29/03/2017 Daily Politics

Good morning from Westminster on an historic day.

For 44 years, Britain has been a member of the European Union.

Today, the process of withdrawal begins and in two years'

time that membership will come to an end.

The Prime Minister says it will be a "momentous journey" and promises

But with complex negotiations, how will the government navigate its way

through? And on the domestic front

can Theresa May keep Stay tuned for this

Daily Politics special. Welcome to this specially extended

Daily Politics on the day Theresa May invokes Article 50

of the Lisbon Treaty and begins the formal process of taking

the UK out of the EU. Underneath a portrait

of our first Prime Minister, our current Prime Minister signs

the letter that starts that journey. One small stroke of the pen,

one giant leap for the country. Our man in Brussels will deliver

the letter by hand to the President It will fire the starting gun

on a two-year negotiation period. So will we end up with a deal

at the end of it all? Later this morning, the Prime

Minister will head to the Commons Immediately afterwards,

she will make a statement to MPs and say this is the moment

for the country Yes, we'll be here till half past

one with all the reaction And with us for the duration

are the former Northern Ireland And the former Labour

minister, Chris Leslie. Now, it's going to be a busy day -

highly choreographed - so JoCo what exactly

is the timetable for today? At midday, as usual on Wednesday,

it's Prime Minister's Questions. During PMQs, at 12.20,

the UK's ambassador to the EU, Sir Tim Barrow, will hand deliver

Theresa May's letter to the President of

the European Council, Straight after Prime Minister's

Questions from about 12:30, Theresa May will make a statement

to MPs confirming that the UK's Once Theresa May sits

down, from about 12:45, the European Council President,

Donald Tusk will make a formal statement acknowledging that Article

50 has been triggered. At three o'clock, the group leaders

in the European Parliament will meet to discuss the letter

and afterwards, Parliament President Antonio Tajani and Parliament Brexit

negotiator Guy Verhofstadt will hold At around 4:30, it's expected that

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker will respond

formally to the triggering It seems a long time ago. Are you

excited? I feel anticipation, I recognise there will be bumps along

the way but I feel we will be better off when we leave the European

Union, we face a bright future when we leave. The public make their

judgment in the referendum and we are seeing the letter, clearly

symbolic, and the phoney war, as it were, is finished and we are moving

to negotiations. I want to hold those in the Leave campaign to

account for the promises they made you are in that campaign. Is it

irreversible? I do not think so. By the sounds of it the Justice

Secretary Liz Truss said she thought it was not reversible but David

Davis said he did not know and there are many others who say there is

nothing in the provision of Article 50 that says it cannot be withdrawn.

Two years in politics is a very long time but it is important we do not

box ourselves into circumstances that could be catastrophic, we

should keep options open. Are you sure on this day of days, that it

will happen? I am, yes. You hesitated for a minute. Quite often,

since it became apparent in the early hours of the 24th of June last

year, I felt this sense it was hard to believe it would happen but I am

now starting to believe it will happen, we are leaving. We have a

lot to talk about. It seems like a lifetime ago since

David Cameron announced a date for a referendum on membership of the

European Union. A lot has happened since then. Let's take a look. On

Monday, I will commence the process set out under our referendum act and

go to Parliament and propose the British people decide our future in

Europe. The British people have spoken and

the answer is we are out. The British people have made a clear

decision to take a different path and, as such, I think the country

requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction.

Brexit means Brexit. Brexit means Brexit. The reason I

have been saying Brexit means Brexit is precisely because it does. We

want a red, white and blue Brexit. We will make breakfast... Brexit a

success! I think it will be Brexit plus, plus, plus, does that make

sense? What I am proposing cannot mean

membership of the single market. The Supreme Court rules that the

government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament

authorising it to do so. The ayes to the right, 494, the noes

to the left, 122. Joining me now former Liberal

Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown. Have you come to terms with this yet? Am

I disappointed? Of course, have I come to terms with the fact British

people have voted to leave, yes I have. Have I come to terms with the

fact the government has hijacked the vote for the anti-European

prejudices of the Conservative Party and given us a brutal Brexit as far

away from the EU as possible, despite a manifesto promise from the

Conservatives to stay in the single market, they have removed is. That

was a promise within the context of staying in the EU. I don't think it

was. If you stay in the EU you have to stay in the single market. It is

important you get facts right. They were talking about improving and

building on the single market to cover services more, which is why

they backed it and within the context of staying. Let's not get

into the context. It said bluntly we will stay in the single market. If

we stayed in the EU. If we stayed in the EU, you had to stay in the

single market. It was not qualified in the way you suggest. Let's put it

this way, Mrs May has a mandate to take the country out of the European

Union. She has no mandate to take them out of the single market. Many

of the Brexiteer is argued we should stay in, such as Daniel Hannan who

made a promise along those lines. She had no mandate to take this

country to the most extreme form of Brexit as far away from the EU as

possible and no mandate to do what she has done which is widened the

divisions of a divided country further. Am I coming to terms with

the proposition that she has used the vote for exit to put forward

which is a proposition as extreme as you can get? No, I haven't and we

have to continue to fight that proposition. David Cameron made it

clear we would have to lead the single market if we voted to leave

and George Osborne made it clear, Michael Gove was explicit, Boris

Johnson was explicit we would have to leave. What bit do you not

understand? Daniel Hannan and others... Daniel Hannan said it is

not what he said and he was talking in the context of a Norwegian

arrangement, which you're then leader Nick Clegg, previous leader,

described as a fax democracy. If you stay, you are subject to the

jurisdiction of the European Court and if you stay in the market you

must follow the rules of free movement. If you stay in the customs

union, you cannot make your own free trade. What is the difference

between that and being in the EU? Ask in Norway, which was an

alternative model. It is not part of the customs union. It stays with

access to the single market. This is the point. The British people voted.

Doubtless some to leave the single market, doubtless some to stop

immigration completely and some for many reasons, to send a message to

Westminster, some because they got out of bed the wrong way that

morning. The government to convert that vote, which I think was about

leaving the European Union, but in terms that are beneficial to

Britain, into a position where we have to have a brutal Brexit that

takes is out of the EU and, by the way, if the government does not get

its way, we jumped over the cliff together. That is not what people

voted full. When it comes to honouring the sovereign judgment of

the British people, it is the government that have hijacked it for

the Conservative Party purpose largely to keep their own

anti-European people on their backbenchers in line. That is not

what the country voted for. Do you want a referendum on the deal? I

want a referendum on the deal at the end of the process. What would

happen if the country voted against? You would have an election. What

would it do to membership of the EU? The new government would have to

decide what step is taken next. There is no way this government

could have a referendum on the final deal so the British people get to

say whether or not that is a deal they find beneficial to them and in

the interests of the country. The government loses you get an

election. And if the British people voted for the deal, which you give

up? You have to go ahead. Mrs May has not chosen a form of Brexit

advantageous to Britain or in deed for which she has a mandate. She has

chosen the most extreme form and put us in a position where if she does

not get her way we jump over the cliff together. Without any voice.

You talk about extreme Brexit. I would like to know how you can leave

the European Union, which is not the people voted for, and stay in the

single market and Customs union. You can stay with access to the single

market. You will not have it in the way Norway has it or Sweden has it.

We do not know... It is Switzerland. We don't know the nature of the free

trade deal. That will give us access. What we will no longer have

is membership, because the people voted against the sorts of things

that go with membership. Why is that extreme? Because it means we will

not have the same kind of access to the single market as enjoyed by

Norway or Switzerland or could have been negotiated by the British

Government. The trick is this is a deal which I don't believe the

British people voted for, for which Mrs May does not have a mandate,

which puts us at the edge of the cliff with the most extreme form of

Brexit and threatens asked to jump over the cliff, without the British

people having a vote at any time. You have made that point, you have

made it well and several times. Here is the issue. You criticise the

government position for being extreme. In this historically you

were extremists and wanted us to join the euro. We can argue as to

why I believe that was the right thing at the time. You don't now?

