17/01/2017 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May says the UK won't be "half-in, half-out"

of the EU, as she sets out her Brexit

The Prime Minister is due to flesh out her Brexit plan in a speech

We'll bring you the speech live and uninterrupted here on BBC Two.

After months of deliberation, the PM is expected to say the UK

will leave the EU single market in order to take back control

But how much freedom will we have to strike our own trade deals

with countries like China, India and the United States?

We'll have detailed analysis and political reaction.

For six months since the referendum, Theresa May has stuck to her phrase

Today, we find out what that really means.

In around 15 minutes, the Prime Minister will make

a speech to an audience of diplomats in Lancaster House, central London,

which Number Ten says will set out 12 priorities for the forthcoming

We're expecting the speech to last around 45 minutes, and we'll bring

you all of her speech, live and uninterrupted.

With me for our specially-extended programme today are the Conservative

Leave campaigner and former Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers.

And Labour's Shadow International Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner.

First, let's get the latest from our assistant political editor

Norman Smith who's at Lancaster House.

What can we expect? If you are expecting a blueprint for Brexit, a

feast of details, you are going to be disappointed, that is not what

you will get. Yes, there will be confirmation, we are leaving the

single market, but beyond that, I suspect there will be little

clarity. The reason is so many of the key areas are central to Theresa

May's negotiations and she does not want to compromise her approach.

There is an ongoing disagreement, call it what you will, within

Government over key aspects of Brexit. Instinctively, Theresa May

rarely says more than she has two. By the end of the day, we will not

massively wiser about the specific objectives Theresa May is seeking.

For example on the issue of the customs union. It is clear Mrs may

wants Britain to negotiate its own trade deals outside the customs

union. Equally it is clear within Government there is a view there are

huge advantages to British industry to remain a part of the customs

union. That will form a critical part of negotiations. We want to be

out but we want the benefits of staying in. We are looking for a

deal. Likewise on immigration, we could push for a tough deal, insist

on quotas are people who want to come from the EU to Britain. We

could go for a of movement, saying you can come here if you have a job.

Lastly, on a transitional deal, we don't want to say we are desperate

for a transitional deal, that makes us look weak. That is central to

negotiations. Because Mrs May still has to go into the negotiating

chamber, she does not want to put up an advertising sign, this is what I

want. So do not expect detail about her specific objectives.

She has talked about 12 negotiating priorities. We work expect too much

detail around the key issues. What will be in those priorities?

Will they be nebulous? You will hear a restatement of what Mrs May has

said many times about taking back control of migration, legal

authority from the Supreme Court, of our money.

The big overarching principles. What will be in her speech is a message

of reassurance. The speech today has been cast as her setting out her

plans. I think she sees it as Theresa May talking to the world

beyond Westminster. Reassurance to voters we won't be doing the hokey

Cokie halfway in half an hour. We are leaving. Reassurance to other

countries, we remain friends, we want to trade with you. Reassurance

to the rest of the world who won't become some sad lonely Island not

talking to the rest of the world. It is that bigger picture message

rather than the nitty-gritty specifics.

Thank you. We will let you go inside Lancaster House.

Is this what you are expecting, a clear sign we are leaving the single

market? That is what has been briefed.

Norman Smith is right, at this stage, it doesn't make sense to have

a detailed negotiating blueprint in the public domain. We may get an

indication we are leaving the internal market but not huge detail

on other issues. Do you accept that? The more the

speech has been trialled in advance, it is probable unless it will

contain on the day. It has been a speech where the Prime Minister is

trying to say this is on track but actually as Norman set out in his

piece and as Theresa May would agree, the Prime Minister is in a

difficult position appealing to the wider audience, but also trying to

get the facts right. Are we going to have the benefit of the customs you

in? She realises that is in our economic interest. -- customs union.

She wants a bold statement, this is a clean break which is a difficult

balance. Leaving the single market as has

been briefed is what she will outline. She has been clearer about

that over the last few months. We won't hear anything different. Do

you agree then as you have implied that the argument about today will

be about the customs union and whether we are part of that customs

union which will make it difficult for us to have free trade deals

which is the Department you are shadowing?

If you look at what the Conservative Party manifesto said, it talked

about safeguarding Britain's's interests in the single market,

about competing the single market in terms of the economy. It is clear we

have a Prime Minister who has now broken with those central pledges

that were there in the Conservative manifesto. But she has done that

without her own mandate. That puts her in a difficult position with the

electorate and her own party. She has to explain how having come into

being Prime Minister without any election, and she is now revoking

that clear commitment that was in the Conservative manifesto, to

complete the single market. It is one thing to say, we are leaving the

EU. To say we are going to reject all the things that are in the

economic benefit that create jobs and economic prosperity in this

country, she has to explain that to the British public.

That we would be better off. She had to explain how we are going to be

better off. The Conservative manifesto said we

would hold a referendum and respect the result.

We respect that result. Now she is in that position...

We need to leave the internal market. It would leave us subject to

European law and the European Court of Justice, both of those are

inconsistent with respecting the leave boat.

You are saying the Conservative manifesto contained inconsistent

answers. I am asking now the Prime Minister should reconcile those by

explaining to the British public why, on the one hand, she promised

to make Britain better by completing -- safeguarding the British interest

in the single market, now she wants to do the opposite.

The phrase is half-in, half-out, she doesn't want that. We are leaving

the EU, she says. Would you see partial membership of the customs

union, would that still be half in for you?

My anxiety would be if we stayed partly in the customs union, we

would be likely to be subject to extensive regulation and balls and

the ECJ. If we can avoid that, it is not unreasonable to keep the option

open -- regulation and balls. To be consistent we need to leave

the customs union and the internal market.

In its entirety. Mixing and matching different

sectors is difficult to reconcile with WTO rules.

Do you agree Barry Gardner the UK would still be half in if you like,

if we remained even partially as part of the customs union?

Not at all. What you have, for example, both Norway and

Switzerland, one of them inside the single market but not part of the

EU, the other inside the customs union but not part of the EU.

Models can be separate where those countries are not members of the EU.

Strictly, that is not correct. The point Theresa May made about the

world trade organisation is important.

What the WTO says, in order to be part of a customs union, you need to

be substantially within it. That means it is about 85% - 90% of all

your ex boats have to be part of the WTO.

