a measure -- this is the measure for the introduction of ten countries into the eu, including the a-8 east european member state. think of a measure. the government could have brought to the house that i could support more unreservedly and with more pleasure. >> of course. >> you said quite recently for the life of me i cannot see economic logic of restricting immigration on the grounds that it increases house prices. >> i think there are plenty of pressures that the immigration putts on all kinds of services. and i think the point i was making there was about the impact of foreign buyers on the london market. and, you know, i think that's been gracefully exaggerated. what is certainly the case is that if you look at welfare,

nhs, if you look at wages, the bottom end, there's been huge pressures caused by immigration. and i think what nobody wanted to see -- >> wait. >> was -- >> the question i'm asking you, though, is quite straightforward. i'm sorry to interrupt. it's because we hope to end at 12:00. i'm trying to clarify if you feel what you're saying now kons institutes -- >> i'm in favor of immigration. i'm in favor of 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 controls on the table at the time. >> it was the blair government, as i recall, that decided to ditch the derogations and allow unfettered -- >> so you were -- >> unfettered immigration. and that i think was a mistake. >> you were assuming that a derogation would appear? >> yeah. other countries exercised it.

>> of course. >> other countries decided, mr. tyrie, to protect themselves against such flows and continue to have the derogation. >> something others -- >> we chose not to. >> hannah has one point to come back and then i have two further colleagues to get in if we can and we'll run over if necessary. >> thank you very much. you said that the cbi 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 over the longer term total uk employment could be around 350,000 to 600,000 lower in the two exit scenarios relative to remaining in the eu. >> can i -- >> that's what they say. they do not say that it will increase by 3 million, mr.

johnson. >> well, it does. what you do is combine -- tables 4.1 and 5.5. i leave that to your ingenuity and that is -- and you will see that even the worst-case scenario there is a gain. >> i'm not sure you're quite on top of the tables as you appear since you're reading from a scrap that's passed to you from your colleagues. >> you have been constantly conferring with some chap sitting on your left. you know? source, you know -- >> i quite understand that you might not have the tables at the fingertips. we'll take a look and come back if necessary before the end of the hearing. >> i have the pleasure of hearing your 2003 speech. the first time i'd heard you speak. and you also said then if we didn't have a european union we would invent something like it overnight. i appreciate people do change their -- >> i mean, overnight -- overnight is -- well, that's the

-- >> it was the most pro-european speech. pro-european for my liking that i had heard in parliament to that time, very much in tune of the mood of mr. blair and the government of the time. it's interesting to see how people change their views. i want to hone in one of the things you'd said that i thought was inappropriate. this is under british law a sitting of a parliamentary select committee. the governor of the bank of england has a remit, a contract. he is not allowed to make political comments. i would judge that if he were to make political commentary that would be a sackible offense. you have said that he's made political commentary. and i give you the opportunity, mr. johnson -- >> i didn't say that. >> you said -- >> order. >> mr. johnson, you said that the governor of the bank of england made political commentary in relation to what he said to this committee. and i just give you the opportunity, just to correct the record which exists verbatim to

correct the record and what you meant to say was the gover nor of the bank of england made appropriate economic commentary as he thought fit. >> i would like to see what the record says first of all. my memory of what i said was that the governor of bank of england can say what he wanted. >> no, no. quite clear. i wrote it down at the time. you said political comment. that's how you described the governor of the bank of england and i'm giving you the opportunity to clarify, to correct the record. if you don't wish to, that stands. >> i'd love to see the record before i -- >> well -- >> i'm grateful to you for -- >> well that stands. >> i'm grateful to you for writing down words, political comment. doesn't seem to me to represent a very accurate short hand note of what i said. >> that is verbatim tape and record of the proceedings. we'll see what you said. in my view, your comment is wholly inappropriate to a committee like this.

it is a sackible offense. but we'll see where that takes us in the future. >> i think -- i think we will. >> you also referred to the canadian -- and you said on the 11th of march we can be like canada. you said in relation to the canadian agreement, i'm quoting you again, that it's an attraction with a wholesale removal of tariffs. you also suggested we might need a deeper relationship than canada has because of our 44 years. in that canadian agreement, what is the single big stumbling block that's led to prime minister harper not being able to sign it during his tenure? >> well, i think one of the biggest difficulties is, obviously, that canada has a very different history -- >> no, no. there's only one big stumbling