That would have been the right thing at the time. That sounds quite

extreme to many. I don't think it is extreme. If you want to get into the

detail, at that time, Germany had doubled the debt of Britain and was

lower in productivity and competitiveness than Britain. At the

end of the process because we have the option to devalue, we ended up

with doubled the debt of Germany and half the productivity level. Which

has That financial crisis was worse for

Britain because we were not able to sustain the competitiveness. We are

talking about the future, and whether I was right or wrong about

monetary union, and I maintain I was right, the question is, what should

happen now? I heard Chris say earlier on that the phoney war has

ended and we will get down to the details. What we have had up until

now is in salt fuelled invective against those who would question the

Government in any way, and political statements from ministers with no

fact. Can I ask you this, because for about four times, you have

criticised the government for saying that we can no longer be members of

the single market. Access to the single market. We will always have

that, even North Korea has got access. The Prime Minister announced

in her Lancaster house speech many weeks ago. Can you name a single

European leader who thinks that Britain should stay in the single

market? I can name you lots of European leaders, probably all of

the without exception, who would wish Britain to retain membership

with the single market similar to that of Switzerland and Norway, and

it will be beneficial... Can you name in the commission, the Council

of the nesters, a leading Prime Minister or president who says

Britain should negotiate to stay members of the single market, can

you name one? I think every single one of them wants Britain to

continue to have substantial access to the single market in the same

form as Norway and Switzerland has, but no doubt negotiated on a basis

which is useful to Britain. So not one, in other words? Not a single

one of them wants us to have a situation in relation to the single

market which this Government is now proposing as part of the brutal

Brexit deal that will damage the country. That is not true, Michelle

Barney says he looks forward to negotiating an extensive

arrangement. Let's wait to see whether that can be done. I

understand that, but you said nobody wants it, I have just quoted the

leader of the EU negotiations saying he wants it. One thing that cannot

be done, and every body knows that except some of those managing this

for the Government, we cannot have a deal which is better than the one

that we had in the European Union. That cannot be done. So it will be a

worse deal, and insofar as this is me has deliberately put us on the

outer ring, beyond Switzerland, beyond Norway, on the edge of the

cliff, it seems to me, that is a position which I think it is

impossible for her to negotiate a deal which is to the benefit of our

country. Are you one of these rabid Tory backbenchers forcing the Prime

Minister into an extreme position? According to Paddy, I think I must

be, and I think there are probably a lot of Leave supporters watching

this programme who will be quite offended at being described in that

way, and I think it is ironic that Paddy in accuses the Government of

invective when that is what we have heard from him. It is not an

unreasonable, extreme position to want to be a country that governs

ourselves, and it is not unreasonable or extreme to say that

leaving the EU means just that. We can't remain subject to all the laws

of the single market and the European court of justice and

implement the result of the referendum. Is there any bit of what

Paddy Ashdown was saying that you disagree with? I think I would

disagree with the single currency point. As he said, that is in the

past. What about now? I think I would go further than Paddy, and I

would have said that the real fault of the Prime Minister was ruling out

that single market in the Lancaster house speech, because we should have

been entering into the negotiations with a view to try and adapt and

reform the single market. You can't adapt and reform the single market

from the outside. There are lots of other countries who want and have

issues with the free movement, for example, and can we retain the

single market and adapt that pillar... Mrs Merkel says no. She

hasn't been asked. No, she said no. Free movement is not negotiable,

said Mrs Merkel. They put down their lines, we put down our lines, we

have a negotiation. Very briefly, we are running out of time. What

Theresa has done... Which Theresa? This one? Yes, if we dare to

criticise the position taken by the Government supported by in the large

measure it anti-European backbenchers, probably to keep them

on board, then we are somehow insulting the wider collection of

people who voted for that. They voted for something completely

different. Mrs me has done what Mr Cameron did, it is not about the

national interest. We have to stop, you have had a fair innings, I think

you will agree. And we didn't mention hats once!

So once Article 50 is triggered, what next?

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the whole process should be

completed within two years - although some are sceptical

JoCo, what can we can expect in the coming

Donald Tusk, president of the EU Council which represents the leaders

of the remaining 27 member states, has said the Council will publish

draft negotiation guidelines within 48 hours.

Then at an EU summit next month the Council will agree

the European Commission's mandate for negotiating with the UK.

By mid-May, the Commission will publish a plan for the negotiations

This is also when we may hear more about the possibility of a parallel

negotiation on a future EU-UK trade deal.

But with elections in both France and Germany in the next six months,

it will probably be autumn before negotiations

Meanwhile Parliament will be busy discussing

the Great Repeal Bill, which - as the name suggests -

will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act

and incorporate areas of EU law into domestic legislation.

Michel Barnier, the Commission's chief negotiator, says he thinks

the negotiations could be concluded by next October.

However, the negotiations could be extended, if all 27 member states

If everything goes to plan, both Houses of Parliament will then

The European Council and European Parliament

If the deal is formally voted through, the UK would then formally

withdraw from the EU by the end of March 2019.

And we can talk now to the SNP MP Stephen Gethins, who is the party's

Welcome back to the daily politics. For you and the SNP, there is a date

and an event missing, namely a second independence referendum. Have

you accepted that is not going to happen in the next two years? Lets

see what happens. The Scottish Parliament voted last night to have

another independence referendum, so it used its mandate to ask for

another independence referendum, and I think critically, Andrew was

talking earlier on when he was speaking to Paddy about Michel

Barnier, but Michel Barnier set out the schedule by which we will know

what the deal looks like, and that fits in with the referendum

timetable that the First Minister set out. In a sense, if that

question of when you may hold a second independence referendum is

settled, you can get on with the business of government in Scotland.

The Scottish Government is already getting on with the business of

government in Scotland. When you talk about Theresa May who is being

told we have crisis in the NHS where the Red Cross are talking about a

humanitarian disaster, I think she has plenty to be getting on with.

And on that basis, she has a lot to get on with, as you have said, no

one is denying that, and you could argue that there has been posturing

on both sides on the referendum question. But is it now in your

interests, in Scotland's interest and the interests of the UK

Government, for everyone to try to get at their steel for the UK, to

park the issue of the timing of the independence referendum? That is why

we don't want to have a referendum right now. We want to know what will

happen with the deal. This is not a situation that we wanted to find

ourselves in. But will you call operate now in terms of getting the

best deal? This is a two-way process, and Theresa May has to be

seen to want to work with the Scottish Government. She said she

wanted to see a UK wide approach to this, and she hasn't taken that.

Repatriating powers on things like agriculture and fishing, you could

see that as in some ways making an overture on two big issues for the

Scottish Government. You could, but when we asked the Secretary of State

what new powers Scotland will be getting, we didn't get any answers.

We have had nothing on immigration policy. These were among the

promises made before the EU referendum, a week before the polls

by Michael Gove, and they are not coming through on that. But if you

are going to hold Theresa May's feet to the fire on including Scotland

and the Scottish Government in those negotiations, and I have been hints

that those would be areas where you could get some sort of agreement,

would that be where you will concentrate your efforts,

repatriating powers on agriculture and fishing, and working towards a

separate deal for certain sectors? That is something that the Home

Secretary ruled out. The UK Government don't have a great track

record. The Scottish Government have a responsibility to those whose jobs

will be impacted by this. 80,000 Scottish jobs, in Scotland alone,

could go as a direct consequence of a hard Brexit, which is the one we

are looking at the moment. What we are trying to do is give people a

choice once they know what the deal looks like before it is too late. So

you will still fight for the referendum date within the timescale

of spring 2019? I think that is imported, but the First Minister has

been clear that she is willing to compromise. So it could go beyond

that. Theresa Villiers, is that kind of thing that the Government should

be offering the Scottish Parliament, executive control on things like

agriculture and fishing? The Government has been clear that no

powers on those areas would be removed from Scottish Parliament or

the Scottish Government, but there is a debate to be have about the

powers which are returned to Westminster, as to which stay in

Westminster and which go to the devolved authorities. I'm sure there

will be extensive powers over fisheries and agriculture that will

end up with the Scottish Government, but at this stage we can't be

definite about which they will be. If you got fishing back, would you

hand it back to Brussels? As you well know, the Treaty of union and

the act of union are two very different things. But if you joined

Brussels, you would just hand the powers right back, it is ludicrous!

