Youve read their own qualifications . Ive got a digest of the point they make which is that theyve done it according to the governments own impact assessments. Are you aware of what theyve done is add up the costs of the cost benefit analysis but ignored the benefits . Yes and i think i made that clear in my earlier answer. You are aware of that. And, of course, if you add up the cost of a proposal without taking account of the benefits you will always get a high figure. If you were building a bridge and you as i intend to. And have done. Many. [ laughter ] you wouldnt want to ignore the fact that the bridge might prefer some benefits, would you . No, of course not. And i think that have you had can i complete the point . Have you had a look at the costs . Open europe has Something Interesting to say about the benefits. Hang on, boris. Order, order, order. Have you look had a look, boris, at the full list of the costs and measures that they used to arrive . I did look at the i think its a list of 100. Its quite interesting that open europe themselves, you talk of the benefits mr. Tyrie, open europe themselves say 95 of these benefits have not, in fact, materialized. It seems to be a consideration you might take into account they havent said that. What theyve said is that the full benefits are very difficult to quantify. Uhhuh. Which is not quite the same thing. Uhhuh. And they are making the perfectly reasonable point that that a regulation may confirm a heavy cost on a small group but a much broader and more difficult to quantify benefit on a larger group yes, i think for example, a regulation that might reduce consumer debt. So would you accept that in order to give the electorate a fair balance of the costs and benefits at the very least its important to take a close look at the benefits side an also always when quoting a figure to ensure the public are aware of what youve done here is add up the costs and that open europe quite recently have said, and i quote, it is important to note that these rules can bring benefits including facilitating trade across the Single Market. Thats a pretty fair minded and balanced qualification. They all say they can bring benefits however they also say mr. Tiery that these rules have not brought benefits in the way that was advertised or expected. If i may make a jeb point about the socalled Single Market, it was promised when the whoele thing was launched, there was the checkini report, there was excitement about the birth of the Single Market and was going to lead to a great period of European Growth and dynamism, that did not take place. We didnt get the huge expansion in employment in the e. U. We did not get growth if European Union economies. In fact, one of the Amazing Things about this whole debate drch. These are very reasonable point, boris. Im glad you agree. What im trying, though, to illicit from you is a much narrower response yes, well, i think ive given you the answer. The 600 Million Pound figure is very fair considering open europe themselves say 95 of the benefits have not materialized. So you think we can ignore the fact that the benefits are considerable in the list of measures that they themselves provide . Since you yourself have attached great significance to this open europe report, as i do, i think you should attach significance that they say 95 of the benefits have not materialized. Weve already discussed that. Thats not what they say boris. The important point they made clear that there are benefits that may not be quantifiable. Well, the important point if i may say so is what you can do about these regulations and its the view of open europe that they are costly, they are burdensome and there are a great number of them. I think you would concede which fall too heavily on some sectors of our businesses and the advantage of a brexit that we could amend those regulations. Without brexit you can do nothing and if you look at some of the stuff, the Data Protection act, regulations, solvency two directives, many directives and regulations emanating from brussels have either through gold plating in this country or simply because of poor drafting or whatever have been far too expensive and this is the point that open europe are making. They are not untilly tailored to the needs of this economy. Are you aware of the exercise to try and find examples of gold plating undertaken by the government . I am. And did you know they struggled to find very many examples . Well, i think there are some, but they struggled . There are indeed some examples. I mean, an example of perhaps rather than for instance perhaps rather than give me an example now you might send us a list of the areas of gold plating. Id be happy to give you an example now. Only to speed things up. To turn to your i think people want to hear it. Id like to tush to your speech on if 22nd of february, sorry, your telegraph on the 22nd of february where you say that there are these ludicrous rules emanating from the e. U. And that this is the reason for your decision to leave and one of the rules that you cite, one of the ludicrous rules, and i quote, is an e. U. Rule that says you cant recycle a tea bag and that children under eight cant blow up balloons. May i say, mr. Tyrie could you tell me which e. U. Or regulation says children under eight cant blow up balloons. Yes. The European Commissions own web site, i would be happy to give you the number of the press release in a moment. The European Commissions own web site says adult supervision is required in the case of the use of uninflated balloons by children under eight. And i have to say in my household i more or less say only children under right allowed to blow up balloons in my household, mr. Tyrie. I think its ludicrous to have this prescription set up at a european level. Is its bonkers and you do, too. What it says, boris, and i have the toy safety directive requirements in front. It says warning, children under eight can choke or suffocate and its asking this warning be placed on the packaging. Its not requiring or forbid its requiring it to be placed on the packaging. Its requiring a warning to be placed on the packaging. It as not prohibiting children from under eight from blowing up balloons. Well, i think even the European Union would be hard put to go to peoples households to prohibit people from blowing up balloons, people under eight from blowing up balloons. On your point about recycling tea a bag which is you mentioned, there is, of course, the and this is a classic example of gold plating. The e. U. Animal byproducts regulation of 2002 stated that staff that had come into contact with milk or mieat could not be recycled. Cardiff council decided to interpret that in such a way as to forbid people from recycling tea bags. Thats a classic example in my view of the confluence of e. U. Legislation with overzealous british implementation which we might call gold plating. But we can perfectly well decide we want to implement it. Its not true, though, is it to say that theres an e. U. Regulation or directive yes, there is. That prohibits people from recycling tea bags. It would be true to say that some countries might have cold plated or some councils might have cold plated or some regional authorities might have decided to gold plate recycling tea bag. I think youre readily appreciate, mr. Tyrie, that without the regulation from 2002, there would be no scope for the council to institute that prohibition and that is the they are relying on the on e. U. Regulation as i say. Animal byproducts regulation 2002 which i seem to remember i think thats the theres a separate regulation that forbids you from burying your own sheep on your own ground. The animal hygiene regulation. Well, we havent got into sheep yet. But there are myriad of these things and they are taken and used by uk officials however well meaning in such a way as to add greatly to the burden of bureaucracy. Taken and used by or misused by british officials on the back of something from the e. U. Which is not something which prohibits people from recycling tea bags, is it . Its a misrepresentation to say that people are prevented from recycling tea bags. Well, they are by Cardiff Council as a result of e. U. Legislation. Thats a much better description which was unfortunately somehow omitted from your telegraph. I think a fair i think it was put in that dell graph about the stockholm syndrome of uk officials who feel obliged to implement or take the opportunity to implement overzealously the legislation emanating from the e. U. Thats the whole point. One of the interesting things about this country is we are far more enthusiastic about implementing these regulations than others and we take it far more seriously. One of the nightmares i have in london is obviously trying to the problem is its a series of uninterrupted joy, my job in london, but one of the big challenges is getting more housing built fast. Theres no doubt at all that e. U. Regulation legislation of one kind or another, Environmental Impact assessments, whatever slow down the planning process and you have to wonder whether those processes would be quite so cumbersome and quite so slow in other European Countries because we do relish this bureaucracy im afraid in this country and we tend to implement so youre going to change your line of fire from the speech and article which which are attacking e. U. Regulation and the actions of uk officials