block. i'm sure you've studied when's going on in canada. there's a stumbling block. i'm asking if you're aware what that stumbling block. >> we must let boris answer the question. >> i'm sorry to say the attractions of the canadian agreement is free trade a huge number of areas. removes 98% of tariffs. as i have said before, i don't consider it to be the perfect model for what we need to achieve. what we need is a british deal. >> the reason that prime minister harper couldn't sign it is and the reason it's taken seven years, still not enacted, is because the eu insisted in those negotiations that the charter for fundamental human rights be included. that's the reason prime minister harper refused to sign it. though, in fact, in it there are significant factors relating to human rights. this small agreement, how long

is it? >> well -- >> what's the length of the agreement? >> it is you if i may say so, mr. mann, who seem to attach such great significance to the canada -- i was merely, i was merely isolated one attraction of it and it is -- one thing i might point out is that it is absurd to, you know, it is absurd for us to currently be -- >> my question is how long is the agreement? here's an expert witness. i'm trying to prone your expertise. how long is the a canadian agreement. >> i'm sorry. i don't know -- >> have you read the anadian agreement. >> it is you who -- >> are you aware of the name of the canadian agreement? are you aware of the name of the canadian agreement that you have cited? >> what i want is a deal -- >> you are not aware of the name -- >> i'm not interested in a deal that has defected of the -- >> are you aware of its content? >> it gets rid of 98% of tariffs

and this seems to me to be -- >> are you aware of the content on human rights? >> you have just mentioned this. >> no. it is 598. >> you're rather making my point because i think that it is absurd that the eu should be introducing such requirements into international trade. >> well, let's -- >> absolutely mad. >> going to tariffs. >> and why on earth -- >> clause two -- >> we just need boris' response. >> i'm very -- i have to say i think it is absurd that the obstacle to the eu canada trade agreement should have been the charter of fundamental rights if indeed -- i'm taking this from you, mr. mann, if that indeed is the case. i see no reason why the charter should be such an obstacle. it seems totally irrelevant to our trade concerns and anybody that studied the 55 articles of the charter of fundamental

rights will know that there are some of them very peculiar, indeed. they go way beyond the normal understanding of human rights. why on earth the eu, the commission feels it necessary to use this as the basis for trade negotiations is beyond me. and -- >> those in the -- >> totally enappropriate. >> doesn't the current trade negotiations ongoing with canada. >> and totally wrong. one of the -- >> that's why -- >> it shows why if i may say -- >> order, order, order, boris. john, have a go. >> it shows what the negotiating stance of european commission is and why it took the canadians who had a similar approach to you, why it took them seven years to negotiate. now, clause 2113 of the canadian agreement says that canada products only imported and sold in the eu if they fully respect the eu regulations without any

exemption. so the eu in their current negotiations is requiring full acceptance of eu regulations to allow canadian products into the eu. that's the negotiating -- >> i hesitate to -- i heads tate to be remotely disrespectful to this committee but, of course, if you want to sell into a domestic market you have to make sure that your goods comply with domestic -- those domestic requirements and that's the case for the u.s. exporting to the eu or switzerland to the eu. one of the interesting things, actually, is in spite of not being a member of the so-called single market the u.s., united states, has seen a much bigger increase in its exports per capita to the eu than we have. and same is true, also, of

switzerland. as i say, countries don't trade with countries. people trade with people. businesses trade with business and they'll continue to do so at a -- to a huge extent. >> contrast of tariffs so let's look at -- >> that's i think very unlikely. >> you raise the animal by-products 2002. what is your assessment to the negotiations ongoing with canada. >> which? >> axic ongoing with china. >> i think -- if you're talking about the eu/china -- >> the british negotiations. >> i'm sorry. i can't give you an informed commentary on that except to say i think it's very sad that we are currently unable to do a free trade deal with china because that power, that competence has been given to the eu. >> china refuses to do any specific negotiations with the uk on it at the moment.

i'm meeting -- in two week's time on the very issue because -- >> i'm sure you will -- >> the animal by-products directive, you quoted that. which country initiated that. >> i'm sorry. i can't tell you. >> yaw came in 2001. same time as me. you can't recall what happened when we came in? >> i'm sorry. yes. of course. it was robert -- >> foot and mouth. >> yes. >> why is that directive get brought in at the behest of the british government? >> well, of course, because we wanted as i recall to restore trade in a british beef and british livestock with the rest of the e youu. and we were keen to persuade them to accept our beef. >> correct. >> and as i recall, as i recall, they didn't. actually, in spite of our membership, in spite of our

membership at the eu, mr. mann, they kept out our beef. they did. illegally. and -- >> the director came in. >> in a highly discriminatory way. >> the request in order that we -- >> and then let me ask you. did the french drop the ban? when did the french drop the ban the. >> 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 to tackle tariff barriers -- >> i'm so sorry. i think possibly you weren't here at the beginning of this conversation which was only a couple of hours ago but what happened -- the chairman, mr. tyrie, said was that there was no evidence to suppose you couldn't recycle tea bags and i pointed out that this resulted

