminate against the city of london, that has never happened in the past. i think it would be utterly foolish of european economies not to make use of what is a massive resource for the whole of this area. the city of london financial services, all industries in which we excel are vital for any big european company that wants to raise capital. this is the place to come. it always will be. >> good morning. i'm very keen to carry on with the city of london but can i follow-up on the line of questioning about negotiation that we have a total trade with europe. some of these figures come the uk represents about 15% of total gdp of europe. our exports come exports, total

exports to europe 45% of our exports. what in terms of europe's exports to the uk its, undervalue count, between seven and 10% but quite small. 10% in total. but nontheless, it is, the point i'm trying to make is, it may be more added don't want to have a separate point of the relative for us, for 4% of our total exports to europe is a very significant proportion of our total trade following europe. 10% roughly is not small but much far less significant. do you think it puts us at a very poor negotiating disadvantage of? >> i don't think so at all. as i said, actually it's massively in the interest, of our friends, our partners to

continue to trade free and more freely than ever. they have massive, the germans as a 27 million pounds with us. they are the most influential in the european council. even the french have a considerable net balance of trade with us. i think it would be very curious, those are two totally, totally self-destructive of them do not -- this conversation is not happening in a thank you. everybody is thinking about this. the time is now. people can prepare for i think will be a very exciting pashtun one of the great things -- >> can i pick up there? utah but germany and france. it's right to talk about two specific country but you can talk with other countries where they have trade deficits with the uk and they would argue they don't want to have -- i can

quickly to upgrade upgrade so let me clue that point up. [talking over each other] >> the competence for negotiating trade deals resides exclusively the european commission, if i may just elaborate. one of the problems we have as a country in trying to do free trade deals around the world is the eu commission does not represent our international trade. so for instance, the audiovisual sector which is city is doing brilliantly problem producing more tv and film than new york will produce more than los angeles. because of french objections we can never do a free trade deal that involves individual sectors, simply hopeless for the uk economy. we need to have the ability to strike our own deals. >> let me talk about financial services. i think you mentioned three senior bankers.

all three of those banks are uk domicile and would be in the uk anyway. can you think of any international bankers, specific is somebody who senior member of an international bank like goldman's, dutch bank, any number of these international banks which have sought to come to london that agrees with the fact that you can would be better off outside europe speak with i can certainly say i would want to give way private conversation but i can sort we say this. there's been plenty of people i've spoken to from those types of institutions who have felt to get back to whatever they can this conversation, that the balance of the argument is much more quizzical than is commonly supposed that they believe and what to think that london we cherish whatever happens. london has the right time and the right language.

>> that doesn't concur with what i'm finding what i'm talking to these international bankers privately. >> i have to say i'm getting a different message. spink do they think -- >> perhaps a batch true. respectfully direct you back to what some of them were saying at the time of the euro debate. i think goldman sachs -- [talking over each other] >> terrible mistake of britain not to go in your we heard the same from cbi, from all sorts of people. notable colleagues of ours. back in 1991, and interesting pamphlet suggesting single market would not be complete without a single currency.

>> i wouldn't say that either. [laughter] >> give also misrepresented it quite badly. >> if you go further on in the document you'll find very interesting passage explaining why the project of the gerald is being formed as a single and rather dangerous moment in the cycle which -- >> never say never. [talking over each other] >> order, order. >> it's very common sense on the euro. >> order. >> it's very kind of you, borders, to -- boris, to read all my materials. you are illustrating exactly what i begin with which is very

partial, humor rest approach to a very series question for the uk. and what we really need is a much more balanced -- qualify represent the points they make and represent each other's views with some accuracy. >> i'm glad you said that because i think some of my views have been as i say reduced. i'm grateful to you for the opportunity earlier in this hearing to set straight some of the gross misrepresentations that have been made about -- >> that's enough of that, boris. >> carry on with a lot of caution about the city of london. we would order the city of london corporation has got an official position. many, many, many institutions have official positions with the city of london, 84% of

respondents want to stay. i think it's perfectly to except the city institutions are looking for their own interest. why shouldn't they? the governor of the bank of england has said the uk failed to negotiate a proper agreement on social services with europe, that it would be detrimental to the city of london. do you disagree with these institutions? >> as i say, they are not unanimous on this point. >> 84% -- >> the are plenty who take an opposing view. my impression is a balance of opinion is very moderate about this. most people think mistakes -- >> it's difficult to -- >> much lower than they were. the interesting feature, even the last 10 years export financial services to the eu have gone down from about 39%,

about 32%, possibly even lower as a proportion of our exports. they are -- the opportunities are around the world. what i fear is by staying locked into the eu system where we consecrate the right to set trading arrangements to the commission, we are missing huge, huge opportunity. i think would be, i think brexit would be massively beneficial for -- >> you talk about the rest of the world. we went around the rest of the msm why did the chinese government what auction revenue be trading in london? why does the uzbeks want to come to london? every single one of them talked about the cluster effect, the support that goes with it but they all talk about the fact that uk is access to 550 million in the single market that is something which is an of import.

and that all of them are saying we would get off our trolley to come off the -- >> i think access to 550 million people is going to remain calm in my view, and -- >> but how can you be sure? >> just because those countries, look, countries trade with countries. people trade with each other. businesses trade with each other. businesses need a great city, businesses need to find a place to raise capital. they need banks, they need support, services of all time. they will continue to find them in london. i think if you look at the story of the city since the decision not to go into the general, a story of unbelievable growth and dynamism which all poppers failed to spot. they were wrong then and they are wrong now. i do understand, one thing i've

been wrestling with is this problem you raised, why is it there's a certain type of person very often and the big corporations or big banks who take this line, and i think that is an enormous european cup an enormous industry lobbyists, people involved in negotiations of conferences, all this kind of thing who are basically one way or the other turning left on the plane as a result of our membership of the european union. that is the reality, and i think the people that i think would benefit massively from this change would be i think those companies would not be remotely disappointed but i think the people who would benefit massively on the 95% of uk businesses that do not actually export to the eu's but how to comply with 100% of eu regulations are. >> that is the wider debate.