which have caused the problem. Of course, because the e. U. Regulation did not itself bring it did. I must respectfully disagree with you. Without the animal byproducts regulation 2002 there would be no scope for the officials in question to enact this provision. Lets let other people perform their own view about composting of tea bags. You said ive got your book here lend me your ears. In that you say there really is european legislation on the weight die mentimensions and composition of a coffee. Is that there is can you tell me where that is . Now, that im just trying to that was a firm that was to do with the shipment of corpses across frontiers. Thats correct. And i seem to remember that there were various british funeral operations, a very successful funeral operation in this country that was keen to have some sort of european provision on this and the result was a euro of fine as far as i can remember or regulations on the maxima and minute ma of euro coffins. I dont believe it was remotely necessary for the safe and Successful Operation of the Single Market or indead since the whole term Single Market is widely misunderstood, free trade across europe would have continued unimpeded without legislation on the size and shiep of a euro coffin. They probably had to change those dimensions radically since nerve this country started getting fatter and fatter. [ laughter ] actually, its not an e. U. Regulation at all, is it . Well, its a european as far as i can its a long time since i studied this matter. Its more than 20 years ago. This is something that i seem to remember arose from some brussels institution. You wrote in the your book a decade ago, its not 20 years ago. And youre defting it now, its the council of Europe Convention on the transfer of corporations and in there there is no reference to coffin weight dimensions. Im sorry to say i think youre wrong. Nor is there any e. U. Legislation and nor is the uk a signatory. So the story is a i think that its from your imagination. No, im afraid, sir, i think youre in error but its a long time since i looked at it. There was a question about the maxima and minute ma of coffin sizes and my memory that it was to do with the e. U. There was legislation and that it was e. U. Okay. Well if you can provide that is my memory. If you can provide with us that after the meeting wed be interested to take a look. Ive been through quite a list there either of things which require quite a bit of qualification to understand and where i think a reasonable man would say you had either exaggerated or misrepresented the i dont think so at all. I think you failed utterly in your experiment if i may say so. Well, thats a jumts others listening to this can make. Do you think on reflection and perhaps you dont, having just made that remark, it might be prudent in the interests of generating a strong case, that you add qualifications in the time that you make these remarks . May i just say how strongly i feel about this . Because there is a great deal of effort being made at the moment to deprecate the views of those who think we should leave, to undermine their point of view and to say that everything we say about the e. U. Is smu omeho ill give you an example. Whats that got do with the question i just asked . Ill tell you. Youve asked me whether i want to recant some of the things i said. I havent asked you to do that. Ive asked you to make sure that you qualify and provide the full and balanced view in your own interest of point which is may, indeed, in one way or another turntoan extent support your case but which because of the language that youve used and your onesided description of them many might feel is an kbaj ration to the point of a misrepresentation. Well, i dont agree with that and let me explain why i feel so strongly about this. There was an instance i mentioned on the andrew mar show of the cab dimensions we wanted to have in london in order to minimize deaths of cyclists and an Organization Called in facts produced a well, wrote an article on their web site which i think has been widely red suggesting this was untrue, that there was no such problem and that the e. U. Had agreed unanimously a provision that would protect cyclists with new types of cab and i have to say that having studies the direct i have closely, as im sure you have, too, mr. Tyrie, its completely untrue. The directive in question i think 213 0195 from memory, did indeed attempt to modify the dimensions of cabs mainly from an aerodynamic povr. That was what they were trying to achieve principally. There was some change to visibility but it go not where near what we needed in terms of lowering the driver and getting the windows big enough so as to be able to see vulnerable road users in the way we wanted and there were representations made to amend this directive, the weights and dimensions directive when it was going through and we tried to do that but the truck industries in france and, indeed, sweden, fought the thing off. We cant get it through, Type Approval for truck dimensions for cabs, lorrie cabs have been passed to the your een mean union. So i cant do it, the department of transport cant do it, we cant make essential changes to the dimensions of truck cabs in our country that would save the lives of cyclists and i have to say reading some of the stuff from the remain camp, i think they should get their facts straight. This is something that ive tried very, very hard to make a difference on in london. Weve campaigned very hard to make cycling safer. We have an opportunity to have a new regime for truck cabs in our city, it would save lives, lives particularly of female cyclists and its a great shame that in the interests of propaganda what we have tried to do is being misrepresented by the remain campaign and the fact is that weve lost the power to do it, its been handed over to brussels its a shame. Were trying to get beyond the misrepresentation on both sides. Youve seen what weve been trying to do with respect to claims by the remain side. Oh, i see. You seem surprise sbld im delighted . Every question thats being asked of you is in that spirit. You would acknowledge wouldnt you with respect to the very regulation youre just referring to that the uk would have no sigh on truck Safety Standards and the rest of the e. U. If we left and that therefore your ability to influence what e. U. Trucks look like when they came to the uk unless you banned them yes, of course, of course. Would be severely limited. Would you consider that to be a restraint to trade . No, it would be a very sensible measure. So would ban lorries that dont conform or trucks that dont conform to your standards, is that right . If i may, perhaps for the benefit of the committee, we are already pioneering the worlds first safer lorrie zone within an urban area and we are already instituting various requirements for mirrors, for all sorts of ways in which for blind spots, all sorts of way this was in which we can minimize the risk to vulnerable road users. This is a further step that is technologically possible thanks to the evolution of cab design. Basically you get a buslike cab and put it on a truck. They look fantastic, they are fantastic, they save lives. You cant do it at the moment because its blocked in brussels. Well, its blocked by one country, in fact, isnt it . Well, its either france or sweden. It is france and im told the swedes the principles that you seem to be arguing for is for some form of standardized regulation. Have i got that right . Respectfully, mr. Tyrie, i dont think you have got it right because what im arguing for is the ability of londoners and the youre asking for unilateral regulations . Well, thats in the nature of a safer lorrie zone. I think it would be a good thing. And if i may make a comparison you are arguing for that even if it may be deleterious to trade. I dont believe it would be deleterious to trade. I think what it would do is stimulate the market for better and more better and safer cabs and i think it would be a great thing and i think it would save lives. I think at this point ill hand you over to the tender hands of my colleague. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, im, of course, on your side. Im a supporter of dont leave and you can assume that we might appeal ultimately to french because i assume they dont wish to go around murdering cyclists so it could be successful across europe if we ask them first. I think the problem is if i can be frank, the problem is renault and stania have been reluctant to move as fast as they might because they havent got their truck caps in the state of evolution that they would want in order to take advantage of this market. Other firms have so the french have been using their position. This can only be passed with unanimity. The french have been using their position to block it and its a great shame and if we took back control wed be able to make our streets safer. Thank you very much. If i can move on to the laws that are read in the uk that emanate from the e. U. And youre making the important point about cardiff and tea bags because if they dont implement e. U. Law correctly we can take them to European Court and it can be imposed on us. Of course. So there is inevitably because of e. U. , not fillishness amongst councils a need to implement accurately and if a tea bags gone in milk it must meet the animal product. And thats the issue of percentage. The various figures have come up theres a percentage of uk law that comes from e. U. Law. Youve quoted the house of commons figure, the 1550 figure. Weve also equate add twothirds figure. Yes. The parliament came up with an even higher figure. 