from cadiff counsel overinterpreting an eu directive. i made no comment on the rights and wrongs of that directive which were related as you rightly say to bse. what i commented on -- what i commented on was the ludicrous gold plating of that directive and the behavior of counsel. and i think the record will reflect that, mr. mann. >> the beauty, mr. johnson, of these hearings is there is a record of them. >> i know. >> that's the beauty. so if any witness is inconsistent that can be said -- >> i think you will find that i've been perfectly -- go back and -- >> statutory instruments, you said 2,500 a year. you have been in parliament for six or seven, about six years i think. came in the same day as me. >> well, i've been -- >> how many -- how many have you -- how many have you voted against? >> i've been out of parliament

for a while. >> you've been in for about six years, the same period as i've been in. that would be around 15,000 you're claiming in the period you have been in parliament. how many have you voted against? >> many of them as you know. >> how many? >> i cannot be -- >> 14,000? >> cannot voted against at all because they go through -- they go through -- i used to sit on european standing committee "b" and a completely pointless xer excise because there's nothing this parliament can do to stop the vast majority of this stuff. it's true. it goes through -- it goes through on the nod. >> any member -- >> let boris finish. it goes through on the nod. >> i remember being on the committee b and asking anything to do practically to stop the staff we were effectively rubber stamping and there wasn't. >> any member can attempt to force a vote on any issue in here. so i am asking you on how many

occasions, out of these 15,000, you have attempted by vote or by speaking to block them of the 15,000. >> well -- >> if we do it -- >> when i was on european standing committee b i'd go v to go back and look at what i say but i remember being appalled by the some of the things we were asking to rubber stamp and it was made clear to me that that was a position we were in. this stuff had to go through the house of commons and there was very little -- in fact, nothing we could do about it because of the supremacy of european law under -- under the 1972 european communique. >> forced any vote -- >> question -- >> you hadn't forced any votes on any of them. during your period of time in here. >> because it would have made absolutely no difference whateverment as you know fine well, mr. mann, and i think it's

absolutely absurd to pretend otherwise, this house has no ability to stop european legislation or indeed statutory instruments. >> important clear exchange on this. we have got your point on that issue chz well made i think many of us have some sympathy with the point you're making but i do want to pick up on one of the agriculture points that john mann made and bringing george kerevan at this point. >> thank you, chair. good morning. >> good morning. [ inaudible ] >> i do. this is a european agriculture council. let's have an all-nighter. fisheries counsel. >> part of the reason, of course, boris is you do occupy the odd minute or two in the sidelines of our conversations with the remarks of exactly that kind. george kerevan. >> at your famous leave lunch you said that the common agriculture policy was demented

and it adds about 400 pounds a year to the cost of food for every household in the country. now, could you clarify? are you -- are we to take from that that if britain votes to leave the eu the average household will be 400 pounds better off in some direct way? >> i think that there would be some reductions in the cost of food made possible by getting rid of some bureaucracy and some provisions in the current c.a.p. systems. >> give me a number. the number strategically used. >> let me give you a full answer, mr. kerevan. i think it is very important for my side of the argument to stress that we believe in subsidizing agriculture and supporting agriculture.

that would be -- i don't think it would be reasonable to expect british agriculture to survive without direct support. what we're advocating -- >> i appreciate that then. i'm trying to clarify the number, the number. you used a specific number which got a lot of publicity and maybe right, maybe wrong. are you saying it's not 400? if we leave -- what is the savings -- >> i think the extra cost of food is a result of the c.a.p. for a long time put at about 400 pounds per family. >> by whom? >> i'm -- i would be very happy to write you with the providence of that statistic but that's certainly a statistic i have read for a long time. [ inaudible ] >> it was before making it in a speech like that. >> well, mr. kerevan, i would be very happy to supply you and mr. tyrie with the origins of it. but if you think about it, far second, you can see that 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 c.a.p. efficient? >> so 400 is misleading? 400 is misleading because it's not what people -- >> is the c.a.p. efficient in the way that -- >> pretend that -- trying to clarify, trying to be specific. you have a number. you introduced the number. you don't know where it came from. is it 400 pound savings? 300? 200? or do you know? >> let's be very clear. there's a cost to -- you used a specific number two weeks ago. you don't know why it came from and now you're telling it would not be 400. it would be less than this. >> you were speaking about a savings. i was speaking about a cost. you said there was 400-pound cost at the moment. you used the number. if we leave. i'm asking, do we save that 400 wherever it came from? >> my answer -- my answer is we wouldn't save all that 400.

