case of who tried to smuggle the cards to him in prison. because the european has lots which is now able to add adjudicated and you have seen a the justice in luxembourg that the government and the states cannot maintain the data that's very often essential for monitoring the potential. now what has that got to do with completing the internal market, what does that have to do with free-trade? absolutely nothing. it is morphing into a political union of the kind i think it's no longer on balance in our interest.

and i think that your point about the protection for the city to flourish outside them, and i remember the threat was mentioned at the time. the critical mass is here in london with all sorts of reasons that it has nothing to do with the eu. >> that is a very important point to make because not only do we promise that as an attachment but it was pretended and achieved to keep the secret to save themselves from the uk criminal law and i think that you are absolutely right on

this. it is no longer a sacrifice we are making or even decide a single market is not true. it is almost invariably followed when there are breaches of the rule. >> you are seeing more and more free-trade deals done that involve the terrorists when you look at the u.s. and australia deal. they were running at 4.3% and was a huge opportunity for us to get out from under an incredibly prescriptive over bureaucratic system to create a single policy out of many a.

you mentioned the figure as you put it there. can you describe how that number is? >> what is the document you are reading? >> the amount of legislation from europe is an update by the house of commons. it's >> and the date? >> is the 2014 figure. i was informed by my enthusiastic colleagues. it doesn't seem to be that long ago.

>> but as plus the 59% composed of? and >> it is the number of the eu regulations and the rate of statutory instruments i believe. >> you come out with a figure that we claimed that in fact you don't know what it consists of. the decisions may relate to an individual for. there are thousands of those related. at the conclusion of the note on

this it's possible to justify between 50 to 55% depending on -- i'm reading the note that you notes that you put in front depending on what is included or excluded. it is the range offered by the house of commons. what i animate heatedly trying to point out to you is that while it might be possible it's extremely important also if you want to try to acquire credibility in this debate to say there is a vast rate depending how you measure this is the house of commons library said you look at the directives into the decisions if you add the instruments of figure

expands. since they have affected this country and formed part of the justice it seems entirely right that we should look at that figure to conclude that there is too much legislation emanating from the eu. >> we had the key exchange we needed a figure of 58 or 59. >> you said it would cause a business uncertainty.

devoting energy from the problems of the country how long do you think that this period will last? >> it's important to the whole debate not to blame every problem the country in the eu. it need not last very long but there needed to be a period of uncertainty. >> if i may finish it is the millennium alarmism and people

said that planes would fall into computers would crash into the economy would tank. they set out two sets of arguments and it concluded i remember by saying that we have absolutely nothing to fear. and that is the truth. >> we've taken evidence from a number of people including figures to be the ambassador in brussels and he said he would have three parts. the we would have the negotiation that might last for two years on the arrangements. we would then have a negotiation about the future relationship with the eu and in addition to

that 50 free-trade negotiations to undertake. now, you've also said that the people do not vote has one or think as one or speak as one so how long do you think that it would take the other 27 member states to establish what their negotiating position is going to be? and >> one of the most interesting things about the potential to do the deals is i think that the fact of that the whole responsibility is now upon the commission for the representatives bear in mind we already have an extensive trading relationship. we have been investing for 44

years. it's already very well-developed it seems to me that it would be very hard to strike and do a free-trade deal of rapidly to see how that would be the case that u.s. australia deal as i just mentioned for instance took only two years three i think george altman is right when he said what we want is a british deal that represents an opportunity based largely on the arrangements. nobody is suggesting that we wouldn't be able to. that would be absurd. the question i'm asking is the period of uncertainty. you said a number of different

things you think it should look like. my question to you is do you think the other 27 member states have a degree degree to be good degree debate could agree to picture about the relationship that they want with the uk? >> i think we are not having this debate in isolation to see across the eu and people are already thinking about this and preparing for how they are friends and partners and would want to take things forward and it would be overwhelmingly in their interest to do with free-trade deals as rapidly as possible and many of them as you know have quite a substantial trade balances in their favor with us. they would want to protect their businesses and i think that the

uk is 16% through the rest of the eu as a huge chunk of the market. i'm happy to look at the experts that the german balance of trade is 27 billion net pounds that is a substantial incentive to strike a deal very fast that was advantageous. >> it's what they would want from the deal. >> that would be a variety of

interests across the eu and people would want to protect that as far as they possibly could. >> do you think that the interest of the economy and the greek economy are the same and they could say immediately they would have the same negotiating position and there would be no period of uncertainty? >> you would have to take the view about whether or not you were going to strike an agreement with the eu as a whole. don't forget that the eu retains confidence for international trade negotiations. i imagine the commission would be negotiating on behalf of both at the same time and it would be

possible to do the deal very rapidly based on the existing patterns of trade the council gives the commission the negotiating mandate. the practical negotiation i'm asking you about whether the member states might not take time to agree with negotiating matters. >> several of the most powerful is to get such a deal done as possible. because of the crisis they had their above all to minimize

uncertainty. >> the structure and interest could i ask you a question -- >> can i ask you another question about the uk negotiating position do you want to have access to the single market? spinnaker that is a term that is increasingly widely misunderstood. what we mean by that single the single market is seems to me is the whole european law as i say and adjudicated by the justice and in that sense it comprises everything from animal hygiene byproducts to the weight and size -- to the rights of the uk

prisons and whether we should be as important because all these things now are just as simple by luxembourg and my view is we should get out from under that system and a free-trade agreement that continued to give access to the goods and services on the european continent. you gave the impression you wanted to a deal on the 11th of march -- >> you took the impression that -- >> that's what you said on the sixth of march and on the 11th of march you wanted to like canadians.