Theresa May is going inside Lancaster House, due to speak in the

next few minutes in a speech lasting 45 minutes. She has gone inside

Lancaster House. Let's take a quick look

at the timetable to Brexit. Theresa May's speech comes ahead

of a decision by the Supreme Court on whether she will need

the approval of Parliament That ruling is expected

by the end of January. The Government has already committed

to publish a plan for leaving the EU The Brexit Select Committee has

called for a white paper to be The Prime Minister has said Article

50 will be triggered by the end of March,

firing the starting gun on up to two But the EU's chief negotiator

Michel Barnier has said the negotiations could only last

for up to 18 months in order to give EU institutions

time to ratify the deal. Further talks may need to take place

after that to agree Britain's post-Brexit trading relationship

with the EU if this cannot be negotiated in parallel

with the exit deal. And throughout the speech,

the BBC's Reality Check team will be fact-checking Theresa May's claims

and posting comments on the BBC Labour is not going to block the

triggering of Article 50? That is right, we have accepted the

will of the public was clear. It was a huge vote, 52% in favour of

leaving, 48% against. That is a clear majority, we accept

that. What we will try is set out the way

in which we think it should be delivered.

There was no clarity about how we should leave.

That is what we need. It is what the Prime Minister promised before

Christmas, what Parliament voted on before Christmas.

The Government accepted they would set out a paper to Parliament

setting out the negotiating conditions.

The speech today is not a Government paper.

As Norman Smith said. Will it be enough for you if she fleshes out

the principles? Not at all, we want a paper to

Parliament, not a speech. But what would be wrong with that?

Why shouldn't Government flesh out more clearly beyond what this speech

is expected to set out to MPs across the house, bearing in mind the

opposition said it would block triggering Article 50?

It may be the Government publishes further documents before a vote is

taken in Parliament. Ministers are engaging every day in Parliament on

how to approach these negotiations. This speech is another significant

landmark setting out our objectives. Every step of the way Parliament is

involved. What would not be wise is to set up all the detail of our

strategy. If the Government fails to provide

some sort of paper setting out the negotiating position, what will you

do? They will have broken their permits

to Parliament. We will table an amendment setting out what we

believe should be the case. If the Government defeats that, they

have the majority in Parliament to do that, it is their right to do

that as Government, then they can trigger Article 50 without having

provided detailed to Parliament for proper Parliamentary scrutiny.

Today, it is not acceptable for the Prime Minister to make the

fundamental points about how she is approaching these negotiations not

to Parliament. Parliamentary scrutiny is important, it is what

the Brexited said they were bringing back, sovereignty to the UK.

Let's go inside the room at Lancaster House. Diplomats gathered

inside, with members of the press, waiting for this speech from Theresa

May, due to start in the next few minutes or so. Lots of anticipation,

no doubt. There is our political editor Laura Kuenssberg. Theresa

Villiers, you were going to interject when Barry was speaking? I

think it is crucial to point out that Parliament is engaged every day

in this process. Barely a day goes by when we don't have debate on this

and very often Labour don't have the speakers... What can they debate on

if they don't have the information in their grasp? The Prime Minister

set out the fundamentals in her conference speech. We will get more

detail today. What we don't want is wrecking amendments in the

legislation. Barry Gardner said that won't happen, they won't have

wrecking amendments, is that right? That is right. If we are leaving,

which we accept we are, we want to make a success of it. That means

jobs in this country, economic growth. And remaining in the customs

union? We think that actually we should be getting the best possible

access either in the customs union and the single market that we

possibly can, for our goods and services, on a tariff free and on a

non-tariff free basis. Those barriers must remain. That would

mean, according to the European Union, on a tariff free basis, that

we would have to sign up to the rules of freedom of movement. That

is subject to negotiation. Any indication they would give way on

that? None. It is clear on the other side of the negotiating table that

they hold the four freedoms as essential. There was a concession

given to David Cameron on timescales on the four year concession they

talked about. There may be a way of pushing that further. That is

subject to negotiation. Both sides were very clear that leaving the EU

meant leaving the internal market, during the referendum that was clear

from both sides. In terms of negotiations, what are your viewss

on the transition arrangements? There are hints there should be a

transitional arrangement with the EU if negotiations aren't completed by

2019, would you support that? It depends what transitional

arrangement we are talking about. If it is something that effectively

keeps us in the EA for years on end, I don't think that would be

acceptable. If it's relatively short or specific, it could make sense,

but you can't answer the single question about whether transitional

arrangements are acceptable or not, it depends on what type of

transitional arrangements. Would you prefer to use the clean and hard

Brexit terms, whether or not they had completed a deal with the EU

that is satisfactory for the government? I would prefer we

limited the period of uncertainty, so we had a clean break from the EU

at the end of the Article 50 process. Inevitably there will be

some types of transitional arrangements to help industry deal

with that transition. But I think the more we can do to get this

decision made as quickly as possible, the better for our economy

and it gives us the opportunity to start negotiating with other

countries on trade deals. Do you accept if we stay part of the

customs union, within that group of countries that trades within the

customs union... I am going to stop there, here is the Prime Minister,

Theresa May, taking her place on the podium to deliver her speech on

Brexit. A little over six months ago the

British people voted for change. They voted to shape a brighter

future for our country. They voted to leave the European Union and

embrace the world, and they did so with their eyes open, accepting that

the road ahead would be uncertain times, but believing that it leads

towards a brighter future for their children and their grandchildren,

too. It is the job this government to deliver it. That means more than

negotiating our new relationship with the EU. It means taking the

opportunity of this great moment of national change to step back and ask

ourselves what kind of country we want to be. My answer is clear. I

want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger,

Sarah, more united and more outward looking than ever before. -- fairer.

I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country, a

magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and

innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly

global Britain, the best friend and neighbour to our European partners,

but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe, too. A

country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old

friends and new allies alike. I want Britain to be what we have

the potential talent and ambition to be, a great, global trading nation

which is respected around the world and strong, confident and United at

home. That is why this government has a plan for Britain. One that

gets us the right deal abroad, but also ensures we get a better deal

for ordinary working people at home. It's why that plan sets out how we

will use this moment of change to build a stronger economy and a

fairer society, by embracing genuine economic and social reform. Why our

new modern industrial strategy is being developed, to ensure every

nation and area of the United Kingdom can make the most of the

opportunities ahead. Why we will go further to reform our schools, to

ensure every child has the knowledge on the skills they need to thrive in

Paris Brexit Britain. Why, as we continue to bring the deficit down,

we would take a balanced approach by investing in our economic

infrastructure, because it can transform the growth potential of

our economy and improve the quality of peoples lives across whole

country. It's why we will put the

preservation of our precious union at the heart of everything we do.

Because it is only by coming together as one great union of

nations and people that we can make the most of the opportunities ahead.