i want to finish off in one area, which is nobly denies a single market is the biggest single economy in the world. it's incredible important financial services also very, very important for the rest of the world, wants to trade with europe through britain. what is key to a great deal of this is the regulations that comes from financial services as a result of the fact that american influences, dodd-frank and the rest of it, with the fact that these financial services regulations tend to be the world in terms of direction of travel because they are very good regulations. we did come out of europe we would have no influence on those regulations. we would be subservient to an architecture of regulation which we will would be driven forward by europe. why would we want to give our

position to influence the worst financial service regulation? >> i defer to your knowledge of this come into sector, that i don't think that's entirely accurate about what would happen. because many of these standards, many of these regulations are now set in the single market, total market, whatever we want to call it these days. not set, it's an eu level but they are international regulations based on, for instance, acronymed i'm sure i don't need is below two, the fsb, see bmi, in which, think about the imf, the wto. the paradox i think is that britain i brexit would gain from this in some of -- let me explain why. because if you look at the wto

or at the imf or the g7, g20, try to set a standard for financial services of one kind, try to have a role in this. the eu as an institution is now trying to speak for all 28 in those debates. and actually buy brexit what you find is the uk would regain strength in those conversations. >> fantastically complex area with huge amount of overlap, huge amounts of underwear. giunta lab causes a problem. there's been an awful lot institutions around the world, we that america -- these have been led by us in europe is still catching up but europe is looking to us. you cannot deny that the biggest economy in the world, the

biggest economy would have a less influential part to play in these international agreements than britain would with an important financial services center. but not the same level of influence because it's not the same size banking markets. if you extract britain. >> i think what paradoxically what you might get is an intensification of the european influence in global conversations about these matters. you would have not just the eu speaking in his own voice but you would have the uk with all its influence in financial affairs around the table as well your as i'm sure, it would be a lot of correlation between us and others. one of the difficulties is, we as a country now are more and

more outvoted in the european council of ministers. and it is hard sometimes to maintain that we are effectively influencing proceedings in the way that we would like. and i think there are alternative ways of getting international funds particularly on financial services. >> nonetheless and i don't disagree with you, i would completely agree there are many things wrong with the european union including the architecture. i think it is better if are going to inside negotiating, trying to change that organization we would be better off. >> look at, i totally, yes, that was a position i was in for a long time and that was a position many of us have been in before. i think it just come several

things have curdled my belief that that was possible. first of all, lisbon and the annihilation over human rights. we thought, we are told it had no more significance than -- for the court of justice. it was perfectly obvious, although the people were very encouraged by the vote in 2013, talk of wholesale reform, fundamental repatriation of powers and so on. i don't think anyone in their right mind can pretend that has happened. and when you look at, it is a balance. something which everybody, there are two sides to this. nobody is going to deny that but in the end we look at the massive concentration of power

that is now taking place in the eu, you couple that with the loss of control over orders and over immigration which i think has been so damaging to public confidence in politics, i think the argument only goes one way. you haven't asked me as mayor of london the impact on our city of immigration. >> you will get more questions in a minute. >> thank you, chairman. mr. johnson come on the 11th of march you said but i think we should is strike a new free trade deal unlike what canada has achieved. we did canada start negotiating? >> as i said before several times, i think that what we want is a british deal. we wouldn't be in the same position as canada. we've been in the eu for 44 years and would be able to do a

deal they rapidly. the attraction of the canadian deal, wha one of the attractionf the canadian deal is it involves wholesale move, very large removal of tariffs but that is not worth, there's a lot more we could do. >> my question was when the negotiating started the they started in 2009 at the moment they are not yet been enforced so the eu, candidate agreement took seven years to negotiate and it's still not in force. >> yes. >> is taken quite a long time. i would say the canadian trade negotiators are pretty good at is taken seven years to negotiate a deal and it's still not in force. the former canadian trade minister had some part in these negotiations, he says there's a real comparison between canada's relationship with the eu and the

uk. indeed, what canada's trade for much of the trade with -- much deeper relationship than the canadian -- >> i think that's right. the point about the canadian deal obviously is you've got two very different systems, two very different trading relationships. they decided that you deal with canada took a while to negotiate a i don't see why on earth that should be the case with the uk, which has been a member of the eu for 44 years. as i said, and i point you to the u.s.-australia deal which was completed in less than two years. >> but this will set between the u.s.-australia deal and to deal with the eu, and this is what set today. has to be ratified.

that's not the same of a deal between the u.s. and australia. that is why it takes time. that means you of uncertainty can barriers to trade for uk firms and i'll likely drop in inward investment. >> i'm not seeing -- >> i haven't finished. in your response earlier you said that the our arguments on both sides but i think these are pretty compelling arguments for sinks biggest i don't they are good arguments at all. the are no good economic arguments but there are good political arguments but no good economic arguments. >> so the governor of the bank of england is not making good economic arguments for staying in the european union. the chancellor is not making good economic arguments to stay in the opinion you. the cbi to the are making political arguments come is that

what you are saying speak with yes, i am. and i think that quite seriously the economic impact of brexit would be positive. in fact, might economic adviser i think said it would be overwhelmingly, the right thing to do. and i would have to say i agree with them. i think it would unshackle us of a great deal of excessive regulation and it would be a huge boost for british democracy and take back control of very considerable sums of money. >> do you think that part of the success of the uk economy is being an outward looking trading nation speak with yes, i do. i would agree. >> in that case do not think that having free trade with our nearest neighbors is an important part of our success?

>> i do the ice actually no reason why that should not be perpetuated. >> you may see out for no reason for it being perpetuated but it needs the agreement of 27 legislators which canada has found and is defined as not always that easy to achieve. what evidence do you have that we will be able to achieve an agreement in two years? >> i cite the prime minister david cameron with able, yes, we will. lord kerr who said we would be able to do free trade deal -- [talking over each other] i'm sorry? >> can you point to any trade agreement between the eu and other countries that's taken less than two years to negotiate? >> i think people will want to understand the context. to remain, the uk were made within the existing treaties for

two years anyway. and i believe there will be a punt in time to negotiate a free trade. if you can point to meet any european country that wishes come in you country that wishes not to do i could do with us, i would interest to hear about it. >> we ask questions. i've asked you a question. i'm sorry, mr. johnson, with respect -- >> order. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> do you know of any trade deal between the eu and another country that is taken less than two years, yes or no? >> no, i don't. that is what the details -- >> then i will move on. >> that is one of the defects of the eu. you are making my point if i may say soause one of the catastrophic weaknesses of the system is that the eu is unable to strike these ideas. they cannot get a free trade deal is with china.