>> if we are to end the period of uncertainty isn't terribly helpful for those people in the view. we have the officials in this country that are capable of negotiating the trade deals as no reason it shouldn't be done expeditiously indeed one of the interesting features of a deal in deed we were able to remove huge numbers of the barriers and we could do that which we are currently prevented from doing. >> the canadian deal doesn't include financial services.

>> i wanted a british deal. >> so you don't actually want to negotiate like a canadian and you don't actually want to negotiate like the swiss. there is the approach to think is right and there are aspects of the deal that's less attractive they was attractive they just voted against the movement as you know i think that that would be wrong for us but i see no reason at all given the huge balances of trade that they have with us favorable to them why they wouldn't want to do a free-trade deal with it is 10% or 16%, one of the biggest export markets. >> on the day that you came out,

it fell because they were an effective communicator and that made it more likely that it would happen. when we got the bank to european described this as the biggest domestic risk to financial stability. he said there would be volatility in the exchange markets and down the pressure on the foreign direct investment particularly in the tradable goods and on household consumption. are you not concerned that the period of uncertainty in the british economy would have those? >> first i don't believe, and i have looked at london at the moment and that is going on in our economy, no signs whatsoever

of people being discouraged from investing in coming to london that remains massively strong so i'm not quite certain. i seem to remember when we were considering whether going they made the right decision not to do so but people were saying very much the same sort of thing and it didn't transpire. on the contrary, they flourished as never before. you asked me about the pound and it will be as strong and robust as the economy and my view is that risks are in remaining in the eu. i am not now asking questions about the long-term i'm asking questions about the official

term, the period before we've agreed in the relationship to the period that we agree on the new relationship the period before we renegotiated the agreements when the government of the bank of england is telling us that there would be volatility in the foreign exchange market to be determined will impact on the direct investment and on the household consumption. if you could look beyond london we have 140,000 manufacturing jobs dependent on exports to the eu and the two biggest foreign direct investors have both said they wouldn't invest more in the event of the deficit.

do you think it is therefore responsible to submit these concerns? the >> you are wrong. they changed speeds >> as far as i can remember it said that said they would continue to invest irrespective. >> she said they wouldn't move it or put new investments in and get 27 million pounds for the foreign direct investment into this country every year and the period of uncertainty while you were deciding what a british deal meant and would mean in the investment for the period perhaps two years. don't you think that that is a worry for those people to have jobs in the northeast? >> northeast?

>> i think it shouldn't be and i hate very much that people would do their best to persuade those that are interested. as far as i can remember she did take a strong line in favor of the uk joining and said that did not obviously have been. neither of those two things happened and that was the right decision. i think that they would be more competitive if we leave and we would be able to set our own course and do our own trade deals and legislate in a way that is in the interest of the british manufacturing. >> a minute ago you were complaining that they wanted to structure the rules on the divide and now they are happy and the european rules and surely you can see that it's

ticking and we have 140,000 jobs >> of course if it had been selling into the european markets where there will continue to be a standard center center for the european level of this would be the interest to make the vehicles that are acceptable just like they make them acceptable for the united states where they also have many detailed provisions for what they want in their markets. i really think that there is such a deal of negativity in the ability to do this and we are missing a massive opportunity to make this country more competitive to set our own economic course and to restore democracy in this country.

just over three years ago you said we could construct the relationship more closely except we would be inside of the single market council. if you are very supportive of the idea of a single market, would you cast some doubt? and >> what is the single market complex is now being scrapped.

i was speculating about a possible relationship you could have. it doesn't really make sense because in the end you are either a part of a single judicial system or you're not your not and the difficulty that we would have, going back to the referendum's a while back to get rid of all the stuff that isn't necessary to react to -- >> in the end i'm giving you a very clear picture. >> are you for or against the referendum's approach? and then afterwards that is the in-depth relationship. with if we don't try to engage in another referendum. i want to be clear if that is your view.

it's very helpful that we have that clarification. >> you have been clear. >> do you agree that a large portion of the trading goods that would come in as you know they have a surplus with us so the trading goods would be covered under the wto rules? >> and therefore germany is more likely to be given access than we were for the services which are dependent.

>> it is certainly the case that they have in my view a massive interest making better use of the case. that has never happened in the past and it would be utterly foolish to the economy is further in a massive resource in this area. and the services that we excel are vital for any company that wants to raise capital this is the place. we had a total trade with europe

the uk represents about 15% of the gdp in europe. it is 45% of the exports but in terms of europe to take the exports to the uk between seven to 10%. the plant i'm trying to make. but the relative importance for us. it's the total trade of the eu, 10% roughly a dozen small but far less significant.

i just, i think it would need very curious. to totally be self-destructive. >> this conversation is not happening in a vacuum. everybody is thinking about this. the time is now. people can prepare. one of the great things about -- you talk about germany france and you are a playwright to talk about these countries we talk about other countries where they had trade deficits and who i

think we cleared that up, i think we cleared that point at the moment or two ago. as you know the confidence for negotiating trade deals with european commission if i may elaborate that point for a minute one of the problems we have in the country and trying to do free trade deals around the world is the e.u. commission m.i.t. was not well written on international trade so for instance the city is doing brilliantly more than los angeles will but because of french objections we could never do a free trade deal that involves the audiovisual sector. it would be hopeless for the u.k. economy. we need to have the ability to strike our ideals and let me talk about the services in particular. think you mentioned three.

those are off to the u.k. domiciles and the u.k.. can you think of many international bankers specifically somebody who is a member of an international tank like cool goldman, deutsche bank, and a number of banks which agrees with the fact that you would be better off outside of europe? >> i can certainly say that there have been plenty of people i've spoken to from this type of institution it was felt to get back to where we began this conversation the boundless argument is much more equivocal than is commonly believed. london has the right language.

