Live Theresa May - Brexit Speech Briefings

APPLAUSE

Good afternoon and I am grateful to

the Lord Mayor and all his team at

Mansion House for hosting us this

afternoon. And in the midst of the

bad weather, I would like to take a

moment before I begin my speech to

thank everyone in our country who is

going the extra mile to help people

at this time. I think of our

emergency services and Armed Forces

working to keep people safe and all

those keeping our public services

going and the many volunteers who

are giving their time to help those

in need. Your contribution is a

special part of who we are as a

country and it is all the more

appreciated at a moment like this. I

am here today to set out my vision

for the future economic partnership

between the United Kingdom and the

European Union. There have been many

different voices and views in the

debate on what our new relationship

with the EU should look like and I

have listened carefully to them all.

But as we charter way forward with

the EU, I want to take a moment to

look back. 18 months ago, I stood in

Downing Street and addressed the

nation for my first time as Prime

Minister. I made this pledge then to

the people that I serve. I know you

are working round the clock, I know

you are doing your best and I know

sometimes late can be a struggle.

The government I read will be

driven, not by the interest of the

privileged few, but by yours. We

will do everything we can to give

you more control over your lives

when we take the big calls we will

take not more -- of the powerful bot

of you. When we look at new laws, we

will not listen to the mighty but of

you. When we look at taxes, we will

look at the wealthy not you. When it

comes to opportunity, we will not

entrench the advantages of the

fortunate few, we will do whatever

we can to help those whatever your

background. We are living through an

important moment in our country's

history. As we leave the European

Union, we will forge a bold new

positive role for ourselves in the

world and we will make Britain a

country that works not for a

privileged few, but everyone of us.

That pledge, to the people of United

Kingdom, is what guides meet in our

negotiations with the EU. And for me

that means five things - first, the

agreement we reached with the EU

must respect the referendum. It was

a vote to take control of our

borders, laws and money. And a vote

for a wider change. So that no

community in Britain would ever be

left behind again. But it was not a

vote for a distant relationship with

our neighbours. Second, the new

agreement we reach with the EU must

endure. After Brexit, both the UK

and the EU want to forge ahead with

building a better future for our

people. Not find ourselves back at

the negotiating table because things

are broken down. Third, it must

protect people's jobs and security.

People in the UK voted for our

country to have a new and different

relationship with Europe, but while

the means may change, our shared

goals surely have not. To work

together, to grow our economies and

keep our people say. Fourth, it must

be consistent with the kind of

country we want to be as we leave. A

modern, open outward looking,

tolerant European democracy. A

nation of pioneers, innovators,

explorers and creators. A country

that celebrates our history and

diversity, confident of place in the

world. That meets its obligations to

our new neighbours and far friends

and is proud to stand up for values.

And fifth, in doing all of these

things, it must strengthen our union

of nations and their union of

people. We must bring our country

back together, taking into account

the views of everyone who cares

about this issue from both sides of

the debate. As Prime Minister, it is

my duty to represent all of our

United Kingdom, England, Scotland

Wales and Northern Ireland, northern

side, from coastal towns and rural

villages to our great cities. So

these are the five tests for the

deal we will negotiate.

Reaching an enduring solution,

protecting our security and

respiratory, delivering an outcome

that is consistent with the kind of

country we want to be and bringing

our country together, strengthening

the union of all our people. We are

now approaching a crucial moment.

There is no escaping the complexity

of the task ahead of us. We must not

only negotiate our exit from an

organisation that touches so many

important parts of our national

life, we were just build a new and

lasting relationship, whilst

preparing for every scenario. We are

making real progress. At the end of

last year, we agreed the key

elements of our withdrawal. We are

in the process of turning that

agreement into legal text. We have

made clear our concerns about the

first draft published on Monday. No

one should be in any doubt about our

commitment to the joint report in

December. We are close to an

agreement on an implementation

period, a key element of December's

deal. Of course, some points of

difference remained but I am

confident these can be resolved in

the days ahead. Both the UK and the

European Union are clear, this

implementation period must be time

limited and cannot become a

permanent solution. It is vital to

give Government, businesses and

citizens the time we need to prepare

for the new relationship. With this

agreed, I want both sides to turn

all our attention and effort to the

new relationship. Before we can do

that, we need to set out in more

detail what relationship we want,

building on my Lancaster house and

Florence speeches. Last month, this

book in Munich about the partnership

we seek and I want to talk about the

other pillar of the relationship,

how we built the economic

partnership. In my speech in

Florence I set out how the models

for economic partnership do not

deliver the ambition we need or

impose restraints on our democracy.

For example, the Norway model where

we would stay in the single market

would mean having to implement new

legislation automatically and in its

entirety and would also mean

continued free movement. Others have

suggested we negotiate a free-trade

agreement similar to that of which

Canada has negotiated or trade on

world organisation terms. This would

mean a reduction in and access to

each other's markets. This would

mean customs and checks at the

border that would affect the supply

chains and be inconsistent with the

commitments that we and the EU have

made in respect of Northern Ireland.