iceland has done a free trade deal with china. switzerland has done a free trade deal with china. >> it's difficult to secure trade arrangements. given that it takes such a long time to make a deal and we are dependent on -- >> absolute scam and total nonsense. there already is as you know perfectly well a free trade area in the european landmass stretching from portugal to turkey to the borders of russia. and it is absolutely nonsensical to try to pretend that post-brexit britain is someone going to be -- get back to my point that it is not a britain. it is british people completed companies, british funds. they will continue to trade more than ever before with countries, with people, with partners on the continent of europe. and i think it is, don't forget

to 70% of our non-eu trade is done without any trade deals what ever. >> we know well trade, however whether we have a trade agreement and whether we have had five and other non-tariff barriers is -- >> point of order. you really need to stop interrupting. .. as an example of what you

thought we should do in the practice so i'd like to look a little bit more at the canadian deal. go specifically making the infield for the service and eeo markets? >> this question had been asked before. i think there were some attractive such as the seven terrace, that seems to be the attraction go not ideal for the uk what we want to do as george rightly said is the british deal and that's what we will get. >> let's look at the non-terrace areas? if you look at agriculture for example, some not in most areas but more than 90 percent of uk

and sheep exports goes to the eu but paris on those exports for canada still exist, more than 12 percent so there's still substantial tariff to go do you think the canadians deal would be for farmers in the uk. >> the attractions for the canadian deal, i think the fact that the uk is being parsed bodes very well for getting a substantial free-trade deal involving a comprehensive deal on goods and services and cultural products as they have absolutely no interest not to do such a deal. >> when you make that assertion mister johnson but the general finance minister assures us his bid on and jamar

is better than you did said you are either in the single market were not in the single market and if you're not in it then you have a trade arrangement. also we may have those like you say currently but there's no guarantee that we would have to the same sort of access to other countries you've mentioned this morning as switzerland and norway, both of those attributed to the you you budget and movement spirit of youseem to have the best of bot worlds which i'm sure we all would agree would be ftastic , however , that's not always the same and i'd like to deal in the reality mister johnson. if we move on now to the other aspects of the canada deal the

financial concerns based in the eu countries between passports, does canada have those arrangements and in its deal with the eu? >> on the passport deal i see no reason why our friends, our partners should not want to continue currently but when you consider that their banks benefit vary considerably from their presence in london, they want to have reciprocal arrangements. i think deutsche bank probably has 8000 employees to go and it serves 1 million sums for the rest of the household in respect to the ensuring two parts. >> thanks for that. go mister chairman. go is there mister johnson an

assortment that we would get these arrangements that you believe canada once they've had these arrangements once they serve as terrace to be bad but i don't see there is any evidence that we would get everything that we want from a negotiation. other areas. >> but we are looking for the evidence that exist based on the trade deal that you cited as part of the trade deal to the benefit and again you make that assertion, i think we could do that on faith and fact go again the relationship between canada and the eu is

less accord, it favors that specific market. go i believe that would do harm on actual services and most manufacturers at work, they haven't provided any evidence. >> unlike canada a member of the euproportionally . >> and we included our membership of the eu and have access to single markets and the abolition of terrace and other trade values, you all have a better deal with canada. >> my view was those understandings that there is between countries and our systems there is no negativity at all given the substantial balances they had and that they have with us and i'm speaking particularly about france, germany and other countries.

go the absolutely difficult whatever in getting a trade agreement, the point is b&. >> we are at 11 am and. [bellringing] [silence] [bell

ringing] and you are halfway through. >> i think i've completed my point. go the same way you had difficulty with all indications. go i genuinely think there's a defeatism the right is offering. we have a huge number of very competent officials, about 1700 negotiating a trade deal. go the pity is that in the european commission which does our trade deals for us, in the 3.6 percent of commissioned officials, from this country and i ask how you think looking

at all of this currently and how do people think we can expect that european commission to do deals with other countries around the world? >> mister johnson, your testimony as much as made this deal and negotiated to fully implement either of these to 23 to get access to markets that we can access today and last of all, this comes fromb. >> answer my question. go there was none of those 1700 people to pursue our negotiation and you are indeed an ambassador to the uk but in brussels and he was for many years that chaperone of g 20 as

he said, different countries have different views and i would certainly expect the uk to start if it wanted to negotiate it would take some time to work out what they wanted to do. go he is one of those 1700 people you say those negotiations at every concert he would be able to do the negotiations but as he says it would take some time added to that time. >> i think you are being too pessimistic about the business end and about our ability to do these deals. if you look at what the prime minister has said, what lord kurdish, some have referenced his ties to the eu and there's absolutely no response that we could doa free-trade deal and i remind you in short order, it is overwhelmingly the interest not only of the uk but of our partners . >> and you show that you are

in the single market or that you had a trade agreement. >> and trade agreement that would give us all thebenefits . >> absolutely and that is the way forward and i'd just remind you it is the, it is the , yes. go i say that because you look at the, what chairman foreman said i remember that disaster that would happen on the european continent if, a disaster for the european economy if the uk left and actually in my view the disaster is being caused by the euro and the catastrophic failure of that driven by germany and the unemployment in

greece are stillb& i'm sure it bides economic disaster in europe to go what has happened on that course? if you go there. >> sorry you when i ask you to let it down as you did, that men brought up an interesting point that is certainly not closely related to the question you are asked to go i would like to ask you a question though that is related to what you asked go is there , i should tell you is there a free-trade agreemen , bilateral free trade agreement between your bodies or one country and regional body that gives essential services. >> i can give you an answer. >> i don't think there is . go. >> .

[overlapping conversation] >> if by that question you're implying that these things are very difficult to get to, if you're implying that the rest of the european union were to be so prudish as to discriminate against the uk financial services i would think that would happen at one minute. the president is amply bad in the case of europe. go the controlling money and power and banks would migrate away from london, it did not happen. go they were wrong then and they are wrong now to go. [overlapping conversation] the 85 percent in thosepolls, 75 percent in another poll . go you made one other remark which i think i will clarify, you said the governor of the

bank of england was making a political argument. do you think the government was going behind his agreement. >> know, i have a high regard for the governor of the bank of england and i wouldn't want to say, >> do you think his agreement can cope with him making political arguments, do you think that's a part of this? >> i know you've had to ask this in committee recently on those lines, i think he's expressing his views of government of the bank of england. go i happen to think that. >> but was he right to do so along wrong to do so i'm asking he was very right to expresshis views. i didn't happen to agree. >> fair enough . >> was he making a financial argument or political argument. >> i think he was right to express his views . >> should the government make a political argument.

>> i think what the governor of the bank of england was saying was that there were short-term dalliances. >> what he said that translated, i think it's wholly inconsistent to say that there is an economic partner remaining in the european union but the governor made and the governor was making that economic argument that i didn't agree with and i'm not sure you're confident and that's about as consistent about some of your positions you said this morning. i want to take up rachel reese point about thenegotiations , referendums. you seem to think unlike our former man in brussels who's been at the heart of european note negotiations for years that we will be able to negotiate a deal on the same sense that we have now because we have that same relationship. >> that's right. >> on what basis? >> surely we faced some tendencies.