>> bed does not concur with what i find. i have to say i am getting a different message. >> perhaps that's true but respectfully i will direct you back to what some of them were saying at the time of the euro debate. goldman sachs is very clear who that would be a terrible mistake for britain not to go in. we have the same from the cpi from lord mandelson and all sorts of people and from colleagues of ours. i had back in 1991 and interesting -- suggesting a single market could not be complete without a single

currency. fortune laity have also misrepresented it quite badly. if you go further on in the document you will find interesting testimony explaining why the project of the euro is being thought of as a single dangerous moment. >> never say never. >> it's very -- it's very kind of you porous. >> i just thought i'd bring it up. you are illustrating exactly what i began the session with today's which is very harsh

humorous approach to a very serious question of the u.k. and what we really need is a much more balanced -- in which people make an effort to qualify and represent the points they make. represent each other's views with some accuracy. >> i'm glad you said that because i think some of my views are being critiqued and i'm grateful to you for the opportunity to speak earlier in this hearing to set straight some of the gross misrepresentations that are being made. for. >> we have a question. >> we heard a little bit the term corporation and many institutions -- with the city of

london and i think it's perfectly -- perfectly reasonable. who the bank of england has said the u.k. has failed to negotiate the proper agreement on financial services with europe that it would be detrimental for london. do you disagree with those institutions? >> there are plenty who take an opposing view in i'm prescient is the dash is very moderate about this and most people think mistakes are much lower than they were. the interesting feature, exports in the last 10 years exporting financial services to the e.u. have gone down from 39% to about

32% possibly lower as a proportion of our exports. the opportunities are around the world to go global. what i see is play staying with the e.u. system where we. the right to set straight e arrangements to be commission we are creating a huge opportunity and i think it would be massively beneficial. >> just one question because you talk about the rest of the world we asked them why they want to trade in london, for why the u.s. the fact -- and every single one of them talked about the cluster effect but they also talk about the fact that you have access to the single market

and that's incredibly important. all of them are saying we would be -- to come out of europe. >> the access to 550 million people are too many my view. >> but how can you be sure to ask. >> just because they would be, those countries will, countries trade with countries with each other. business is trade with each other. businesses need to find places to raise capital. they need support. they need services of all kinds. they need to continue to find them in london and i think if you look at the story since the decision not to go into the euro the story of unbelievable growth and dynamism which they completely failed to spot and they were wrong then and they are wrong now and i do want to

say one thing i've been wrestling with this is problem you raise. why there's a certain type of person very often and that the corporations or the big banks to take this line and there is an enormous european industry of lobbyists and people involved in negotiations and all these kinds of things basically one way or the other turning left as a result of our membership of the european union and that is the reality. i think the people that i think would benefit massively from this change would be i think those companies, the people who would benefit massively or the 95% of u.k. businesses that do not actually support the e.u. but have to comply with 100% of the regulations.

>> i would like to finish up the one area which is nobody can deny the european market is the single biggest in the world and financial services are also impacted and the rest of the world wants to trade with europe with what one key to a great deal of this is the regulation that comes from financial services as a result and the fact that that dodd-frank actually that these financial service regulations tend to lead the world because they are very good regulations. but when we come out of europe we would have no implants on those regulations. we would have an architecture of regulus -- regulation which be written by europe.

why would we want to give up an initiative to be able to influence the world financial regulation? >> your knowledge of the sect or i don't think that's entirely accurate about what happened. many of these standards, many of these regulations are now set not in the single intel market or whatever we want to call it. actually they are international regulations based on bodies. the fsb, cpm i in which if you think about the imf or the wto's , it's a paradox actually i think that written would gain in some of these who markets. let me explain why.

if you look at the wto or the imf or the g7, g20 bodies to try to set standards for national services or try to have a role in this, the e.u. as an institution is now trying to depose itself into speak for all 28 in those debates. and actually what you would find is the u.k. would regain strength. >> it's a fantastically complex area. there have been an awful lot of institutions around the world. in america these have been led by us and europe is still catching up. you cannot deny that the biggest

economy in the world would have a less influential part to play in the international agreement and britain would be an important financial services center. it's not the same size banking market. if you extract britain, yeah. >> i think paradoxically what you might get is an intensification of european influence in global conversations. you would have not just the e.u. speaking but you would have the u.k. with all its influence in financial affairs are on the table as well. as i'm sure you would need a lot of coordination between us. one of the difficulties is we as a country now are more and more

devoted in the european consulate of the ministers and it's 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 and put particularly in financial services. >> nonetheless and i wouldn't disagree with you and i completely agree with you there many in the european union and ott it's best if we are going to be inside negotiating to try to change that. guess that was -- and that was the position many of us have been in before. i think several things have

changed my belief on that's possible. first of all the annihilation of -- over human rights. we thought that we were told that this had more significance and it's now in the ec j. and being used by the court of justice. it was perfectly obvious. i think a lot of people were very encouraged and 2013 to talk of wholesale reform with fundamental re-concentration powers and so on. i don't think anybody in their right man -- his right mind could pretend that hasn't happened and when you look at, this is something that there were two sizes argument. many tend to deny deny that the demand when you when you have a

massive concentration of power that is now taking place in the e.u. and the loss of control in of control and the borders without immigration which i think is so damaging to public confidence in politics. i think the argument only goes one way and i'm interested, you haven't asked the mayor of london about the impact of immigration. >> you will get more questions. rachel. >> thank you chairman. on the 11th of march he said what i think we should do was to strike a new trade deal with. >> as i said before several times i think what we want is the british deal. it we wouldn't be in the same position and we would be able to