This is a wider issue in our

negotiations and I want to dwell on

this for one minute. Success at --

British governments have worked with

parties in the Northern Ireland and

Irish Government to bring about the

achievement of peace. This is an

achievement that we should be proud

of and protect. That is why I have

consistently put up holding the

Belfast agreement at the heart of

the UK's approach. Our departure

from the EU causes challenges for

Northern Ireland and for Ireland. We

joined the EU together 45 years ago

and it is not surprising that our

decision to leave has caused anxiety

and a desire for concrete solutions.

We have been clear all along that we

do not want to go back to a hard

order in Ireland, we have ruled out

physical infrastructure at the

border or any related checks and

controls. It is not good enough to

say, we will not introduce a hard

order, if the EU forces Ireland to

do it, it is down to them. We chose

to leave you have a responsibility

to help find a solution. We cannot

do it on our own. It is for all of

us to work together. The Irish Prime

Minister I agreed that our teams and

the commission should do just that.

I want to make one final point. Just

as it would be unacceptable to go

back to a hard order between

Northern Ireland and Ireland, it

would also be unacceptable to break

up the United Kingdom's own market.

My personal commitment to this is

clear. As Prime Minister of the cold

United Kingdom, I am not going to

let our departure from the European

Union do anything to set back the

historic progress that we have made

in Northern Ireland, nor will I

allow anything that would damage the

integrity of our precious union. So

existing models to not provide the

best way forward for either the UK

or the EU. But before I turned to

what a better model might look like,

I want to be straight with people.

The reality is that we all need to

face up to some hard facts. We are

leaving the single market. Life is

going to be different. In certain

ways our access to each other's

markets will be less than now. How

could the EU structure of rights and

obligations be sustained if the UK,

or any country, were allowed to

enjoy all the benefits without all

of the obligations? We need to

strike a new balance, but we will

not accept the rights of Canada and

the obligations of Norway. The

second hard fact is that even after

we have left the jurisdiction of the

European Court of Justice, EU law

and the decisions will continue to

affect us. For a start, agreements

are determined whether EU laws are

legal under the EU law, as the US

found in the data framework was

found to be invalid. When we leave

the EU, the withdrawal bill will

bring EU law into UK law. Cases will

be determined in our courts, but

where appropriate, our courts will

continue to listen to the judgments,

as they do for the other country's

courts. If, as part of our future

partnership, Parliament passes and

identical law to the EU law, it may

make sense for our courts to look at

the appropriate each see J

judgments. As I said before, if we

continue to participate in an

agency, we would have two respect

the remit in that regard. In the

future, the treaties and lot will no

longer apply in the United Kingdom.

The agreement we reach must

therefore respect the sovereignty of

both the UK and the EU legal orders.

That means the jurisdiction of the

European Court of Justice must end.

It also means the ultimate arbiter

of disputes about our future

partnership cannot be the court of

either party. The next hard fact is

this, if we want good access to

markets, it has to be on fair terms.

As with any trade agreement, we must

accept the need for binding

commitments, we may choose to have

regulations such as state aid and

competition to remain in step with

the EU. The UK drove much of the

policy in this area and we have much

to gain from maintaining discipline

is on the use of subsidies and

anti-competitive practices.

Furthermore, as I said and Florence,

we share the same set of beliefs,

free trade, rigorous and fair

competition, strong consumer rights

and that trying to beat other

industries by unfairly subsidising

1's own is the serious and state. In

other areas, worker rights and the

environment, the EU should be

confident that we will not engage in

a race to the bottom in the

standards we set. There is no

serious constituency in the UK that

would support this, quite the

opposite. Finally, we need to

resolve the tensions between some of

the key objectives. We want the

freedom to negotiate trade

agreements with other countries

around the world, we want to take

back control of our laws, we also

want as frictionless a border as

possible between us and the EU, so

that we do not damage the integrated

supply chains are industries rely on

and no hard border between Northern

Ireland and Ireland. There are

tensions in the EU's position, too.

Some hard facts for them to face as

well. The commission has suggested

that the only option available to

the UK is an off the shelf model.

But at the same time, they have also

said that in certain areas none of

the EU third country agreements

would be appropriate. The European

Council guidelines aspire to a

balanced, ambitious and wide ranging

deal with common rules any number of

areas to insure fair and open

competition. This would not be

delivered by a Canada style deal,

which would not give them the

breadth or depth of market access

that they want, and it is hard to

see how it would be in the EU's

interest for the UK regulatory

standards to be the same as Canada.

Finally, we both need to face the

fact that this is in negotiation and

neither of us can have exactly what

we want. But I am confident that we

can reach agreement. We both want

good access to each other's markets,

but competition to be fair and open

and transparent means of verifying

we are meeting our commitment and

resolving disputes. What is clear is

that for us both to meet our

objectives, we need to look beyond

the President and find a new

balance. As an security, what I am

seeking is a relationship that goes

beyond the transactional to one

where we support each other's

interest. I want the broadest and

deepest partnership, covering more

sectors and cooperating more freely

than any free trade agreement

anywhere in the world today. As I

will go on to describe, we will need

agreements in a range of areas

covering the breadth of our

relationship. I believe this is

achievable because it is in their

interest as well as ours. The EU is

the UK's biggest market and the UK

is also a big market for the EU.