80 . 85 . 85 . I wonder if you can give us a guide of how you would like to calculate this figure and where you would get it from . Well, i have hot news. The house of Commons Library has just produced another series of calculations and theyve you remember weve had various authorities, nick clegg, chaka amuna said 50 . Though theres a claim mr. Amuna denies he made that. The house of common i n a thing that was come out either yesterday or today that its about 59 or 60 . Thats because youve got to roll together and think not just about the directives but also about the regulations, so the secondary instruments of one kind or another and they are very numerous. As you rightly say, as soon as e. U. Law touches anything it become becomes justice by the ecj. Michael dugan, the public law expert, gave us evidence saying that trying to quantify this could never be anything more than an inaccurate guess. Within the bounds of inaccurate guessing, do you agree with him or do you think that he is arguing really his own point of view . Im sorry, im not familiar. Michael dugan is an e. U. Public law expert. You dont know who he is . I wasnt familiar with his work before today. But you know, there are varying figures, what cannot be denied is that the volume has increased, is increasing and ought to be eliminated. Along the lines of a central base in the house of commons indeed. So youre happy with the figure. I think its good we have a new figure. Dugan again worries that we compare e. U. Laws we compare nonlegislative measures with legislative measures and he feels this is inaccurate comparing apples with pears and that you would have to include all sorts of regulations that come out of councils and so forth. I wonder if you agree with that or whether you think that once again hes arguing his own book. Well, i dont know what point of view mr. Dugan has or what his perspective is. My impression certainly is and just as mayor of london im amazed at the volume of the amount of stuff that i come across everyday that seems to have an e. U. Or gin. Whether its public procurement rules which we obey very pung tills youly, unlike other European Countries or whether its rules about the interoperability of transeuropean tunnels or whatever it has beens to be. Rules inevitably become the cause of some kind and the cause is the European Court of justice and its said thats essential to proper working of the Single Market because otherwise people do what they like and ignore the rule book. Do you think that its possible to have a free trade area without the European Court of justice . Yes, i do. And im grateful you raise that point because i think people dont understand 70 of our trade is with outside countries with whom we dont have Free Trade Agreements at all but of the free trade areas there are around the world, nafta, asean, not a single one tries to imitate this an akronistic oldfashioned system devised by idealistic french bureaucrats after the war of a single judicial approach. Nobody else does that. Its very striking that unemployment in the e. U. Is roughly double that of the other free trade zones that i mentioned and growth is much, much lower and i have to ask, invite the committee to speculate as to whether or not there is associated with the volume and the rigidity and the irreversibility of e. U. Law and i think that its a system that it reminds me rather of when you talk about the ecj, it reminds me rather of how the computer in 2001 that is basically slipped its human moorings and become autonomous some of the recent rulings of the ecj are bizarre. Though occasionally they are in our interest. Im thinking of the policy in relation to clearing of euros where it was ruled as i remember it that the ecb didnt have the authority to make a regulation, it wasnt a Single Market issue, it was on the powers of the ecb to make the regulation but it did go in our favor. Ye, i agree with that. I agree. On the other hand its never been my view that a single currency was necessary for the completion of the Single Market. No, but in terms of the clearing possibilities for the city of london the European Court allowed the city of london to carry on with the clearing whereas the ecb was trying to stop it. We do occasionally win. Do you think that the wins that we get are sufficiently important to outweigh the losses that well suffer and the undermining of democracy that is implicit in having a supernational court . That is the fundamental question and my answer to that is that the balance has now switched against and i think, you know, 20 years ago many of us would have said that the balance was in favor of remaining. Let me give you a couple of examples of thinking today particularly about how to combat terrorism and the threat that that poses to our societies and ive seen very people quoted as saying that remaining in the e. U. Is essential for our security. I think its important to put a countervailing point which is that there are some ways now in the which the European Court of justice is militating against our ability to control our borders in a way that we want to and indeed to maintain proper surveillance. If you look at the case of abu hamzas niece who tried to smuggle sim cards to him in prison. We couldnt deport her not because of the Strasbourg Court of human rights but because of the European Court in luxembourg which is now able to adjudicate on the entire corpus of the fundamental human rights and you youve also seen the European Court of justice in luxembourg saying that governments, states, Security Services cannot retain data, mobile phone data that is very often essential for monitoring potential terrorists. Now what has that got to do with completing the internal market . What has that got to do with free trade . The answer is absolutely nothing. Its morphing into a Political Union of a kind that i think is no longer on balance in our interests and i think mr. Reesemogg, i think the city would flourish outside the e. U. And i remember the threat to euro clearing was mentioned at the time of the creation of the euro and everybody said that that would be migrated away from us sand that did not happen but simply because the concentration of talent, the Critical Mass is here in london have of all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with e. U. Its very important the point you make on if abu hamzeh family case because not only were we promised that the charge of fundamental rights would not apply in the united kingdom, that it was pretended achieved that and the court tried to keep its secret to save themselves from the shame of having interfered so directly in uk criminal law rather than in matter of Single Markets, i think youre absolutely right on that and that its no longer a sacrifice worth making and that even outside the Single Market is it not true that the wto has arbitration systems which are almost invariably followed by Member States of the wto when there are breaches of free trade rules . Of course and tariffs generally have been coming down across the world. Youre seeing more and more free trade deals done which involve virtually zero tariff you look at the u. S. australia deal recently. Tariffs removed in 99 of goods of all kinds and before the deal was done the tariffs were 4. 3 . So theres a huge opportunity for us too get out from under an incredibly prescriptive overbureaucratic system trying to create a single policy out of many and strike any future. Thank you, mr. Johnson, for your very compelling evidence. You mentioned the figure of 59 as if figure of youve got it there. Could you describe what it is, in fact, that is being how that number is certainly, andrew. It is first of all, you say its not the press. What is the document youre reading from . Im sorry, its the eighth of the amount of legislation from europe, it is an update by the house of Commons Library of the figures that they give. Ened the date . Eighth of march, there you go, sorry, not quite as recent as i thought. It is, in fact, 2014 figure. But not to wary, you probably didnt know that. But do keep going. Im so sorry. Mr. Tyrie, i was informed by enthusiastic colleagues that 2014 doesnt seem to be that long ago. What id like to know is what is this 59 composed of . This is composed of the number of e. U. Rests and e. U. Related Statutory Instruments, i believe. So youre elevating exactly what i began the session with which is that youve come out with a figure which you claim to be hot from the press but which in fact you dont know what it consists of. In fact it consists of regulations, directives and decisions, decisions may relate to an individual firm decision. There are thousands of those relating to individual firms and it makes clear are you disputing the house of Commons Library, mr. Tyrie . Are you disputing the voracity of the house of Commons Library . Fortunately i do the asking of these meetings. The conclusion of the note on this reads all mesh uraniums have their problems its possible to justify between 15 and 55 59 . Im reading the note on what youve not go front of you is based. Depending on what is included or executed. Whether its w59 or 55 , its an awful lot. 15 is the range offered by