The result of the referendum was not a decision to turn inward and

retreat from the world. Because Britain's history and culture is

profoundly internationalist. We are a European country and proud of our

shared European heritage, but we are also a country that has always

looked beyond Europe, to the wider world. That is why we are one of the

most racially diverse countries in Europe, one of the most

multicultural members of the European Union, and why whether

we're talking about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, America, Australia,

Canada, New Zealand, countries in Africa or those closer to home in

Europe, so many of us have close friends and relatives from across

the world. Instinctively we want to travel to study in and trade with

countries not just in Europe but beyond the borders of our continent.

Even now, as we prepare to leave the EU, we are planning for the next

heads of Commonwealth meeting in 2018, a reminder of our unique and

proud global relationships. And it is important to recognise this fact.

June the 23rd was not the moment Britain chose to step back from the

world, it was the moment we chose to build a truly global Britain. I know

that this and the other reasons Britain took such a decision is not

always well understood among our friends and allies in Europe, and I

know many fear that this might herald the beginning of the great

unravelling of the EU. But let me be clear, I do not want that to happen.

It would not be in the best interests of Britain, it remains

overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain's national interest that the

EU should succeed. That is why I hope, in the months and years ahead,

we will all reflect on the lessons of Britain's decision to leave. So

let me take this opportunity to set out the reasons for our decision and

to address the people of Europe directly.

It's not simply because our history and culture is profoundly

internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always

felt that the United Kingdom's place in the European Union came at the

expense of our global ties and a boulder embrace of free trade with

the wider world. There are other important reasons, too. Our

political traditions are different. Unlike other European countries, we

have no written constitution, but the principle of Parliamentary

sovereignty is the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement.

We have only a recent history of devolved government, though it has

rapidly embedded itself. We have little history of coalition

government. The public expect to be able to hold their governments to

account very directly. As a result, supranational institutions as strong

as those created by the European Union, sit very uneasily in relation

to our political history and way of life. And while I know Britain might

at times has been seen as an awkward member state, the European Union has

struggled to deal with the diversity of its member countries and their

interests. It bends towards uniformity, not flexibility. David

Cameron's negotiation was a valiant final attempt to make it work for

Britain. And I want to thank all those elsewhere in Europe who helped

him to reach an agreement, but the blunt truth, as we know, is that

there was not enough flexibility on many important matters for a

majority of British voters. I do not believe that these things apply

uniquely to Britain. Britain is not the only member state where there is

a strong attachment to an accountable and democratic

government, such a strong internationalist mindset or a belief

diversity within Europe should be celebrated. So I believe there is a

lesson in Brexit, not just for Britain, but, if it wants to

succeed, for the EU itself, because our continent's great strength has

always been its diversity. There two of dealing with different interests.

You can respond by trying to hold things together by force, tightening

vice like grip that ends up crashing into tiny pieces the very things you

want to protect, or you can respect difference, cherish it even come and

reform the EU so it deals better with the wonderful diversity of its

member states. So to our friends across Europe, let

me say this: our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of

the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to

become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours. It was no

attempt to do harm to the EU itself or to any of its remaining member

states. We do not want to turn the clock back to the days when Europe

was less peaceful, less secure and less able to trade freely. It was a

vote to restore, as we see it, our Parliamentary democracy, national

self-determination and to become even more global and

internationalist in action and in spirit. We will continue to be

reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy

your goods and services, cellular hours, trade with you as freely as

possible and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more

secure and more prosperous through continued friendship. You will still

be welcome in this country, as we hope our citizens will be welcoming

yours. At a time when together we face a serious threat from our

enemies, Britain's unique intelligence capabilities will

continue to help to keep people in Europe safe from terrorism. And at a

time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain's

service men and women based in European countries, including

Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are

leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. And that is

why we seek a new and equal partnership between an independent,

self-governing, global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU.

Not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership

of the European Union or anything that leads us half in and half out.

We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries.

We do not seek to hold onto bits of membership as we leave. No, the

United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, and my job is to get

the right deal for Britain as we do. So today, I want to outline our

objectives for the negotiation ahead. 12 objectives that amount to

one big goal, a new, positive and constructive partnership between

Britain and the European Union. And as we negotiate that partnership, we

will be driven by some simple principles. We will provide as much

certainty and clarity as they can at every stage and we will take this

opportunity to make Britain stronger, to make Britain fairer and

to build a more global Britain. The first objective is crucial, we

will provide certainty whenever we can. We are about to enter a

negotiation, that means there will be give and take, there will have to

be compromises, it will require imagination on both sides. Not

everybody will be able to know everything at every stage. But I

recognise how important it is to provide business, the public sector

and everybody with as much certainty as possible as we move through the

process. So, where we can offer that certainty, we will do so.

That is why last year we acted quickly to give clarity about farm

payments and university funding, why is be repealed the European

Community is that we will convert the body of existing EU thought into

British law to give the country maximum certainty as we leave the

EU. The same rules and laws will apply on the day after Brexit as

before. It will be for the British Parliament to decide on any changes

to that law after full scrutiny and proper Parliamentary debate. When it

comes to Parliament, there is one of the way I would like to provide

certainty and I can confirm today the Government will broker the final

deal, put the final deal before Parliament before it comes into

force. Our second guiding principle is to

build a stronger Britain. That means taking control of our own

affairs, as those who voted in them is to leave demanded we must. We

will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Leaving the EU will mean

our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and

Belfast. Those laws will be interpreted by a judge is not in

Luxembourg but in courts across this country. Because we will not have

truly left the EU if we are not in control of our laws.

A stronger Britain demands we do something else. Strengthen the

precious union between the four nations of the UK. At this momentous

time, it is more important than ever we face the future together. United

by what makes us strong. The bond that unites us as a people and

Arshad -- our shared interest in the UK being a successful trading nation

in future. I hope that same spirit of unity will apply in Northern

Ireland over the coming months in the Assembly elections, and the main

parties that will work together to re-establish a partnership

Government as soon as possible. Foreign affairs are the

responsibility of the UK Government and we act in the interests of all

parts of the UK. As Prime Minister I take that responsibility seriously.

I have also been determined from the start the devolved administrations

should be fully engaged in this process. That is why the Government

has set up a joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations so

ministers from each of the devolved and restrictions in the UK can

contribute to the process of planning for our departure from the

EU. We have received a paper from the Scottish Government and look

forward to receiving a paper from the Welsh Government shortly. Both

papers will be considered as part of this important process.