Furthermore, we have a unique

starting point. We are on day one we

have the same laws and rules. -- on

day one. Rather than being laws

closer together, the task would be

to manage the religion ship when we

are to separate the good systems. To

do so and to realise this level of

ambition, there are five ambitions

that must underpin the trading

relationship. First, our agreement

must have binding commitments to

ensure fair competition. Such

agreements are pass and parcel of

any trade agreement. Why would any

country enter into a partnership

that any means of redress if the

other party engaged in such

practices. The level of integration

and our geographical proximity means

these reciprocal commitments will be

important in ensuring the UK

business can compete fairly in EU

markets and vice versa. A deep and

comprehensive agreement with the EU

will need to include commitments

reflecting the extent the UK and EU

economies are intertwined. Second,

we will need an arbitration

mechanism that is completely

independent, something which is

common to free trade agreements.

This will ensure any disagreements

about the purpose or scope of the

agreement can be resolved fairly and

promptly. Third, given the close

relationship we envisage, we will

need to have an ongoing dialogue

with the EU and to ensure we have

the means to consult each other

regularly. In particular, we want to

make sure our regulators work

together, as they do with regulators

internationally. This will be

essential for everything from

getting new drugs to patients

quickly, Jim and taming financial

stability. We start from the place

where we have deep and long-standing

relationships so the task is and

taming that trust, not building it

in the first place. Fourth, we will

need an arrangement for data

protection. I made this point in

Munich but the free flow of data is

critical for both sides in any

modern trading relationship, too.

The UK has exceptionally high

standards of data protection and we

want to secure an agreement with the

EU that provides the stability and

confidence for EU and UK businesses

and individuals to achieve our aims

and then taming and developing the

strong economic links with the EU.

That is why we will be seeking more

than just an adequacy arrangement

and when to seek an appropriate

ongoing role for the commission

office. This will ensure UK

businesses are effectively

represented under the new one-stop

shop mechanism for resolving data

protection disputes.

Fifth, we must maintain the links

between our people. EU citizens are

an integral part of the economic,

cultural and social fabric of our

country. I know UK nationals are

viewed in the same way by

communities across the EU, and this

is why, at every stage of these

negotiations, I have put the

interests of EU citizens and UK

nationals at the heart of our

approach. We are clear that as we

leave the EU, free movement of

people will come to an end, and we

will control the number of people

who come to live in our country. But

UK citizens will still want to work

and study in EU countries, just as

EU citizens will want to do the same

here, helping to shape and drive

growth, innovation and enterprise.

Indeed, businesses across the EU and

the UK must be able to attract and

employ the people they need, and we

are open to discussing how to

facilitate these valuable links.

Reciprocal commitments to ensure

fair and open competition and

independent arbitration mechanism,

ongoing dialogue, data protection

arrangements and maintaining the

links between our people. These are

the foundations that underpinned the

ambition of this unique and

unprecedented partnership. It will

then need to be tailored to the

needs of our economies. This follows

the approach the EU has taken with

its trade agreements in the past,

and indeed with its own single

market as it has developed. The EU's

agreement with Ukraine CZ align with

the UK in some but not others,,

whereas the agreement with Canada is

not extend to camels. Equally, the

Canadian agreement contains

provisions to recognise each other's

testing machinery, but with South

Korea does not. The EU was taking a

tailored approach in what it is

seeking within the UK. For example,

on fisheries, the commission has

been clear that no precedents exist

for the sort of access it wants from

the UK. The fact is that every

free-trade agreement as varying

market access depending on the

respective interests of the

countries involved. If this is

cherry picking, then every trade

arrangement is cherry picking.

Moreover, with all its neighbours,

the EU has burying levels of access

to the single market, depending on

the obligations those neighbours are

willing to undertake. What would be

cherry picking would be if we were

to seek a deal where our rights and

obligations were not held in

balance. I have been categorically

clear that that is not what we are

going to do. I think it is pragmatic

common sense that we should work

together to deliver the best outcome

for both sides. So let me start with

how we will do this for goods. This

is the area where the single market

is most established and both the UK

and EU have a strong commercial

interest in preserving integrated

supply chains that have built up

over 40 years of membership. When it

comes to goods, a fundamental

principle in our negotiating

strategy should be that trade at the

UK-EU border should be as

frictionless as possible. That means

we don't want to see the

introduction of any tariffs or

quotas, and as the Secretary of

State for Exiting the European Union

set out in Vienna last week, we must

ensure that, as now, product only

needs to undergo one series of

approvals in one country to show

that they meet the required

regulatory standards. To achieve

this, we will need a comprehensive

system of mutual recognition. The UK

will need to make a strong

commitment that it regulatory

standards will remain as high as the

EU's. That commitment, in practice,

will mean that the readily to be

standards will remain substantially

similar in the future. Many of these

regulatory standards are themselves

underpinned by international

standards, set by non-EU bodies, of

which we will remain a member, such

as the UN economic commission for

Europe, which sets vehicle safety

standards. Countries around the

world, including Turkey, South

Africa, South Korea, Japan and

Russia, are party to the agreement.