>> how much? >> i can't give you that figure. what we would certainly continue -- >> does the 400 include -- >> certainly continue support for agriculture. >> right. fine. >> and all farmers would receive -- would continue to receive the current levels of subsidy. we would need to -- >> that's fine. current levels of subsidy. >> that was baked in very firmly and that that stewardship payments, deficiency payments, payments for -- >> but currently -- but current level, do you mean by that the amount that, as well as uk subsidy to farming and fishing, do you mean the net, the money that comes from europe, money goes out, money comes back. in about 3 billion pounds a year goes to british farmers, you would maintain that? >> yes. but don't forget there's massive saving in the form of -- i think

from -- the fiago budget or the guidance fund is something to which we are huge net contributors. we pay in much more than we get back. we would save i think the net contribution on fiago is about -- something like 4 billion. i would have to check the figures. very considerable net payment we make into the european agricultural system. there would be more funds available for support of other vital services in this country and, indeed, for -- >> we well understand. >> and by -- my point i think everybody does understand there's huge -- >> i appreciate your comment as a journalist. right. the 400 which you have used and comes from a taxpayers alliance and it comes from data which is seven or eight years old so it's quite whiskering and it does not

include netting back the money that comes to british farmers about 3 billion a year so even -- even as its own grounds, that 400 is misleading because it does not -- it is misleading because it does not include the money that comes back to british farmers and fishers. >> i think as i've tried laboriously to point out, at the moment, we contribute gross about 20 billion. we get back in through either through the agricultural funds or structural funds, regional funds or whatever, about -- and through the abatement, we get back about 10 billion pounds. >> i'm glad you understand that. so the 400 figure is misleading then. doesn't include that. >> there's scope for a colossal saving for british taxpayers. >> and i understand that. i understand. >> i'm glad you understand because it's a vital point. >> it is a vital point. now that you've explained that you understand that farmers get money back, the 400 pounds which

you are using which doesn't include an allowance for that net back is an exaggerated figure. >> no. it's the extra cost as a result of the c.a.p. and partly -- >> you told me you get money back. >> the bureaucracy of the c.a.p. system, with its price support intervention, 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 repatriot the c.a.p. to support british farmers in a way that they need and deserve. >> how would you change the support system? >> i think you would -- what you wouldn't do is in my view the eu is party to witting evil in the way that it discriminates

against manufacture, and against agriculture products of sub sa har rant africa, for example. i think there are goods that would benefit families in this one that come from market that is are currently prevented from exporting to us by the external eu tariff. and i think that's something that people should care about very much. i think that the whole system of intervention of price intervention, although they have moved away from that a great deal, there's still crazy -- >> i'm asking you what your system would be. >> my system would be basically of farm gate. i mean, you know, this is something that obviously, you know, would be a matter for government and parliament to decide but -- >> so you don't know -- >> my preference would be for payments for farm gate payments that were baked in that

supported agriculture in the way it needs to be supported and also stewardship payments, as well. i think many farmers need support for lake law & orderinging after the and not just -- >> and not -- >> thank you for this question. vital to get across it would be at the level that they currently enjoy and that level of support to be perhap pech waited. >> so actually the 400 pounds is wrong. >> no. because as i've said the eu system, the c.a.p. involves all sorts of mechanisms such as interventions for -- >> i appreciate it. >> such as tariffs. >> the bulk, the bulk -- >> there is a business -- >> the bulk is the subsidy. >> there's a business in london, the c.a.p. before the c.a.p. invented, portugal zrbtdidn't ha

sugar beet industry. >> we're not talking about portugal. >> damaged the interests of u sugar cane producers, one particular obviously tate and lyle which i represent in london facing huge problems because of eu's approach. they would be totally liberated by brexit. and -- and -- >> let's move on. >> sugar cane producers in poor countries around the world would benefit. >> you made the point. okay. we have left the eu. let's move on to that scenario. you've said on several points this morning that there's actually -- there's an existing free trade area across the whole of europe from iceland to russia. that's not true. agriculture is not subject. if the uk left, we would then face the tariff barriers on food and agriculture products. by being outside as you mentioned. >> why?