>> right. >> because you made the argument yourself in august 2015 at a newspaper in germany and i'm wondering if you make a euro argument for pro-europeans that the euro skeptic argument but nonetheless you said yourself in august 2015 we would face some penalties for what penalties did you have in mind? >> i'm sure that there would be some, frankly i have no idea what penalties they might be so prudish as to try to impose but let's face it, there would be some short-term feeling of hurt perhaps and it would be important to la those and to prioritize that it was overwhelmingly in the interest not just of the uk but of the whole of the european union that we should stop a system that is in my view out of

control, is anti-democratic and is weakening the trust of people in politics and if you look at what's happening across the eu you got the rise of the far right, you've got anti-german demonstrations taking place in greenland and i think the eu has been certainly the monetary union experience experiment has been damaging >> unrelated to our membership in the eu , you repeatedly this morning talked about the euro or exposure to the euro even if we were still part of the single market. go which we should be in the event of whether we should remain orleave your go . [overlapping conversation] i'd like to be honest if i may go the domestic implication in the event of abreakthrough vote. go again , i see this picture of prime minister merging that

maybe a different prime minister i'm sure were not going to be talking about this new land where children can choke on balloons and we can make them have feedbacks to go there going to deal with the practical economic realities of the european union to go do you not, i think earlier you said there's no reason for uncertainty. go do you not agree that if we were to leave the european union there would be an economic shock. >> no. i think as i said, the best of territory would be the y2k bug to go. >> okay, i've heard your y2k bug. in fact your own economic advisor has said leaving the eu would be an economic shock. you don't agree with the governor of the bank of england and you can explain why. now you don't agree even with your own economic advisor euro

please point to any evidence whatsoever . go. >> your argument. >> that it will be an economic strap shot. >> i give you most of it. the first of all, jerry limes let me be absolutely clear that the eu would benefit massively from us and the eu would benefit from and it's overwhelmingly the right thing to do. that's his judgment and he's right there go secondly, what is the evidence that there would not be an economic shock, i revert to all the arguments that were made at the time of the euro and there were many people who were seeing then, [overlapping conversation] i think on the contrary you galvanized b.

>> i've heard that argument six or seven times. an interesting point, one that people will way outside this room but we have heard it before and you're diluting it again with your response to that question. if you have some new points to make. even the cpi would put it so wrong about the euro recently said that, i think a study came out a couple of days ago in which they predicted what would happen on a brexit and let me put this grossly negative but even in their most negative scenarios there were still 3 million more jobs by 2030 and i think i happen to agree that their rights. i think what would happen is the british economy, british democracy would be galvanized and we would take back control over our borders and we would take back control over about 10 billion or 8.5 billion pounds net that we send to russia. >> it's high time we did so.

>> you can't even tell us what the brexit scenario would look like. go that shows the economic forecast last month. [overlapping conversation] your economic advisers predicted an economic shock and you don't agree with them. >> let me just take your own view release your view at the time. when you are questioned by andrew marr he raised this towards the night take your go to describe what would happen in the event of a brexit and he said there would be a. for a downward bit where people would lose their jobs and you said it's not a you said it might go i think there is some uncertainty . >> i said it's roughly the

same as the y2k millennium bug and we are talking ourselves into needless negativity about this . i really think, you consider your go. [overlapping conversation] i. >> i'm shutting down this y2k bug stuff. you keep falling back on this argument. go the only similarity with the y2k bug here is that there wasn't much evidence and there is much evidence for the argument you're making. go the fact that your economic advisor, [overlapping conversation] unless there's an independent report by released by the cpi but it was conducted by twc and that vote in the eo would cost the british economy 100 million pounds and 950,000 jobs how many job losses would

it take before you would change your mind again that the british should be in the european union? >> if you study that report properly and presently, i'm sure you have you will find that it predicts there will be 3 million more jobs even b&. [overlapping conversation] and i believe the country as a whole would be 10 billion town pounds better off from day one net and we would be able to invest that money in projects, and services that our country needs. go secondly we would take back control of our frontiers and we would relieve the colossal pressure on wages, the downwar pressure on wages . go. [overlapping conversation] you are asking if people would be better off to go. [overlapping conversation] >> i'm trying to bring you

back over the years. most families can't pay their finances. go. >> let me talk about jobs to go. [overlapping conversation] >> i'm going to instruct you to stop interrupting the question again to go i want you, i order. go sorry to go let him ask this question and then try to address youranswer to the question , not to what you might want the question to be. go. >> in the short term there would be an economic shock. there would naturally be, of course there is because it's naturally unsettling. even if the government has a clear position about its platform for renegotiation which as far as i'm aware it doesn't, we would still have to get the agreement of every eu member state but there would be

uncertainty and risk and i would put a bit more stock in independent analysis by economists that's all about job losses in the short term so i'm wondering what work you have done as mayor of london to what would happen in terms of jobs in london in the next two or three years and how many job losses of londoners it would take with people leaving jobs on the trading floor, how many jobs would be lost in the next two or three years? how many job losses? >> thank you. i believe that the rest of the uk economy was benefit by huge amount of regulation and redtape and it also i think benefits many londoners on low incomes who currently have very poor access to services such as the nhs or education, whatever it happens to be simply because of the pressure on those

services from uncontrolled immigration and i'm pro-immigration, i believe it a good thing that it's wrong of politicians to be unable to control those orders and we've seen over the last years, we had 330,000 net immigration into this country. that is unquestionably exercise. go i believe you should care about this number. it is unquestionably exercise the downward pressure on the wages of all our constituents it has greatly exacerbated the ability to make difficult social services to cope. it has put huge pressure on public services of all kinds. it is not reasonable for us to in london or anywhere else in the country, to be asked to cope with those kind of numbers without some sort of measure of control. oh and is not reasonable for politicians to continue to tell the electorate they can control it when they can't. and people feel that very

strongly and i think it was mister norman who came to this committee and made the point that eight brexit would lead to an increase in wages for the low-paid. go i think that's something yo might bear in mind when you talk about jobs and the impact of a brexit . >> which is in the event of a brexit what businesses would remain stable on the market? surely your views tend to change so i'm just wondering whether further down the track we've negotiated britain's departure from the market. you accept that we may still be subject to your regulations, you may still lose freedom of movement and even if they didn't a country like ours like london is still relying on immigration to grow its economy. >> but controlled immigration and the politicians should continually tell their electorate that they can control numbers when they

can't. there's no reason at all why this country shouldn be able to continue to attract talented people without having an open door policy. >> the whole argument has changed very much over the past 20 years or so because before mass rate, you were able to use move to another eu country if you had a job . go in order to move across the continent i have to report to the commune, i have to show evidence that i had a job and all that. that has been the case under the document of european citizenship. anybody can travel around in search of work and indeed as you know to receive benefits and that is leading to colossal pressures across the eu and when you have a free travel area, a gigantic free travel area and have huge difficulties controlling immigrationcoming in to the eu , then you are

making life really difficult for governments. >> i just want to finish on the issue of trust. go firstly, are you not concerned that if we work for the european union that we would still be subjected to regulations and let me just make the point, still subjected to eu regulations and dealing with migrations throughout the economy. are not concerned that people who are voting to leave the eu on the basis of sovereignty and immigration might achieve this and the second thing, and i'll give you a chance. the second thing i'm interested in is why on the fact you put forward or lack of facts and answers and i think many people would doubt this morning you could've put across an enthusiastic and passionate case in leading european union. do you not understand why many of us find this answer and