We won't agree on everything but I look forward to working with the

administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver a

Brexit that works for the whole of the UK. Part of that will mean

working very carefully to ensure that as powers are repatriated from

Brussels back to Britain, the right powers are returned to Westminster

and the right powers are passed to the devolved administrations of

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As we do so, our guiding principle must be to ensure as we leave the

European Union no new barriers to living and doing business within our

own unions are created. That means maintaining the necessary

come on standards and frameworks for our domestic market, empowering the

UK as an open trading nation, to strike the best trade deals around

the world and protecting the common resources of our islands. As we do

this I should be clear no decision is currently taken by the devolved

demonstrations will be removed from them. We cannot forget that as we

leave, the UK will share a land border with the EU and maintaining

that common travel area with the Republic of Ireland will be an

important priority for the UK in the talks ahead. There has been a common

travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland for many years.

It was formed before either of our two countries by members of the EU.

The family ties and bonds of affection that unite our two

countries means there will always be a special relationship between us.

We will work to deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance

of the Common travel area with the Republic while protecting the

integrity of the UK's immigration system. Nobody wants to return to

the borders of the past so we will make it a priority to deliver a

practical solution as soon as we can.

The third principle is to build a fairer written. That means ensuring

it is fair to everyone who lives and works in this country. That is why

we will ensure we can control immigration to Britain from Europe.

We will continue to attract the brightest and best.

So our immigration system serves the national interest.

So we will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the

EU. Because, well controlled immigration can bring great

benefits, filling skills shortages, delivering public services, making

British business is the world beaters they often are. When the

numbers get too high, public support for the system fault is. In the last

decade we have seen record levels of net migration in Britain and that

volume has put pressure on public services like schools, stretched our

infrastructure especially housing, put a downward pressure on wages for

working class people. As Home Secretary for six years I know you

cannot control immigration overall when there is free movement to

Britain from Europe. Britain is an open and tolerant country, we will

always want immigration especially high skilled immigration,

immigration from Europe, and always welcome individual migrants as

friends. The message from the public before and during the referendum

campaign was clear. Brexit must mean control of the number of people who

come to Britain from Europe and that is what we will deliver.

Fairness demands we deal with another issue as soon as possible.

We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living

in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states as

early as we can. I have told other EU leaders we

could give people the certainty they want straightaway and reach a deal

now. Many favour such an agreement, others do not. I want everyone to

know it remains an important priority for Britain and for many

other member states to resolve this challenge as soon as possible

because it is the right and fair thing to do.

And a fairer Britain is a country that protects and enhances the

rights people have at work. That is why it is we translate the body of

European law into our domestic regulations we will ensure that

workers' rights are fully protected and maintained. Indeed, under my

leadership not only will the Government protect the rights of

workers set out in Europe in education, we will build on them

because under this Conservative Government, we will make sure legal

protection for workers keeps pace with the change in Labour market and

the voices of workers are heard by the boards of public and listed

companies for the first time. The great price for this country,

the opportunity ahead, is to use this moment to build a truly global

Britain, a country that reaches out to old friends and new allies alike,

a great global trading nation, and one of the firmest advocates for

free trade anywhere in the world. That starts with our close friends

and neighbours in Europe. As a priority, we will pursue a bold and

ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. This agreement

should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between

Britain and the EU member states. It should give British companies the

maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets, and

let European businesses do the same in Britain. But I want to be clear.

What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market.

European leaders have said many times that membership means

accepting the four freedoms of goods, capital, services and people.

And being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean

Compline with the EU rules and regulations that implement those

freedoms without having a vote on what those rules and regulations

are. It would mean accepting a role in

the ECJ that would see it having direct legal authority in our

country. It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at

all. That is why both sides in the

referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be

a vote to leave the single market. We do not seek membership of the

single market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it

through a new, competitive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.

That agreement they take in elements of current single market

arrangements in certain areas, the export of cars and lorries, the

freedom to provide financial services across national borders. It

makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the many

other states have did to the same rules for many years.

I respect the position taken by European leaders who have been clear

about their position because I am care about mine.

And important part of the new strategic partnership we seek with

the EU will be the pursuit of the greatest possible access to the

single market, on a fully reciprocal basis, through a competitive free

trade agreement. Because we will no longer be members

of the single market, we will not be required to contribute huge sums to

the EU budget. There may be some specific European

programmes in which we might want to participate. If so, this will be for

us to decide, it is reasonable we should make an appropriate

contribution. The principle is clear. The days of

Britain making vast contributions to the EU every year will end.

But it is not just trade with the EU we should be interested in.

A global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with

countries from outside the EU. Important though our trade with the

EU is and will remain, it is clear the UK needs to increase

significantly its trade with the fastest-growing export markets in

the world. Since joining the EU, trade as a

percentage of GDP has broadly stagnated in the UK. That is why it

is time for Britain to get out into the world and we discover its role

as a great global trading nation. This is such a priority for me that

when I became Prime Minister I established for the first time a

Department for International trade led by Liam Fox.

We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all

around the globe. Countries including China, the Gulf states

have already expressed interest in trade deals. We have studied

discussions on ties with countries like Australia, and India.

President-elect John has said Britain is not at the back of the

queue for a trade deal with the United States, the world's biggest

economy, but front of the line. I know my emphasis on striking trade

agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about

whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the customs union. It is

true full customs union Premiership prevents us from negotiating our own

competitive trade deals. Grzegorz Krychowiak collection at the customs

union prevents us. I also want cross-border trade with

EU to be as frictionless as possible.

I do not want Britain to be part of the common commercial policy. These

are the elements of the customs union that prevent us from striking

our own competitive trade agreements with other countries. I want us to

have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach

a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member in some

way or made a signatory to some elements, I hold no preconceived

position. I have an open mind on how we do it, it is not the means that

matter but the ends. Those ends up here. I want to remove as many

barriers to trade as possible and I want Britain to be free to establish

our own tariff schedules at the WTO. Meaning we can reach new trade

agreements not just with the EU but with old friends and new allies.

A global Britain must also be a country that looks to the future.

That means being one of the best places in the world for science and

innovation. One of our great strengths as a

nation is the breadth and depth of our academic and scientific

communities, backed up by some of the world's best universities and we

have a proud history of leading and supporting cutting edge research and

innovation. So we will also welcome agreement to continue to collaborate

with our European partners on major science, research and technology

initiatives. From space exploration to clean energy to medical

technologies, Britain will remain at the forefront of collective

endeavours to better understand and make better the world in which we

live. And a global Britain will continue

to cooperate with its European partners in important areas such as

crime, terrorism and foreign affairs.

All of us in Europe face the challenge of cross-border crime, a

deadly terrorist threat and the dangers presented by hostile states.