As I said in my speech in Florence,

this could be cheered in different

ways. Our default is that UK law may

not necessarily be identical to EU

law, but it should achieve the same

outcome. In some cases, parliament

might choose to pass an identical

law. Businesses which export to the

EU tell us that it is strongly in

their interest to have a single set

of regulatory standards to allow

them to sell into both markets. If

the parliament of the day decided

not to achieve the same outcomes as

EU law, it would be in the knowledge

that there may be consequences for

market access. And there would need

to be an independent mechanism to

oversee these arrangements. We will

also want to explore with the EU the

terms on which the UK could remain

part of EU agencies such as those

which are critical for the

chemicals, medicines and aerospace

industries. The European medicines

agency, the European chemicals

agency, and the European Aviation

Safety Agency. We would, of course,

accept this would mean abiding by

the rules of those agencies and

making an appropriate financial

contribution. But I want to explain

what I believe the benefits of this

approach could be, both for us and

the EU. First, associate membership

is the only way to meet our

objective of ensuring that these

product only needs to undergo one

series of approvals in one country.

Second, these agencies have a

critical role in setting and

enforcing relevant rules. And if we

were able to negotiate associate

membership, we would be able to

ensure that we could continue to

provide our technical expertise.

Third, associate mannish the ship

could permit UK firms to resolve

certain challenges related to the

agency through UK courts, rather

than the ECJ. -- associate

membership. In the case of

Switzerland, associate membership of

the European Aviation Safety Agency

means that air worthiness

certifications are granted by its

own aviation authority, and disputes

are resolved through its courts,

without its membership Swiss

airlines would need to gain

certification through another member

state or through the agency, and any

dispute would need to be resolved

through the ECJ. Fourth, it would

bring other benefit too. For

example, membership of the medicines

agency would mean investment in new

innovative medicines continuing in

the UK, and it would mean these

medicines getting to patients faster

as firms prioritise larger markets

when they start the lengthy process

of seeking authorisations. But it

would also be good for the EU,

because the UK regulator assesses

more new medicines than any other

member state. And the EU would

continue to access the expertise of

the UK's world leading universities.

And, of course, parliament would

remain ultimately sovereign. It

could decide not to accept these

rules, but with consequences for our

membership of the relevant agency,

and linked market access rights.

Lastly, to achieve as frictionless a

border as possible, and to achieve,

avoid a hard border, sorry, let me

but what I mean that, to avoid a

hard border between Northern Ireland

and Ireland, we also need an

agreement on customs. The UK has

been clear it is leaving the customs

union. The EU has also formed a

customs union with other countries,

but those arrangements, if applied

to the UK, would mean the EU setting

the UK's external tariffs, being

able to let other countries sell

more into the UK, without making it

any easier for us to sell more to

them, all the UK signing up to the

common commercial policy. That would

not be compatible with a meaningful

independent trade policy. It would

mean we have less control than we do

now of our trade in the world.

Neither Leave nor Remain voters

would want that. So we have thought

seriously about how our commitment

to a frictionless border can best be

delivered, and last year we set out

two potential options for our

customs arrangements. Option one is

a customs partnership between the UK

and the EU. At the border, the UK

would mirror the EU requirements for

imports from the rest of the world,

applying the same tariffs in the

same rules of origin as the EU for

those goods arriving in the UK and

intended for the EU. By following

this approach, all goods entering

the EU by the UK would pay the right

EU duties, removing the need for

customs processes at the UK-EU

border. But, importantly, we would

put in place a mechanism so that the

UK would also be able to apply its

own tariffs and trade policy for

goods intended for the UK market. As

we have set out previously, this

would require the means to ensure

that both sides can trust the system

and robust enforcement mechanisms.

Option two would be a highly

streamlined customs arrangements,

where we would jointly agreed to

implement a range of measures to

minimise friction is to trade,

together with some specific

provisions for Northern Ireland.

First, measures to ensure the

requirements for moving goods across

borders are as simple as possible.

This means we should continue to

waive the requirement for entry and

exit declarations for goods moving

between the UK and the EU, and we

should allow goods moving between

the UK and the rest of the world to

travel through the EU without paying

EU duty is, and vice versa. Second,

measures to reduce delays at ports

and airports, for instance

recognising trusted traders schemes

and drawing on the most advanced IT

solution so that vehicles do not

need to stop at the border. Third,

we should continue our coverage and

to mitigate customs duty and

security risks. -- our corporation.