the house of commons. Yes, but as i tried to explain earlier what im repeatedly trying to point out to you that while it might be possible to put together a case for 55 or 59 , its extremely important also if you want to try and acquire credibility in this debate to sail theres a vast range depending how you measure this and that may be as low as the house of Commons Library has said as 15 . That is if you look solely at directives and decisions. If you add in Statutory Instruments the figure rapidly expands and since Statutory Instruments have effect in this country and since they form part of the corpus of european law and since they are justice by the European Court of justice imseems to be entirely right that we should look at that figure. Its a huge figure. I think most people listening to this debate will conclude there is too much Staff Legislation emanating from the e. U. Which we can neither control nor repeal. Thats the critical point. Once it is promulgated, it can not be reversed. I think weve had the key exchange we need to have on the extension to which we could atta attach voracity to figures like 55 , 59 or that matter 15 . Helen goodman . Thank you, good morning mr. Johnson. Good morning. On february 7 you said leaving would cause clooes some Business Uncertainty while embroiling the government for several years in a fiddly crisis of negotiating new arrangements. So diverting any frrj the real problems of this country. How long do you think this period of uncertainty would last . Well, i think the first point to make there is that i do think its important in this whole debate not to blame every felon this country on the e. U. And i dont. Thats not what i asked you. I asked you how long a period of uncertain any. I dont think that it need last very long. In fact, i dont think there need to be a period of uncertainty at all when you consider that i think the best analogy i can come up with with this whole debate so youre suggesting if i may just finish. Is the millennium bug, the y2k alarmism and people said planes would all from the sky and computers would crash and the economy would tank by 5 . Nothing of the kind took place. I think there was a great deal of scare mongering. That piece as i recall set out two sets of arguments pro and con and it concluded, i remember, by saying we had nothing to fear from leaving the e. U. And that is the truth. Mr. Johnson those were your words. Weve taken evidence from a number of people, including the man who used to be our ambassador in brussels and he said the negotiations would basically have three parts. After we have triggered article 50 we would have a negotiation which might last for two years our on our arrangements for leaving. We would then have a night about our future relationship with the e. U. And in addition to that we have 50 free trade negotiations to undertake. Now, youve also said that the people of europe do not vote as one, think as one or speak as one so how long do you think it would take the other 27 Member States to establish what their negotiating position is going to be . I think for instance one of the most interesting things about this debate is the here is sort of negativity about our potential to do these deals i think weve become infantalized by the fact the whole responsibility for this is now conferred upon the commission and they dont have in my view sufficient e. U. Uk representatives to do it properly. Bear in mind, we already have extensive trading relationships, we have were already weve been in the thing for 44 years. Our relationship with the e. U. Is already very well developed, it doesnt seem to me that it would be very hard to strike doobd a free trade deal very rapidly indeed. I dont think it would be necessary to invoke article 50 immediately, i dont see why that would be the case. The u. S. australia deal i just mentioned for instance took only two years. I think the i think George Osborne is right when he says what we want is a british deal that represents an opportunity to get free trade with our European Partners based very largely on existing arrangements, i dont see why that should be beyond the wit of man. Nobody is suggesting we wouldnt be able to negotiate a deal at any time. Well, thats terrific. The question im asking you about now is the period of uncertainty. Youve said a number of Different Things about what you think breck sis should look like any question is do you think the other 27 Member States have an agreed picture about what the relationship they want would be with the uk . I do. I think what they would want look, theyre not were not having this debate in isolation in this country. I think everybody can see across the e. U. What is happening. So youre seriously saying that you think and i think people are already thinking about this and preparing for how they, our friends and partners, would want to take things forward. And i think that it will be overwhelmingly in their interests to do free trade deals as rapidly as possible and many of them as you know mr. Goodman have quite substantial trait balance balances in their favor with us. They would want to protect their businesses, their industries, i think the uk is 16 of exports for from the rest of the e. U. Its 10 . I defer to your 6 is quite a lot . My information is that its 16 . 16 of gdp. Forgive me. 16 of the gdp. Im happy to look at the figures for export bus if you look for instance at the german balance of trade with us, its 27 billion net. Pounds. That is a very substantial incentive. It was advantageous. But do you think that the interests of the German Economy and what they would want are the same as what for example the greeks would want from the deal . I think that there would be a variety of interest that people would want obviously at the moment we have free trade across the e. U. And people would want to protect that as far as they possibly could. Of course people would want to protect that as far as they possibly could. But in striking a deal do you think the interests of the German Economy and the interests of the Greek Economy are the same and that they could say immediately that they would have the same negotiating position and there would be no period of uncertainty . Well, i think youd have to take a view about whether or not you were going to strike an agreement with the e. U. As a whole. Dont forget that the e. U. Retains competence for International Trade negotiations. Even on a breck it is it would do that. So i imagine that it would the commission would be negotiating on behalf of both the greeks and the injure man the same time and i believe it would be possible to do a deal very rapidly indeed based on the existing patterns of trade and that is what people would want. Mr. Johnson, thats not how the process works. The council of ministers give the commission the negotiating mandate so the council of ministers initially have to have a discussion to agree the negotiating mandate for the commission to actually do the practical negotiations. And im asking you about whether the e. U. Member state on the council might not take some time to agree to negotiating mandate . I dont think. Because i think the overwhelming interest of european economies and indeed several of the most powerful european economies is to get such a deal done as fast as possible. The e. U. Has had problems because of the your creuro cris well, the e. U. Crisis is obviously caused by the fact that the structure and interest of the german and Greek Economy are quite different so i think youre being far too optimistic. Could ski you a question . Can i ask you another question about the uks negotiating position . Do you want to have access to the Single Market . The Single Market is a term that is i think increasingly widely misunderstood. And the whole corpus of european law adjudicated by the European Court of justice, in that sense it comprises everything from animal hygiene regulations to the weight of size of lorrie cabs to we dont need to have every single example of the whole Single Market. The rights of prisoners in uk prisons. And whether or not we should be able to deport them. But all these things are justiceable by luxembourg and my view is we should get out there under that system. Thats not the question i asked you. And from v a free trade arrangement that continues to give access to you can goods and services on the european continent and that is what its all about. Well, thats very helpful because on the sixth of march you gave the impression that you wanted a deal like the deal the swiss have. On the 11th of marge i dont know who took that impression but my view well, thats what you said on the suction of march and on the 11th of march you said you wanted a deal like the canadians. Well, i those deals are rather different. So if were to have as i said earlier, what i want is a deal for britain and i think thats what well get. If we are to end the period of uncertainty, it isnt terribly helpful for those people who are for brexit not to give a clear view ive given you a very clear view. You havent given us a clear view at all. Ive given you a very clear view. No, you havent. I have. And we have 1700 officials in this country who are capable of negotiating trade deals, theres no reason why it shouldnt be done expeditiously. Indeed one of the interesting features of the canadian deal and indeed the u. S. australia deal i just mentioned is they were able to remove huge