>> because the eu applies the very tariffs you have mentioned you knew about. they apply to norway. are you saying we would -- we would unlike the -- >> you negotiate -- >> are you saying we would have to negotiate free trade access for agriculture products? >> i think, you know, given the huge exports of agricultural products to this country from the eu, and from the rest of the eu, they would be insane not to do a deal with us involving free trade and agricultural products. and as for -- >> they would then require access -- to the camp rules. >> no. why? i don't see why -- we have already discussed free trade agreements at the eu has done with other third parties. i see no reason at all why there shouldn't be free trade -- >> farmers might see a reason. >> well, they might. but on the other hand, they might not want their wine or cheese to face discrimination in

this country. >> you would advocate counter tariffs if the eu -- >> no. what i -- i don't think there's a need for such thing. tariffs or counter tariffs. and i think -- just increasingly primitive way of thinking about the world. britain is global. we should be trading globally. >> i'm not advocating. if you have the concrete region of norway. norwegian products face tariffs. not within the eu. though it has free trade in manufactured goods, it doesn't in agriculture products. they're subject to the same tariff barriers of the eu on everyone else. out of the eu we face that unless you negotiate them away. i think it's reasonable to assume part of negotiating those away if that's possible is accepting the rules, common rules for the agriculture al policy. so you wouldn't get rid of that. it's either out and face the tariffs or in and face -- and

keep -- >> i don't -- i don't follow you. i think it's a nonsense. i don't think that's true. i think that, yes, we would want to keep free access. overwhelming interest of the rest of the eu to do so. however, there is no reason i think for us to be part of the c.a.p. whereby we have the -- you send in a huge check to brussels. that gets dissipated around the eu and you get a much smaller amount back for the support of your own agriculture. what we would have is a system whereby we were able to support our agriculture and, indeed, support it generously thanks to the massive saving we were making. >> you want to spend more -- >> on some areas and some areas think, you know, i think many people would say that some of the big barons have done well

over the 25 years and might consider exactly how you wanted to develop your program. but so as to be the benefit of all producers in this country. >> will you use the 400 pound sum again? >> i think it's -- i'm grateful to you for bringing it up. i think it's a handy reference point for the effect on prices of the -- of the c.a.p. >> but you can't justify the number. >> you said that the taxpayer alliance produced that number and that's their calculation. what i'm saying to you is that there is my view ample scope for savings on bureaucracy in the whole weird architecture of the c.a.p. but also, but also -- well, if you wonder how much to save on our net contributions to brussels -- >> i'm just asking the number. >> all right. overall, we can i think from memory we contribute -- i think

we contribute about 6.5 billion to the fiago budget and get about 4 billion back. i think. i have to check those figures. that's a savinging of about 2.5 billion. >> so -- okay. >> we've made some progress on that exchange. i'm sorry that this is going on so long. >> no. i love it. i mean, come on. >> boris, i'm pleased you are -- >> such an honor to be here. >> you're taking that view. it is not the longest session we have had but it's -- you've got some way to get to the record but i'm sure you're looking forward to -- >> i admire the ability of our -- chris. indeed, of your committee. some of whom desserted. sorry, chris. >> no, no. carry on. thank you for joining us and your patience which has been exceptional and goes i think above and beyond the call of any sort of duty so thank you. i would just like to start by

talking about some of the future prospects for the european union if we stay in, which have been held out to us as one might say carrots or inducements. one of the provisions in the deal that was struck a few weeks ago was on a regular basis competence would be reviewed. w the view to returning some to the united kingdom or member states where possible. bearing in mind your long experience of the brussels machine, how likely do you think it is that were we to stay in there would be a return of competence? >> i'm grateful for that because i think it goes to the heart of what we're talking about with the development of the single market. i think it was rachel reeves who said, you know, that we weren't in the euro and therefore we didn't have to worry about the way things were going. and i have to say i don't take that view and one of the reasons that my attitude changes, perhaps, mr. mann, from that speech i made in 2003, which is before the lisbon summit and

before the -- the euro experiment got so out of hand, i think the five presidents report shows very clearly they're bent on more interrogation of social policy, of company law, of all sorts of areas of property rights, all sorts of things that have not hitherto been thought necessary for the monitoring of the european union and i think will have a -- they want to do it through the single market. and i think that will impact on us and i don't foresee any prospect at all post -- you know, in that context of a repatriation of powers to our country. that's not going to happen. you've seen what happened in the renegotiation. we got absolutely zilch. i mean, you know, effectively. and, i think that's -- that's the best we can hope for. >> do you draw any comfort from our exemption from the union or

sort of platitude? >> no. i mean, look. i don't want to -- i don't want to minimize that. it is a -- it's something. it's -- but it's, you know, there are very few cases before the european court of justice and the times that the court of justice relied on that provision to form its federalizing judgments and actually most times it is very, very federalizing anyway, very, very centralizing anyway. it doesn't need to have a cause to that so i think it's -- it's, you know, it's a nice symbol but it's not a practical assistance. >> to ask a similar question, there's a provision in the arrangement to look at removing regulations i think. annual review and look at what regulations they can cancel. i blishled in questioning the commission of lord hill a few weeks ago so far not a single regulation he's affair of is

ever repealed. always a one-way street n. a similar vein, do you have any expectation that if we did stay inside and if the british government sort of battled energetically we might be able to get some regulations taken away from the inside? >> i don't want to contradict lord hill, but my -- you know, i think that the eu does technically repeal measures when they're replaced by new ones so i think, you know, they will argue there's been some that have been repealed. but in the course of their sort of subsidiary campaign to get rid of stuff where they think that they've been -- virtually nothing has happened. and i don't see prospect of that happening. you know, not a single part of the -- you know, where's the acquit of the corpus of european law and win knowed down as a result of a british interinauguration? we have something that's not suitable for us.