And fourth, measures to reduce the

cost and burden of complying with

customs requirements, including by

maximising the use of automation.

And recognising the unique

circumstances in Northern Ireland

and our shared commitments to

avoiding a hard border, we should

consider further specific measures.

80% of north-south trade is carried

out by micro, small and medium-sized

businesses, so for smaller traders,

who as members of the community are

most affected, but whose economic

role is not systemically significant

for the EU market, we would allow

them to continue to operate as they

do currently, with no new

restrictions. And for larger

traders, we would introduce

streamlined processes, including a

trusted traders scheme that would be

consistent with our commitments.

Both of these options for our future

customs arrangement would leave the

UK free to determine its own tariffs

with third countries, which would

simply not be possible in a customs

union. Now, I recognise that some of

these ideas depend on technology,

robust systems to ensure trust and

confidence, as well as goodwill. But

they are serious and merit

consideration by all sides. So to

conclude on goods, a fundamental

principle in our negotiating

strategy is that trade at the UK-EU

border should be as frictionless as

possible with no hard border between

Northern Ireland and Ireland. We

believe this can be achieved via a

commitment to ensure that the

relevant UK regulatory standards

remain at least as high as the EU's

and a customs arrangement. We

recognise this would constrain our

ability to lower regulatory

standards for industrial goods, but

in practice we are unlikely to want

to reduce our standards, not least

because the British public would

rightly punish any government that

did so at the ballot box. This

approach to trade in goods is

important for agriculture, food and

drinks, but other considerations

also apply there. We are leaving the

Common Agricultural Policy and will

want to take the opportunity that

brings to reform our agriculture and

fisheries management. The UK has

among the highest environmental and

animal welfare standards of any

nation on earth. As we leave the EU,

we will uphold environmental

standards and go further to protect

our shared natural heritage. And I

fully expect that our standards will

remain at least as high as the EU's,

but it will be particularly

important to secure flexibility

there, to ensure we can make the

most of the opportunities presented

by our withdrawal from the EU for

our farmers and exporters. We are

also leaving the Common Fisheries

Policy. The UK will regain control

of our domestic fisheries management

rules and access to our waters. But

as part of our economic partnership,

we will want to continue to work

together to manage shared stocks in

a sustainable way, and to agree

reciprocal access to water is and a

fair allocation for fishing

opportunities for the UK fishing

industry. And we will also wants to

ensure open markets for each other's

products. Just as our partnership in

goods needs to be deeper than any

other free trade agreement, so in

services we have the opportunity to

break new ground with a broader

agreements than ever before. We

recognise that certain aspects of

trade in services linked to the

single market and therefore market

access in these areas will need to

be different. But we should only and

eye out new barriers to be

introduced where absolutely

necessary. -- only allow new

barriers. We don't want to

disseminate against EU service

providers in the UK, and we wouldn't

want EU to discriminate against UK

providers. We want to limit the

number of barriers that could

prevent UK firms from setting up in

the EU and vice versa, and agree

appropriate labour mobility

frameworks which enables UK

businesses and the self-employed

professionals to travel to the EU to

provide services to clients in

person, and that allows UK

businesses to provide services to

the EU over the phone or the

inter-net. And we want to do the

same for EU firms providing services

to the UK.

It would make sense to continue to

recognise qualifications in the

future. There are two areas which

have never been covered in a

free-trade agreement and any

meaningful way before, broadcasting

and, despite the EU's best efforts

in the Transatlantic Trade and

Investment Partnership, financial

services. We have ideas how we can

do this and it is in our interests

to explore these. On broadcasting,

we recognise we cannot have the same

arrangements with the EU as we do

now. Currently, because of the

country of origin principle, the

company based in the UK can be

broadcast into any EU state and vice

versa. The relevant directive will

not apply to the UK as we leave the

EU, and replying on presidents will

hurt businesses on both sides. The

UK creative hub leads to the

development of products that

European and tumours want. The UK

currently resides 35% of the

channels available in the EU. There

are 35 channels and OnDemand

services which are offered in the UK

the licensed in the EU. We should

explore creative options with an

open mind, including mutual

recognition, allowing for Frontier

broadcasting, recognising the

enriching role that UK broadcasters

play in British but more broadly in

our common European culture. On

financial services, the Chancellor

will be setting out next week have

financial services can and should be

part of the deep and comprehensive

partnership. We're not looking per

passport in because we know this is

intrinsic to the single market, of

which we will longer be a member. It

will require us to be part of a

single rule book of which we will

have no say. The UK has

responsibility for the financial

stability of the world's most

significant financial centre and our

taxpayers bear the risk. It would be

unrealistic for us to implement new

legislation automatically and in its

entirety. But with UK located banks

underwriting around half of the debt

and equity issued the EU companies,

and providing more than £1.1

trillion of cross-border lending to

the rest of the EU in 2015 alone,

this is a clear example of only

looking at President would hurt both

the UK and economies. As in other

areas of the partnership, our goal

should be to establish the ability

to reach each other's markets, based

on maintaining the same regulatory

outcomes over time. The consequences

whether or not maintained. Given the

high rate regulated nature of

financial services and our desire to

avoid risks, we would need a

framework that is reciprocal,

mutually agreed and permanent and

therefore liable for businesses.