numbers of Tariff Barriers. We could do that, we could go ahead and indeed wed be able to strike other free trade deals around the world which we are currently prevented from doing. Mr. Johnson. Yes . The canadian deal does not include Financial Services. I didnt want a canadian deal. I dont want to imitate the canadian deal. I want a british deal. So you dont actually want to negotiate like the canadians. You dont actually want to negotiate like the swiss. No. I want us to do a british deal. And there are aspects and what does that mean . There are aspects of the canadian deal, the tarifffree approach without Free Movement that i think are right. I think there are aspects of the swiss deal that are less attractive. Favorable as to one biggest export markets that the remainder of the eve mr. Johnson, on the day you came out, the pound fell supposedly because you were a very effective communicator and that made it more likely that it would happen. When the governor of the bank of england gave evidence to us, he described it as the biggest domestic risk to financial stability. And downward pressure and on household consumption. Are you not concerned that a president of uncertainty would have those effects . First of all, i dont believe that. I looked at fdi and london at the moment and confidence in the city and whats happening with our economy. No sign whatever of people being discouraged from investing and that is massively strong. I seem to remember, people were saying very much the same sort of thing. It didnt transpire and it flourished as never before. I have to say i think if you asked me about the pound, the pound will be as strong and robust as the uk economy. Sorry, im not asking you questions about the longterm. Im asking you questions about the shortterm. The president before we have agreed our relationship. The period before we agreed our new relationship with the eu, the period before we negotiated new Free Trade Agreements. When the governor of the bank is telling us there would be volitility in the Foreign Exchange markets, this would have an impact on the investments in the economy. If you could look beyond the city of london in the northeast, we have 140,000 manufacturing jobs dependent on exports to the eu. And they both said they would not invest more in the event. Do you think therefore it is responsible to dismiss as these concerns about uncertainty . Actually you are wrong. As far as i can remember, they said they would continue to invest. Now, they did not said that. What nissan said is they did not close the current faction and they would not move it. They would not put any new investment into this country every year. Why you were deciding what a british deal meant would come down to say we lost the investment for a period of perhaps two years. Dont you think that is a worry for those people who have jobs in the northeast . I think it shouldnt be a worry and i hope people would do their best to persuade those that are interested. They said they would close if we didnt join the euro. That would not happy and neither of those two things happened and that was the right decision. They would be more competitive if we leave the eu and be able to set our own course in the way that is in the interest of british manufacturing. A moment ago you were planning that they wanted to structure the rules on design. Now nissan obviously is cle completely happy. Surely you can see. We have 150,000 jobs because of this. In the European Market where is they continue to be astound and the european level obviously will be in the interest of nissan to make vehicles that are acceptable for the market as they make them acceptable for the United States as they have detailed provisions for what they want. I think there is such a deal of negativity about the ability to do this. We would be missing a massive opportunity to make the country more competitive and set our own economic course. To restore democracy. You made those points quite early on. You were trying to distance yourself from the view of those who would want to distance themselves. Just over three years ago, you said that we could construct a relationship and norwaying will except that we will be in the count counts you cast some doubts. What is the Single Market counts . Thats not as much as the competitive. I dont think it is possible to do that. I was speculating and it doesnt make sense because in the end you are either part of the single judicial system or you are not. This is coming back a while back. As it were, could you vote to get rid of the stuff that is not necessary and go into that. In the end, im giving you a very, very clear position. You for or against . We have that we get. Afterwards, thats the end of our relationship within the eu. We dont engage in another. I want to be clear if thats your view. Thats my view. I think i have been pretty clear by that before this whole committee. Do you agree that a large portion of the trading goods that would come in and know they have a certain they would be covered under the rules . Yes. Therefore germany. Certainly the case that the germans have in my view, a massive interest in making better use of services. That has never happened in the past and it could be utterly foolish for european economies not to make use of a massive resource for the whole of this area. The city as all Service Industries in which we excel are vital for any big European Company that wants to raise capital and this is the place to come and always will be. They are full of them and in the line of questioning. Thats the relationship we get. The uk represents about 15 of total gdp. For our exports, exports to europe, thats 45 of our exports. In terms of europes total exports to the uk, they are between 7 and 10 . Quite small. They are in total. The point im trying to make is the relative importance for us, 45 of our total exports is a very significant proportion of our total trade. 10 roughly is small and far less significant. Do you think that negates the disadvantage . I dont think so at all. Thats the interests of our friends and papers to continue to trade more freely. They are totally self destructive to this conversation is not happening in a vacuum. They dont want to have it. That would be great and thats a moment or two ago. As you know, the competence elaborated. Probably producing more and film than new york will produce and more than los angeles. Because of french objections, we can never do a free trade deal that involves the audio visual set. Totally hopeless for the uk economy. We need to have the ability to strike the deals. Can you think of any International Bankers and specifically somebody who is a senior member, goldmans and deutsch bank and any number of these banks that came to london that agrees with the fact that the uk would be better off. I can certainly say i wanted to give away private conversations, but i can say that there have been plenty of people in those institutions that have felt to get back to where they had the conversation. The balance of the argument is much more equivocal than is commonly supposed. London has the right time and thats huge. Im talking about this and i have to say im getting a different message. Perhaps thats true, but respectfully im going to direct you back to what some of them were saying at the time of the euro debate. I think Goldman Sachs would be clear that from all sorts of people. Im not going to confusion that myself. They said you were. Backing 1991 wrote an interesting pamphlet suggesting that the Single Market could not be complete without a single currency. Fortunately and you also misrepresented it quite badly. They explain why the project of the euro is being formed as a single and dangerous. Why bring it up. To read all my material. Never say never. Thats exactly what i began the session with again. Thats very partial and basking and a humorous approach to a very serious question for the uk. What we really need is a much more balanced. We cant deny that. People make an effort to qualify and represent each others views. With some accuracy. Im afraid. Im glad you said that. Some of my views have been reduced and im grateful for the opportunity earlier in this hearing to set straight some of the gross misrepresentations being made. Thats enough of that. Start a question. I was going to carry on with the line of questioning. They have an official position. Many, many have with the city of a survey. 