believe your passion and sensitivity when over the course of your political career you've beenmaking very differentarguments . >> i haven't . go to answer your second point first , i don't think there is, the hard push to find a single british politician or german who has known more about the failures of democracy in the eu over the past 30 years than me. with the possible exception of daniel hammond to go and i resent it very much. i gave you my information of what i believe has gone wrong and is going on with european union. this thing is out of control. is totally out of control and what we need to do is take back control. and particularly over the fronts and over our borders. go somebody sent me a copy from 25 years ago which predicted,

the daily telegraph, 1991 which predicted the ec was facing 800,000 immigrants a year and as i reported in 1992, draws near the issue coming near the member states, british chair and abolitionist front tier with migrant workers wondering unchecked from czechoslovakia to spain to algeria to london. that was 25 years ago, the same time andrew was raising about how you needed to beat the single market. i was accurately predicting what would happen in a border free europe and as your first point about what would happen post brexit and what we do with our front. there's no reason at all why we should not be able to have free trade as it exists as i say to

the borders with russia without having free movement in the way that we currently have it. it didn't actually exist before magistrate anyway. why is it necessary? it is not the moving the person, that's no reason why we should have it.>> when you spoke in thehouse of commons in 2003 which is a bit more recently , i had the strong impression from that reading of that speech that you strongly supported enlargement and the immigration that came with it. do i take it that you changed your view? >> i was supportive of enlargement because it was in the view of the government and i thought rightly in the british view that if we widened the eu it would somehow become

a more tenuous relationship based more on a looser arrangement and what happened instead is that the widening of the eu has seenan intensification of the dominance of germany . that was particularly clear about what has happened. the whole federal structure has accentuated german preponderance within europe. go as for migrants. >> i need to clarify whether your view has changed with respect to the enlargement and the associated immigration. >> i think it was the brand document that decided prematurely to allow the eu secession countries to have free movement and it was an interrogation as i recall. >> i'm just trying to clarify, you did say it's rubbish that you change your view earlier and i'm just looking at what you actually said in 2003.

it's not that long ago. you said it would be hard to think of a measure, this is the measure for the introduction of 10 countries into the eu including the a8, you can't think of a measure the government could have brought to the house that i support more unreservedly and with mor pressure . you also said recently for the life of me i cannot see economic straits of immigration in that it increases house trust. >> i can give you plenty of reasons, there are plenty of pressures that immigration puts on all kind of services and i think the comparison i was making there was about the impact of foreign buyers on the london market and i think i was being grossly exaggerated. what is certainly the case is that if you look at welfare, the nhs, you've got wages at

the bottom end, there's been huge pressures caused by it, immigration and i think what many people wanted to see b&. >> the question i'm asking yo , i'm sorry to interrupt. go there are three more colleagues about to come in. you said it's rubbish that you've changed your view and i'm trying to clarify what you are now saying about immigration prior to clarification. >> i'm in favor of immigration. i was saying controlled immigration. >> that's what you meant when you said you support unreservedly the expansion of the eu. >> yes because. >> even though there were no proposals for control on the table. >> it was the blair government as i recall that decided to ditch the delegations and allow unsettled immigration and that i think was. >> you were assuming at the time you said that that somehow adelegation would appear . >> know, there was other countries as you recall. other countries decided to

protect themselves against such and they continue to have delegation. we chose not to.>> i just got one point i want to come back to then i will bring in john madden. we will run over. >> thank you very much. go you saw the cwi document claimed after brexit, 3 million jobs would be created but that's not what it says. it says in the short term our results suggest that employment levels fall. go over the longer-term, wk employment could be around 300 50 to 600,000 lower in our two exit scenarios relative to remaining in the eu. that's what they say. they do not say it would increase by 3 million.

>> what you got to do is combine table 4.1 and tables 5.5. and you will see that in the work case scenario, that would again. >> i'm not sure you are quite as on top of those tables as you insist. go. [overlapping conversation] >> i quite understand we will now take a look at them and come back to those for you for the hearing. >> mister johnson, i have the pleasure of hearing your 2003 speech. in fact, it's the first time i heard you speak and you also said then if we didn't have the european union, we would invent something like it overnight to shippeople . go. [overlapping conversation] it was the most pro-european

speech, to pro-european for my liking that i'd heard in parliament to that time and with mister blair at the government at the time, it was interesting to see how people change their views but i want to hone in on one of the things you said that i thought was inappropriate. this is under british law a sitting of the parliamentary select committee. the government bank of england has agreed to the contract, he's not allowed to make political comments. he seems to make political commentary that would be a stackable offense. you had said that he's made political commentary and i give you the opportunity mister johnson. >> i didn't say that. >> mister johnson, you said the government of the bank of england made political commentary in relation to what you said to this committee and i'm just giving you the opportunity just to correct the record which exists verbatim to

correct the record which what you meant to say was the governor of the bank of england made appropriate economic commentary as he saw fit. would you like to correct the record? >> i'd like to see would the record says but i remember what i said was the governor of the bank of england was free to say what he wanted. >> let me be clear because i wrote it downat the time. you said political comments or go that's how you described the governor of the bank ofengland and i'm giving you the opportunity to clarify , to correct the record . if you don't wish to let that stand. >> i love to see the record before you go . [overlapping conversation] i'm grateful to you for writing down those political comments and that seems to be an accurate shorthand. >> will run the verbatim tape and record of the proceedings. we will see what you said. in my view your comment is wholly inappropriate to a committee like this. it is a stackable offense and

we will see where that takes it in the future. go you also referred to the canadian and you said in the march we can be like canada. you said in relation to the canadian agreement, i'm quoting you again, that it's an attraction for the full-scale removal oftariffs. you also suggested we might need a deeper relationship in canada hasbecause of our 44 years . in that canadian agreement , what is the single big stumbling block that led to not being able to sign it during his tenure? >> i think one of the biggest difficulties is obviouslythis , canada has a very different history. >> there's only one big stumbling block. i'm sure you stood it, it's no

big stumbling want for this agreement to happen. i'm asking you if you are aware what that something watches. >> i'm sorry to say the attractions of the canadian agreements in my point of view are that it gives re-trade a huge number of areas, 98 percent of terrace. as i said before i don't consider it even to be the perfect model. what we need to achieve is a british deal.go . >> the reason thehouse couldn't sign it is , and the reason it's taken seven years and still not enacted is because the eu insisted in those negotiations the charter for the prevention of human rights being closed. that's the reason by mister harper refused to sign it though we found that there are significant patches related to human rights. this agreement, how long is it? >> your view, if i may so that