it is a political union and the time has come i think for us to say the emperor's got no clothes. >> okay. we can stand inside the european union participating in the single market but standing to one side from the political projects, ever closer union, the single currency and so on? >> no. it is dishonest to pretending that we are able to be in it just for free trade and nothing else. this is an invalidly political project. they want to create 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 and to say that the only -- the only way forward is for us to make our -- to value our democracy. we fought for this. >> okay. so moving on to the question of immigration which we briefly touched on in earlier exchanges, net immigration is i think about

330,000 recent figures of which roughly speaking half is eu, half a non-eu. were we no leave the eu, what level do you think we could get immigration down to? >> well, obviously, you would be able to control it much more easily because you wouldn't be constantly, you know, you wouldn't have to admit people just because they have an eu passport. we know there are now some places in the eu where you can get travel documents in a way that's not wholly above board. and an awful lot of people are coming here, you know, without any clear, you know, job or already existing. many of them do wonderful things for this country but if you have uninvolved immigration, the kind we have had in the last ten, 15 years or so, it will have very serious impacts. and we need to work out as a country what we really -- what

is the ultimate size of the uk population? how far are we going to go with this thing? going on like this, it will be 92 million by 2050. that's an awful lot of people. we need to think about the impacts of that. most is driven by immigration. how are we going to cope? >> could you -- that's a -- point completely but could you venture a number people might be able to consider and net immigration figure to achieve were we to withdrawal? >> i wouldn't want to get into -- i think one of the difficulties with this thing is governments endlessly come out with figures they think they can achieve and then they disappoint the electorate. i think it would be unwise to come out with a figure. what i think -- >> that's not -- [ inaudible ] >> i don't know about that. >> sorry, sorry. >> i think he's answering. >> i'm sorry, mr. tyrie. perhaps you -- my figures you don't particularly like.

>> i'm sorry. do carry on. >> anyway, my view is that i have seen studies saying that you would get it to down to 50,000 a year. >> in terms of -- >> i'm not -- i'm not necessarily endorsing those. i think the difficulty will be there's a very large demand of business and industry. but you should at least be able to control it. you should be able to decide what type of labor you want. do you want skilled labor of a certain kind? do you need certain unskilled jobs filled? how's it work? and the moment what you have seen is a huge, huge downward pressure on wages and that's had a big impact on our country. >> of the current inward flow what would you say is helpful, high skill versus unhelpful, unskilled and more of a drag? >> 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. and at the moment it is way out of control. and people feel it. they know it. they can see hundreds of thousands of people coming here net every year. and i don't see -- i don't see how we can stand up to the elect rat and tell them anymore we can stop it when we can't. >> yeah. understand. okay. and the final point of immigration before briefly moving on, what do you think would happen in a brexit scenario? might be 3 million or 4 million eu citizens currently living and working in the country. >> yeah. i think there are about -- well, i may get this wrong but i think there are about 2.3 million eu citizens in the uk, about 2.2 million in the rest of the uk. their rights would be unaffected

and i would hope that, you know, they would be -- we already have as everybody knows a huge numbers of french people living in london. huge numbers of people from all around the eu and huge numbers of americans, canadians, australians, russians. there are all communities, 300 languages on the streets of this city. i don't -- i don't think that there would be a threat to their position? >> as part of the exit negotiation over the two-year period, we effectively grandfathered residency rights to any eu citizen living here and similarly expect a brit living in spain to have rights in spain to last their lifetime? >> absolutely. and indeed, those rights as a -- to the best of my knowledge a respected under the vienna treaty. >> would that trigger a massive influx of people in that two-year period seeking to acquire the grandfather rights

and a huge flood up -- >> brits coming back? >> no. people from europe, saying anyone, eu resident of 23rd of june, 2018, up to and including that day, lifetime rights and after that subject to whatever controls -- >> the period of the negotiation? >> yes, yes. presumably in the two-year period we continue to be -- in the renegotiation which let's say takes two years and full members of thoru with the normal laws applying. from the 23rd of june 2018 onwards we get to control our borders as we see fit and any eu resident pitched up before then get the grandfather lifetime residency rights and vice versa for brits overseas. isn't that creating a incentive for every person in romania to come over here before june 18 to get the lifetime rights? >> i'm not certain that is the case but if it were the case and it seemed that that was a risk i

think you could probably take some steps to prevent it by unilaterally deciding to install border controls, sorry. install restrictions on free movement of labor which is what we're talking about and don't forget that this is -- you go back to -- this is not something that is as deeply ingrained in the dna and the religion of the eu as everybody now pretends. this really only arose post mass trait. >> okay. i have one final question. i will have to take the time to file as anyone else. in terms of this debate we have had frequently about the nature of the future and trade agreement post-brexit, we have talked about kan did and switzerland and norway and you said you would like to see a british deal. >> british deal. >> for the committee's benefit and the country's benefit, give a rough sort of sketch of how

that might look in terms of goods, services, and obligations to get imposed on us like free movement or budget contributi contributions. >> i think both lobbed off and massively free movement and budget tear contributions but it would be massively the interests of the partners to do a deal based on free trade and goods and services and i'm sure that's what we would achieve. it's very important to recognize we would retain the ability to work with our european friends and partners in all the other areas of eu corporation that matter greatly to this country and to europe so on the common foreign security policy or on home justice and criminal affairs we would remain active partners but it would all be done at intergovernmental level, no need as i say for this super national judicial approach. >> but if we had full single market access we would have to sign up to the regulations, wouldn't we? >> no, no.

the whole point is 95% of uk businesses did not do trade with europe. but they have to conform with 100% of the regulations. those businesses that want to export to the eu, we want to encourage that, a free trade deal would, of course, like the americans or the canadians or the chi neenese or anybody else exporting to the eu would have to make sure that their vehicles or whatever it happened to be conformed to eu standards for access to that market but 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'm saying. >> and just to play -- final question, chairman. just to play devil's advocate on that point, if it's possible to do whoo you're describing, why hasn't norway done it? they're subject to free

movement. >> this is the fifth biggest economy in the world and it's been in the eu for 44 years. they have with us a net balance of trade of 85 billion pounds i think. they have had all sorts of economic shocks which you discussed extensively this morning. they want rapidly to move over brexit as fast as possible. do a brilliant free trade deal. get on with it. allow the businesses to trade freely with a huge market to profit from engagement with us. that's the future for them, as well as for us. >> thank you very much, boris. i would like to end with a point and give you a last word. >> first of all, i'm very grateful you have been able to give evidence now for nearly three hours and normally we take a break after two if we have an extended session as we do patiently pleasure. >> governor of the bank. i just want to come back to a point that -- and it relates to almost everything you've been

asked. i was trying to get at at the start which is if you accept some of the claims you have been making, even in recent weeks in recent cases in speeches can easily mislead people and wouldn't be better to qualify these remarks much more carefully? and i just take you through a few of them. just now you said that immigration has a huge downward impact on wages. as far as i'm aware that's an extremely controversial issue and that evidence on it is very difficult to pin down, certainly, in agriculture. just hang on. hang on a moment. i'm going to give you a chance after all the points i'm going to make. you said that, by all means scribble down the headings. you said that there would not be any economic shock, even in the short term of brexit. even though your own economic

adviser, i'm quoting only recent said, leaving the eu would be an economic shock, most all depress economic activity. you said that in a speech very recently that 400 pounds would be added to the -- was being added to the cost of food of every household. but anybody listening to that might think, if i leave the ue, i might pick up 400 pounds of benefit. as you yourself -- once you were cross examined on it, that's not the case. >> but there would be a savings. go on. >> that figure would be lower. you said about half an hour ago in cross examination -- you make no comment on the directive that led to this dispute or this extraordinary exchange on tea bags. but actually when you look at

the speech you made, you described the directive as ludicrous, quite the opposite. and you said -- we can carry on with so many of these. >> go on. >> you said that between half and two-thirds of everything that goes through parliament is being produced by brussels. but actually, the facts are that the best sources suggest between 15% and 59% is either produced or at least influenced, is the word you used, influenced by the eu. in other words, this is not produced by brussels between half and two-their irds. it's between 15% and 59%. and it's influenced in some way. this includes the decisions which relate often to individual firms which constitutes about a

third of the total number in itself. so i come back to my original question. by all means, qualify further the answers you have given on each of those points or all if you feel necessary. >> yeah, i will. >> i just want you to ask you whether you would be prepared to consider, given that we need to have a sensible debate about this subject, there are foolish claims as you have seen, which many in this committee think are being made by the remain camp, but it seems that you are now fuelling the fire with some of your -- >> i'm grateful. if i may, i will go through your points one by one. >> you may have the last word. >> one by one. i think that on perhaps a huge downward pressure on wages, yes, it's a matter of great economic control. i think in some places, some