It is difficult to see Brussels blocking any referendum in the same

way that the UK Government is trying to block the Scottish Government. We

will leave it there. It is a historic day for both Britain and

the EU. What better

way to mark the occasion than with a special edition

Daily Politics commemorative mug? We have been painting these

all-night! Yes, you can celebrate -

or commiserate - the end of 44 years of EU membership,

from Ted Heath signing us into the Common Market in 1972

to Theresa May signing us out yesterday, by joining us

for a Great British brew. All you need to do for this

once-in-a-generation chance to win our special mug,

is tell us when this happened. # All my life I've

been waiting for you # Been living in a fantasy

without meaning.# # So now I walk in the midday

sun # I never thought

that my saviour would come. And to be in with a chance

of winning a Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz

email address - Entries must arrive by 12.30 today,

and you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess

The Year on our website - Just take a look at Big Ben -

and that can mean only one thing. Yes, Prime Minister's

Questions is on its way. And that's not all -

Laura Kuenssberg is here. A difficult one on PMQs, because it

is just the start, this time. It is absolutely, and Jeremy Corbyn and

Theresa May will be upstaged today by a six or seven page piece of

paper arriving in Brussels. That is how long we expect the letter to be,

and broadly we are not expecting there to be much new substance. One

member of the Cabinet at the meeting this morning where they were briefed

by the Prime Minister on the contents of the letter told me there

was nothing unexpected in it. Today is all going to be about time. Lets

see what the tone is the PMQs. They were Aysha Frade, Kurt Cochran,

Leslie Rhodes and, of course, PC Keith Palmer. I am sure the house

will join me in extending condolences to the families. The

investigation continues and two people have been arrested and are in

custody. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and I

will have further such meetings later today. May I echo her

sentiments and congratulate her also on all the good work done since last

week. May I also congratulate the Prime Minister and government on

triggering Article 50 today. I know this is a momentous action to the

whole of the United Kingdom and while I like herself campaigned to

stay in, we recognise the people have spoken and we offered the

Ulster Unionist Party. Port in ensuring negotiations deliver the

best for the whole of the UK and particularly for Northern Ireland.

But could I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that in the extremely

improbable event that a border poll should take place regarding the

future of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom during her

premiership, that a government will fully support any official Remain

campaign? Just as the government have done both in regard of the EU

and indeed Scotland. The honourable gentleman is right. Today we do give

effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom who

voted for us to leave the European Union. It was a call to make the

United Kingdom a country that works for everyone not just the privileged

few. We are within that fully committed to ensuring the unique

interests of Northern Ireland are attracted and advanced as we

establish our negotiating position. Our position is we strongly support

the Belfast agreement including the principle of consent that Northern

Ireland constitutional position is that the people of Northern Ireland

to determine. We have a preference that Northern Ireland should remain

part of the United Kingdom and we will never be neutral in expressing

our support for that. That is because I believe fundamentally in

the strength of our union. Pupils and parents deserve good schools and

real choice in education including schools focused unashamedly on

academic rigour. Can my right honourable friend tell us when the

government will open applications for the new wave of free schools and

can she confirmed they will be genuinely free to be run as they

wish, serving the community and creating scores for everyone? My

honourable friend is right. Schools should be free to be run as best

suit them. We put autonomy and freedom in the hands of strong

leaders and outstanding teachers so they can deliver an excellent

education. We want to get out of the way of outstanding education

providers to set up the types of schools parents want which is why we

have set out plans to remove the ban on new grammar schools and

restrictions on new faith schools. We do expect to announce the details

of the next wave of free school applications following the

publication of the White Paper. I want to begin by paying tribute to

the emergency services as the Prime Minister did, across the country,

especially those who responded to the Westminster attack and to those

who turned out to help the victims of the new ferry explosion on

Saturday. Our thoughts remain with the injured and those who have lost

loved ones and we thank the police for their investigations. Could the

Prime Minister assure Ross police will be given all support and

resources to take them through this difficult period -- assure us? I

joined the right honourable gentleman in praising the work of

the emergency services, who have to deal with a wide range of incidents

that take place. Our focus has been most recently on the attack last

Wednesday. We should not forget that day in day out emergency services

work on our behalf and often put themselves in danger as a result. I

have kept in touch as has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary

with the security services and Metropolitan Police on the

investigation taking place into the attack last week and I am looking

forward to security arrangements and I can assure him they have the

resources they need to carry out vital work. Of course we all pay

tribute to the police for the work they do but there are some problems

that between 2015 and 2018 there will be a real terms cut in central

government funding to police forces of 330 million. Can the Prime

Minister assure the house the police all over the country have the

necessary resources to do the job? I would remind him that what we have

done is protected that police budget and of course the former Shadow Home

Secretary, his colleague, the right honourable member, prior to the...

At the Labour Party conference said savings can be found. The police say

5-10% is just about doable. We have protected the police budget. I have

been speaking to police forces and they are cleared the work they are

doing has the resources they need. The Police Federation survey

recently undertaken reveals that 55% of serving police officers say

morale is low due to the way in which funding has been treated.

Front line policing is vital in tackling crime and terrorism. Since

2010, there are 20,000 fewer police officers, 12,000 fewer on the front

line. I asked the Prime Minister again, will she think again about

the cuts and guaranteed policing on the front line will be protected so

every community can be assured it has the officers it needs in their

community? I said we have protected those police budgets including of

course the precepts they raise locally. Let's think about what has

happened since 2010. Since 2010 we have seen crime is traditionally

measured by the independent crime survey falling by a third to a

record low, and that is the work of hard-working officers up and down

this country. They have been backed by this government. We have made

them more accountable through directly elected Police and Crime

Commissioners and there has been reform, including reform of the

Police Federation that was necessary, but we have ensured

police have resources to do their job and we see crime at a record

low. The Royal air forces preparing to fly typhoons from my constituency

to Romania, to support Nato allies on the border with Russia. This is

as President Putin is locking up political opponents and crushing

calls for democracy. Will my right honourable friend confirm that as we

leave the EU, the United Kingdom will continue to lead Nato in

defending this vital border, and will she paid tribute to the Armed

Forces who safeguard our democracy at home and abroad? I am very happy

to join my honourable friend in paying tribute to the men and women

of our Armed Forces, they are the best in the world and they worked

tirelessly to keep us safe and we open every gratitude. Our commitment

to collective defence and security through Nato is as strong as ever.

We will meet our pledge to spend 2% of GDP wand expense every year of

the decade and we plan to spend 178 billion on equipment. She referred

to work done by the Royal Air Force in relation to Romania. With Nato we

deploy a battalion to Estonia and squadron to Poland and I think that

shows our commitment to our collective security and defence. We

associate ourselves with the condolences of the Prime Minister

and leader of the Labour Party and praise for the emergency and

security services. After the appalling terrorist atrocity. Last

year, the Prime Minister promised before she would trigger Article 50

on leaving the EU, she would secure a UK wide approach and agreement...

Last year the Prime Minister did make that promise and promised there

would be agreement with the governments of Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland before triggering Article 50. The Prime Minister has

now triggered Article 50 and she has done so without an agreement. There

is no agreement. Why has she broken her promise and her word? I have

been clear throughout and since the first visit that I made as Prime

Minister to Edinburgh last July, which was we would work with the

devolved administrations and develop a UK wide approach but in

negotiations it would be a UK approach taken into the negotiations

and it would be the United Kingdom government that took forward that

position and I would remind him that Scotland is part of the United

Kingdom. People will note the Prime Minister did not deny she would seek

a UK wide approach and agreement with the governments of Scotland,

Wales and Northern Ireland and there is no agreement. The Scottish

Government was elected with a higher percentage of the vote with a bigger

electoral mandate than the UK Government. Yesterday the Scottish

Parliament voted by 69 to 59 that people in Scotland should have a

choice about their future. After the negotiations with the EU are

concluded, there will be a period for democratic approval of the

outcome. That choice will be exercised in this Parliament, in the

European Parliament, and in 27 member states of the EU. Given that

everybody else will have a choice... Will the people of Scotland have a

choice... ? I say to the right honourable gentleman that we are

taking forward the views of the United Kingdom into the negotiations

with the European Union on the United Kingdom exiting the European

Union. The Scottish Nationalist party consistently talks... Order!

This is unseemly heckling. You are a distinguished QC. You would not

behave like that in the Scottish courts. You would be chucked out.

Prime Minister. The SNP consistently talks about independence as the only

subject they wish to talk about. I said to him and his colleagues that

now is not the time to be talking about a second independence

referendum. On today of all days, we should be coming together as a

United Kingdom to get the best deal for Britain.