All of us share interests and values in common. Values we want to see

projected around the world. With the threats to our common security

becoming more serious, our response cannot be to cooperate with one

another less, but to work together more. I therefore want our future

relationship with the European Union to include practical arrangements on

matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence material

with our EU allies. I'm proud of the role Britain has played and will

continue to play in promoting your's security. Britain has led Europe on

the measures needed to keep our continent secure, whether it is

implementing sanctions against Russia following its action in

Crimea, working for peace and stability in the Balkans or securing

your's external border. We will continue to work closely with our

European allies in foreign and defence policy, even as we leave the

EU itself. These are our objectives for the

negotiation ahead, objectives that will help to realise our ambition of

shaping that stronger, fairer, global Britain that we want to see.

They are the basis for a new, strong, constructive partnership

with the European Union. A partnership of friends and allies,

interests and values, a partnership for a strong EU and a strong UK. But

there is one further objective we are setting. For as I have said

before, it is in no 1's interests for there to be a cliff edge for

business or a threat to stability as we change from our existing

relationship to a new partnership with the EU. By this I do not mean

that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status in

which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent

political purgatory, that would not be good for Britain, but nor do I

believe it would be good for the EU. Instead, I want us to have reached

an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two year

Article 50 process has concluded. From that point onwards we believe a

phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU

institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements

that will exist between us, we'll be in our mutual self-interest. This

will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new

arrangements. This might be about our immigration controls, custom

systems all the way in which we cooperate on criminal justice

matters or about the future legal framework for financial services.

The time we need to phase in the new arrangements may differ. Some might

be introduced very quickly, some might take longer and the interim

arrangements we rely on are likely to be a matter of negotiation. But

the purpose is clear. We will seek to avoid disruptive cliff edge. We

will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require

as Britain and the EU move towards new partnership.

So these are the objectives we have set. Certainty where ever possible,

control of our own laws, strengthening uniting Kington,

maintaining the common travel area with Ireland, control of

immigration, writes the EU nationals, enhancing rights for

workers, free trade with European markets, new trade agreements with

other countries, a leading role in science and innovation, cooperation

on crime, terrorism and foreign affairs and a phased approach,

delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit. This is the framework of a

deal that will herald a new partnership between the UK and the

EU. It is a comprehensive and carefully considered plan that

focuses on the ends not just the means, with its eyes fixed firmly on

the future and on the kind of country we will be once we leave. It

reflects the hard work of many in this room today, who have worked

tirelessly to bring it together and to prepare this country for the

negotiations ahead. And it will, I know, be debated and discussed at

length, that is only right, but those who urge us to reveal more,

such as the blow by blow details of our negotiating strategy, the areas

in which we might compromise, the places we think there are potential

trade-offs, will not be acting in the national interest. Because this

is not a gamer or a time for opposition for opposition's sake, it

is a crucial and sensitive negotiation that will define the

interests and success of our country for many years to come. And it is

vital that we maintain our discipline. That is why I've said

before and will continue to say, that every stray word and every

hyped up media report is going to make it harder for us to get the

right deal for Britain. Our opposite numbers in the European Commission

know it, which is why they are keeping their discipline. The

ministers and government know it, which is why we will also maintain

hours. So however frustrating some people find it, the government will

not be pressured into saying more than I believe it is in our national

interest to say, because it's not my job to fill column inches with daily

updates, but to get the right deal for Britain, and that is what I

intend to do. I am confident that a deal and a new

strategic partnership between the UK and EU be achieved. This is firstly

because having held conversations with almost every leader from every

single EU member state, having spent time talking to the senior figures

from the European institutions, including President Donna Tartt,

Jean-Claude Juncker and after my colleagues have done the same, I am

confident that the vast majority want a positive relationship between

the UK and the EU after Brexit, and I am confident that the objectives

I'm setting out today are consistent with the needs of the EU and its

member states. That's why our objectives include a proposed free

trade agreement between Britain and the European Union and explicitly

rule out membership of the EU single market. Because when the EU's

leaders say they believe the four freedoms of the market are

indivisible, we respect that. Whether 27 member states say they

want to continue their journey inside the European Union, we not

only respect that fact but support it, because we do not want to

undermine single market and we do not want to undermine the European

Union. We want the EU to be a success, and we want its remaining

member states to prosper. And, of course, we want the same for

Britain. And the second reason I believe it

is possible to reach a good deal is that the kind of agreement I have

described today is the economic li rational thing that both Britain and

the EU should aim for. Because trade is not a 0-sum game. Moreover it

makes us all more prosperous. Free trade between Britain and the

European Union means more trade, more trade means more jobs and more

wealth creation. The erection of new barriers to trade, meanwhile, means

the reverse. Less trade, fewer jobs, growth.

The third and final reason I believe we can come to the right agreement,

is that cooperation between Britain and the EU is needed not just when

it comes to trade, but when it comes to our security, too. Britain and

France are your's only two nuclear powers. We are the only two European

countries with permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council.

Britain's Armed Forces are a crucial part of your's collective defence

and our intelligence capabilities unique in Europe, have already saved

countless lives and very many terrorist plots that have been

thwarted in countries across our continent. After Brexit, Britain

wants to be a good friend and neighbour in every way, and that

includes defending the safety and security of all of our citizens. So

I believe the framework I've outlined today is in Britain's

interests. It is in your's interests and is in the interests of the wider

world. But I must be clear, Britain wants to remain a good friend and

neighbour to Europe. Yet I know there are some voices calling for a

punitive deal, that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from

taking the same path. That would be an active calamitous self harm for

the countries of Europe and it would not be the act of a friend. Britain

would not, indeed we could not, accept such an approach. And while I

am confident that this scenario need never arise, while I am sure a

positive agreement can be reached, I am equally clear that no deal for

Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain. Because we would still

be able to trade with Europe. Would still be free to and strike trade

deals across the world and we would have the freedom to set the

competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the

world's Best companies and biggest investors to Britain.