do a deal very rapidly. the attraction of the canadian deal, one of them, the attraction of the canadian deal is adam baltz removal of tariffs but that his not all, there's a lot more we could do. >> when the negotiations started , they started in 2009 and at the moment they are not enforce the e.u. comes up to negotiate. so it takes quite a long time. with maybe trade negotiations are pretty good. it took seven years to negotiate a deal and it's still not enforce. the former canadian trade minister who had negotiations says is factual but there's a

real relationship between canada and the u.k.. we would want a much deeper relationship then the canadian canadian. >> that's right. the point about the canadian deal obviously izzy got to be very different, these are two different trading relationships. the e.u. deal with canada took a while to negotiate and the u.k. which has been a member of the e.u. for 44 years and the u.s. australia deal which was completed in less than two years. >> between the u.s. australia deal in the deal of the e.u. and this is what -- any ambition and

ott that's not the same if a deal with u.s. and australia. that is why it takes time. that means years of uncertainty, barriers to trade with the u.k. and a drop in investment. in your response to mr. garnier he said of course arguments on both sides could be compelling arguments. >> no i don't think there are good arguments. they are not good economic arguments. >> the governor of the bank of england is not making with -- the cpi, they are all making

political arguments. >> i think that quite seriously the economic impact of britain would be -- in fact my economic adviser overwhelmingly thought it was the right thing to do and i have to say i agree with him. it would unshackle us from a great deal of regulation and would be a huge boost for british democracy and we would take back control of considerable sums of money. >> do you think part of the success of the u.k. is being an outward looking trading nation? >> yes, i do. >> in that case do not think having free trade with their nearest neighbors is an important part of our success?

>> i do and i see absolute no reason why that should not be perpetuated. >> at lease the agreement of 27 liters was out of canada is still finding is not always that easy to be achieved. what evidence do you have too suggested that we will be able to achieve -- achieve an agreement? >> i said the prime minister david cameron lord kerr said we would be alludes do a free trade deal. there is absolutely no reason. >> can you point to any trade agreement with the e.u. or other countries? >> i think people will want to understand the context. the u.k. who remained within the

treaty for two years anyway and i believe it would be abundant time to negotiate a free trade. any european country or any e.u. country that wishes not to do a free trade deal with us then i need to hear about it. >> a bit of respect. with respect mr. johnson my question was do you know of any trade deal with the e.u. and other countries that took less than two years, yes or no? >> no. >> okay then i will move on. >> you are making, my point if i may say one of the catastrophic weaknesses of the system is that the e.u. is unable to strike these deals.

they cannot do a free trade deal even with china. iceland has done a freeh -- free trade deal with china. >> it's very difficult to kill trade relations. it takes such a long time to make a deal. >> it's absolute total nonsense. as you know perfectly well there is a free trade barrier in the european landmass stretching to portugal to turkey to the borders of russia but it is absolutely nonsensical to try to pretend that britain is somehow going to be a british economy. to get to my point it's not britain that trades come its british companies. they will continue to trade more than ever before. countries with people and partners on the continent of

europe and i think 70% of our non-e.u. trade is done without any trade deals whatever. >> we may well trade however whether we have a trade agreement or whether we have other non-terrorist periera's -. >> you really have got to stop interrupting. >> forgive me. if you would try to address the question. i trust the one you would like to hear or have asked. we make up our minds. rachel reese. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i pick on canada because it's a country that is an example of this.

he said what he thought we should do is try to be on the line with canada but on the canadian deal do you think making this deal is good for the service sector in canada and the e.u. market? >> the question has been asked before but it think the canadian deal has some aspects that are attracted such as the ruble of 90% of tara's. that seems to be an attraction. it's not ideal for the u.k. but it is a british deal and that is what we'll get. >> let's look at tariffs and then look at the non-tariff barriers. let's look at agriculture for an example. some tariffs have been eliminated in most areas but not all and more than 90% of the u.k. sheep exports go to the

e.u. but tariffs are on those exports for canada still exist and are up more than 12%. so there are still tariff barriers. do you think the dash would be good for farmers in the u.k.? >> as i said there are attractions to the canadian deal. there are things that we would do much much better in the fact that the u.k. has been part of the e.u. for 44 years bodes very well for doing a substantial free trade deal involving the comprehensive deal on services and goods and indeed on agricultural products. they have vastly no interest not to do such a deal. >> you make that assertion mr. johnson but the finance

minister who appeared with the same day that you did said you were either in the single market or you are not in the single market and if you are not in it than you have trade arrangements so we may have those as you rightly say currently but it's no guarantee what lever we would have to access these other countries you mentioned this morning such as switzerland and norway to contribute to the e.u. budget and free movement. you seem to want to have the best of both worlds so we all agree it would be fantastic however the reality -- the reality is not always the same for and i like to deal in realities. mr. johnson if we move on now to the other aspect of the canada

deal inside the e.u. financial firms sell directly to e.u. countries through carport thing. does canada have that? >> on passport in a see no reason why our partnership not want to continue when you consider their banks would be considerably -- their presence in london. they would want to have reciprocal rates. >> we will observe one minute of silence in the house of commons in respect for the events in brussels. rachel you may need to interrupt.

mr. chairman again mr. johnson canada wanted further barriers to be broken down but i don't think it's what we will get everything that we want to negotiations. >> if i may say --. >> you are not pointing to any evidence and i'm pointing to the evidence that exists based on trade deal and the trade deal that you wanted and it's an important decision when our constituents are having to make such important decisions. if you look again at the airline industry the relationship between canada and the e.u. again -- the single market does

so i believe there are risks to the kennedy old -- canada deal and most manufactures as well. i haven't seen any evidence that we could secure it. >> unlike canada we have been a member of the european union for 45 years. >> guts of our membership to the e.u. we have access to the single market. and other trade terriers and making my point because we are members of the e.u. we have a better deal going canada. >> thanks to the close relationships in the understanding there is between our countries and our systems of trade given the substantial balances that they have with us by france and germany but also spain and other countries i

think in getting a free trade deal. >> we are at 11:00 a.m.. [silence]

>> do continue boris. you are halfway through. >> well i think i completed my point. >> you have no difficulty at all with negotiating. >> we have a huge number of very competent officials, about 1700 and came to negotiate trade deals. the european commission which does have trade deals fresen 3.6%, 3.6% of commission officials come from this country and i would also like to know

how you think and i will ask rhetorically how do people think we can expect that european commission to do deals with other countries around the world >> mr. johnson that took seven years to negotiate and it will take seven years to implement. it will take until 2030 to get access to markets as we have access today. last of all let me just quote. there was evidence on the eighth of march for one of those seven on people doing negotiations and he was an ambassador to the u.k. or representative in brussels and many years a chaperone on g20 deals.

he said different countries have different views. on the european union site would take some time to work out what they want to do. he is one of those 17 and the people that i have every confidence he would be able to do the negotiation that as you said it would take some time. >> i think you are being too pessimistic about our ability to do these deals. if you look at what the prime minister has said and what lord kerr said a permanent representative to the e.u. there's absolutely no doubt we could do a free trade deal in my view in short order because it's overwhelmingly in the interest of not just the u.k. but of our partners to do such a deal.

>> it's either single market or you have a trade agreement. >> as we want. >> have a trade agreement to give up all the benefits? >> absolutely and that is the way forward and i would just remind you, i say that because if you look at -- i remember that. he spoke of the disaster that would happen with on the european continent, it disaster for the european economy of the u.k. left and in my view the disaster is being caused by the euro and a catastrophic failure of that policy driven by germany and unemployment rates that have

increased. i'm not going to take lessons from -- the economic disaster in europe. if look at what has happened to that continent. >> order, order. i would ask you to be quieting down. that may very well be an interesting point that but it's not closely related to the question you are asked. i would like to ask you a question though, i should tell you i don't know but is there a free trade agreement, bilateral free trade agreement between two regional bodies that gives full access to services? >> i don't think there is but if

there is come back and let us -- if by that question you are implying. >> things are very difficult to negotiate. >> if you are applying that the rest -- implying that the rest of the european union is produced to discriminate against u.k. financial services i don't think that would happen for one minute. the president is they are in a case of the euro. we are told that money and power would migrate away and need not happen. they were wrong then and they are wrong now. >> 85% in those polls and 87 in other polls. you make one other remark. he said the governor of the bank of england was making a

political argument. do you think the governor was going on beyond -- going beyond his reach? >> i have a high regard for the governor the of the bank and i wouldn't want to --. >> do you believe it can cope them both making the announcement and you think it's part of the agreement? >> i'm sure you asked him. i think he is expressing his views of the bank of england. i happen to think. >> that was the right to do so? >> i think he is a perfect right to express his views. i don't happen to agree with them. >> fair enough. >> i think it's he has a perfect right to express his views. >> does he have a right to make

a political argument about the referendum? >> i think what he was saying was they were short-term --. >> we had it translated but there is an economic argument remaining in the european union that the government has made and the governor of the bank of england would make the economic argument and are you confident that consisted of samir positions of different this morning? i want to comment about the negotiations referendum. unlike our former man in brussels you have been negotiating for years. we will get that deal pretty much on the same terms as we have now because we have had that relationship with the european union. on what basis? i'm sure you would pay some

penalties because you made that answer yourself. i'm just wondering if you make an argument with an ott nonetheless you said yourself in august of 2015 we were facing some penalties. what penalties did you have in mind? >> i'm sure there would be some other frankly have no idea what. they may be so prudish as to try to but there will be some short-term feeling of hurt perhaps with some of our european friends. to point out that it was overwhelmingly in the interest not just of the u.k. but if the whole of the european union that would we should stop with

something that is in my view out of control, is anti-democratic and is weakening the trust of people in polics. if you look at what's happening across the e.u. you have the rise of the far right and you have got anti-german demonstrations taking place in greenland. and i think the e.u. certainly has been very damaging. >> it repeatedly talks about the euro and exclusion of the euro even if we still had a single market. i would like to move on if i may to the domestic implications in the event of a vote. again i see this picture i

minister merging and it may be a different prime minister. this new land where weekend -- it will be dealing with the practical economic realities of the european union. do you not, i think you said earlier there's no reason for uncertainty. do you not agree if we were to leave the european union there wouldn't be an economic shock? >> no. the best comparator is with the y2k bug. >> okay, your own economic adviser has said leaving the e.u. would be an economic shock. you don't agree with the governor of the bank of england and you can explain why and now you don't agree with your own economic adviser. please point to any evidence beyond argument that tells us

there will not be an economic shock. >> the most obvious i've been absolute clear that there is a massive need that it's overwhelmingly the right thing to do. secondly what is the evidence that it would not be an economic shock that would simply point out that you prefer to all the arguments that were made at the time of the euro decision and there were many people who were saying then -- i think on the contrary you have galvanized. >> order, order. >> we have heard that argument 67 times. a very interesting point that we

have voted for and now you need to engage to the question. >> even the cpi will recently said that they had a study that came out a couple of days ago in which they predicted it would happen and even, which i thought was crazy and negative but even in their most negative -- there were still 3 million more jobs by 2030 and i did happen to agree that they were right. what would happen is for the british economy of british dockers they would take back control over our borders and we would take back control over 8.5 billion pounds that we sent to brussels.