84 wanted the uk to stay in. Its reasonable to accept that the city institutions. Why shouldnt they . If they failed to negotiate a proper agreement on Financial Services with europe, it would be detrimental. Do you disagree . They are unequivocal about that. They are not unanimous. There plenty who take an a posing view. He was moderate about this. The stakes are much lower than they were. The exports and even the last ten years, the exports to the eu have gone down. About 32 and possibly lower as a proportion of our exports. The opportunities around the world. These are going global. By staying locked into the eu system where we cons crate the trading arrangements to the commission, we are missing a huge opportunity. I think it would be massively beneficial. You talk about the rest of the world and why they want to trade in london. Why do the u. S. Banks want to come in. Every one of them talks about the support that goes with it and the access to the Single Market. Out of all of them, there is a shortage. The access to 550 Million People will remain in my view. How can you be sure . Those countries, countries tonight trade with countries. People trade with each other. Businesses need a great city. They need banks and supports and services of all kinds. They will find them in london and since the decision not going to the euro, its unbelievable growth that all of the euros completely failed to spot and they were wrong then and wrong now. I do understand. I have been wrestling with this problem you raised. There is a type of person in the big corporations or banks who take this and there is an enormous industry of lobbyists and negotiations of conferences and all this thing that is one way or the other as a result of the European Union. The think the people that would benefit from this change would be those companies that are the 95 of uk businesses that do not export with the eu. Of those that we finish on one area, nobody can deny that the European Union is the biggest trading they have ever seen and its important. Financial services are very, very important and the rest of the world wants to trade. What is the key is the regulation that comes on Financial Services as a result. And the fact that that these financi Financial Services lead the world. We would have no influence on the regulations. We would be subservient and being driven forward by europe and frankly, as good as we are. Why would we want to give our position to influence the worlds regulation. I dont think thats accurate about what would happen. Many of the regulations not in the Single Market if you want to call it this, its not at the eu level, but the regulations based on the cpmi. The pair box i think is a britain that would gain influence. Let me explain more. If you look at the wto or the imf or the g 7, g20, bodies that try to set standards for Financial Services or tried to have a role in this. The eu is now trying to interpose itself and speak in those debates. And what you would find is they regain strength. They are fantastically complex with huge amounts of overlap and the under lap. There have been a lot of institutions in 2014 you didnt deny that they have a less infullyential part than bright an would. Not the same level. Its not the same size banking market. I think pair boxically what you might get is an intensification of european influence and you have not just the eu speaking, but the uk. There would be a lot of coordination between us. One of the difficulties is that we as a country now are more and more often i voted in the minsters and it is hard sometimes to maintain. We are effectively influencing proceedings in the way we would like. They are alternative ways of getting the influence on natural services. None the less and i dont disagree with you and as you get more Member States, it gets smaller. I would agree that there many things wrong with the European Union. Would you not agree or you probably wouldnt. Its even better. If we will be inside and try to change that. I totally, yes, that was a position i was in for a long time. Many of us have been in before. I think it just several things have curdled my belief that that is possible. Lisbon and the annihilation of human rights. We thought we were told they were having significance. Its now the fundamental rights that are in the ecj and being used by the court of justice. A lot of people were influenced by the speech and the talk of fundamental powers and so on. I think they prespend that happened. This is a balance that everybody has. When you look at the massive concentration of power that took place and you couple it with a loss of control that has been so damaging to Public Confidence in politics. The argument only goes our way. You will get more. Mr. Johnson, on the 11th of march, you said what i think we should do is strike a new free trade deal. When did canada start negotiatesing and what is so good about it . I think we want a british deal. You said on the lines. We wouldnt be in the same position and they would be able to do a deal. The attractions are one of them and that is that it involves wholesale tariffs. Trs a lot more we can do. My question is when the negotiations started, they started in 2009 and a moment they are not in force. The eu and canada and took seven years to negotiate and its still not in force. It takes a long time. The negotiators are pretty goods and it took seven years to negotiate a deal and the former minster who had a piece in the times and he said its fact rus and trading as much as we do with the u. S. Would want a much deeper relationship than the canadians. I think thats right. The point about the canadian deal is that you have two different systems and trading relationships and they decide you deal with canada and took a while to negotiate. I dont see why they should be the case. They have been a number for 42 years. The u. S. Australia deal has been less than two years. The difference with respect to the u. S. Australia deal with the eu and this is what the times said today, they have to be ratified in the case of the eu. The legislators are not the same with a deal between the u. S. And australia. That is why it takes time. That means years of uncertainty and barriers to trade and a likely drop in investment. I havent finished. In your response to mr. Garnier, you said that there arguments on both sides. These are pretty compelling arguments. No, i dont think theyre good arguments at all. There no good economic arguments. They are not making good economic arguments. They are all making political arguments. Is that what you are suggesting . Yes, i am. I think that quite seriously the Economic Impact would be positive and in fact my economic adviser said it would be overwhelmingly positive. Thats the right thing to do and i agree with it. That would unshackle them. It would be a huge boost and take back control of considerable sums of money. Do you think part of the success is being an outward looking trading nation . Yes, i do. In that case, do you not think having tree trade is an important part of our success . I do and i see absolutely no reason why that should not be perpetuat perpetuated. It needs the agreement of 27 legislature as canada found and still finding is not always that easy to achieve. The Prime Minister, David Cameron would get there and lord kerr who said we would be able to point to a trade agreement between the eu and another country that has taken less than two years to negotiate. People will want to understand the contest. They can remain within the existing treaties for two years anyway. And i believe will be abundant time to negotiate. They are asking questions and i asked you a question. Im telling you that we have none. With respect. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My question was do you know of any trade deal between the eu and a trade deal that has taken less than two years. Given that we are members, that is one of the defects of the eu. That is one of the defects of the eu. You are making my point. One of the catastrophic weaknesses is that they are unable to strike the deals and cant do a deal even with china. Iceland has done a free trade deal. I believe making my point, its difficult to secure the trade arrangements. Given that is takes such a long time to make a deal and we are dependent on it. This is an absolute scam. Total nonsense. There already is perfect low well, a free trade area in the European Land mass stretching from portugal to turkey to the borders of russia. It is nonsensical to try to pretend that they are somehow going to the british cubby. It is not britain, but british people and companies and firms. They will continue to trade more than ever before with countries and people and partners on the continent of europe. 70 is done without any trade deals whatever. Whether we have trade agreements and whether we have tariffs and other barriers. Why would they do that . You have to stop interrupting. When you answer the question, if you do try to address the question even if it may not. I demolished the question. They will have the that you have asked. We make up our minds. Forgive me. Thank you very much. Canada is the country that you cited as an example. What we thought we should do is strike a deal in the lines of canada. Lets look more at the canadian deal. Do you think the deal is good for the Service Sector in canada . The question from before, the canadian deal has some aspects such as the removal of the 97 or 98 of tariffs. That is clearly not ideal. That is a british deal. Lets look at the tasks and the nonTariff Barriers and agriculture, for example. Some tariffs have been eliminated in most areas and not all. More than 90 of uk boef aeef a sheep exports go to the eu. On those exports for canada, they still exist. Thats more than 12 if you go over the quota. There is still substantial Tariff Barriers in areas. Do you think the canadian deal would be good for farmers in the uk if we were to secure that deal some. As i said, there attractions to the canadian deal and we do things that we would do much, much better. The fact that the uk is part of the eu for 44 years is very well for doing a substantial free trade deal with a comprehensive deal both on services and goods and Agricultural Products as our friends have no interest not to do such a deal. You made that assertion, but the german finance minster who appeared on the same day you did said you are in the Single Market