say so mister man who seems to attach such greatsignificance , i was merely isolating one attraction of it and it is one thing i might point out is that it is absurd for us currently to be. >> how long have you agreed with the agreement? >> for your expertise, how long is the canadian agreement? >> i can't tell you how long. [overlapping conversation] do you who attach such great significance. [overlapping conversation] >> are you aware of the name of the canadian agreement you cited? >> i'm not interested in the language. >> are you aware of its contents? >> it gets rid of 98 percent

of terrace. >> are you aware of the content on human rights. >> we just mention that. if i might say that it's rather making my point because i think it is absurd that the eu should be introducing such requirementsinto international law . [overlapping conversation] >> we just need to have boris's response to the specific reply that john made. >> it is absurd that the obstacle to the eu canada trade agreement should have been that childhood fundamental rights. i'm taking this from you mister man if indeed that is the case. i see no reason why the charter should be such an obstacle and particularly irrelevant to our trade concerns. anybody who's spent the charter over fundamental rights will no there some very can peculiar

indeed. they go beyond the normal understanding of human rights. why on earth the commission feels it necessary to usethis as the basis of a trade negotiation is beyond me . >> . >> it still in the current trade negotiations ongoing with canada go mister man, it shows why we need the negotiation. >> john, half ago andthen . >> the canadians who had a similar approach to you, why did it take them seven years to negotiate? closer to 11 three of the canadian agreement says that canadian products can only be imported and sold in the eu if a fully respect the eu regulations without any exemption so the eu in their

current negotiations is requiring full acceptance of the eu regulations to allow canadian products into the eu. that's their negotiation. >> i don't want to be remotely disrespectful to thiscommittee but of course if you want to sell into a domestic market , you have to make sure that your goods comply, there are domestic requirements and that's the case for the us exporting to the eu or switzerland exporting to the eu. one of the interesting things actually is that in spite of not being a member of the so-calledsingle market, the us , the united states had a much bigger increase in its exports per capita to the eu then we half and the famous same is true also of switzerland.

countries don't trade with somebody, people trade with people. businesses trade with businesses and they will continue to do so and huge extent. >> our country put intariffs . you raise the, i'm going to go back and directed to 2002. what's your assessment of the absent negotiations ongoing with china? >> which negotiations? >> the aspect negotiations ongoing with china. >> if you're talking about the eu china. >> no, i'm talking about the british aspect negotiations. >> i think it will be you and informed commentary on that except to say it i think it's sad that we are currently unable to do a free-trade deal with china because that's power, that confidence is being given to the eu. >> well, now china refuses to do any specific negotiations with the uk. go into weeks time on the very issue it could affect in our

area. of the animal byproducts directives you happen to quote which country initiated that? >> sorry, i can't tell you. >> you came in 2001 same time as me. you can't recall what happened when we came in? they wanted to propose an animal rights. >> why did that directive get brought into the head of the british government? >> of course because we wanted as i recall to restore trade in british livestock with the rest of the eu and we were keen to persuade them to accept our deal and as i recall they didn't go and actually in spite of our membership, in spite of our membership of the eu this

demand, they kept out of it and in spite of the deal they did it legally and. >> the director says it's a highly discriminatory way the director came in at the directors request. [overlapping conversation] >> you cited that as an example of terrible regulation but in fact that regulation which you did not vote or argue against in parliament was precisely tackle tariff barriers. >> i think possibly you were here at the beginning of this conversation which was only a couple of hours ago but the chairman, mister terry said there was no evidence that you couldn't recycle teabags and i pointed out that this resulted from cardiff council manically over interpreting and eu

directive. i made no comments on the rights and wrongs of that directive which related as you rightly say to bse. what i commented on, what i commented on it was the ludicrous goldplating of that directive and the behavior of cardiff. >> i. [overlapping conversation] >> view mister johnson of mister gary is the record. that's witnesses inconsistent then that can be . [overlapping conversation] >> you said in 2005 on the year you been in parliament for six, i think six years? you came in the same day as me. how many have you voted against? >> i've been out of parliamen . >> but you been in for about

six years, same as i've been in starting the same day. how many, that would be around b,15,000 claiming since you've been in parliament. how many have you voted against? >> many of them as you know. >> how many, 14,000? 10,000? >> i used to serve on something called european standing committee be and it was a completely pointless exercise. there was absolutely nothing thisparliament can do to stop the vast majority of this stuff you go . >> a member, any member. [overlapping conversation] >> there was nothing you could do to stop it. i look at you and ask you whether there was anything we could do practically to stop the rubberstamping and there wasn't . >> any member that attempted to force law on any issue in here so i am asking you on how many occasions out of these 18,000 you have attempted by

phone or by speaking to drop them of the 15,000? >> i was on the european standing committee, yes. i have to go back and look at what i said but i certainly remember i called on some of the things we be asked to rubberstamp but that was a position that we were in. go the staff had to go through the house of commons and it was later, there was nothing we could do about it. the supremacy of european law under the 1973 european. [overlapping conversation] the articles, any of those on any of them, during your period of time in here. >> because it would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever. you know full well mister man and i think it is absolutely absurd to pretend otherwise, this house has no ability to

stop european legislation or indeed statutory. >> that's a fair exchange since we have your point on that issue which is well-made i think. many of us have assumptions on the point you are making but i want to pick up on one of the agriculture points that john man made inbringing george caravan . >> thank you chair. >> this is the european agriculture currency. >> part of the reason is that you do occupy the odd part with remarks exactly of that time. george caravan. >> as you say, you said that the proposal was demented? and it adds 400 pounds a year

to the cost of food from every household in the country. could you clarify, are we to take from that that if we had written to me the eu the average household would be 400 pounds better off directly? >> i think that there would be some reductions in the cost of food made possible i getting through some bureaucracy and some provisions in these current cpa systems. [overlapping conversation] let me give you a full answer mister caravan. i think itis very important from what my side of the argument to stress that we believe insubsidizing agriculture and supporting agriculture .