There are many other areas with the

UK and EU economies are closely

linked, including energy, transport,

digital, Law, science, education and

culture. On energy, we want to

secure broad energy cooperation with

the EU. This includes protecting the

Single Electricity Market across

Northern Ireland and Ireland, and

exploring options for the continued

participation in the EU internal

market. We also believe it is a

benefit for both sides for the UK to

have a close association with... On

transport, we want to ensure the

continuity of real and maritime

services and the rights of road

hauliers to reach the EU market, and

vice versa. On Digital, the UK will

not be part of the EU's digital

single market, which will continue

to develop after our withdrawal from

the EU. This is a fast evolving

innovative sector in which the UK is

a world leader. It will be

particularly important to have

domestic flexibility, to ensure the

regulatory environment can respond

to new environments. We want our

agreement to cover cooperation, with

the EU has shown it can reach

agreement with non-member states,

through the Ricardo convention. Our

agreement will also be to cover

company law and intellectual

property, to provide legal certainty

and coherence. The UK is also

committed to establishing a far

reaching science and innovation pact

with the EU, facilitating the

exchange of ideas and researchers.

This will allow the UK to

participate in key programmes

alongside our EU partners. They want

to take a similar approach to

education and culture, to promote

our shared values and enhance our

intellectual strength in the world,

again making an ongoing contribution

to cover our fair share of the costs

involved. In all of these areas,

bald and creative thinking can

deliver new agreements that are for

the very best for our people, and

across the EU. In the face of a

worrying rise of protectionism, I

believe such agreements can let us

set an example to the world. For the

world is watching. We should not

think of is leaving the EU as

marking and ending, as much as a new

beginning for the United Kingdom and

our relationship with our European

allies. Change is not to be feared,

so long we face it with a

clear-sighted determination to act

for the common good. Nor is Brexit

an end in itself. Rather, it must be

the means for which we reaffirm

Britain's place in the world and

renew the ties that bind us here at

home. And I know that the United

Kingdom can emerge from this process

is stronger and workers use of

nation. The United Kingdom which is

a cradle for innovation, a leader in

the industries of the future, a

champion of free trade based on high

standards, a moderate, outward

looking, tolerant country, proud of

our values and confident of our

place in the world. This is an

optimistic and confident future

which can unite us all, a global

Britain which thrives in the world

by forging a bold and comprehensive

economic partnership with our

neighbours in the EU and reaches out

beyond our continent to trade with

nations across the globe. The

approach I have set up to date would

implement the referendum result,

provide an enduring solution,

protect our security and

respiratory, help us build the kind

of country we want to be and bring

our country together by commanding

the confidence of those who voted

leave and those who voted remain. It

is an approach to deliver for the

whole of our United Kingdom and our

wider family of overseas

territories. I am in no doubt that

whatever agreement we reach with the

EU, our future is bright. The

stability and continuity of

centuries of self-government, our

commitment to freedom under the rule

of law, our belief in enterprise and

innovation, but above all, the

talent and genius of all our people

and especially our young people at

the seeds of our success in the

future, as they have been the

guarantors of our success in the

past. I look forward to discussing

our future partnership with our

European friends, because although

we are leaving the EU, and in that

regard we will become separate, we

are all still European and will stay

linked by the many Thais and values

we have in common. And because it is

only by working together we will

find solution that work for all our

people. -- the many ties. Yes, there

will be ups and downs in the months

ahead. No one will get everything

they want, we will not be buffeted

by the demands to talk tough or

threaten a wok out, just as we will

not accept the councils of the spear

that this cannot happen. We will

move forward with calm and patient

discussion of the positions. It is

my responsibility of Prime Minister

to provide that leadership for our

country at this time. By following

the course I have set out today, I

am confident we will get there and

deliver the right outcome for

Britain and the EU. A generation

from now, what will be remembered is

not the rough and tumble of

negotiation, but whether we reached

an enduring solution has to meet

interest of the people we are all

here to serve. So my message to our

friends in Europe is clear, we know

what we want, we understand your

principles, we have a shared

interest in getting this right. So,

let's get on with it. Thank you.

APPLAUSE

Now, I am going to take some

questions. I will start off with

questions from the media then take

some from the wider audience.

Laura's Laura's BBC News.

What you

describe as hard facts could also be

described as compromises, many of

which seemed obvious months ago. Do

you accept now that we cannot have

it all as we leave? , you have

outlined you want to pick and mix,

even though the EU has rejected that

approach. What is it you think you

can say to the EU leaders that will

actually change their minds?

First

of all, what I have set out today is

what I believe to be the right

Brexit deal for Britain. Also, I

believe it is the right deal for the

European Union. I am confident that

as we come and sit down together, we

will be able to show that mutual

interest and benefit from the

proposals that I have put forward.