Improving vocational and technical education is vital to closing our

productivity gap so can the Prime Minister assure me vocational

education will enjoy equal status with academic education so that as

we leave the EU, our young people can be equipped to build the high

skilled economy of the future? My honourable friend has raised an

important issue. It is essential for young people we give vocational and

technical education the right esteem and focus because it is essential in

addressing the productivity gap. We want to deliver a world leading

technical education system to create genuine options that are equal in

esteem, two options for young people in esteem. In the budget, the

Chancellor announced a significant package of investment to represent

the most ambitious post-16 reform since the introduction of A-levels.

We will invest an extra half ?1 billion in Ingham's technical

education and introduce maintenance loans or those studying high-level

technical qualifications at institutes of technology. The

Treasury Select Committee says that having to fill in a tax return every

three months means that many smaller companies face disaster. The

Federation of small business says the extra cost is likely to be

annually ?2700 a year. This is another burden on business from this

government. She got it wrong on national Insurance, is she going to

backtrack now on tax returns, as well?

Perhaps the honourable gentleman should have listened to the

announcement the Chancellor made in the budget where he indicated he

would be delaying the introduction of this for the smallest businesses

below the VAT threshold for a year. But I think it is right that HMRC

does try to move to a greater digitisation of the way in which it

operates. I think that will enable it to give a better service to those

people who are completing their forms, and we should always remember

that aspect of what is being proposed. I welcome the additional

money the Government has given for adult social care, but it is

important we also look at long-term solutions for the. Will the Prime

Minister look at issues with how the system works with Northampton county

council and Northampton General Hospital? I say to my honourable

friend but I'm grateful that he is welcome for the extra money, the ?2

billion going to social care and out by the Chancellor. This shows we

have recognised the pressures and demands on social care, but it is

also important that we ensure best practice is delivered across the

whole of the country, it isn't just about money, so we are trying to

find a long-term sustainable solution which will help local

authorities to learn from each other and raise standards across the

system, and we will bring forward proposals in a green paper later

this year to put the state funded system on a more sustainable and

long-term footing. As Home Secretary, the Prime Minister

clearly didn't protect police budgets. Last week she told me four

times, we have protected the schools budget. Does she still stand by that

statement? We have protected schools budgets, and we are putting record

funding into schools. Today, Mr Speaker, the Public Accounts

Committee says the Department of Education that it does not seem to

understand the pressures that schools are already under. And they

went on to say that funding per pupil is reducing in real terms, and

goes on to say schools budgets will be cut by ?3 billion, equivalent to

8%, by 2020. Is the Public Accounts Committee wrong on this? What we see

over the course of this Parliament is ?230 billion going into our

schools. But what matters is the quality of education that we see in

our schools. 1.8 million more children in good or outstanding

schools, and a policy from this Government to ensure that every

child gets a good school plays. Mr Speaker, the daily experience of

many parents who have children in schools is that they get letters

from the schools asking for money. One parent, Elizabeth, wrote to me

to say she has received a letter from her daughter's school asking

for a monthly donation to top up the reduced funds that her school is

receiving. This Government's cuts to schools are betraying a generation

of our children. If the Prime Minister is right, then the parents

are wrong, the teachers are wrong, the IFF is wrong, the National Audit

Office is wrong, the education policy Institute is wrong and now

the Public Accounts Committee, which includes eight Conservative members

in it, is also wrong. So which organisation does back the Prime

Minister's view on education spending in our schools? I would say

to the right honourable gentleman that as I have just said to him, we

said we would protect school funding, and we have. A real terms

protection for the schools budget. We said we would protect the money

following children into schools, and we have, it reaches ?42 billion as

pupil numbers rise in 19/ 20. But it is also about the quality of

education children are receiving. 1.8 million more children in good or

outstanding schools than under the Labour government. But I also say

this, because time and time again, the gentleman stands up in PMQs and

asks questions which would lead to more spending. Let's look at what he

has done recently. On the 11th of January, more spending. On the 8th

of February, more spending. On the 22nd of February, more spending. On

the first and the 8th of March, more spending. On the 15th and 22nd of

March, more spending. Barely a PMQs goes by that he doesn't call for

more public spending. When it comes to spending money that they haven't

got, Labour simply can't help themselves. It's the same old

Labour, spend today and give somebody else the Bill tomorrow.

Well, we won't do that to the next generation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm sure everyone in the House will want to

join me in paying tribute to the thousands who worked in munitions

factories in both world wars. Often in very dangerous conditions. And

they produced a vital equipment for the Armed Forces that helped us to

victory. I'm sure my honourable friend will recognise that for

practical reasons it is not possible to pursue individual awards, but I

know that the Department for Business would be happy to work with

him to look at further ways to recognise the collective effort of

former munitions workers. I thank my right honourable friend for that

answer. These ladies found that the chemicals in the shells turned their

skins yellow, and they were nicknamed canary girls. I know my

right honourable friend is exceptionally busy at the moment,

but could she find just a few moments in her diary to meet me and

some of these canary girls to recognise their service? I would be

very happy to do that. I would be very happy to meet some canary

girls. As I said, they did work which was vital to the war effort.

They did work which in one sense was absolutely routine, but in another

sense was extremely dangerous, and I think we should recognise the

efforts that they put in. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister will

be aware that the Welsh Labour government has established a

children's funeral fund. Many leading funeral providers have also

indicated that there will be no charges for children and young

people's funerals. I know the Prime Minister is a compassionate woman,

and I know she understands the importance of a children's funeral

fund. Will she agree to work with me to establish this fund to bring some

comfort to bereaved parents in their darkest hour? I pay tribute to the

honourable lady who has been campaigning tirelessly on this

issue, and obviously it is not just a passionate campaign, but she has

spoken on many occasions moving in this House about her personal

experience which she has brought to bear on this issue. I welcome the

decision taken by the co-operative funeral company to waive the fees on

this. There is some financial support available, we are looking at

this issue on the problems faced by parents, and at what more can be

done through a cross government piece of work, and I ask the

Minister for the Cabinet office who is meeting on that piece of work to

meet with us and talk about the idea. As the Prime Minister will

know, the budget gave an extra ?200 million to the Welsh Labour

government in order to provide business rate relief. Will the Prime

Minister agree with myself and the leader of Monmouthshire council that

Welsh Labour must now commit to spending that money on supporting

Welsh businesses and giving the same level of support that has been

provided in England by this conservative Government? I say to my

honourable friend he is absolutely right. As he said at the budget, my

right honourable friend the Chancellor announced a ?200 million

boost to the Welsh budget. They will be able to use that money to support

their own priorities, but the people of Wales can send a clear signal

about these priorities by voting for Conservative councillors like Peter

Fox on the 4th of May. And I have to say it is the UK Government actions

to support working families throughout the country that will

make sure Wales benefits. The Foreign Secretary jury be EU

referendum campaign urged people to, and I quote, take back control of

huge sums of money, ?350 million per week, and spend it on our priorities

such as the NHS. The Prime Minister will trigger article 50 today. Can

the Prime Minister confirm precisely when she wants to fulfil the promise

made by her Cabinet colleagues who is sitting on the front page

smirking at the British public? Order, order, Boris is sitting

perfectly comfortably, there is an air of repose about the fellow!

Prime Minister. I am very happy to tell the

honourable lady that when this country leaves the European Union,

we will have control of our budget and we will decide how that money is

spent. With modification, schools in my constituency welcome the National

funding formula, and given the Leader of the Opposition's

intervention, I hope my next question doesn't land me on the

naughty step, but given that Stockport schools and other schools

have been at the bottom of the funding pile for years, and have

less scope for efficiencies, would my right honourable friend consider

giving immediate support to them? As my honourable friend is saying, what

we are doing is aiming to end the postcode lottery of schools funding,

and schools funding is at a record high. In relation to the minimum

funding level, as I have said before, the DFE have heard

representations on the issue on this national funding formula and will be

considering those. There have been a lot of responses to that, but it is

a historic and complex reform but there has been general agreement for

many years that reform is needed, we want to get this right which is why

we are carefully considering it. After nine months of this Prime

Minister's approach to Brexit, Northern Ireland is deadlocked, the

Welsh are alienated, Scotland is going for a referendum, the English

are split down the middle and Brexit MPs are walking out of Commons

committees because they don't like home truths. Has the Prime Minister

considered in terms of invoking Article 50 that now is not the time?

What the UK Government is doing in invoking article 50 is putting into

practice the Democratic vote of the British people on the 23rd of June

last year in a referendum. There was a referendum in 2014 in Scotland

when the Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. I

suggest The right honourable gentleman and his colleagues put

that into practice! Mr Speaker, three quarters of my constituent

Umag voted to leave the European Union. Does the Prime Minister agree

with me that as she triggers article 50, it marks a watershed moment, not

only for this country's control of immigration and our sovereignty, but

also for listening to the views of people who were forgotten for far

too long? I absolutely agree with my honourable friend. Not only are we

putting into place the views of the British people as set out in that

referendum on the 23rd of June last year, but crucially that was not

just a vote about leaving the EU. It was a vote about changing this

country for the future, and this Government has a clear plan for

Britain that will change this country, that will see us with a

more global outlook, a stronger economy, a fairer society and a more

united nation. The people expect the Prime Minister to follow her party's

manifesto and abide by a majority vote of this Parliament. So why does

she say that the First Minister of Scotland should do the opposite?

What I say is that at this point in time Dodge at this point in time as

we face this historic moment of facing Article 50 and this country's

relationship with the European Union, now is the time for us to

pull together and not, part. On Friday, thousands of people will be

up and down this country raising funds and awareness of brain tumour

research. Many of these people will know people someone who have

suffered from a brain tumour. It is a bigger cancer killer of children

and adults under 40. Will the Prime Minister join me in commending all

these people raising awareness and funds and see what more we can do to

raise funding for brain tumour research? This is an important area,

and I believe in this area the UK does have a good record of research

on brain tumours, and that is important, but he is absolutely

right. The people who are raising funds for this important cause

should be commended, as he says many of them will have had personal

experience in one way or another of brain tumours, and I think it is

important that we recognise that there are many killers out there

which don't often receive the publicity and support of others, and

we should recognise their importance, and commend those who

are raising funds. Can the Prime Minister said what she

is doing to ensure national and local government prioritise the

purchasing and buying of British goods and services, although the

Home Secretary on police vehicles, does not give us cause for optimism.

We have been encouraging the procurement of British goods and

services. He asked what we can do for local authorities, if people

want local authorities to take their best interests to heart, they should

vote Conservative. Can I ask... I congratulate the Prime Minister and

invoking Article 50. Does she agree this needs to be the end of the

phoney war and posturing and focus now on the detail for every

industry, centre and community to get a bespoke deal we can all get

behind? I agree with my honourable friend. Now is the time to come

together and be united across this House and country to ensure we work

for the best deal for the United Kingdom and best future for us all.

The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised her determination to

deliver for all constituent parts of the United Kingdom on this historic

day and while others are content to moan, we want to see that delivery

happen and we are confident she will make that happen. In Northern

Ireland, where some have walked away from responsibilities in terms of

devolution, we want devolution up and running to have a functioning

government and we have set no preconditions. If others continue to

stay away from devolution and walk away, will she pledged to work more

closely with those of us in this House to defend and protect the

interests of Northern Ireland? We say that we all want to work

together to ensure we can protect the best interests of Northern

Ireland. I think that ensuring we have strong devolved government in

Northern Ireland is important for the future and so we can build on

the significant progress made in recent years for the people of

Northern Ireland and I urge all parties to come to the talks with a

view to finding a way through so that Northern Ireland once again can

be restored to devolved government. With the Prime Minister agree social

media companies need to take action to remove extremist and hate

material from platforms and to foot the Bill for the police who are

currently doing their dirty work at the taxpayers' expense? This

question of working with the companies to ensure extremist

material is removed as quickly as possible is one that is not new.

Through the counterterrorism internet referral unit we have the

process to enable the police to take material down. 250,000 pieces of

material have been taken down since 2010 and there has been increase in

that activity in the last couple of years. I know the Home Secretary

will be meeting companies this week to talk to them about this important

issue. We do not want extremist material on the internet, what we

want to see is companies taking action to remove material

encouraging hate and division. Late on Saturday night, a massive

explosion devastated new ferry in my constituency. We are thinking of

those who were hurt. It is a miracle more people were not injured. The

community faces dereliction. All the Prime Minister join with me in

thanking all of those who looked after my community over the weekend

and recent days, and will she arrange a meeting with the Secretary

of State who can discuss how the government can help us to rebuild

New Ferry. I am happy to do those things. I commend and thank all of

those who worked hard in the emergency services and others to

support her community when this devastating explosion took place.

That work will continue. There will be support I am sure being given to

the community in the future and I am happy to ask the Secretary of State

to meet her and discuss how that community can be rebuilt and

overcome the impact of this explosion. Order.

Statement, the Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the

government acts on the democratic will of the British people. It acts

on the clear and convincing position of this House. A few minutes ago in

Brussels, the United Kingdom's permanent representative to the EU

handed a letter to the president of the European Council on my behalf,

confirming the government decision to invoke Article 50. The Article 50

process is now under way and in accordance with the wishes of the

British people the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. This is

an historic moment from which there can be no turning back. Britain is

leaving the European Union. We are going to make our own decisions and

laws. We are going to take control of things that matter most to us and

we are going to take this opportunity to build a stronger,

fairer Britain, a country our children and grandchildren are proud

to call home. That is our ambition and our opportunity. That is what

this government is determined to do. Mr Speaker, at moments like these,

great turning points in our national story, the choices we make to find

the character of our nation. We can choose to save the task ahead is too

great, we can choose to turn our face to the past and believe it

cannot be done, or we can look forward with optimism and hope and

to believe in the power of the British spirit. I choose to believe

in Britain and that our best days lie ahead. I do so because I am

confident we have vision and plan to use this moment to build a better

Britain. For leaving the EU presents us with a unique opportunity. It is

this generation's chance to shape a brighter future, a chance to step

back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be. My answer is

clear. I want the United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change

stronger, fairer, more united and more outward looking than ever

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

magnet for international talent and are 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,

a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe. Can I apologise

for interrupting. Mr Boswell, calm yourself, you have to learn to

behave in a statement -- statesman-like fashion. I want all

colleagues the chance to question the Prime Minister. This is an

important statement and it is reasonable to expect the Prime

Minister gets a courteous hearing. Mr Speaker, I want us to be a truly

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

that a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe, a country

that goes into the world to build relationships with new friends and

allies alike. That is why I have set out a clear and ambitious plan for

the negotiations ahead, a plan for a deep and special partnership between

Britain and the European Union, of values, a partnership of interests,

a partnership based on cooperation in areas such as security and

economic affairs, and a partnership that works in the best interests of

the United Kingdom, European Union and wider world. Perhaps now more

than ever the world needs the liberal democratic values of Europe.

Values... Perhaps... Perhaps now more than ever the world

needs the liberal democratic values of Europe, values the United Kingdom

shares and that is why while we are leaving the institutions of the

European Union, we are not leaving Europe, we will remain a close

friend and ally, we would be a committed partner and play our part

to ensure Europe is able to protect its values and defend itself from

security threats and we will do all we can to help the European Union

prosper and succeed. In a letter delivered to resident Donald Tusk

today, copies of which I have placed in the library, I have been cleared

the deep and special partnership we seek is in the best interests of the

United Kingdom and European Union. I have been clear we will work

constructively in a spirit of sincere cooperation to bring this

partnership into being. I have been clear we should seek to agree the

terms of this future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal

within the next two years. I am ambitious for Britain and the

objectives set out for these negotiations remain. We will deliver

certainty wherever possible so that business, the public sector and

everybody has as much clarity as we can provide. Tomorrow we will

publish a White Paper confirming our plans to convert it into British law

so that everyone knows where they stand. It is why I have been clear

the government will put the final deal agreed to a vote in both houses

of parliament before it comes into force. We will take control of our

laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice in Britain. Leaving the European Union will mean our laws

will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and

those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg, but in

courts across this country. We will strengthen the union of the four

nations that comprise our United Kingdom. We will negotiate as one

United Kingdom, taking account of the specific interests of every

nation and region of the UK and when it comes to the powers we take back

from Europe, we will consult on which powers should reside in

Westminster and which should be passed on to the devolved

administrations. No decision currently taken by the devolved

administrations will be removed from them and it is the expectation of

the government the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales

and Northern Ireland will see a sick that could increase in

decision-making power as a result of this process. We want to maintain

the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland, there shall be

no return to the borders of the past. We will control immigration so

we continue to attract the brightest and best to work and study in

Britain, but manage the process so that our immigration system serves

the national interest. We seek to guarantee the rights of EU citizens

living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in member states

as early as we can. That is set out clearly in the letter as an early

priority for the talks ahead. We will ensure workers' rights are

protected and maintained and under my leadership not only with the

government protect the rights of workers, but we will build on them.

We will pursue an ambitious free trade agreement with the European

Union that allows for the freest trading goods and services between

Britain and the EU member states. That gives British companies the

maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets and

let European businesses do the same in Britain, because European leaders

have said many times we cannot cherry pick and remain members of

the single market without accepting the four freedoms that are

indivisible. We respect that position and as accepting those

freedoms is incompatible with the expressed will of the British

people, we will no longer be members of the single market. We will make

sure that we can strike trade agreements with countries from

outside the European Union. Because important though 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. We hope

to continue to collaborate with European partners in science,

education, research and technology, said the UK is one of the best

places for science and innovation and we seek cooperation with our

European partners in important areas such as crime, terrorism and foreign

affairs and it is our aim to deliver a smoother quarterly Brexit,

reaching agreement about future partnership by the time the Article

50 process has concluded and moving into a process of implementation in

which Britain, EU institutions and member states prepare for the new

arrangements that will exist between us. We understand that there will be

consequences for the UK of leaving the EU. We know we will lose

influence... We know that we will lose influence

over the rules that affect the European economy. We know that UK

companies that trade with the EU will have to align with rules agreed

by institutions of which we are no longer part. Just as we do in other

overseas markets. And we accept that. However, we approach these

talks constructively, respectfully and in a spirit of Cisse

Corporation, for it is in the interest of both the UK and the

European Union that we use this process to deliver our objectives in

a fair and orderly manner. Is it is in the interests of both the United

Kingdom and the European Union that there should be as little disruption

as possible, and it is in the interests of both the United Kingdom

and the European Union that Europe should remain strong, prosperous and

capable of projecting its values in the world. At a time when the growth

of global trade is slowing and there are signs the protectionist

instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a

responsibility to stand up for free trade in interest of all our

citizens. With Europe's security more fragile today than at any time

since the end of the Cold War, weakening our Corporation and

failing to stand up for European values would be a costly mistake.

Our vote to leave the EU was no rejection of the values we share as

fellow Europeans. As a fellow European country, we will continue

to play our part in promoting and supporting those values during the

negotiations and once they are done. We will continue to be reliable

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

goods and services from the EU and sell them hours. We want to trade

with them as freely as possible, and work together to make sure we are

all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued

friendship. Indeed in an increasingly unstable world, we must

continue to forge the closest possible security cooperation to

keep our people safe. We face the same global threats from terrorism

and extremism. That message was only reinforced by the Borren to tack on

Westminster Bridge and this place last week. -- the abhorrent attack.

So there is no reason why they should not be a special partnership

between the UK and the EU that works for us all. Mr Speaker, I know that

this is a day of celebration for some disappointment for others. The

referendum last June was divisive at times. Not everyone shared the same

point of view or voted the same way. The arguments on both sides were

passionate. But Mr Speaker, when I sit around the negotiating table in

the months ahead, I will represent every person in the United Kingdom,

young and old, rich and poor, city, town, country and all the villages

and hamlets in between. And yes, those EU nationals who have made

this country their home. And it is my fierce determination to get the

right deal for every single person in this country. For as we face the

opportunities ahead of us on this momentum journey, our shared values,

interests and ambitions can and must bring us together. We all want to

see a Britain that is stronger than it is today. We all want a country

that is fairer so that everyone has the chance to succeed. We all want a

nation that is safe and secure for our children and grandchildren. We

all want to live in a truly global Britain that gets out and build

relationships with old friends and new allies around the world. These

are the ambitions of this Government was my plan for Britain, ambitions

that unite us so we are no longer defined by the vote we cast but by

our determination to make a success of the result. We are one great

union of people and nations with a proud history and a bright future.

And now that the decision to leave has been made and the process is

under way, it is time to come together. For this great national

moment needs a great national effort. An effort to shape a

stronger future for Britain. So let us do so together. Let us come

together and work together. Let us together choose to believe in

Britain with optimism and hope. For if we do, we can make the most of

the opportunities ahead. We can together make a success of this

moment. And we can together will they stronger, fairer, better

Britain, a Britain our children and grandchildren are proud to call

home. I commend this statement to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for an

advance copy of her statement. Today we embark on the country's most

important negotiations in modern times. The British people made the

decision to leave the European Union, and Labour respect that

decision. The next steps along this journey are the most crucial. If the

Prime Minister is to unite the country as she says she aims to do,

the Government needs to listen, consult and represent the whole

country, not just the hardline Tory ideologues on our own benches.

Britain is going to change as a result of leaving the European

Union. The question is, how? There are Conservatives who want to use

Brexit to turn this country into a low-wage tax havens.

Labour is determined to invest in a high skill, high-tech, high wage

future, to rebuild and transform Britain, so that no one and no

community is left behind. Mr Speaker, the direction the Prime

Minister is threatening to take this country in is both a reckless and

damaging. And Labour will not give this Government a free hand to use

Brexit to attack rights, protections and cut services, or create a tax

dodgers' paradise. So let me be clear, Mr Speaker. The Prime

Minister says that no deal is better than a bad deal. But the reality is,

no deal is a bad deal. Less than a year ago, the Treasury estimated

that leaving the European Union on World Trade Organisation terms would

lead to a 7.5% fall in our GDP. And ?45 billion lost in tax receipts.

Has the Treasury updated those figures, or do they still stand? If

updated, can they be published? If not, what deal could be worse than

those consequences of no deal? It would be a national failure of

historic proportions if the Prime Minister comes back from Brussels

without having secured protection for jobs and living standards. So we

will use every Parliamentary opportunity to ensure this

Government is held to account at every stage of the negotiations. Mr

Speaker, we all have an interest in ensuring the Prime Minister gets the

best deal for this country. To safeguard jobs, living standards, we

do need full access to the single market. The Secretary of State for

exiting the EU seems to agree on this. He stated in this House on the

24th of January the Government plan is, and I quote, a comprehensive

free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that

will deliver the exact same benefits as we have. So that is what they

pledged. So will the Prime Minister confirmed today that she intends to

deliver a trade and customs agreement with the exact same

benefits? The same goes for protecting workers' right and

environmental standards, protecting Britain's nations and regions,

protecting Britain's financial sector and services and making sure

there is no return to a hard border in Northern Ireland. And when, Mr

Speaker, does she expect to be able to guarantee the rights of all those

EU nationals who live, work and make such a massive and welcome

contribution to this country? And for those British and is who live in

all parts of the European Union, including guaranteeing that they

were a pensions will not be frozen post-Brexit. Brexit would be a huge

task for any Government. But so far they seem utterly complacent about

the scale of the task ahead. The Government Ministers cannot make up

their minds about the real objective. The Foreign Secretary, he

is here today, said in October, our policy is having our cake and eating

it. How apposite from the Foreign Secretary. Today, the Chancellor on

BBC Radio 4 said, we can't have our cake and eat it. Maybe they should

get together and talk about it. These at one level Mr Speaker might

seem like a flippant exchanges from Ministers, but they do reflect

serious differences about Britain's negotiating aims. The Government

must speak with a united voice. However, the Foreign Secretary is

the same man who promised our National Health Service ?350 million

a week once we left the EU. Now he believes that leaving the EU without

a deal would be perfectly OK. It would not be perfectly OK, it would

damage our economy and people's living standards. Will the Prime

Minister confirmed that she rejects such complacency? Labour set out our

tests for this Government 's Brexit negotiations, and we will use all

means possible to make sure we hold the Government to this word. An full

access to the single market, on protecting Britain from being

dragged into a race for the bottom, and ensuring our future relationship

with the European Union is strong and cooperative. A relationship

where we can work together to bring prosperity and peace to our

continent. If the Prime Minister can deliver aid Eildon meets our tests,

that will be fine, we will backfire. More than ever, Britain needs a

Government that will deliver for the whole country, not just a few, and

that is the ultimate test of the Brexit deal, that the Prime Minister

must now secure. I'm grateful to the right honourable gentleman.

Live coverage is continual BBC Parliament. At this point, we also

welcome viewers on the BBC News Channel.

We can show you a picture of the actual letter being handed over.

There is our man in Brussels. Handing over the letter, five or six

pages. Donald Tusk is the chairman of the Council Of Ministers. That Is

The Body In The Eu In Which Every Member, Or 28 Members, Including

Britain, So Far Set. They Determine The Broad Negotiating Position that

the EU 27 will have in these talks. They then asked the commission, the

European Commission, to carry out the talks. Michel Barnier is the

representative that will be the lead negotiator. The European Parliament

then has a say if and when the deal is done. An historic moment, as

Britain's triggering of the departure of the European Union is

handed over to Donald Tusk in Brussels. The Prime Minister said

that there can now be no turning back. She thought it was a great

turning point, she thought our best days lie ahead. She wanted to see

outside of the EU a stronger, fairer, more united country, a

magnet for talent, a global Britain that continued to trade with the

European Union, but also traded far beyond the European Union as well.

She said, a significant point of process, that she wants to agree the

terms of our departure, as well as any sort of divorce bill. She did

not use that phrase, divorce bill, but in negotiating any costs that

Britain may incur to leave the EU, she wants to negotiate the terms of

our relationship with the EU once we leave. That is going to be a nearly

stumbling block, because the Europeans want to agree any kind of

divorce Bill first, before they talk about new relationships. In the end,

she did point out that, in or out, we face the same global threats as

the European Union. She wanted a new, deep and special partnership

with the European Union, even after we left. I suppose, although there

is nothing greatly new in the content of the Prime Minister's

statement, nor is there anything greatly new in the letter that we

have just had a chance to skim, that you saw Donald Tusk getting, the

tone was interesting. It was a highly conciliatory tone. It was an

attempt to position Britain as even outside the EU, a big supporter of

the EU. There were no threats in the Prime Minister's statement, no

statement like no deal is better than a bad deal. I think the Prime

Minister is trying to set the tone for the talks as they get under way,

tried to create an amicable environment in which they get under

way. Whether or not that succeeds or not is another matter. Let's get

reaction from Laura Kuenssberg, our political editor, who was listening

to that. The key thing about this is exactly as you say, the tone here is

a world away from Theresa May Mark 1, as you might say, in her

conference speech in October, where she was much more strident. Then the

Lancaster House speech, which she made to a room of diplomats. But she

have that threat in her speech to walk away if it didn't happen. Then

here, some people might say she is being pragmatic because it is time

to talk, a very different tone. A lot of warm language about European

values. Indeed, that Britain would stay part of those. Donald Tusk, a

pivotal figure in the upcoming negotiations, he is now speaking in

Brussels. Let's hear what he has to say.

well, we would like to hear what he had to say. We could lip-read.

Interrupting Laura Kuenssberg, in full flight, to listen to a man that

we cannot here is unforgivable! You are talking about the importance of

the tone? The bold threat that no deal is better than a bad deal, that

is nowhere to be seen in here. What one senior MP was saying late last

night, the challenge for Theresa May was to seem resolute, but also

constructive, to be the iron fist in a velvet glove. I think this is very

much a velvet glove, not iron fist. We might be able to hear Donald

Tusk. In essence, this is about damage control. Our goal is clear.

To minimise the cost for the EU citizens, businesses and members. We

will do everything in our power, to achieve this goal. What we should

stress today is that, as for now, nothing has changed. Until the

United Kingdom leaves the European Union, EU law will continue to apply

to and within the UK. Finally, I would like to say that you have just

released an official statement by the European Council, in which the

leaders stressed that we will act as one and start negotiations by

focusing on key arrangements for an orderly withdrawal. On Friday, I

will share a proposal on the negotiating guidelines with the

member states, to be adopted by the European Council on the 29th of

April. I will refer to this, and I will present our proposals on

Friday, during the press conference in Malta. What can I add to this?

Thank you and goodbye. Donald Tusk, the President of the Council Of

Europe, which contains all 28 members of the EU. They meet as

heads of state, heads of government, a sombre, almost sad mood on

receiving Britain's Article 50 application to begin the process of

withdrawal from the European Union. There was no talk of punishment

beatings or being angry because Britain is leaving. Sad, clearly, as

you could see, but not anger. He talked of damage control, that he

wanted to say that the job of the EU 27 is to control the damage that

Britain's withdrawal from the European Union could do to the

remaining 27 members. He said the council of Europe will act as one in

negotiations. What happens now is that Donald Tusk has drawn up some

guidelines for the EU 27's negotiating position. They are

becoming public, they will be debated within the 27, and then

heads of state and heads of government of the EU 27 will meet

towards the end of April, I think it is the 28th 29th of April, and they

will endorse the bargaining position of the EU 27 as they begin

negotiations, probably sometime, I doubt before the end of may or early

June. The negotiations are with Michel Barnier, tasked with carrying

out the negotiating positions, and he will meet with David Davis, the

Secretary of State for Brexit. Just as the Prime Minister's tone was

interesting, so Donald Tusk's tone was interesting in the press

conference he just gave in Brussels. Many people in London suggest that

he would be something of an ally in these negotiations. He wants to get

a deal done. He is Polish, and Eastern Europe, he said all 27 will

have to have the same position, but we know that there are differences

between the original members of the Treaty of Rome and the Eastern

European members that came late to the game. They come in particular,

want a deal done for EU nationals living in the United Kingdom.

Theresa Villiers, what has been your reaction to the Prime Minister's

statement and Donald Tusk? I think both are trying to be very positive

and set a constructive tone. I hope that reflects a recognition that,

actually, these negotiations could leave both sides better off. It

doesn't have to be a 0-sum game. It is in the interests of the

continuing EU and UK that we come out of this with a flourishing

trading relationship between us. The Prime Minister, a symbolic moment,

the pulling of the trigger. In some ways, an anti-climax, because she

was repeating the points we knew from the white Paper. This is the

irony about taking back control. You get the sense that attention is very

much an Donald Tusk as to what the negotiating stance will be. Until

now, this has all been about what the UK Government's reaction to the

referendum will be. I am very worried, because I think the tone

that we heard from Donald Tusk was certainly one of regret. He is

obviously very sad. He said he was sorry to lose you. When they say

damage control, from my conversations with those in the rest

of the European Union, they also recognise, politically, that to glue

the rest of the EU together they have to make sure that Britain does

not Prospero is well outside the EU as it did within it. Apart from

saying they are going to approach the talks constructively, he says

that the union will act as one and preserve its interests. That is the

self-interest point, as you would expect. What kind of union is it, if

somebody wants to leave you have to give them a bad time so nobody else

leaves? Oh, no, certainly I want Britain to do the best possible

thing. We have negotiations. But if the EU is under strain is as it was

recently, they want to glue it together. Let's just stand back. The

geopolitics of this does not get coverage. Let's look at Europe's

position at the moment. To the east it faces a group of autocrats, come

dictators, who are threatening its borders from hard and soft power. To

the west, a hostile American administration. For the first time

ever, an administration that doesn't seem to care about the EU, whether

it lives or dies. To the south, the continued outflow and carnage of the

Arab Spring, and the huge refugee problem that has brought. When you

look at Europe come on three sides, with real problems on its hands, why

would you pick a fight with Britain? You picked the right way of

characterising it. I was in Germany last week, talking to politicians.