And, if we were excluded from accessing the single market, we will

be free to change the basis of Britain's economic model. But for

the EU, it would mean new barriers to trade with one of the biggest

economies in the world. It would jeopardise investments in Britain by

EU companies worth more than half a loss of access for European firms to

the financial services of the City of London. It would risk exports

from the EU to Britain worth ?290 billion every year and it would

disrupt the sophisticated and integrated supply chains upon which

many EU companies rely. Important sectors of the EU economy would also

suffer. There are crucial profitable export market for the automobile

industry as well as energy, food and drink, chemicals, pharmaceuticals

and agriculture. The sectors employ millions around Europe. I don't

believe the EU's leaders will seriously tell German exporters,

French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young unemployed of the Eurozone

and millions of others that they want to make the poorer just to

punish Britain and make a political point. For all these reasons. And

because of our shared values and the spirit of goodwill that exists on

both sides, I am confident that we will follow a better path. I am

confident a positive agreement can be reached. It's right that the

government should prepare for every eventuality, but to do so in the

knowledge that a constructive and optimistic approach to the

negotiations to come is in the best interest of Europe and the best

interests of Britain. We do not approach these

negotiations expecting failure but anticipating success. Because we are

a great global nation with so much to offer Europe and so much to offer

the world. One of the world's largest and strongest economies,

with the finest intelligence services, the bravest Armed Forces,

the most effective hard soft power and friendships, partnerships and

alliances in every continent. And another thing that's important, the

essential ingredient of our success... The strength and support

of 65 million people willing us to make it happen. Because after all

the division and discord, the country is coming together. The

referendum was divisive at times, and those divisions have taken time

to heal, but one of the reasons that Britain's democracy has been such a

success for so many years, is that the strength of our identity as one

nation, the respect we show to one another as fellow citizens, and the

importance we attach to our institutions means that when a vote

has been held, we all respect the result. The victors have the

responsibility to act magnanimously, the losers have the responsibility

to respect the legitimacy of the outcome and the country comes

together. And that is what we are seeing today.

Business isn't calling to reverse the result but make a success of it.

The House Of Commons has voted for us to get on with it. The

overwhelming majority of people however they voted want us to get on

with it as well. So that is what we will do. Not merely forming a new

partnership with Europe but building a stronger, fairer, more global

Britain. Let that be the legacy of our time. The prize towards which we

work, the destination at which we arrive once the negotiation is done.

Let us not do it for ourselves but for those who follow, for the

countries children and grandchildren as well. So that when future

generations look back at this time, they will judge us not only by the

decision we made but by what we made of that decision.

They will see that we shaped them a brighter future, they will know that

we built them a better Britain. Thank you.

Theresa May speaking for nearly 45 minutes, setting out her priorities

in what was a frank and wide ranging speech. She made clear what to some

extent we have all known, which is that UK cannot remain a member of

the single market because she said the UK would happen to accept the

EU's four key freedoms. She went on to say and expectedly there would

not be full membership of the customs union, people thought she

would not be as clear as she was because that would she said prevent

striking our own free trade deals which was the backdrop for this

speech, the title behind her head of global Britain, she talked a lot

about free trade, being an outward looking country but that would

preclude of the customs union. She did say full ownership and there

will be a lot of detail about whether there will be a partial

membership of the customs union for certain sectors.

She did say she wanted the greatest possible access. She said the days

of making vast contributions to the EU coffers were over. That did not

roll out making some contribution. David Davis did not rule that out,

particularly again if you wanted certain arrangements for certain

sectors. She said we might want to stay part

of some of the EU programmes. She talked about transitional

arrangements, to avoid what she called a cliff edge in 2019.

She also said this wasn't a time for the opposition to oppose what the

Government was proposing for the sake of opposition. She said it was

vital to maintain discipline. She promised a Parliamentary vote on

the deal that her Government actually comes back to Parliament

with, at the end of the negotiations on the deal to leave the EU.

campaigner and former Cabinet Minister Theresa Villiers.

And the Shadow International Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner.

Your response to the speech? Have you got what you wanted? It is

a great speech. I feel quite emotional. This is

another big step towards becoming an independent country again, the

confirmation we are leaving the internal market, the reiteration we

are going to take back control of making our own laws, interspersed

with a sensible pragmatism about phased implementation.

A welcome speech. Except if the EU and other member states do not quite

give Theresa May and her Government what they want in terms of that

crucial free trade deal with the rest of Europe?

The prime Minster spoke in tough terms. It is very clear it is in the

interests of both sides to reach a sensible accommodation on trade and

ash she pointed out it would be Europe acting against its own

interest to punish us. The effect leaves them poorer particularly our

nearest neighbour in Ireland. It was right to send that message. I

hope the EU sees sense. Even if they don't give us a trade deal, then we

trade on most favoured nation status under WTO rules, other countries do

more business with you on that basis.

She said she would not like the UK to fall off a fifth edge you can

play and would like a transitional arrangement.

We are out of the single market which is not what Labour wanted. And

out as full members of the customs union visibly because otherwise we

would not be able to do the free trade deals she wants us to do.

That appears to be the case. I want to welcome one central aspect of the

speech, she has committed to two votes in Parliament, one in the

House Of Commons, and in the House Of Lords also. I am delighted she

has made that concession. It was not on the cards if you months.

Ago When she talks about frictionless access into European

markets, we have to look at what this new free trade agreement

arrangement with the EU is that she is proposing. Frictionless access

means you would have to have a harmonisation or a recognition of

the equivalents of these standards and regulations in each of the

countries. That is possible? It is possible but

it means we are still accepting the regulations placed by Brussels. That

goes against what she spoke of, that Parliamentary Roxy and

self-determination being the key messages.

On the issue of a vote at the end of the deal, let us assume there is a

deal to put to Parliament, is there any scenario under which you can see

Labour voting that down? Look, we want to respect the will of

the British people we come out of the EU.

And we need, and the Prime Minister was right to say this is not a time

for opposition for opposition's sake. It is time for the opposition

to do what we should do which is to oppose the Government in the

interests of the British people. If you thought it was a bad deal

would you vote it down? If we think it is the wrong deal, it

it has about making Britain poorer, and sacrificed jobs instead of

creating jobs, of course it would be our obligation at that point, and by

giving the vote she assumes there is a possibility of the deal being

voted down. Both of you staying for this special

programme throughout. The Prime Minister is now answering

questions from the press. If there are any crucial answers we will of

course play Bentiu on this programme.

We can talk now to Ukip's Deputy Chairman, Suzanne Evans.

Were you pleased? I was chuckling, it was channelling Ukip, there were

phrases I have used myself. Her 12 priorities were all extremely

sound priorities for a proper clean hard Brexit.

Overwhelmingly welcome the speech. We don't need Ukip anymore! You are

signed up to everything she said. Therefore there really isn't any

need for Ukip to stop her falling away from her promises?

What the Prime Minister set out today was very sound principles.