there would be , i don't think it would be reasonable to expect british culture to survive without direct the appropriation. >> you use a specific number and may be right, maybe not. so are you saying it's not400 , >> i think the extra cost of food as a result of the cap for a long time but at about 400 pounds. >> by name? >> i'd be very happy to write you the provenance of that statistic you go that is a cited statistic. >> it was before making the speech. >> well mister caravan i would be happy to supply you and this entire committee with the origins. if you think about it for a second you can see if you support agriculture in all

sorts of ways through subsidies and through tariffs, there will be an extra cost. the question for us is, is the cap efficient? >> is the cap efficient in the ways in which it does. >> specifically, we have a number. you don't know where it came from. is it a 400 pound setting, 302 or do you know? >> let's be very clear. there is a cost to the tariff. >> you have a specific number two weeks ago. now you're telling me it wouldn't be 400 it would be less than that. >> i speak about cost. >> you said it was a 400 pound cost at the moment. you use the number. if we leave, i'm asking do we save that 400 wherever it came from? >> i didn't say all that 400,

i would say something like, i can't say that but what we would certainly continue. >> we would certainly continue support for agriculture and all farmers would receive, would continue to receive the current levels of subsidy. we need to make sure that was based and that those payments. [overlapping conversation] >> the current level, do you mean by that as well as uk subsidies, do you mean the money that comes from europe, money goes out, money comes back in? those 300 pounds a year, they would maintain it? >> yes and there would be massive savings in the form of, i think the budget needs

european agriculture guidance fund is something to which we are huge contributors. we pay in much more than we get back. we would save i think the net contribution on the field got is about something like 4 billion, i'd have to check but it's a considerable net payment we make into the european agricultural system. there would be more from funds available in support of other vital services in this country and indeed, understand . [overlapping conversation] >> the 400, it comes from the taxpayers alliance and it comes from data which is seven or eight years old so it's quite was mary and it does not include the money that comes

from british farmers which is that 3 billion. >> even in its own brands that 400 is misleading. it does not include the money that comes back to british farmers. >> as i think i've tried laboriously to state out, at the moment if you look at the office of national statistics figures we contribute grossly about 20 billion. we get back through the agricultural funds or through structural funds, whatever about, and through the abatement we get back about 10 million pounds. >> so the 400. [overlapping conversation] there is a colossal savings for british taxpayers. >> i understand that. i'm trying to understand that but back to the point. now that you've explained you understand that they get money back, is it the 400 pounds you are using that start to include loans but that it exaggerates

the figure. >> if the extra cost as a result of the cap and it partly affects in myview . [overlapping conversation] the additional bureaucracy of the cap system with its price support intervention, export refunds, all sorts of mechanisms i think are exceedingly inefficient and i think it would be possible to have strong domestic support for farmers, to repatriate the cap in such a way as to support british farmers in a way that. >> how would you change the support system? >> what you wouldn't do is, in my view the eu is party to evil in the way that it discriminates against manufacturers, against

agricultural products in africa for instance. i think that there are goods that would benefit families in this country that come from a market that are currently prevented from exporting to us by the external eu tariff and i think that's something people should care about very much. i think the whole system of intervention, off-price intervention although they've moved away not a great deal, it's still crazy the idea that. >> i ask you what your system would be. >> my system would be on that basically promulgates, i mean it would be something that's obviously would be emblematic of governments and parliaments to decide. >> my preference would be for deficiency things, payments that were bacon, supported agriculture in a way it needs

to be supported and also stewardship payments as well because i think many farmers need support for looking after the land and not just the producing. >> and absolutely vital to get across, thank you, it is vital to get across that it would be at the level that they currently enjoy and that level of support would be saturated. >> so actually the 400 pounds. >> know, because of what i said the eu system, and cap involves alternative mechanisms such as prices for tariffs. [overlapping conversation] in london, the cap, before the cap was invented i think portion didn't even have, and the result is going to be that the eu sugar ratio has done fantastic damage the interests of uk sugarcane producers which

i represent in london. they are facing huge problems from the eu approach. they would be greatly integrated by a brexit and the sugarcane producers in four countries around the world would benefit. >> we have left the eu. let's go on to that scenario. you said on several points this morning that there's actually, there's an existing free-trade area across the whole of europe and russia. that's not true because agriculture is notsubject to free-trade in that area. if the uk left , we would then face the tariff barriers for agricultural problems as you mentioned. >> because the eu applies a

very tariff you just mentioned that we knew about. so are you saying that we would out right, are you saying we would have to negotiate free-trade access. >> i think given the huge exports of agricultural products to this country from the eu and others from the rest of the eu 80 insane not to do a deal with usinvolving free-trade and agricultural products . >> speaking to the rules. >> as i've already discussed free-trade agreements of the eu has done with other third parties i see no reason why there shouldn't be free-trade. >> they might but on the other hand they might not want their wine or camembert to taste discrimination in this country. >> so you advocate tariff to

tariff that the eu. >> i don't think there's going to be need for any such thing. we need full tariffs or half tariffs.>> it's a primitive way of thinking about the world. that we should be trading globally. >> are you suggesting that the concrete example we have and you're reaching for that space of terrace, in hungarian but not within the uae you as free-trade manufacture that does not have free-trade agricultural products, but they are subject to the same tariff barriers we use as everyone else. if we are out of the you eu we face those tariffs unless you can negotiate in the weight. i think it's reasonable to assume that part of negotiation would be accepting the rules for the agricultural problem so you wouldn't get rid of that. you have to face the tariff value for food products or face and he. >> i don't follow you. i don't think that's true.

i think that yes, we would want to keep free access and the interest of the restof the eu to do so . however, there is no reason i think for us to be taunted with the cap and we have this extraordinary y, we send in a huge check to brussels. that gets dissipated on all sorts of support teams around the eu and you get a much

>> you can justify the number? >> that's their calculation. what i am saying to you is that there is savings on bureaucracy in the whole weird architecture. but also, but also if you want to know how much we can say -- >> you did -- colleges ask what the number is. >> over all to memory we

contribute i think we contribute about 6.5 billion to the budget and get about 4 billion back. i think there i would have to check those figures. that's saving about 2.5 billion. >> we've made some progress. i'm sorry this is going on so long. >> know, i love it. it's such an honor to be here. >> that's not the longest session we've had but we've got some way to get to the record. >> carry-on. thanks for joining us this morning, boris. ask for your patience which has been exceptional and goes above and beyond any sort of duty so thank you here i'd like to start

by talking about aspects of the european union if we stay in which have been held out to us as one might say care it's or as inducement. one of the envisioned in the deal that was struck a few weeks ago on a regular basis conferences would be reviewed with returning some genetic and and/or the member states if possible. bear in mind her long experience. how likely do you think it is where we were to stay in it would be any sort of -- >> i think this goes to the heart of what we are talking about with develop a single market. i think rachel said we didn't have to worry about the way things were going. i have to say i don't take that view. one of the reasons that my attitude has changed perhaps from that speech i made in 2003 before the lisbon summit in

before the euro experiment got so out of hand. i think the presidents report shows very clearly bent on more integration of social policy, of common law, all sorts of areas of property rights come all sorts of things that are not hitherto been necessary for the functioning of the monetary which i think they want to do it through the single market. and i think that will have an impact on us and i don't perceive any prospect at all of come in the context, of repatriation of powers to our country. it's not just going to happen. you seen what happened in the renegotiation. we got absolutely zilch, effectively. i think that's the best we could hope for.