They put Brexit in the same basket, with all of these threats and

challenges. For them, it is just one of many. The mood that I picked up

is that they are trying to glue each other together. In doing so, that

might mean proving that you are better off staying within the

European Union. That, I worry about. I think they will have to illustrate

that we are losing out. But the European Union may well come to the

view that for at least two Matt Rodda three problems it faces it

really needs Britain's help. -- the two or three problems. It needs to's

help on its eastern border, and it needs their help to get some sense

out of the trap administration, as they would see it. Again, why would

you want to pick a fight? That is one of the things that Number 10 is

banking on. That is why, privately, it is clear that part of the

strategy is to divide and rule, for Britain to appeal to countries on an

individual basis, particularly confusing Eastern Europe, they need

is for security for the reasons you have outlined. They will be looking

at the 27 different countries around the table, looking at individual

agendas and interests, all of the individual ways where they can be

persuaded that they need Britain. That is why we have heard so much

out of Brussels about the importance of sticking together. What Britain

wants to do is go around. One minister put it like this, I said

the further you go from Brussels, the more optimistic I feel about

getting a deal that actually works for us. That is one of the tactics

they are going to employ. Security get a prominent mention in this

letter. I remember the first summit that Theresa May went to as Prime

Minister, in the very, very short window she was given to speak at the

end of the dinner. She tried, even at that early stage, to nudge the

leaders gathered there, to start thinking about security. Most of the

focus has been on trade. But Number 10 has been trying to edge them into

thinking about security as well, partly because it is so important.

Also, just to reflect on, that is the area where Theresa May, as a

politician, feels more comfortable, because of her background as Home

Secretary. There is also increasing resentment in the Eastern European

countries that too much is determined by the original Treaty of

Rome countries. They have a different perspective on this. We do

know something is already about the European position, the EU position,

Michel Barnier will be a seminal article in The Financial Times this

week. He also wanted a deal and reciprocal rights for EU citizens in

the UK and UK citizens in the EU. He wanted it done quickly. Is that

looking likely? I think there is a hope on both sides that it can be

done. One of the interesting things that was suggested to me is, had

Theresa May broached this early on with the European Council, rather

than going straight to Angela Merkel, she might have been able to

get a deal and get it off the table. But there was offset in European

capitals, rather than going through what they have been determined to

see as the proper processes, that it was not possible for Angela Merkel

to say yes or no to anything as an individual item. It seems on both

sides, genuinely, that there is a desire to get this done and get it

off the table. Every politician has come in their own countries, people

that are anxious about this. And they need reassured? Exactly, it is

hard to see the advantage to anybody in playing this long. That is one of

the advantages for the British Government. The other priority that

reads through almost every line is there hope to be able to get both

aspects done at the same time. To be able to talk about withdrawal, the

divorce, if you like, as well as the future trade deals. So, the British

Government, reciprocal rights, that might come good. You have just moved

on to something that could combat? That could come back, and this is

likely to be the first really big fight. It is known as parallelism

versus sequential -ism. I mentioned it on other programmes, so I thought

it was right to mention that on the daily politics as well. The

government is determined that we talk about this stuff, how we leave,

and what happens afterwards at the same time. In Brussels, not

necessarily every European capital, but in Brussels they wanted tie of

the divorce, get it done, settled the cash before talking about the

next bit. The two documents that have come out, the 6-page letter

from the Prime Minister and the short response from the European

Council, they display how much they are at odds. The British hope is to

be able to agree the principles of the divorce deal, if not every

dotted I and crossed T, they can at least get on with it. That will be

the first fight, not least because the Brexit bill is part of that.

What about the draft resolution. We do not want to overstate because

they will not be critical to the negotiations but it has been leaked

and it has a tougher tone that we have heard from Theresa May or

Donald Tusk about the timescale, the trade deal and a transitional

arrangement. The European Parliament has magically managed to put into

the public domain there early response. Not as if they are trying

to get into this process and have a more prominent role, they are not in

the driving seat, they do have a role. They say we could only have a

transitional deal of three years maximum and essentially saying you

cannot do this on your timetable, it is not realistic. To overstate it

would be a mistake that it is important. There is scepticism about

our timetable. There are plenty of people who do want to make it hard,

make it tough. They said they have Michel Barnier's mark all over it. A

couple of things briefly. Worth picking out from the letter, the

difference about tone. A couple of things are significant, it says

plainly the government wants early agreement on phased implementation

some ministers have been careful not to advocate full transitional

agreements, a separate deal, leaving the EU with stabilisers. It is plain

from this letter they think there will have to be a soft departure in

some parts of the deal. The other thing, in black-and-white, the Prime

Minister was at pains to mention, significant powers coming back from

Brussels will go to the devolved administrations, she was clear to

point that out. There will be suspicion in SNP circles about how

much would end up going to Hollywood. -- Holyrood. Chris

Leslie, do you think that Britain over a large exit bill, a

multi-billion pound exit bill? This will be the big early debate and I

doubt very much the European Union side of the negotiation will cede

the parallelism. While they want to sort out that bill. There might be

liabilities in terms of commitments we have made historically. We might

have had the UK say spending on European projects to 2020, but there

are also assets. In any divorce... You have to split them up. Do you

think it will be 50 billion? It sounds like an opening gambit. The

worry I have is that, and we should have been on top of parallelism

months ago. I have been banging on about it for months because it

should have been a condition of the trigger, to sort out the process

before we handed them what they wanted, but I worry about the hard

Brexiteers view because any compromise they might say, no deal,

let's go to WTO. We are going to Ben Brown in Brussels. Before that,

Theresa Villiers, it would be politically difficult if not

impossible for the Theresa May government to agree any kind of

Brexit bill, any divorce bill, without having a good idea what our

future relationship with the EU would be after we leave? You make a

good point. It was a question. In most negotiations there is a

principle nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and I think if

the government is going to compromise on money, they will not

want to make the decision at an early stage, divorce from the debate

on our future relationship. I think we can expect the initial skirmishes

of the negotiations. Whether they are parallel or not. That might be

one of the first things David Davis and Michel Barnier have to resolve.

We can go to Ben Brown in Brussels. Give us a feeling, what is the mood

now that this historic event has taken place?

Probably a mood of sadness in Brussels as you might expect. Which

was reflected in Donald Tusk's tone, sadness, a bit of sarcasm perhaps in

his tweets that after nine months the United Kingdom has triggered

Brexit, almost saying, why has it taken so long after the referendum?

You have to remember the EU throughout its history has only

grown and had countries knocking out its door, saying please let us into

your club and suddenly you have got the British permanent representative

handing a letter to Donald Tusk saying we want out of your club, so

it is a new experience for the EU and their identity, I think.

One thing we have not quite cottoned onto enough is the importance of

money for the EU 27, that Britain is one of only a handful of net donors

to the EU. And that with Britain going it leaves a hole in finances.

Net donors do not want to pay more and net recipients are worried they

could lose out. I would suggest it is a factor in the EU position.

I think it absolutely is, it is a lot of money. The EU will be poor

all-round with Britain leaving and that is an issue in the coming

negotiations and what you have to remember is there are 27 countries

left. The EU has rules and likes to stick by rules because if you have

27 members, you have to have rules because all the countries are so

different. I think that will be... Their emphasis during negotiations,

they have to stick by their rules. They can make compromises here and

there but too many and it will be difficult because it will undermine

their system of rules and as you suggest, the money they earn from a

country like the United Kingdom. What should we make of this leaked a

resolution, draft resolution from the European Parliament? It could

change before it goes before Parliament. Is this the party at

trying to muscle in, get it say in the negotiations? Is it

representative of a strong strand of opinion? It certainly represents a

strand of opinion but I think we will hear more clearly later what

the European Parliament think because we will hear from their

negotiator Guy Verhofstadt and their president, Antonio Tajani, this

afternoon, from the European Parliament and that might give us

more clarity and also, we have only heard a little from Donald Tusk, the

president of the European Council. We will hear more from him on Friday

when he outlines his response to Theresa May's letter and his broad

negotiating position, and possibly the EU red lines. Perhaps we have to

wait for Friday for more clarity. Thanks. Theresa Villiers, is the

British timetable realistic? We need to negotiate the terms of the

divorce and that will involve money. The mat could be debatable. We need

to agree a complicated new trade deal to replace the membership of

the single market involving 27 countries and put in place new

security arrangements, like the Europol arrangement, whether we have

a health card as we go around and then it has to be ratified by the

European Parliament and 27 members as well as our own government. Given

the negotiations are not likely to be under way until October and after

the German election, is it realistic it could be done by 2018? I think it

can be done but it is going to be a difficult process. Are we looking

more that there will have to be some kind of transition period, that it

cannot all be resolved in that period of time? The government has

talked about phased implementation. That is different. You are right. It

depends on what transitional arrangements. Some might be

acceptable but anything that leaves us locked into EU rules three years

in the future would not be acceptable. Donald Tusk we heard