Remember it is not the Prime Minister who has carte blanche to

deliver Brexit. She is surrounded by a strong and influential

establishment. The hardline remainders, the Supreme Court, the

House Of Lords. She dealt with those issues. I don't

think she did in the sense what is she going to do if these people

kicked up a fuss? Ukip is still very strong on Brexit, we have to be, to

make sure we get the right Brexit. It is still for us a job of holding

her feet to the fire. We heard a lot of talk today, it is the right kind

of talk, but we still need action. She talked about transitional

arrangements. Do you support that idea or is it

half in it depends what it looks like?

Something as fundamental as the free movement of people, if that is a

transitional scheme, we could see higher levels of immigration from

the EU than before. What about being a member of certain

programmes? Implications we could stay part of security arrangements

and under the ECJ for contractual arrangements?

That is not acceptable. I was pleased to see Theresa May making it

clear Britain was not going to be subject to the power of any European

Court. We would if we stay part of Europol.

Theresa May made it clear she wants to cooperate over security and is

but we are going to be out of the EU. A fundamental principle. I had

her say it is about free trade. If we cannot have free trade

agreements, that means... She did say that the UK would not

sign up to full ownership of the customs union, would you consider

that to be still half in half out of the EU? If we were signed up to

certain industries to remain part of the customs union, in the way turkey

is? It depends what the negotiation

looks like. If we were still bits -- a bit in

the customs union? To export to that market we will

need to meet those standards. That might make that much

difference. In terms of contributions to the EU coffers, she

rolled out making vast annual contributions to the EU will stop

what if there were some contributions, perhaps every other

year, would that be acceptable? Let's see what that negotiation

looks like? It is arguably fair and reasonable while we are negotiating

we still contribute. For me and Ukip we would say there has to be a

cut-off point where we have zero contributions to the EU. Again, the

direction of travel was very hard line from Theresa May on getting out

of the EU. And acre Cilic free one. I was struck by how she made

concilatory noises to the EU. -- and a concilatory one.

Do you think we will still be half in the EU if we don't fully come out

of the customs union? As I said, ultimately, our

destination is out of the customs union because I suspect it will come

with too many strings attached for it to be reconcilable with a Leave

vote. Even if it hits, a fracturing an

aerospace who do rely on an extensive supply chain within the EU

customs union? But there are many countries around

the world who sell more to the EU without being in the customs union?

How destructive will it be if they had to prove place of origin for

every car and plane? That is what American producers

managed to do and they sell vast amounts of products in those

industries to the EU. Once -- thousands of lorries pass

through countries which have customs barriers without even slowing down.

There are technology always to ensure the rules of origin system

does not mean a huge bigotry burden. Countries not within the customs

union, they have a multitude of free trade deals and banish it.

Norway and Switzerland are very different economies from the UK --

and they manage it. The automotive sector, they don't

sell vast amount of cars into the EU most of the cars in the EU off from

within the EU. The country of origin rules are critical here because our

suppliers who feed into products not just in the automotive sector but

products from Europe to third countries outside, will begin to see

them if from the supply chain within the next nine months because it is

an 18 month supply chain. A serious problem for business. Some

more reaction this time from the Government.

Damian Green was at the Cabinet meeting today and joins me from

Lancaster House. You were a remain campaigner before

the referendum, now a member of the Government.

The Prime Minister said we would not be half half-out, is the UK going to

leave fully the customs union? She said we will leave the single

market, the customs union is more complex. We will leave the parts of

it that stop us signing trade deals with other countries in the world.

We've seen a lot of interest in free trade deals with Britain and there

are certain parts of the customs union that do that. The Prime

Minister made clear other parts of the customs union that we will be

negotiating about, that we may wish to stay in. She doesn't have

preconceived notions about how we do that. There are parts of the customs

union we won't want to stay in because we want to sign free trade

deals with other economies around the world. That is an admission that

key industries like aerospace manufacturing could be harmed if we

came out of the customs union? She made the point that what we want to

achieve is near frictionless borders as they can. Clearly there are, as

you say, many big important industries, both in this country and

in other countries around Europe, that rely on supply chains and other

European countries. And we want as few customs barriers as they can, in

practical terms, for those. That will be an important part of the

negotiations, which illustrates that the best kind of deal is not just

good for Britain, it's good for other European countries as well.

Clearly that frictionless trade provides prosperity and jobs in

other countries. Can you be clear in terms of financial contributions

that could continue to be made to the EU, it is clear from what she

said that she is not ruling out all together some financial

contributions being made, in order for us to have preferential access

to the single market. Is that right? It wasn't quite that. She said we

wouldn't make contributions in the traditional sense but there may well

be individual projects we would want to get involved in. Like? We would

look... Let's see what's on offer. I don't want to pick individual

sectors or individual projects now. In those circumstances it may be to

Britain's advantage to make a financial contribution to a specific

project. That was a red line for some of the Brexiteers before and

after the referendum. On that basis, there could be some special

contributions that are made, in order to have some sort of advantage

for certain sectors or industries. She said we might want to remain

part of some EU programmes. That's right as well, is it? That's

specifically what she was talking about when she said, she wasn't

talking about sectors, she said there may be specific programmes

where it would be to Britain's advantage to be part of, that's

where it may be to our advantage to make contributions. So we are still

a bit in the EU, in that case. If WHISTLE

And the odd contribution here or there, still part of some of the EU

programmes, some of which could be under the jurisdiction of the

European Court of Justice, we are half in and half out, not having a

clean Brexit or hard Brexit we've spoken about? I don't think that's

true at all. The phrase she used a lot is we will be in a strategic

partnership with the EU. We will be out of the EU but we will obviously

be friendly, neighbours, fellow democracies. We want a strategic

partnership. As strategic partners we may say he is a project, he is a

programme that members of the EU and a nonmember of the EU, like Britain,

might want to join. The EU signs deals with countries that are not in

the EU, so it's not unknown for that happen. Britain will be outside the

EU but will be a friendly, strategic partner of the EU and its member

states. Damian Green, thank you for joining us outside of Lancaster

House. Theresa Villiers, when we look at hard border, the Common

travel area between Ireland and Northern Ireland, she said there

wouldn't be a hard border. How can she guarantee that if we're coming

out of the single market and almost all of the union? We have had a

Common travel area for almost 100 years, it predated the EU

membership. There's no reason we can't continue it. Yes, there's a

degree of risk of illegal migration by having an open border, but it's

perfectly possible to manage that risk, without border checkpoints.

The reality is, the key thing is how you cooperate with the immigration

authorities on both sides of the border. For around 100 years those

immigration authorities have worked together, to try and secure the

external borders of the Common travel area. That will continue.