[inaudible] >> look, i don't want to minimize that. it's something but it's, you know, there are very few cases before the european court of justice, very few times which the court has relied on that provision to form its federalizing judgments your connection of those times it is very, very federalizing anyway. very, very incentivizing anyway. it doesn't need to have that. so i think it's a nice simple but it's not of much tactical assistance. >> there's also a provision in the arrangements to look at removing regulations, annual review and to look at what regulations they can cancel. i'm questioning the commission of lord hill a few weeks ago, that so far not a single regulation he is aware of has ever been repealed.

it's a one way street. so similar vein, do you have any expectation that if we did state inside the british government would have battled, you might get some regulations taken away? >> i don't want to contradict lord hill but i think the eu does technically repeal measures and they are replaced by new ones. i think they will argue there's some that have been repealed, but in the course of their sort of subsidiary campaign to get rid of stuff what they think that they've been over various, nothing has happened. i don't see any prospect of that happening. not a single part of, where it is a corpus of european law, where has it been winnowed down as result of british intervention? that i can't see. we've got something that is not suitable for us.

it is a political union, and the time has come for us to say, i'll let. >> participated in a single market fully but standing to one side of the political project. >> i think that it is open and is honest of us to keep pretending that we are able to the images for free trade and nothing else. this is a political project they want to great a single policy. that is what they say. that is what is being achieved by the huge increase in eu law. i think it's time to make a judgment to say the only way forward is for us to make, to value our democracy. >> moving onto the question of integration which we briefly touched on earlier exchanges. where we to leave, net

immigration ascorbic 300,000 recipients of roughly speaking very roughly speaking half of the eu have is not the you. if we were to leave the eu level to you think we would get immigration down to? >> obviously you would be able to do much more easily because you wouldn't be constantly, wouldn't have to edit people just because they have an eu passport. we know that are now some places in the eu where you can get traveling documents in a way that is not only above board. an awful lot of people are coming here without any clear job of already existing many of them do wonderful things for this country but if you have uncontrolled immigration, the kind we had in the last 10, 15 years or so, it will have very serious impacts. we need to work out as they

country what we really, what is the oversized of the uk population? how far am going to go with this? if we go on like this it will be 92 million. that's an awful lot of people. we need to think about the impacts. most of this will be driven by immigration. >> could you venture a number that people might be able to consider that net immigration we might able to achieve? >> i wouldn't want, i would want, one of the difficulties with this whole thing is government endlessly comes up with figures they think of able to achieve and then they disappoint the electorate. i think it would be unwise to come up with a figure come what i think we could do. [inaudible] >> i don't know about that.

>> i'm sorry. >> my view is i've seen studies saying that you get down to 50,000 a year. >> in total? >> i'm not necessarily endorsing those. i think the difficulty will be there's a very large -- you should be able to lease control. you should be able to decide what type of labor you want. t-1 skilled labor of a certain kind? do you need certain unskilled jobs filled? how does it work? at the moment which is he is a huge, huge treasure on wages and that's a big impact on our country. >> all immigration flows from the eu. what portion would you characterize as high skilled, unskilled? >> i think the issue is really

to do with control, and what the scope is for uk politicians to take responsibility for what is happening. the moment is it is way out of control and people see. they know it. they can see hundreds of thousands of people coming in net every year. i don't see, i don't see how we can stand up to the electorate until the anymore we can stop this thing. >> okay. the final point of immigration, what do you think would happen in a time when senator ted those, must be three or 4 million, eu citizens currently living and working in the country? >> i think you are about, i'm going to get in trouble but i think it about 2.3 million eu citizens in the uk. something like that.

the rights would be unaffected and i would hope that they would be, we already have, there's huge numbers of french people living in london, huge numbers of people from all around the eu. huge number of canadians, americans, australians, russians. 300 link which on the streets of the city. i don't think that it would be a threat. >> so part of our exit negotiation, we effectively grandfathered rights to any eu citizen living here and similar expect grits living in spain to receive rights in spain that would last a lifetime speak was absolutely. those rights to the best of my knowledge are respected under the vienna treaty. >> with that trigger a massive influx seeking grandfathered rights?

would wish a huge flow -- >> brits coming back? >> no. people from europe. let's say we said anyone who is a resident let's say the 23rd of june, 2018, they would get lifetime grandfather rights but out of their subject whatever controlled -- >> evening during the period of negotiations? >> through negotiations, we continue to be full members of the eu. let's say from 23rd of june 20182 years later onwards we get control of reporters as we see fit. but any eu resident who has pitched up before the would get these grandfathered lifetime residency rights. wouldn't that and vice versa, wouldn't that create an incentive for every person living in mainland to jump on applicable where before jamie king to get the lifetime rights? >> i'm not certain if that is the case but if it were the case

it would seem that was a risk i think you could probably take some steps to prevent it by naturally deciding to instore border controls, sorry, install restrictions on free movement of labor which is what we are talking about. to get back, this is not something that is deeply ingrained in the dna of the religion of the eu. everybody now portends. this something really arose. >> i had one final question. in terms of, the nature of trade agreement post brexit and we talked about norway and usage electricity they produce a deal. could you give a rough sort of sketch of how the might look in

terms of goods, services, financial services in any obligations they make it imposed on us? >> both of those would be lopped off but it would be massively free movement and budgetary contributions but it would be massively in the interests of our partners to do deal a deal -- to do a deal. i'm sure that's what we would achieve. it's important recognize we would retain the ability to work with our european friends and partners in all the other areas of the eu corporations that matter greatly to this country into europe. so on the common foreign and security policy or on home justice criminal affairs we would remain active partners. but it would all be done intergovernmental level. there would be no need as i say for this super national judicial approach. >> if we have full single market access would have to sign up for

regulations, wouldn't we speak was no. the whole point is 95% of uk businesses do not do trade with europe. but they have to conform with 100% of the regulations. those businesses that want to export to the eu, you want to encourage the and do a free trade deal, would of course like the americans or the canadians or the chinese or anybody else export into the eu, would have to make sure that their vehicles or whatever they happen to be up to eu standards if they want access to the market. there's no reason why we in this country should be subject anymore to the single judicial system of the single market. that is what i say. >> my final question. just to play devil's advocate on that point, if it were possible to do a deal you're describing, why hasn't norway done it? they are subject to contributions. their subject to frequent as a quid pro quo for the type of

actual describing. >> this is the biggest economy in the world and it's been in the eu 43 years. they have with us a net balance of trade, net of about 80 billion pounds. they have had all sorts of economic -- since this morning. they are going to want rapidly to move over brexit as fast as possible, to of free trade deal, get on with it. allow the businesses to trade freely with a huge market to profit, engagement with us. that's the future for them and for us. >> thank you very much, boris. i'd like to make one point, give you an opportunity for us were. first of all i am very grateful they you been able to give evidence now for nearly three hours. and only we take a break after two. if we have an extended session as we do. i just want to come back to a point that will it still most