or you are not. If you are not in it, you have trade arrangements. We may have those currently, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that we would have the same access and other countries you mentioned this morning, switzerland and norway have to both contribute to the eu budget and accept Free Movement. You seem to want to have the best of both worlds which we agree would be fantastic. Thats the reality. Come on. The reality is not always the same. I like to deal in realities. If we move on now to the other aspects of the canada deal, in the eu, they can directly through passporting. I see no reason why our friends and partners should not want to continue when you consider their banks benefit from their presence in london. They would want arrangements and deutsch bank has 8,000 employees in london. Just to tell you and everybody in the room, we will observe one minute of silence as for the rest of the house of commons. In respect for the events in brussels. Would you carry on. You may need to interrupt. Yes, of course. Mr. Chairman, again, mr. Johnson, you get the arrangements, but canada wanted these arrangements and wanted further barriers to be broken down and that was not to be achieved. I dont think that there was any evidence that we will get everything that we want through a negotiation. Other areas. If i may say so. You are not pointing to evidence. Im pointing to the evidence that exists based on the trade deal as this type of trade deal that you wanted. When we are making such important decisions and when they happen to make important decisions, they need to do that face based on the facts. If you look at the airline industry, the relationship with the between canada and the eu does not afford the same sort of access that the Single Market does. I believe there risks for farmers from the deal and risks to Financial Services and airlines and risks to most manufacturers as well. Im afraid, mr. Johnson, you havent provided any evidence that we can secure a deal. I will point out to you that unlike canada we have been a member of the European Union for 43 years. Because of our membership we have access to the market. And the ab rigz of terrorists and other trade barriers. You are, mr. Johnson, making my point. It is because of membership we have a better relationship with canada. Thanks to the close understanding there is between our countries and the trade, there will be no difficulty at all given the balances if they have in their favor with us and im speaking particularly about france and germany and other countries. I think it would be no difficulty whatever in getting a free trade deal. It will be there and will continue in a moment. [ silence ] do continue. I completed my point. There is no reason. There is no difficulty at all. They are very competent officials. About 1700 capable of negotiating trade deals. The pity of it is, in the European Commission which does trade deals for us, 3. 6 of the commissioned officials come from this country. I would like to know how you think and i can ask this restorically, how do you think we can expect that European Commission to do deals with other countries around the world to reflect britains means. In your speech, that took seven years to negotiate and seven years to implement. I dont want to take anymore 2030 to get access to markets that we can access today. Just last of all, let me quote from that. Let me ask my question. They became evident on the eighth of march who was one of the 1700 people who could do art negotiations and he was the ambassador to the uk in brussels and he was for many years the deals. He said they have very different views and i will personally regardless of what they said, on the European Union it will take sometime to work out what they wanted to do. He is one of the 1700 people who they can do that. As he said, it will make sometime with the british difference. You are being too pessimistic about our ability to do the deals. If you look at what the Prime Minister has said, he was a permanent representative to the eu, there was no free trade deal and do it in short order. It is overwhelmingly the interest not just of the uk, about you the partners to do such a deal. Not by the way. You were either in the Single Market or a trade agreement. Thats what we want. That is the way forward and i wou would whats happening at the i say that because if you look at what they said, i remember that. He spoke of the disaster that would happen on the european continent. It is being caused by the euro and the catastrophic failure of that policy. Driven by germany, the unemployment rates are still about 50 . What im saying is im not going to take lessons about Economic Disaster in europe. Look at what happened. Look at what happened. That may not be an interesting point, but its not closely related to the question you were asked. I would like to ask you a questi question. Is there a Free Trade Agreement and bilateral Free Trade Agreement that gives full access to Financial Services . I dont think there is. With that question that you are implying, if you are implying the rest of the union would be so foolish as to discriminate against a uk Financial Services, that would be wrong. I dont think that would happen one minute. They were told that the banks would migrate away from london. It did not happen. They are 70 odd . You made another remark. They were going beyond that. I wouldnt want to. Do you think they cope with him making the political arguments . You know i had him before the committee and im sure you asked him on the lines. He is expressing his views and i happen to think. Was he right or wrong to do so. I happened to agree. Thats clear enough. They connected it on the political argument. He has a right to express his views. The government should be able to make a political argument. I think what the governor was saying is that there were shortterms. We had what he said and translated and they say there is not an economic argument that the governors made and you have confidence in it and the bank of england was making the argument that i didnt agree with. Im not sure i share your confidence. Thats about as consistent as i said this morning. I want to pick up the point about the negotiation and referendum. You seem to think he has been at the heart of that for years. Pretty much on the same terms we had now. On what basis . Surely we face penalties. Why . You made the argument yourself. Im wondering if they made the europo skeptics and you said yourself, in augments, you would face your penalties. What did you have in mind . Im sure there would be some frankly i have no interested what. Lets face it. There will be some shortterm feeling of hurt on the part of our friends and partners. They would allay those and point out in the interests and not just of the uk, but of the whole of the European Union that we should stop a system that is in my view out of control. Thats antidemocratic and weakening the trust. If you look at whats happening, you have the rise of the far right a the experiment is very damaging. Unrelated from the union. They talked about the euro or the risk of exposure even if we were part of the Single Markets. We should be whether we remain or leave. I want to be on that. The domestic implications in the event of the vote. I see this picture of the Prime Minister event and it may be a different Prime Minister. Im sure they wont be talking about the new land where children can choke on the balloons and we can recycle our tea bags. They have the europe eastern union. I think earlier you said that there is no reason for uncertainty. Do you not agree if we were to leave the European Union, there would be an economic shock . No. The best is with the y2k bug. Your own economic adviser has said leaving the eu would be an economic shock. You dont agree with the governor of the bank of england and you cant explain why. Now you dont agree with your economic adviser. Please point to any evidence whatsoever beyond our argument and the view. Beyond argument. And the economic shock. I will give you the most obvious. She has been absent. Thats the right thing to do. And secondly what is the evidence that would not be an economic shock. I simply point to you as they revert to all the arguments made at the time of the euro decision. And there were many people who were saying then im going to get across that point. They heard that argument six or seven points and they are outside this room. They are new to it before. If you have a new point to make, please do make the new point. They got it so wrong about the euro recently said that and they predicted what would happen. Even in their most which i thought was grossly negative, but even in the most negativy is narios, there was three million more jobs. I dont happen to agree that they were right. They would be galvanized and take back control over the borders and take back control over about 10 billion pounds net that we send to brussels. Its high time that we did so. You cant tell what they would look like. The event this is week showed the economic last month, lets not your economic advisers predicted it and you dont agree with him. That is an issue you should take back to the city. Let me just take your own view which i think at least the view at the time. When you were questioned by andrew marr, he raised this metaphor of the night. To describe what would happen in the event. He said there would be a period presumably in the downward and i can draw a diagram if thats helpful. You said its mine. You said it might. I think the rest the risks are roughly the same as those of the y2k millennium bug. We are talk ourselves into needless negativity about this. I really think you consider hang on a minute. I am shutting down this y2k bug stuff. You fall back on this argument and the only relevance here is that there was no evidence of a y2k bug and there was not much argument for what you are making. Besides the economic adviser do you think its overwhelming . Thats an independent report released by them. You dont have much time for them, but it was conducted by pwc. The vote of the eu would cost the economy 100 billion pounds and 950,000 jobs. How many would it take before you change your mind again that britain should be a member of the union . As you study that report as im sure you have, you will find it predicts three million more jobs. Even on the result. Whats your message to them . 