The European Union itself in its own

guidelines, as I said in my speech,

have said they want an ambitious and

wide ranging relationship and

agreement and deal with the United

Kingdom for the future and I have

set out in my speech the various

areas in times of economic

partnership where we want to sit

down and talk to them about what

that future relationship would be.

As I say, I am confident that we

will achieve the right Brexit deal

for Britain because I believe that

deal is also the right Brexit deal

for the EU. Robert?

BBC. Prime

Minister, millions of people voted

to coin a phrase, to take back

control, but today you have said

that in order to maximise

frictionless low-cost trade with the

EU, you will promise not to exercise

the control of taking back, so what

can you say to those people who

voted for Brexit was the point of

Brexit?

Well, people voted to take

back control of our money, laws and

borders and that is exactly what the

will be doing. Yes, there are some

areas where... Parliament will

always be sovereign and it will be

parliament to make these decisions.

There are some areas, as I have set

out in the description of goods,

where, from economic point of view

businesses say it makes sense to

operate on the same basis we can

continue that good trading

relationship. The decision on those

rules will be for Parliament. Yes,

as I sat in my speech, there will

need to be binding commitments, as

the is and any trade agreement. You

sit down and you work out what laws

both sides are going to operate on,

particularly on issues on

competition and state aid. That is

what we will be doing on negotiating

this trade agreement. We will be

taking back control of our borders,

free movement will end. We will be

taking back control of our money, we

will not be sending vast sums of

money to the European every year and

we will be insuring we take back

control of our lords and Parliament

will make decisions. -- control of

our laws.

Sky News. On customs, a

specific question and a more general

one. As the custom partnership

option the number one option? It was

described as the blue sky optioned

by the Brexit secretary months ago

and I think they had of Customs said

it could take five years to put

these systems in place. Would we

stay in the interim? You say this is

about bringing the country back

together, but you describe those

people who want to reform a customs

union as betraying the vote. There

are people from the CBI here,

members of your own party. How does

that help when you say that that

betrays the boat?

What I have set

out today in my speech, and we set

out previously as a Government in

more detail, is two options for what

we believe is a Customs arrangement

that would enable us to both trade

and develop our own independent

trade policy and trade deals with

other countries around the world,

but also ensure we have as

frictionless trade across the border

as possible and ensuring we have no

hard order between Northern Ireland

and Ireland. What I want to do now,

and as I said in my speech I agreed

with the Prime Minister of Northern

Ireland when I saw him in Belfast,

that we will be sitting down with

the commission to discuss the

details of this. We want to explore

those options with those partners so

that we can ensure that we really go

into them and develop the solution

that is right, that delivers that no

hard order between Northern Ireland

and Ireland, as frictionless trade

as possible and continues to enable

us to develop our own independent

trade policy around the world. I

think that those are what the

majority of people want us to

achieve, and we have set out ways in

which we can do just that.

Thank you, Prime Minister, Tom

Newton Dunn from the Sun. You have

said you will be patient, you will

not threaten to walk out, but what

if you don't get what you want? What

have you don't get anywhere near

what you want? Is no deal still a

possibility, is it still better than

a bad deal, and if so, will you

repeat that now?

Yes, I've said on

many occasions that no deal is

better than a bad deal. At the

beginning of my speech, I said one

of the complexities as we go through

this as we are not only in a queue

shooting on that future publisher

but ensuring we are preparing for

possible outcomes because it is a

negotiation, and that is only the

right and sensible thing to do. But

I am confident, as I say, I am

confident in reaching a good deal,

the right deal, because I believe it

is in the interests of both the

United Kingdom and the European

Union. Jason?

Thank you, Daily Mail.

Some of your colleagues have been

seeking full autonomy over our laws

after we leave, you are suggesting

that maybe impossible, it is a hard

fact to swallow. Cover sorry, I

couldn't quite hear the question.

Can you hear me now? Some of your

colleagues have suggested they want

full autonomy over the UK's laws,

you seem to be suggesting that won't

be possible, and some of your

colleagues in Cabinet see this as a

bottom line, this speech you have

given today, rather than opening

position. Is it your bottom line, or

could there be more hard facts to

swallow in the future?

When we look

at the question of taking back

control of our laws, it is very

clear that Parliament will be

sovereign and will determine our

laws. I set out in my speech there

are certain circumstances, as other

countries have found, if you look at

the United States and the safe

harbour framework, for example, they

had an agreement with the European

Union, but the EU end of that is

determined by the ECJ, and the ECJ

took a decision that affected that

agreement, but they came to another

agreement. So what I was setting out

was that the ECJ will still continue

to have responsibility and a remit

within the European Union, but the

EU laws and the ECJ will no longer

have jurisdiction in the UK, and it

will be Parliament making these

decisions about our future. Anushka

will be Parliament making these

decisions about our future. Anushka.

Anushka Asthana from the Guardian.