That's how we need to operate. We can now talk to the Lib Dem leader

Tim Farron. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Looking funny if not a

little cold outside the Houses of Parliament. These are all your worst

fears come true. We are leaving the single market, we are leaving, if

not totally, the customs union. It is the end of that kind of

relationship with the EU. It seems to be the extreme version of Brexit

Theresa May was briefing in advance of this speech. That is incredibly

disappointing for anyone who thinks democracy matters. What she has done

is taken the views of 51.9% of the people that voted to leave the

European union last June and assumed they were all meant the same as

Nigel Farage and assumed they wanted an extreme Brexit that wasn't on the

ballot paper. This is a theft of democracy as well as an attack on

our economy. To decide to do this, without seeking the will and the

opinion of the British people at the end of it, is more offensive. The

only two really substantial thing she said in the speech was that she

was going for the hard Brexit and ripping us out of the single market.

The other was its parliament would get a vote on the deal at the end of

this. Which is saying politicians can have a bit of democracy at the

end of this process, but the people can't. We take the view that you

start this process with democracy, as we did last June, but you do not

end it with a stitch up. Because you want to see a second referendum? I

want a first referendum on a deal we know nothing about yet. Theresa May

has waved a white flag on the most important thing when it comes to our

future relationship with Europe. The single market. Business is united in

saying we should be in the single market. It's not true to say they

are 100% United. I'm sure you could find somebody, but 90% in the recent

survey before Christmas that they wanted to be in the single market.

This is a theft of democracy and the only way to close is by asking

people to say yes or no to the deal at the end of the process. Let's ask

what you can do about it, Tim Farron, as leader of the Liberal

Democrats. Will you be instructing your peers to vote against

triggering Article 50, which would start the negotiation process, to

block this happening? We have been clear we will use parliament to

amend whatever the government puts in front of us, to ensure Britain

gets the best deal, so Britain does argue and fight its corner, and

business' corner at the stay in the single market. You will block it,

block triggering Article 50? I will be clear, our breadline is on a

referendum. If the British people are not given their say at the end

of all this, if the will of the people is ignored, if the people are

cut out of this process, this is a stitch up between politicians and

bureaucrats in Brussels on Whitehall. We will vote against

anything that cuts the people out of this process. You want the second

referendum? We want the first referendum on the deal. We know

nothing what it will look like, we have some idea what Theresa May will

and won't fight for. She won't fight for Britain's position in single

market. We have no idea what it will look like at the end. Why should the

British people have that. When they have no say? Wrote parliament is

full of elected representatives like yourself. Why isn't that enough in

terms of giving you the say on final deal? Because we started with a

referendum I think that's why you have do end up. To reverse the

process we've been through? If the courts or even parliament elected to

offer that is, were to frustrate the will of the people, that would be

wrong and counter-productive. The only way Britain is staying in the

European Union, even the single market, is if the British people

tell the government that is what they want. The Liberal Democrats are

the only people providing the vehicle for that democracy to take

place. You are representing, as you say, the 48% who voted... To remain.

And the leaders who want us to stay in the single market. We don't know

what the numbers are in terms of who wanted to stay in the single market.

More than none. You may not like it, in fact I know you don't like it,

the issue of immigration was important one way or another. Do you

not accept Theresa May is responding, in some way, to what

many people felt was a need to take back some control of immigration and

open borders? I think what she's doing and what no

one seems to be doing is making the case for British people and our

freedom of movement, British prisoners. Answer the question on

immigration. If you are concerned about immigration, it's a two-way

street. Nobody seems to be arguing the best deal for us. If you take

Theresa May's Linux that freedom of movement is some kind of a red line,

don't accept what the other side say over membership of the single

market. Go and argue Britain's case. If you want to be in the single

market and I want some of the other stuff people of Europe say we have

to have, don't just accept it, don't wave the white flag, fight Britain's

corner. Tim Farron, thank you very much.

Some suggested the Prime Minister might not tell us much she had an

already revealed about how the UK will approach the Brexit process. As

it turned out, she made a number of significant and explicit statements,

as we've already discussed. Let's look at some of the key things we

have learned from the Prime Minister's speech.

The deal will be put to a vote in both Houses of Parliament. On the

big subject of immigration she said Brexit must mean control of the

number of people who come to Britain from Europe, although she didn't

give any further figures on that. She said the UK will pursue a bold

free-trade agreement with the EU, but she confirmed that as expected,

that will not mean membership of the single market.

Also on trade, the Prime Minister wants to be able to strike deals

with non-EU countries, so Britain will not retain full membership of

the customs union. Instead, she wants some form of customs agreement

with the EU. Theresa May also said the UK may continue to make payments

to the EU after Brexit, but they won't be fast, whatever that means.

Finally, on transition, she wants a phased process of implementation on

any deal to avoid a disruptive cliff edge. Just finally, before the end

of the programme, to Reza Villas, your thoughts on what she said in

regard to a warning to the EU, if there were attempts to block a deal

or make a bad deal that wasn't going to be advantageous to Britain?

Underlying underlining the Chancellor's comments that Britain

could take action to protect the economy. Was that wise to threaten

when she had EU diplomats in front of her? It was certainly quite

tough. A very tough warning. I think it's only setting out the facts, in

terms of the options that would be open to us as an independent

country, able to take our own decisions. And become as Labour call

it, a bargain basement economy, making sure corporation even lower

than is being proposed. Is that what you would see? We have set the

direction of travel which in any event brings down corporation tax.

What I doubt would be on the agenda would be large-scale deregulation. I

think we would certainly want to look at the body of EU regulation

and see whether it's proportional, whether we want to do things

slightly differently. In a number of areas I think we keep it. I don't

think it would be a race to the bottom in terms of regulation. Will

you align yourself with Tim Farron and the Liberal Democrats? No, I

think what the Prime Minister said was if the EU were not to give us a

good deal, it would be an act of calamitous self harm. Those were her

words. You agree? She threatened five or six times, she used our

intelligence services five or six times to back up that threat. You

rightly pointed out that she has spoken of a deregulated tax haven,

backing up what Philip Hammond has already threatened. I believe that

that threat, combined with this threat that maybe we would withdraw

our cooperation on intelligence services, is a deeply damaging, huge

moral mistake as well as a political one. All right, thank you very much

to both of you for sitting here with me while Theresa May gave that

critically important speech. That is all for today. Thanks to you and all

the guests on the show today. The one o'clock News started on BBC One

now. I will be back with Andrew tomorrow at 11:30am for PMQs.

Bye-bye. Join Michael Buerk as he explores

the dishes fit for kings and queens. When it comes to extravagance, few

monarchs can compete with George IV.