>> it's high time frankly that we did so. >> you can't tell us what it it would look like. >> why are you predicting an economic shock? >> your economic advisers predicted the economic shock and you don't agree. let me just say, let me just take your own view which i think was your view at the time. when you are questioned by andrew he -- to describe what would happen in the event of a -- and he said there would be a period presumably in your diagram which is not helpful and you said it's mine. he said it might. if night.

>> arrests are roughly the same as those of the y2k millennium bug and we are open to needless negative --. >> hang on a minute. you keep on falling back. the only relevance of the y2k bug here it is there isn't much evidence for the argument that you are making. i decided your economic adviser. an independent report released by the ppi was conducted by dwz and that -- 950,000 jobs. how many job offers would it take before you would change your mind with the european

union? >> at the study that report closely as i'm sure you have the will find its predictably 3 million more jobs. >> i believe the country as a whole would be 10 million pounds better off from day one and we would be able to invest that money in projects and services that our country needs. secondly they would take back control of our frontiers and we would relieve the causal pressure on wages, the downward pressure on wages. this is very important. you are asking would we be better off? >> i'm trying to bring you back

to the next two or three years. >> let's talk about it. >> i'm not going to instruct you to stop interrupting the questioner again. order. let him ask his question and then try to address your answer to the question not to what the question you want to be. >> in this return they would be an economic shock to of course there is because there's natural uncertainty. even if the government has a clear position about its negotiations for which as far as i'm aware doesn't we would still have to -- that breeds uncertainty and there is risk

and i am afraid i put a bit more stock in independent analysis by the economist so i'm wondering what would you have done with and what could happen to jobs in the london in the next two to three years and how many in london would it take to poor people who lead on the trading floor or the queen the trading floor how many jobs --. >> the london economy would benefit from the removal of the huge amount of regulation and red tape. i would also benefit many people of low income who currently have very poor access to -- the nhs for education or whatever it happens to be puts pressure on those services from uncontrolled

immigration. on pro-immigration that believe it's absolutely wrong for the competition to be able to control those. the lassar which we have figures we have 330,000 foot emigrated to this country. i believe you should care about about -- it emphasizes the downward pressure on the wages. it has greatly exacerbated the ability and made it much more difficult for services. this put huge pressure on public services of all kinds. it's not reasonable for us in london or anywhere also this country to be asked to cope with those kinds of numbers without a measure of control. you continue to tell me they can't control it when they can

do people feel that very strongly and i think it was -- he came to this committee and made the point that perhaps it could would lead to an increase in wages. >> i think that something you might talk about jobs and the impact on jobs. [inaudible] you must surely say your views have changed and i'm just wondering whether further down the track we have negotiated britain taking part in the single market you suggest that we might be subject to regulation and they may still insist on -- and even if they didn't in a city like london it still relies on immigration for its economy. >> but controlled immigration. the politicians should continue to tell their electorates that they can control numbers and

there's no reason at all why this country shouldn't be able to continue to attract tons of people but without having a policy. the whole argument has changed very much over the last 20 years or so. basically you were able to move to a non-e.u. country if you were in search, if you have a job to go to. i have to go and report to -- i had to show evidence that i had a job. that is no longer the case under the doctrine of european citizenship. anybody who travels around in search to receive benefits and that is leading to colossal pressures across the e.u.. when you have a free travel area today and take free travel area and have huge difficulties in controlling immigration coming in to the e.u. zone then you are

making life really really difficult for the government at all levels. >> i just want to finish on the issue of trust. firstly are you not concerned that if we were to lead leave the european union we be subjected to regulations and let me make this point. we'd still be subjected to e.u. regulations. are you not concerned that people would leave the european union on the basis of sovereignty and the second thing i will give you a chance in a moment. the second thing is -- the facts , many people would doubt that this morning you put puts forth a case -- do not understand why many of us find it hard to believe that the win

over the course of your political career you have made a very different argument? >> i haven't and to answer your second first, i don't -- you'd be hard pressed to find a single british journalist who has written more about the failures of democracy and the e.u. over the last 30 years than me. but the possible exception of daniel hamm and i don't think there's a single one and i have given you my information on what i think is going wrong and is going wrong with the european union. what we need to do is take back control and particularly over the funds and over our borders. somebody sent me a cutting from 25 years ago which predicted

thursday january the 17th, 1991 predicted the e.u. is facing 800,000 immigrants a year and as i reported in 1992 through an increasing sense of of -- british anxieties. from czechoslovakia to spain to algeria to london. that was 25 years ago the same time andrew was writing about completing a single market. accurately predicting what would happen in a porter for europe and to your first about wall would happen post-britain and what we do, there is no reason at all why you should not be

able to have free trade as it exists as i say to the borders with russia without having to free movement in the way that we currently have it. didn't exist before wall street anyway. why is it necessary? there's no reason why we should have it. >> when you spoke in the house of commons in 2003 i had the strong impression from that meeting that you strongly supported enlargement of immigration and what came with it. have you changed your view? >> i would support of the enlargement because it was in the view of the government and i thought rightly the british view that if we widened the e.u. would somehow become a more tenuous relationship and would

be a looser arrangement. what happened instead is the widening of the e.u. has seen an intensification of the dominance of germany. let's be totally clear about what is happening. the whole federal structure has accentuated german preponderance within europe. as for migrants. >> if i could clarify with respect to that enlargement and the associated immigration. >> i think it was the blair government had decided prematurely to a lousy e.u. countries to have free movement and to get rid of the derogation as i recall. >> i'm just trying to clarify -- you said you change your view and i was looking at away 72,003 he said it is hard to think of the measure for the introduction

of 10 countries into the e.u.. the east european member states. the government could have brought to the house supporting more -- and you also said quite recently and for the life of me i cannot see immigration on the grounds that it increases prices. >> i think there are plenty of reasons, they are up plenty of pressures that immigration puts on all kinds of services and the point i was making was the impact of foreign buyers on the london market. i think that has been grossly exaggerated. what is certainly the case is if you look at welfare and the nhs and you have wages at the bottom

and in their huge pressures caused by immigration and put nobody wanted to see -- the question that i'm asking and i'm sorry to interrupt but we have to finish at 12 and we have three more coming in. he said it's rubbish that you changed your view and i'm just trying to clarify what your views are now about immigration and what constitutes clarification? >> i'm in favor of immigration but i'm in favor of controlled immigration. >> that's what you meant when he said you support expansion in the e.u.? >> even though there were no proposals for control on the table. >> it was the blair government that i recall that decided to ditch the derogations and allow unfettered. >> unfettered immigration eight eight. >> there were other countries exercising, the countries

decided to protect themselves against such laws and continue to have derogation. >> heather has one point that she wants to come back to. who we will run over if necessary. >> thank you very much. the cbi document claims will 3 million jobs would be -- but it says in the short-term are results of employment levels will fall. over the longer term total u.k. employment could be around 350 to 600,000 lower in hour to exit scenarios rather than remaining in the e.u.. that's what they say. they do not say it would increase by 3 million.

>> you have got to combine take 10.1 and take 5.5. i leave that to your ingenuity and you will see even the worst-case scenario --. >> i think you are reading from my scrap. >> i quite understand but we will now take it -- and come back for the end of the hearing. >> mr. johnson i had the pleasure of hearing your 2003 speech. that's the first time i've heard you speech and you also said then that we didn't have the european union who will or invent something like it is overnight -- it was the most

pro-european speech that i had heard in parliament. with the mood of mr. blair and his government at the time but it's interesting how people change their views. one of the things that you said that i thought was an appropriate from the british law of a parliamentary select committee the government of the bank of england had to reread it contract that he is not allowed to make political comments. you have said that he has made political commentary to i give you the opportunity mr. johnson. >> i didn't say that. >> mr. johnson you said the governor of the bank of england has made political commentary in relation to what you said that this committee and i give you the opportunity just to correct the record verbatim to correct the record with what you meant

to say was the governor of the bank of england made proper economic commentary. would you like to -- the record? >> my memory of what i said is they governor of the bank of england was free to say what he wanted to. >> you said but little comments. .. the reason or to say on record we will see what you said, in my view your comment is

inappropriate to a committee like this. we will see where that takes us in the future. you also referred to the canadian, and that we could be like canada. you said in relation to the canadian agreement, i'm quoting you again, that it is the wholesale removal -- and you also said we may need a deeper relationship the canada has for our 44 years. in that canadian agreement, what is the single stumbling block that led to not being able to sign it during his tenure? >> one of the biggest difficulties is obviously condit canada has a very different

history. >> know one big stumbling block. one stumbling block for this disagreement. i am asking you what that stumbling block is? >> the attraction of the canadian agreement is the free trade, and a huge number of areas. as i said before, i don't consider england to be the perfect model. >> the reason they didn't sign it and the reason it has taken seven years to not be enacted is because the e you insisted in those negotiation that human rights be included. that is the reason they refused to sign it. knowing in fact in it there is significant factors related to

human rights. this small agreement, how long is that? >> you seem to attach, one thing i might point out is it serves us to currently be -- >> my question is how long was the agreement? >> how long is the canadian agreement? >> i cannot tell tell you how long the canadian agreement is. >> it is you who attach such great, are you aware of the canadian agreement that you signed it? >> i'm not aware.

>> are you aware of the concept? >> are you aware of the content on human rights? >> i think it is absurd that the trend three should be introducing it into international -- >> we just need to have you reply to a specific question. >> i have to say it is absurd that the obstacle to the tram three trade agreement and i see no reason why the charter should be relevant to our tray concern.

whether the 55 articles of the charter of the fundamental rights were noted and some are very particular indeed. you can wave your normal understanding of human rights. why on earth the trend ran -- >> doesn't the current trade negotiations ongoing with canada? >> it shows why we need the negotiation. >> why is the canadians that have a similar that it took seven years to negotiate the

canadian products can only be imported and sold in the eu if they fully respect the eu regulations. without any exemption. so the e you and the current negotiations is requiring regulations so our canadian products reach the eu. >> i don't want to be disrespectful to this committee but of course if you want to sell into a market you have to make sure that you comply with the requirements. that is is the case for the u.s. exporting to the eu, one of the interesting things is in spite of not being a member of the so-called market, the u.s. has seen a much bigger increase in its export then we have.

same is true of switzerland. countries don't trade with countries, people trade with people. businesses trade businesses trade with businesses. they will continue to do so. >> so you raised a point in 2002, what is your set cement with the negotiations ongoing with china? >> if you're talking about the eu china? >> know i'm talking about the british negotiations. >> i'm sorry, i cannot give you informed commentary on that. except. except that i'm very sad that we are currently unable to do a free-trade deal with china. that power, that that confidence has been given to the eu.

and china refuses specific negotiations with the u.k., two weeks time of the very issue. >> i'm sure. >> the animal byproduct stander that you happen to quote, which country initiated that? >> i can't recall. >> you came in the same time i dated in 2003, you can't recall that? so why did that directive get brought in at the government? >> of course, we wanted if i recall to restore trade and british livestock, we had the rest at the eu. we were keen to persuade them to accept.

>> if i recall they didn't actually in spite of our membership with the eu, they did. they did it illegally. and a highly distribute tory way. >> you cited that in this example of regulation, but in fact that regulation, which you did not vote against the government was precisely to tackle. >> i don't know maybe you were not here at the beginning of this conversation a few hours ago, but the chairman said this is the evidence that you cannot recycle teabags.

i pointed out that this resulted from counsel manically over it interpreting and e.u. derivative. and that related to the bc. what i commented on was the ludicrous part of that behavior. >> the beauty, mr. johnson of these hearings is there is a record of them. that is the beauty. if any witnesses inconsistent and that can be taken into consideration. you said there were 2500 per year. you have now been around six years now, you came in the same day as me, how many have you

voted against? >> i do not recall. >> you have been in for about six years, starting the, starting the same day as i did. how many, that would be around 15000 you are claiming, how many have you voted against? >> many of them as you know. >> how many? 10,000 question? >> it was a completely pointless. there is absolutely nothing this parliament can do to stop the vast majority. >> any member -- there's nothing you can do and asking whether there is anything we can do practically to stop it effectively. >> any member can force results

on any issue in here. so i'm asking you come on how many occasions out of these 15000 you have attempted, or by speaking to block them, of the 15000? >> i would have to get back on what i said. i certainly remember but it was made clear to me that this would have to go through the house of commons and it was very difficult. in fact nothing we could do about it. under the 1972 your -- >> during your period of time in here how many did you vote against? >> because it wouldn't make no

difference whatsoever. i think it's up serve to pretend otherwise. this house has has no ability to stop european legislation. >> i think the point has been well made. i do want to pick up on one of the agriculture points that we were bringing. >> european nager -- agriculture [inaudible conversation]

>> that has about 400 pounds a year,. [inaudible] if the average household? >> there'd be some reductions in the cost of food made possible by giving there some provisions. i think it is very important on my side of the argument to stress that we believe in sepsis

subsidizing agriculture. i think it be unreasonable to think we could survive without. >> the number. you used a specific number, are you saying it's not 400? what? >> the cost of food as a result of this. >> by who? >> i would be very happy to write to you the progress of that statistic. [inaudible] >> i be very happy to supply you with the origins of the number.

if you support agriculture there will be a next her cost. the question for us -- is it will be efficient in this way. >> you introduce the number, you don't know where it came from. is it 400 pounds? or do you know? >> there is a cost to it. >> you gave us a specific number a few weeks ago and now you are telling me it could be more or less than that. >> because you're talking about savings, i'm talking about cost. >> you said a 400-pound cost. if we leave, i am asking do we know where that came from?

>> [inaudible conversation] >> what we continue to receive the current government subsidy. we need to make sure the payments for -- >> the current level, what you mean by that? the money that comes from europe? he goes out, money comes back in. >> it would be massive savings

in the form of -- the budget would be european agriculture guidance fund is something to which we are huge contributors. we need to pay and more than we get back. we save, i think it is about a very considerable amount that we put in the european system. >> what you don't understand -- [inaudible conversation] >> the 400 which you have used and it comes from taxpayers and it does not include the money

that comes back -- even if. >> it doesn't include the money that comes back the money is that we contribute about 20 billion and we get back through funds or whatever balance and we get back about 10 billion.

>> let me explain to that you understand farmers get money back. 400 pounds which you are using which does not include the ones that is an exaggerated figure. >> it's an extra cost and it partly impacts in my view the bureaucracy and the support of the intervention, refunds, all sorts of mechanisms that are inefficient. i think it would be possible to have strong domestic support. and to support british farmers in a way dashmac's how how would you change the support? >> what you really do is it might be the e.u. is witting

evil in the way it discriminates against agriculture products for instance. i think there groups that would benefit, families in this country that come from the market by a -- i think people should care about that very much. i think the system of intervention of price intervention, although they moved away from that a great deal it is still crazy. >> what your system would be? >> my sister would be basically a foundation, something that obviously, government politics aside. my preference would be to have

payments that support agriculture and the weight needs to be supported. and stewardship payments as well. many farmers need support looking after the land and not just for producing. >> is absolutely vital to get that across so that would be at the level where they currently enjoy. >> so actually the 400 pounds. >> know because i already said the e.u. system, the cap would have mechanisms -- [inaudible conversation] >> the cap was invented and the result is ben the e.u. should

has done fantastic in the interest of sugarcane producers. they're facing huge problems with ae use approach. a trainer can produce -- >> we get your point. you set on several points this morning that there was an existing free trade against the whole europe. that's not true. true. agriculture is not subject to pretrade. if the u.k. -- by being outside

i should mention because the e.u. and you just mentioned, so are you saying that we, unlike, we would have to negotiate free-trade access? >> i think it's easy to do given the huge exports of agriculture from the e you. they be insane not to do something without agriculture products. >> they were then required access. >> have already discussed free-trade agreements with the e.u. has done. free-trade, they might. but on the other hand they might not want their wine to face that

in this country. >> so you advocate trade tariffs? >> no. >> i want to think about the world, is a great that that we should be trading globally. >> there subjected to the same things that will everyone else. here in the e.u. we are facing tariffs and i think it's illegal to -- so you won't get rid of that.

>> i did. and it's true. yes. want to keep free access for the rest of the e.u. to do so. however, there is a reason i think for us to be taunted by the cap. you sent in a huge ship to brussels, that gets dissipated through the e.u. and it gets much smaller amount on the way back. what we would have is a system that will be able to support our agriculture and supported generously, massive saving. >> so we would spend more. >> in some areas you might spend more but at some areas, many people would say that some of

the big barriers have done very well with the cap. but it has benefited producers in this country. >> i'm grateful for you for bringing it up, it's a handy reference point for the effect on prices of the cap. what i say to you. >> but you can't justify the 40. >> well you know it's their calculation. what i say to you is there is place for savings and the whole bureaucracy. but also if you wonder how much we can say