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 in services that our country needs. Secondly, we would take back control of our frontiers. We would relieve the colossal pressure on wages and the downward pressure on wages. No, thats very, very important. You are asking about whether people would be better off. I think you its talk about jobs. Im trying to bring you back to the next two or three years. Most families cant find their finances. Lets talk about families. Im not going to how many im not going to instruct you to stop interrupting the instructors again. Order. If i had direct order. Order. Boris, let wes ask you the question and then try and address your answer to the question, not to what perhaps you might have wanted the question to be. Wes. In the short term, there would be an economic shock. There would naturally be of course there is. What . What . Even if the government has a clear position about its platform for renegotiation, which as far as im aware, it doesnt. We would still have to get the agreement of every other eu member state. That breeds uncertainty and there is risk an im afraid i put a bit more stock in independent analyses of economists in the short term. Im wondering what work you have done as mayor of london to look at what would happen in terms of jobs in london in the next two to three years and how many job losses of londoners would take, whether people losing jobs on the Trading Floor or clean the Trading Floor. Lets talk about that and how many thank you, mr. Street. I believe that the london economy along with the rest of the uk economy would benefit if the removal of a huge amount of regulation and red tape. It would also i think benefit many, many londoners on low incomes who have very poor access to the services such as the nhs or education or whatever it happens to be simply because of the pressure on those services from uncontrolled immigration. And i must be very honest about this. Im proimmigration. I believe its a good thing but its absolutely wrong of politicians to be unable to control those flows and weve seen i think the last year of which we have figures we had 330,000 net immigration into this country. That is unquestionably exercised. Its something i believe you should care about very strongly. Unquestionably exercised a downward pressure on the wages of all of our constituents. It has gravely exacerbated the ability made it much more difficult for social services to cope. Its put huge pressure on awe services of all kinds. It is not right for us in london or indeed anywhere in this country to be asked to cope with that kind of numbers without some sort of number of control and not right for the politicians to tell the electorate they can control it when they cant. I think it was lord rose who came to this committee and made the point the brexit would lead to an increase in wages for the low paid and something you could bear in mind on the impact of a brexit. Would you in the part of brexit want ive given that answer about 15 times. Then you must surely but your views tend to change. Im wondering if further down the track, you know, if we have negotiated britain taking part in the simple market, you accept that we may still be subject to european regulations, they may still insist on freedom of movement as a principle and even if they didnt, a country like ours and a city like london is still reliant on immigration to drive its economy. But controlled immigration and it is totally wrong, the politicians should continually tell their elect rats that they can control numbers when they cant. Theres no reason at all this country shouldnt continue to attract talented people but without an open door policy. This is the whole argument changed very much over the last 20 years or so because before mass trait, basically you were able to move to another eu country if you were in search of if you had an i dont know to go to. When i went to work on the continent i had to report to the commune, show evidence i had a job and all the rest of it. That is no longer the case under the doctrine of european citizenship. Anybody can travel around in search of work and indeed as you know to receive benefits. And that is leading to colossal pressures across the eu. And it is when you have a free travel area, gigantic free travel area and you have huge difficulties of controlling immigration coming in to the eu zone, then you are making life really, really difficult for government at all levels. I just i just want to finish then on the issue of trust. Firstly, i mean, are you not concerned that if we were to leave the European Union but still be subjected to eu regulations and still be let me just make this point. If we were still subjected to eu regulations and still dealing with migration to drive the economy, are you not concerned people voting to leave the European Union on immigration might feel cheated . And the second thing is ill give you a chance. The second thing im interested in is, whatever criticism i may have about the facts that you put across or lack of facts in answers, i dont think many people would doubt that this morning you put across an enthusiastic and rather passionate case for leaving the European Union. Do you not understand why many of us find it hard to believe that passion and believe your authenticity when over the course of your political career youre making different argument . Rubbish. I havent. I think theres no to answer your second point first, i dont think there is i dont think you would be hard pushed the find a single british politician or journalist who has written more about the failures of democracy in the eu over the last 30 years than me. I really dont think with the possible exception of daniel hammond. I dont think theres a single one and i resent it very much. Ive given you my explanation of what i think has gone wrong and is going wrong with the European Union. This is out of control. Totally out of control. A what we need to do is take back control and particularly over the funds and over our borders. And, you know, if you want my to i perhaps somebody sent me a cutting from 25 years ago which predicted Daily Telegraph 1991 predicting the ec facing 800,000 immigrants a year. And as i reported, 1992 draws near the issues sensitive amongst Member States, france shares an xities of checks to see Migrant Workers from czechoslovakia to spain, algeria to london. That was 25 years ago that i same time that andrew was writing about how you needed a single currency to complete a Single Market i was accurately, accurately predicting what would happen in a border free europe. And as to your first point about what would happen postbrexit and what we do with our frontiers, you know, there is no reason at all why you should not be able to have free trade as exists as i say from iceland to the borders with russia without having Free Movement in the way that we currently have it. It didnt actually exist before man strait anyway. Why is it necessary . It is not the law. Theres no reason why we should have it. When you spoke in the house of commons in 2003, which is a bit more recent, i have the strong impression from that reading that speech that you were strongly supportive of enlargement and the immigration that came with it. Do i take it that you have changed your view . I was supportive of enlargement because it was then the view of the government that i thought rightly, then the british view that if we widened the eu it would somehow become a more tenuous relationship, it would be based more it would be a looser arrangement. Whens happened instead is that the widening of the eu has sense an intensification of the dominance of germany. That is the lets be totally clear about what has happened. The whole federal structure has accentuated german preponderance within europe. As for migrants clarify when your view has changed with respect to that enlargement and the associated immigration. I would not i think it was the blair government decided prematurely to allow the countries to have Free Movement. You did say its rubbish that you changed your view earlier and im just looking what the you actually said in 2003 which is not that long ago. You said it is hard to think of a measure this is the measure for the introduction of ten countries into the eu, including the a8 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 thats been gracefully exaggerated. What is certainly the case is that if you look at