sectors of industry, business, there has been considerable down pressure as a result of the flow of -- uncontrolled flow of unskilled labor. whether it's always usual, but i do think many economists wouldn't contest there has been downward pressure on wages. >> to clarify -- >> it might not always be huge. but in some cases i'm sure it has been. secondly, on your point about -- there's been -- in this city alone, i think in real incomes of still -- best of my memory, still not back up to the levels for the bottom -- not up to the levels they were in 2008. there has been a substantial downward pressure on wages. that is -- there are many factors for that. immigration is certainly one of them. on the vexed issue of what would happen if we left and the shock

that people describe, i do think -- i'm grateful for what you said about the -- some of the alarmism of the remain campaign. i do think it's wildly overdone. i think that by the time it would happen, it would be very much priced in. people would understand the consequences. i think that if you look at the -- the reason i make the analogy of the y2k bug, by the time that happened, everybody had freaked out so much that it passed without the batting of an eyelid. the same thing would happen with this. we would simply get on with it and business would get on with it. the deals i described would be readily done on the back of what is already a free trade area. on the point about the cost of food, yes, there is a cost -- an extra cost of food as a result of agriculture subsidy.

what i tried to say in my language exchange is that we are big net contributors to the eu agriculture budget as well as to the overall budget. approximately 8.5 billion, maybe 10 billion pounds goes from us to the eu, never to be seen again. and it's a long time since the court of orders has been a long time not signing off the accounts of the eu, even today they continually point out that large percentage of -- a significant percentage of the budget is misspent or can't be properly accounted for. 5% is a lot of money. the eu budget is over 868 billion euros. 4% of that, 5% of that, you are talking about serious sums of money going missing. it's not good use of taxpayers' money. and it needs to come back to

this country. there would be savings on the agricultural budget if we did. on the point about the animal hygiene byproducts regulation, my point is simple. i do think that the real issue is about gold plating. it's about how officials in our country take eu legislation and -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt. i want to read what you actually said. only very recently, just -- sometimes these eu rules sound simply ludicrous like the rule you can't recycle a tea bag. it doesn't seem to be much of a reference to gold plating, a criticism of domestic legislature. >> i think you will find frequently i made the point about domestic gold plating. and it does sound ludicrous. it's a result of hideous confluence of the eu regulation and overzealous implementation

by officials in this country. as for the percentage of eu regulation legislation coming through this place, i think after lengthy mastication, we agreed it's the -- you get -- if you look at the directives, you get your -- you are at 13%. when you get up to -- if you include -- we had a long discussion about this. if you include the instruments, you are up almost at two-thirds, 59% of law going through this place. that's a huge amount. the important point -- >> being produced? >> emanating from brussels in such a way -- this is the crucial thing. as to fall within eu competence. and once it is within eu competence, it is -- that's the crucial thing. i'm grateful -- i'm grateful --

>> very helpful to have that clarification. >> i'm grateful for this opportunity to make these points. because i feel that far from my having to clear up some of the things i said, it's up to the remain campaign and they are running dogs and others to explain why they -- to explain why they have -- >> you are in danger of getting back to delivering us grains of truth with mountains of nonsense. >> no. i'm sorry. i'm telling you the truth. >> you are dangerously close to making considered points. by all means, have the last word. >> three points. the reasons for wanting to exit, fundamentally three. one, it's too expensive, the eu as it stands. we need our money back. 8.5, $10 billion net that is wasted. it's about power, this place.

it is absurd we can't control our borders. the volume of legislation is absurd. the third reason is the fundamental dishonesty of continuing to pretend we are part of a free trade arrangement when it's a political project. we should level with the british public about what is really going on. >> that's extremely helpful clarification of your justification for your decision. and i'm very grateful for you having stayed for three hours, which is an hour longer than we formally have sessions without an interval. you provided interesting varied and how should i say evidence often in primary colors as we have come to expect of you. >> i'm most grateful to you and to your heroic committee. >> who knows -- >> most of them not consulting their blackberries. extraordinary diligence -- >> we may even need to see you again, if you carry on much.

that might finally shut you up. thank you very much, boris. >> you don't want me to talk, you don't have to invite me. earlier this month, ford's theater hosted a symposium on the life and legacy of president abraham lincoln. coming up on american history tv, we will hear from sidney blumental, the author of "a self-made man." then remarks from edna greene medford. later, we will hear from the author of "mary lincoln, southern girl, northern woman." c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, sarah warbalo, legal director