You have admitted there will be

difficult decisions and trade-offs

head, and I think that makes it

important to understand what your

priorities are, particularly among

the five tests, one of which is

prosperity. I want to ask, is in the

end and negotiating a customs union

with the European Union is shown to

be the best way to protect the

economy, in that situation, would

British jobs Trump new trade deals

after Brexit?

What I set out in the

five test is the five tests that we

will be setting when we look at

these negotiations of the future

partnership, and it is those five

tests that I set out at the

beginning of the speech which will

have determined the approach I set

out today and the future

negotiations. I have explained that

when we leave the European Union, we

want to be to make those trades

deals around the rest of the world.

I believe there is a way, as I set

out in my speech, in which it is

possible to come to a customs

arrangements which enable us to have

as frictionless a border possible,

to ensure that has no hard border

between Northern Ireland and

Ireland, and be able to negotiate

deals around the rest of the world.

I will take a couple of journalist

not from UK media. From handles

Handelsblatt?

You seem to be

preparing EU people for difficult

decisions, saying there will be ups

and downs, saying you don't want to

be part of the customs union, do you

think Brexit is all worth it?

If

that was an attempt to say will we

think again on Brexit, the answer is

no, the British people voted for

Brexit, and I think it is incumbent

on politicians to deliver on the

decision that we asked them to take.

Parliament overwhelmingly voted for

this to be a decision of the British

people, and I think it is right,

having taken that decision, that

Parliament and politicians now

deliver on that. What have I done

today? Unlike some politicians, I am

being straight with people, because

there are hard facts to be faced. I

have set out, though, what I believe

is an economic partnership alongside

the security partnership that I set

out in my speech in Munich a couple

of weeks ago, that will ensure that

we deliver for the British people on

that referendum result, but at the

same time we have an arrangement, we

have an agreement, a deal that is

right for the British people in

terms of our prosperity, but also

for people across the European Union

in terms of their future prosperity

as well. Is Sonia here from

Liberation?

Liberation, the French

newspaper. Prime Minister, about

Northern Ireland, you have just

repeated your red lines, no customs

union, no single market. Isn't it

time you tell the truth to the

British and the Europeans that there

will indeed be a border in Northern

Ireland, a light, hi-tech border,

there will be a border in Northern

Ireland?

We have been very clear

there will be no hard border in

Northern Ireland, and as we have

said previously, we will not be

returning to the borders of the

past. What I have set out in my

speech today in ways in which that

can be achieved. I am pleased that

we have now agreed with the

Taoiseach that the Irish garment and

the UK Government and the commission

will now be sitting down to work

through those options that have been

proposed and to be working through

them in detail. I am very clear

there will be... We will not be

returning to a hard border in

Northern Ireland, between Northern

Ireland and Ireland, and we will be

ensuring that we also maintain the

common market of the United Kingdom,

and that there is no hard border

down the Irish sea either. I said I

would take a couple of questions

from the audience. Is Mike Jerry

here? I thought I had seen you

somewhere.

Good morning Prime

Minister. Small businesses will very

much welcome your views around

mutual recognition, and you also

mentioned certain sectors, but with

over 40% of our members looking to

grow their own business through

global exports and needing

certainty, what is your message for

them today as Prime Minister,

please? My message

for them is the

first of all we want to continue to

get a good trade deal with the

European Union, but we want to make

sure they can expand their export

markets around the rest of the world

as well, and that is why the

Department for International Trade

is already talking to a number of

countries around the world about

what our future trade arrangements

might be. But I am also clear that

we want to find ways of helping and

encouraging more small and

medium-sized enterprises to export

around the world, to the EU, but

also around the rest of the world. I

was very pleased to take some SMEs

with me on my recent trip to China,

and they had good results from the

networking they were able to do

there. As a government, through the

work of export finance guarantee and

so forth, we are working actively to

encourage and help not just large

companies but also small and

medium-sized enterprises be able to

trade outside of the United Kingdom,

be that to the European Union or

other countries around the world.

Thank you.

Thank you, Prime

Minister, from Virgin Money, I live

in Scotland and run a business in

Newcastle, and I wonder how your

vision of Britain after Brexit

improves things for the people who

live in both of those places and

other cities around the UK?

Well,

first of all, the important thing, I

would say, is kidding the United

Kingdom such that we have the

ability for you to live in Scotland

and run a business in Newcastle. --

is keeping. As we look at United

Kingdom outside of the European

Union, it is not just about what I

have been talking about today, our

relationship with the EU or trade

relationships with the rest of the

world, it is how we develop our

economy here in the United Kingdom,

that is where the industrial

strategy is an absolutely key part

of what we are delivering. We are a

nation of innovators, we are world

leaders in so many areas, if you

look at the the automotive sector,

fintech, we are leading the world,

and we want to create an environment

in the UK to enable people to do

that, to make real successes across

industrial sectors and the financial

sector as well. But also creating an

environment in which new innovation

can come forward, and part of that

is also getting our people skilled

up so that they can take the jobs of

the future. Thank you.

APPLAUSE