FRANCE could deliberately adopt a "go-slow" approach at Calais if there were a no-deal Brexit, Dominic Raab has warned.
The Brexit Secretary also told MPs he was confident the authorities in Ireland were "well aware" of the implications of a no-deal after Tory MP Philip Hollobone warned that Dublin would be hardest hit in trade terms if the French "start mucking about" with Calais.
And Mr Raab warned MPs on all sides against seeking to "wreck" any deal secured by Theresa May during a punchy Brexit questions session, which also saw Labour label the no-deal preparations as "bluff" and the UK Government being accused of "Mussolini politics" by Labour backbencher Barry Sheerman.
Speaking in the Commons, the SNP’s Peter Grant highlighted warnings from the UK Government’s spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, over no-deal Brexit preparations and told Mr Raab: "That's on top of the 80,000 Scottish jobs and £2,300 out the pockets of every Scottish household and nine per cent hit to our economy that no-deal Brexit is likely to bring.
"Is the Secretary of State seriously telling us that it's possible for him and the Prime Minister to bring back a bad deal that is worse than that?"
Mr Raab replied: "He's right to point to the risks of no-deal but the point is to have the planning and preparations in place to make sure we can avoid or mitigate those risks.
"In addition to the remarks I made earlier, there's £8 million of funding announced for customs intermediaries.
"We also need to prepare for the worst-case scenario where the authorities at Calais are deliberately directing a go-slow approach by supporting a diversion of the flow to more amenable ports in other countries," he said.
Brexit-backing Mr Hollobone asked: "Has he made the Republic of Ireland aware that if the French start mucking about with Calais and a go-slow in the event of a no-deal, the biggest impact would not be on UK trade, it will be on trade with the Republic of Ireland that passes through this country?"
In response, Mr Raab said: "I'm confident the authorities in Dublin are well aware of the implications of no-deal. What we want to do - and what all of us on all sides, including the EU, want to do - is to make sure we lock horns, close outstanding issues and seal the good deal that will serve everyone's interests."
The Brexit Secretary a;so prompted groans from the opposition benches by claiming Labour would be to blame for a no-deal if its MPs voted against any agreement secured by the Prime Minister.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin, the former Tory Chief Whip, asked: "Can he be absolutely sure that should this House reject a deal brought back by the Government, we will still leave the EU on March 29 and those who voted against that deal will be responsible for no-deal?"
Mr Raab replied: "He raises, responsibly and assiduously, the stark reality of those who would seek to wreck that deal, as the Labour Party leadership has suggested, come what may.
"Every member in this House will have a choice to make between the good deal we're confident we will be bringing back and the alternatives."
Later, Mr Sheerman, who represents Huddersfield, voiced his support for a People’s Vote but reacted angrily and shouted "Mussolini politics" as Suella Braverman, the Brexit Minister replied.
She said: "Looking after the future of this nation means respecting the democratic voice of this nation, and, yes, 700,000 people marched on Saturday, but 17.4 million people voted to leave. And we don't simply ignore their voices just because we don't like what they said."
Ms Braverman also told Mr Sheerman to "take a long hard look in the mirror and ask himself if he can really, truly call himself a democrat".
Sir Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, reeled off a list of legislation, new agreements and measures he said would be required in the next 22 weeks to prepare for a no-deal Brexit.
"The truth is it's already too late to plan for no-deal; this is bluff, not planning. Why wasn't this legislation introduced months ago?" he asked.
Mr Raab replied by saying that a "variety" of legislation had been put in place, adding: "The irresponsible thing to do is the position of the Shadow Chancellor [John McDonnell], who said he would make no financial provision for no-deal."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel