Daily Politics Special Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics, where we'll be

bringing you live coverage

from the City of London

of Theresa May's speech on Brexit

and the UK's future relationship

with the EU.

We're promised it will contain a lot

of detail and some hard truths,

but will it be enough

to satisfy her critics at home and

unlock negotiations with Brussels.

Welcome to the show.

We're expecting the Prime Minister

to begin speaking shortly.

She arrived at the Mansion House

a short while ago, that's the home

and office of the Lord Mayor

of London - she was meant to be

delivering this speech in Newcastle

but the bad weather put

paid to that.

I'm joined today by two MPs

who are very keen to hear

what she's got to say,

they've got very different

views on Brexit and they

are the Conservative MP

Anne-Marie Trevelyan

and the Labour MP Emma Reynolds.

Welcome both of you.

We've been told that Mrs May has set

five tests for a future

trade deal with the EU.

So what are they?

She'll say the deal

must respect the result

of the 2016 EU referendum.

Provide a lasting solution that

will endure for years.

She'll say the deal must

protect jobs and security

in the UK and the EU,

Maintain the UK as a modern,

outward-looking, tolerant European

democracy And she'll say it must

strengthen, not weaken, the ties

between the four nations of the UK.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan, what do you

want to hear her say?

We saw this

week, the EU's attempt which at this

shocking suggestion that somehow a

Northern Ireland should be annexed

to the rest of Ireland. But tone was

completely wrong so too he has set

out clearly how we see our framework

as a nation going forward as four

Nations together, is important and

making sure we have the clarity, the

separation away from the single

market and Customs union.

What do

you want to hear her say?

I want her

to explain, if we don't stay in the

customs union, how would the

government avoid a visible border,

real border between Northern Ireland

and the Republic of Ireland. It is a

difficult issue and I don't think

the government have grappled with

that. I want her to show some clear

leadership and be clear about what

the government wants rather than

what it doesn't want, because they

haven't done that yet.

The Prime

Minister and the billing for this

speech has been all about healing

divisions, reach out to European

partners. Give me one compromise you

would been prepared to make to break

the impasse?

If we needed to pay

more money to help them balance

their books a bit longer.

So more

than the £40 million that has been

agreed?

Yes, one of the challenges

the EU has, with the stepping away,

it leaves them with a financial

challenge. To help ease back, I

would live with that as a Brexiteer.

Your colleagues are parts of the

speech may make her feel

uncomfortable, do you share that

sentiment?

I hope they will be very

clear. The end state the me is where

we get to, which is out of the EU so

we are a sovereign state and we can

make decisions for ourselves.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan says the

government should be prepared to pay

more to get something back from the

EU, what compromise would you make

as a Remain MP?

With the government

or the EU?

With the government in

terms to unlock these negotiations?

I want the government to stop

talking about the party's massa

nations and what is in the best

interests of the country and the

best interests of constituents of

mine, jobs. What does the government

want from these negotiations, rather

than what it doesn't want. All we

have heard so far is red lines, we

have heard sound bites, we have

heard breadstick means Brexit, we

haven't had a clear vision of what

Brexit will look like under this

government and we haven't had the

government taking on board the EU 27

have different priorities. They have

been looking over their shoulders to

their backbenchers to negotiate with

them and other members of the

Cabinet.

You haven't said what you

would compromise on, what would you

give way on in order to unlock what

have been very difficult

negotiations between the EU and the

government?

Are you prepared to

move? I would say to the EU I want

the closest economic partnership

with you, and as Jeremy Corbyn set

out this week, means staying in the

customs union, which would give the

EU more

clout and power in negotiations with

countries.

I think that is something

that is worth doing. He said the EU

had made a shocking announcement in

terms of its draft proposals, do you

think they have overreached

themselves in terms of the tone of

these negotiations?

I did trade

negotiations when I bought and sold

companies. You get your favourable

position and then you move somewhere

to the middle ground. I was

surprised they would start at that

point. That is unacceptable to the

British people and to the Northern

Irish residents. I was surprised

they started that far along the

continuum.

There is a reason,

because the three options in

December, the government has done

nothing on the first two to lay out

how it would work and how it would

avoid the hard border in Northern

Ireland.

Let's talk to our

correspondence, Alex Forsyth. This

is not going to be a speech that

will answer all the questions or

solve all the issues and problems

that exist. So what is the best

people can hope for?

You are right,

there is so much in this complex

negotiation which cannot possibly be

resolved in 130 minute speech by the

Prime Minister. What the real

ambition speech of this is, is

whether or not this does enough to

convince her counterparts in

Brussels that Theresa May has some

sort of credible plan for Brexit

rooted in reality, rather than

rhetoric. We have heard from Michel

Barnier, the chief negotiator for

the EU, Donald Tusk, the president

of the European Council, who

suggested there needed to be an

injection of reality in Theresa

May's ambition. She cannot keep

saying she wants at the spoke deal,

she has to flesh out in practice. We

won't get huge amounts of detail, it

will be more of persuasion she has

something to offer so they can move

the talks on to the crucial issue of

trade. If you think back to the

original speech she made in

Lancaster house, when she set up the

premise of what she wanted to

achieve from Brexit. Then when she

went to Florence to give her speech

there, they did play a part in

unblocking negotiations when

everybody was feeling dismal about

the process. That is what she will

be hoping to achieve from today.

And, the tricky job of keeping her

own party and the different elements

with in it, onside.

Alex Forsyth,

thank you and you will be watching

the speech with the rest of us.

Let's go to Mansion house and see

the gathering of journalists as they

wait for Theresa May to make this

third Brexit speech. Boris Johnson

was supposed to be there, but he has

been snowed in in Budapest. I don't

know whether that will be

disappointment relief to the Prime

Minister! We are told it will be

about 45 minutes. There is the Bank

of England governor, Mark Carney,

coming in and various other

officials. I think we are expecting

her probably to take to her feet in

the next few moments. It will be

about 45 minutes. Anne-Marie

Trevelyan, a former Prime Minister,

John Major, intervened this week. He

said he didn't want to undermine the

Prime Minister Bob Bernard Jenkin

has called him an enemy of

democracy, how do you view him?

I

wouldn't have used such harsh words

but his position seems to be on the

preference to stay in and the

feeling that the British people

choice to go for Brexit wasn't one

he agreed with and he continues to

push the alternate line. Which, is

frustrating. If we believe in

democracy and the majority Alcon,

Brexit is what we are doing.

We can

see members of the Cabinet in have

made it, the Brexit secretary, and

the Chancellor Philip Hammond. One

of the issues has been getting the

Cabinet to broadly agree what is to

be said in this speech. Again, from

what you are hearing, are your

Brexit colleagues happy with what is

going to be said, from what they

know?

There seems to be an upbeat

feel to last week's meetings and the

fact everybody is moving in the same

direction. The sense of

understanding that it is what the

British people majority asked for,

therefore we must deliver it and

find a way forward is that works for

everybody.

Is that because that you

believe further down the line, post

the transition agreement, if and

when it is signed off, there would

be an opportunity to change and I've

urge from the EU wants that

implementation period is over?

When

we are a sovereign state once more,

ten or 15 years down the line,

moving forward we will have free

trade arrangements with the EU

partners and others and we will

continue to grow businesses and

trade skills will grow.

Change what

has been agreed now?

It will move

forward, free trade agreements will

get added to, that is the point of

being independent.

Will the

transition last for ten or 15 years?

I think we would both be very

unhappy with that.

If we think about

the way the EU has behaved this

week, is there a risk pushing too

far and too hard and stiffening the

resolve of the government?

I think

from the EU's point of view, they

have this agreement in December and

they needed to be flushed out.

There

is the applause for Theresa May as

she begins her third Brexit speech

and Mansion house.

The Prime Minister.

Good afternoon, I am grateful for

the Lord Mayor and his team for

hosting us here this afternoon. 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 that our emergency

services and Armed Forces working to

keep people safe, NHS staff and care

workers 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 about what our new

relationship with the EU should look

like and I have listened carefully

to them all. But as we go 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 I serve. I know you

are working around the clock and

doing your best and I know that

sometimes life can be a struggle.

The government I lead will be

driven, not by the interests 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

think not of the powerful, but you.

When we pass new laws, we will

listen not to the mighty, but you.

When it

When it comes to taxes, we will

prioritise not the wealthy, but you.

When it comes to opportunity we

won't entrench the advantages of the

fortunate few, we will help anybody,

whatever your background to go as

far as your talents will take you.

We are living in an important moment

in our country's history. As we

leave the European Union we will

forge a new, positive role for

ourselves in the world and we will

make Britain a country that works,

not for a privileged few, but for

everyone of us. That pledge to the

people of our United Kingdom is what

guides me in our negotiations with

the EU.

the EU. For me, that means five

things. First, the agreement we

reached with the EU must respect the

referendum. It was voted to take

control of our borders, laws and

money and a vote for wider change,

so 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

have broken down. Third, it must

protect 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, grow our

economies and keep people safe.

Fourth, it must be consistent with

the kind of country we want to be as

we leave, and modern, open, outward

looking country. A nation of

pioneers, innovators, explorers and

creators. A country that celebrates

our history and diversity, confident

of our place in the world. That

meets its obligations to our

neighbours and four friends and is

proud to stand up for its values.

And fifth, in doing all of these

things, it must strengthen our union

of nations and 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. North and

south, from coastal tiles to our

great cities. So these are the five

tests for the deal but we will

negotiate.

Delivering an outcome that is

consistent with the kind of country

that we want to be. And bringing our

country together, strengthening the

precious 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 a negotiation that touches so

many important parts of our national

life, we must also build a new and

lasting relationship while, given

the uncertainty inherent in the

negotiation, preparing for every

scenario. But 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 draft

legal text. We have made clear our

concerns about the first draft that

the commission published on

Wednesday, that nobody should be in

any doubt about our commitment to

the joint report that we agreed in

December. We are close to agreement

on the terms of implementation

period in which was a key element of

December's deal. Although some

points of difference remain, I am

confident they can be resolved in

the days ahead. Both the UK and the

EU are clear, this implimentation

period must be time limited and

cannot become a permanent solution.

But it is vital to give governments,

businesses and citizens on both

sides the time they need to prepare

for our new relationship. With this

agreed, I want both sides to turn

all our attention and efforts to

this new relationship. But before we

can do that we need to set out in

more detail what relationship we

want, building on my Lancaster house

and foreign speeches. So, last month

I spoke in Munich about the security

partnership that we seek. Today, I

want to talk about the other pillar

of the relationship, how we build

our economic partnership. In my

speech in Florence, I set out why

the existing models for economic

partnership either do not deliver

the ambition we need or impose

unsustainable constraints on our

democracy. For example, the Norway

model, where we would stay in the

single market, would mean having to

implement new EU legislation

automatically, and its entirety, and

would also mean continued free

movement. Others suggested we

negotiate a free trade agreement

similar to that which Canada has

recently negotiated with the EU, or

trade on World Trade Organisation

terms. But these options would mean

a significant reduction in our

access to each other's markets,

compared to that which we currently

enjoy. This would mean customs and

regulatory checks at the border

which would damage the integrated

supply chains that our industries

depend on and be inconsistent with

the commitments that both we and the

EU have made in respect to Northern

Ireland. This is a wider issue in

our negotiations and I want to dwell

on this for a minute. Successive

British governments have worked

tirelessly, together with all of the

parties in Northern Ireland and with

the Irish government, to bring about

the historic achievement of peace.

This is an achievement that we

should all 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 very

particular challenges for Northern

Ireland and for Ireland. We joined

the EU together 45 years ago, and

this 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

don't want to go back to a hard

border in Ireland. We have ruled out

any physical infrastructure of the

border, or any related checks and

controls. But it is not good not to

say we will not introduce a hard

border, if EU forces Ireland to do

it it is down to them. We chose to

leave and we have a responsibility

to help find a solution. But we

can't do it on our own, it is for

all of us to work together. The

Taoiseach and I agreed when we met

recently that our teams and the

commission should now do just that.

I want to make one final point. Just

as it would be unacceptable to go

back to a hard border between

Northern Ireland and Ireland, it

would also be unacceptable to break

up the United Kingdom's own Common

Market by creating a customs and

regulatory border down the Irish

Sea. My personal commitment to this

is clear. As Prime Minister of the

whole 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 do not

provide the best way forward for

either the UK or the EU. But before

I turn to what a new and better

model may look like, I would like 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 it is now. How could

the EU structure of rights and

obligations be sustained if the UK

or any country were allowed to enjoy

all of the benefits without all of

the obligations? So, 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 of the ECJ will

continue to affect us. For a start,

the ECJ determines whether

agreements that EU has struck an

illegal under the EU's own laws, as

the US found when the ECJ declared

the safe harbour framework for data

invalid. When we leave the EU, the

Withdrawal Bill will bring EU law

into UK law, meaning cases will be

determined in our courts, but, where

appropriate, our courts will

continue to look at the ECJ's

judgments, as they do for the

appropriate jurisprudence of other

countries' courts. If, as part of

the future partnership, Parliament

passes an identical law to the EU

law, it may make sense for our

courts to look at the appropriate

ECJ judgments, so that we both

interpret those laws consistently.

As I said in Munich, if we agree

that the UK should continue to

participate in the EU agency, the UK

would have to respect the remit of

the ECJ in that regard. But, in the

future, the EU treaties and hence EU

law will no longer apply in the

United Kingdom. The agreement we

reach must therefore respect the

sovereignty of both the UK and the

EU's legal orders. That means the

jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK

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 each

other's markets, it has to be on

fair terms. As with any trade

agreement, we must accept the need

for binding commitments, for example

we might choose to commit some areas

of regulations, like state aid and

competition, to remain in step with

the EU's. The UK drove much of the

policy in that area, and we have

much to gain from maintaining proper

disciplines on the use of subsidies

and an anti-competitive practices.

Furthermore, as I said in France, we

share the same set of fundamental

beliefs, a belief in free trade,

rigorous and fair competition,

strong consumer rights and that is

trying to beat each other... Try to

beat each other's countries

industries by subsidising one's own

is a big mistake. In other areas,

like workers' rights of the

environment, the EU should be

confident that we will not engage in

a race to the bottom in standards

and protections we set. There is no

serious political constituency in

the UK that would support this,

quite the opposite. Finally, we need

to resolve the tensions around our

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 don't damage the

integrated supply chain is our

industries depend on, and don't have

a hard border between Northern

Ireland and Ireland. But there are

some tensions in the EU's position,

too. And 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's

third country agreements would be

appropriate, and the European

Council's guidelines aspire to a

balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging

deal, with common rules a number of

areas to ensure fair and open

competition. This would not be

delivered by a Canada style deal,

which would not give them the breath

or depth of market access that they

want. It is hard to see how it would

be in the EU's interests for the

UK's regulatory standards to be as

different as Canada's. We both need

to face the fact that this is a

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, we want

competition between us to be fair

and open, and we want reliable

transparent means of verifying that

we are meeting our commitments and

resolving disputes. But what is

clear is that for us both to meet

our objectives, we need to look

beyond the presidents and find a new

balance. As an security, what I am

seeking is a relationship that goes

beyond the transactional, to one

that we support each other's

interests, so I wanted broadest and

deepest partnership possible,

covering all sectors and cooperate

and more fully than any free trade

agreement anywhere in the world

today. As I will go on to describe,

we will also need agreement on a

range of areas covering the breath

of our relationship. I believe this

is achievable because it is in the

EU's interests as well as ours. The

EU is the UK's biggest market and,

of course, the UK is also a big

market for the EU. Furthermore, we

have a unique starting point where,

on day one, we both have the same

laws and rules. So, rather than

having to bring two different

systems closer together, the task

will be to manage the relationship

once we are to EU separate legal

systems. To do so, and to realise

its level of ambition, there are

five foundations that must underpin

our trading relationship. First, our

agreement will need reciprocal,

binding commitments to ensure fair

and open competition. Such

agreements are part and parcel of

any trade agreement. After all, why

would any country and into a

privileged relationship without any

means of redress on the other party

engaged in anti-competitive

practices? The level of integration

between EU and UK markets, and our

geographical proximity, mean that

the reciprocal commitments will be

particularly important to make sure

that UK businesses can compete

fairly in EU markets and vice versa.

A deep and comprehensive agreement

with the EU will need to include

commitments affecting the extent to

which the UK and EU economies are

entwined. Second, we will need an

arbitration mechanism that is

completely independent, something

which again is common to free trade

agreements. This will ensure that

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 an ongoing

dialogue with the EU and to ensure

we have the means to consult each

other regularly. In particular, we

will want to make sure our

regulators continue to work

together, as they do with regulators

internationally. This will be

essential for everything from

getting you drugs to patients

quickly, to maintaining financial

stability. We start from the place

where our regulators already have

deep and long-standing

relationships, so the task is

maintaining that trust, not building

it in the first place. Fourth, we

will need an arrangement for data

protection. I made this point in

Munich in relation to our security

relationship, but the free flow of

data is also critical for both sides

in any modern trading relationship.

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

in maintaining and developing the

UK's strong trading and economic

links with the EU. That is why we

will be seeking more than just an

advocacy relationship, and want to

see an appropriate ongoing role for

the UK's Information Commissioner's

Office. This will ensure that UK

businesses or effectively

represented under the EU's 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 economic,

cultural and social fabric of our

country. I know that UK nationals

are viewed in entirely the same way

by communities across the EU. 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, an

independent arbitration mechanism,

an ongoing dialogue, data protection

arrangements and maintaining the

links between our people. These are

the foundations that underpin 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 agreement with Ukraine sees

it aligned in some areas but not

others. It's a lineman with South

Korea seems to recognise each

other's approvals with new car

models, but that agreement with

Canada does not. The EU's agreement

with Canada recognises each of the's

testing on machinery, its agreement

with South Korea does not. The EU

itself is taking a tailored approach

with what it is seeking in the UK.

On fisheries, the commission has

been clear, no precedents exist for

the sort of access it once from the

UK. The fact is, every free trade

agreement has 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 varying

levels of access to the single

market, depending the obligations

those neighbours are willing to

undertake. What would be cherry

picking is if we were to seek a deal

where our rights and obligations

were not held in balance. And I have

been categorically clear 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. Let me

start with how we do this for goods.

This is the area where the single

market is most established in both

the UK and EU have a strong

commercial interest in preserving

integrated supply chains that have

built up over 40 years of our

membership. When it comes to goods,

the fundamental principle in our

negotiating strategy should be

betrayed at the UK, EU border should

be as frictionless as possible. That

means we don't want the introduction

of any tariffs or quotas. And as the

secretary of state set out in his

speech last week in Vienna, products

only need to undergo one series of

approvals in one country to show

they meet the regulatory standards.

For this we would need a

comprehensive system of mutual

recognition. The UK would need to

make a strong commitment its

regulatory standards would remain as

high as the EU's and that would mean

EU and UK regulatory standards would

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 a vehicle safety

standards.

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 achieved in different

ways. Our default is UK law might

not necessarily be identical to EU

law, but it should achieve the same

outcomes. In some cases, parliament

might choose to pass an identical

law. Businesses who export to the EU

tell us it is strongly in their

interest to have a single set of

regulatory standards that mean they

can sell into the UK and EU markets.

If the Parliament of the day decided

not to achieve the same outcomes as

EU law, it would be in the knowledge

there may be consequences for our

market access and there would need

to be an independent mechanism to

oversee these arrangements. We would

also want to explode the EU, the

terms of which the UK should remain

part of the agencies that are

critical for medicines and Aero

agencies.

agencies. We would of course accept

this would be abiding by the rules

of those agencies in making

appropriate financial contribution.

But I want to explain what I believe

the benefits of this approach could

be both for us and you. First,

associate membership of these

agencies is the only way to meet our

objective to ensure these products

only need to go one series of

approvals in one country. Second,

these agencies have a critical role

in setting and enforcing relevant

rules. If we were able to negotiate

associate membership, we could

ensure we could prevent new to

provide our technical expertise.

Third, associate membership could

permit UK firms to resolve certain

challenges related to the agencies

through UK courts, rather than the

ECJ. For example in the case of

Scotland, associate -- Switzerland,

means her 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 their certificates to

another member state or to the

agency and any dispute would need to

be resolved through the ECJ. Fourth,

it would bring other benefits. For

example, membership of the European

medicines agency would mean

investment in new 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. It would also be

good for the EU, because the UK

regulator assesses more new

medicines than any other member

state. 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 access these rules,

but with consequences for our

membership of the relevant agency

and market access rights. Lastly, to

achieve a frictionless border as

possible and avoid the hard border.

Let me repeat, 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

some other countries. But those

arrangements, if applied to the UK

cake would mean the EU setting the

UK's external tariffs, being able to

let other countries sell more to the

UK without making it any easier for

us to sell to them or the UK signing

up to the UK commercial policy. That

would not be compatible with a

meaningful, independent trade

policy. It would mean we have less

control than we do now over our

trade in the world. Neither leave or

remain voters would want that. We

thought seriously about how our

commitment to a frictionless border

could be delivered. Last year we set

out two potential options. Option

one, is a customs partnership

between the UK and the EU. At the

border, the UK would mirror the EU's

requirements for imports from the

rest of the world, applied the same

tariffs and the same rules of origin

as the EU. For those goods arriving

in the UK and intended for the EU.

By following this approach, we would

know all goods entering the EU via

the UK pay the right EU duties,

removing the need for customs

processes at the border.

Importantly, we were put in place a

mechanism, so 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 both sides can trust

the system and a robust enforcement

mechanism. Option two would be a

streamlined customs arrangement,

where we would agree to implement a

range of measures to minimise

friction is to trade together with

specific provisions for Northern

Ireland. First, measures to require

the movement of goods across borders

are as simple as possible and we

should waive the requirement for

exit and entry declarations for

goods moving between the UK and the

EU. We should allow goods moving

between the UK and the rest of the

world to travel through the EU

without paying EU duties and vice

versa. Measure to reduce the risk of

delays at ports and airports by

recognising each other's trusted

trade schemes and drawing on IT

solutions so vehicles don't need to

stop at the border. Third, continue

our cooperation to mitigate customs

duty and security risks. And fourth,

measure to reduce the cost and

burden of complying with customs

admin of 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 measures. 80% of

north-south trade is carried out by

Micro, small and medium-sized

businesses. So the smaller traders,

whose members of the community are

most effective 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. The larger traders, we

would introduce streamlined

processes including a trusted trade

scheme that would be consistent with

our commitments. Both of these

options for our future customs

arrangement would lead the UK free

to determine its own tariffs with

third countries, which would simply

not be possible in a customs union.

I recognise 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,

fundamental principle in our

negotiating strategy is that trade

at their 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

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 because the

British public would punish any

government at the ballot box. This

approach for trading goods is good

for agriculture, food and drinks but

other consideration also apply. We

are leaving the common agricultural

policy and will want to take the

opportunity that brings to reform

our agricultural 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 expect our

standards will remain at

standards will remain at least as

high as the EU's. But it will be

particularly important to secure

flexibility to ensure we can make

the most of the opportunities

presented by car withdrawal from the

EU for farmers and exporters. We are

leaving the common fisheries policy.

The UK will regain control over

domestic fisheries rules and access

to our waters. But as part of the

economic partnership, we want to

work together to manage shared

stocks in a sustainable way and

agree reciprocal access to the

waters and a fairer allocation of

fishing opportunities for the UK

fishing industry. We will also want

to ensure open markets for each

other's products. Just as our

partnership in goods needs to be

deeper than any other free

agreement, so in services, we have

the opportunity to break new ground

with a broader agreement than ever

before. We recognise that certain

aspects of trade services are

intrinsically linked to the single

market and a market access in these

areas will need to be different. But

we should only allow new barriers to

be introduced when absolutely

necessary. We don't want to

discriminate between EU service

providers in the UK and we wouldn't

want the EU to discriminate against

UK service providers. We want to

limit the number of barriers that

would prevent UK firm setting up in

the EU and vice versa. And agree

appropriate labour mobility

framework, that enables UK

businesses and 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 and Internet. We want to

do the same for EU firms providing

services to the UK. Given UK

qualifications are recognised across

the EU and vice versa, it would make

sense to recognise each other's

qualifications in the future. There

are two areas which have never been

covered in a free-trade agreement in

any meaningful way. Broadcasting and

despite the EU's best efforts in the

Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership, financial services. But

we have some ideas for how we can do

this and it is in all our interests

to explore these. On broadcasting we

recognise we cannot have exactly the

same arrangements with the EU as we

do now.

do now. Currently because of the

country of origin principle, a

company based in the UK can be

licensed by off, and broadcast into

any EU member state and vice versa.

The relevant directive will not

apply to the UK as leave the EU and

relying on precedents will hurt

consumers and businesses on both

sides. The UK's creative hub leads

to the development is a product that

European consumers want. The UK

currently provides around 30% of the

channels available in the EU. But

equally, many UK companies have

pan-European ownership and there are

35 channels and on demand services

which are offered in the UK, but

licensed in the EU.

We should export creative options

with a open mind, including mutual

recognition, allowing for Frontier

broadcasting, recognising the

enriching role that British

broadcasters and programme makers

play, not only in British but, more

broadly, in our common, European

culture. Similarly, on financial

services, the Chancellor will be

setting out next week our financial

services, and how they can and

should be part of a comprehensive

partnership. We are not looking for

passporting because we understand

this is intrinsic to the single

market, of which we would no longer

be a member. It would also require

us to be subject to a single rule

book over which we would 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. So, it would be unrealistic

for us to implement new EU

legislation automatically, and in

its entirety. But with UK located

banks underwriting around half of

the debt and equity issued by EU

companies, providing more than £1.1

trillion of lending to the rest of

the EU in 2015 alone, this is a

clear example of where only looking

at precedent would hurt both the UK

and the EU economies. As in other

areas of future economic

partnership, our goal should be to

establish the ability to access each

other's markets, based on the UK and

EU maintaining the same regulatory

outcomes over time, with a mechanism

for propulsion consequences where

they are not maintained. Given the

highly regulated area of financial

services, and our shared desire to

manage financial stability risks, we

would need a collaborative,

objective framework that is

reciprocal, mutually agreed and

permanent, and therefore reliable

for businesses. There are many other

areas where the UK and EU economies

are closely linked, including

energy, transport, digital, Law,

science and innovation, education

and culture. One energy, we want to

secure broad energy cooperation with

the EU. This includes protecting the

single electricity market across

Ireland and Northern Ireland, and

options for the UK's continued

participation in the EU's internal

energy market. We also believe it is

of benefit for both sides for the UK

to have a close association

to have a close association with

Euratom. We want to protect the

rights of road hauliers to access

the EU market and vice versa. One

digital, the UK will not be part of

the single digital 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, so

it will be particularly important to

have domestic flexibility to ensure

the regulatory environment can

always respond nimbly and

ambitiously to new developments. We

want our agreement to cover several

judicial Corporation, where the EU

has already shown it can reach

agreement with non-member states,

such as through the regard no

convention, although we would want a

broader agreement which reflects our

unique starting point, and our

agreement will also need to cover

company law and intellectual

property to provide further legal

certainty and coherence. The UK is

also committed to establishing a

far-reaching science and innovation

packed with the EU, facilitating the

exchange of ideas and researchers.

That would enable the UK to

participate in key programmes

alongside our EU partners. We want

to take a similar approach to

education and cultural programmes,

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, bold and creative

thinking can deliver new agreements

that are in the very best interests

of all of our people, both in the UK

and across the EU. In the face of a

worrying rise in protectionism, I

believe such agreements can enable

us to set an example to the world.

For the world is watching. We should

not think of our leaving the EU as

marking and ending, so much as a new

beginning for the United Kingdom and

our relationship with our European

allies. Change is not to be feared,

so long as 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 by which we reaffirm

Britain's place in the world and

renew the ties that bind us here at

home. I know that the United Kingdom

I treasure can emerge from this

process a stronger, more cohesive

nation. They United Kingdom which is

a cradle for innovation, a leader in

the industries of the future, a

champion of free trade are based on

high standards, a modern, 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 that I have set out today

would implement the referendum

result, provide an enduring

solution, protect our security and

prosperity, 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 that 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 of our

people, and especially our young

people, are 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 ties and values

we have in common. It is only by

working together that we will find

solutions that work for all our

peoples. Yes, there will be ups and

downs in the months ahead, as in any

negotiation no one will get

everything they want. We will not be

buffeted by those wanting a

walk-out.

It is my responsibility as Prime

Minister to provide that leadership

for our country at this crucial

time. By following the course I 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 and injuring solution, the

interests of the people that we are

all here to serve. 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

Theresa May, ending at 45 minute

speech, the third Brexit speech,

with an optimistic note and our

message to the EU. Trying to answer

the criticism, by stating that she

does know what she wants. They have

criticised her for saying that she

doesn't. There are also going to be

questions and answers to the Prime

Minister now. Let's go back over

what she said. She started the

speech by returning to what she said

on the steps of Downing Street. A

country that works for everyone, not

a privileged few. That was the

template for the whole of this

Brexit speech. She quickly dismissed

the existing models for Britain, in

terms of Norway and Canada. She said

they would not work for the UK,

going forward. Then it was a speech

of hard choices. She did actually

answer some of the big questions.

She said life was going to be

different when we leave the EU, we

are leaving the single market, which

she has stated before, and our

access is going to be less. We have

not heard her say that. No, they are

not going to be able to have their

cake and eat it, which some of the

Cabinet had said in the past. She

also said that EU law and decisions

of the European Court of Justice

will continue to affect us in

certain instances. She gave various

examples of that, if you pass the

same law as the EU it may make sense

to look at what the European Court

of Justice has done in the past. She

then pointed to some of the tensions

that exist for the European Union.

She said that their position is also

incompatible. She said the UK has

been told it has to have an

off-the-shelf model, but said that

none of the third country agreements

that have already been done would be

suitable for Britain. She said that

was negotiation, and that was

obviously meant for Michel Barnier,

the EU negotiator, and neither side

can have exactly what we want. That

is the first time we have heard that

sort of language. There was one

statement that may upset some of the

Brexiteers, and also my guest in the

studio, reciprocal binding

commitments to guarantee fair and

open competition. How far did she

see mirroring the European rules and

regulations going forward? But in a

strong riposte to Michel Barnier's

criticism of cherry picking, that

the UK can't do, she said every

trade agreement is cherry picking.

In that instance, we should be able

to find a third way. That has been

rejected, of course, by the EU. She

said no to a customs union, that

will upset some of the Remain

colleagues in the Conservative

Party. Again, an Northern Ireland,

it was not entirely clear how she

sees this frictionless border

working between Ireland and Northern

Ireland when it comes to goods going

across what she says will be a

frictionless border, and no hard

border will be erected. The customs

partnership that she talked about

will narrate EU rules of origin. So,

she is still looking for a third

way. It has actually given ground,

if you like, to say that Britain is

not going to get everything at once.

It was a reality check for

Brexiteers like you. You are not

going to be up to have your cake and

eat it, you have to put up with less

market of the single market, which

was not what will set out by the

Brexit Secretary?

What I heard was

the most optimistic and positive

tone I think I have heard from the

Prime Minister in a long time. I

think the words that came out most

from the whole speech were

reciprocity, fair and open

competition. The fact that she has

been fairly clear that she is happy

to be flexible, that we must be

flexible, but that the EU must as

well. We want them to be as good a

place as we want to be, in a

different relationship, a deep and

special relationship. She kept

reiterating those words. That energy

that everybody needs to come to to

get to a situation that works for

everybody.

But no customs union, not

in the way that you would like to

see. Do you accept that another way

can be found to keep Northern

Ireland part of the UK but still

have frictionless trade?

No, she

talked about two other options. As

far as I can see it, they still do

not stop Northern Ireland possibly

becoming a back door into the rest

of the EU via the Republic of

Ireland, on standards, rules of

origin. I just don't see how it

works, to be quite frank. Either you

are in the customs union and you

avoid that visible hard border, or

you are not and you will have to

have some checks. There are no other

countries in the rest of the world,

there are no other countries that

avoid a border. You've got Sweden

and Norway, there are checks on

lorries going across the border.

You've got Canada and the US, there

are checks on lorries going across

those borders. It is just not going

to fly, what she talked about, with

regard to the other options.

What do

you say to that? If there are

checks, it will be a hard border?

We

need to see how it pans out. She

mentioned the Taoiseach, working

with him to find a way that will

work for everybody so there isn't a

hard border. She has been clear that

is not acceptable.

That is the

objective, but there is no clear

route without the customs union.

Let's speak now to the Conservative

MP Anna Soubry, she's been a critic

of the government's position over

Brexit.

What was your reaction?

To be

welcomed, in the sense that the

Prime Minister is clearly waking up

to the realities. I think she has

always known that, actually, look,

she is facing a very difficult task.

Well, we know that!

Exactly. She has

the difficulties she has within the

Conservative Party and that is a

fact. I think she is beginning to

bring people together. If she

achieves that, it will be

remarkable, and good luck to her.

The other thing that I think she is

now appreciating, or at least

talking about, is this huge gulf

that exists between what the EU has

made very clear is there Brexit

reality, and where we have been. I

think we are seeing that she is now

publicly explaining that, and she is

saying, at the moment, the way that

she is falling, that we will not

have the access that we have had in

the past. That is not what David

Davis promised.

Do you accept that,

that in order to have a new

relationship, to strike out on free

trade deals as a third country, to

still maintain those high

regulations, we won't be able to

have the same access?

No, I'm afraid

I don't accept any of these things.

Nobody voted to be poorer. What

we're talking about is an acceptance

that our economic prosperity will

not be as good. May I just say, it

is very important that we lance this

boil about free trade agreements.

The Government's own analysis shows

that even if we got all of the free

trade agreement is available, and

God knows we have already got 40 of

them, they will not make good the

damage that will be caused to our

economy by leaving the single

market.

This is a negotiation, as

Theresa May has said. It is a

negotiation for the EU as well. It's

all very well for them to reject

everything that has been put on the

table so far, that having listened

to the speech from Theresa May,

would you expect them to move and

look more closely at a bespoke deal?

The big problem everybody is missing

is that we want any canonic solution

that keeps us in prosperity.

But she

said every free trade agreement is

cherry picking, that is true?

When

you have a free trade agreement,

both sides want to do the same for

their respective economies. This is

the mistake that is being made. For

us it is about the economy. For the

EU it is a political set of

negotiations in the sense that they

have to maintain the integrity of

the remaining 27 countries. This is

the big question to be asked.

Harmony German car manufacturers

have been to the German government

and said, for goodness' sake, do a

great deal with the UK because we

needed because of the market? Not

one. Because they understand the

integrity of the single market and

the customs union is absolutely

overpoweringly more important.

Truthfully, they can continue to get

FTAs at other countries that will

make good any drop in the sales to

our country. That is the harsh

reality that we have got to wake up

to.

She is not to be seen as some hard

Brexiteer.

It might be uncomfortable

if others...

We are both members of

Her Majesty 's government.

Don't

promote Anna Soubry gesture to the

government. Not sure that would

happen anyway. In terms of

Brexiteers they not be happy because

we say we are leaving the EU,

leaving the single market and the

customs union and we shouldn't have

the European Court of Justice

overseen.

We should not seek to

tarnish people with the same brush.

There are different sorts of people

who voted for Brexit. You have the

hard Brexiteer is, the one you have

spoken about.

Slung out of the

party.

I identified Theresa May as

the person who had done that. We are

those with hard Brexit, and then

there are many who voted obviously

to leave, but they are not the

hardliners. I have been approached

by three, only in the last week, all

of whom voted leave, but now are

seeing the

seeing the value of EFTA and there

is a shift.

Would you accept that

sort of shift?

We set out the

framework the Prime Minister wants

to see.

How do you bring Anna Soubry

on board?

We will keep working

together as best as we can.

Do you

think it is going to be possible?

One of the challenges and beauty of

sovereignty is we will get to a

point where we can all live for the

outcome, it won't be perfect for me,

it won't be perfect for you.

Can you

live with it? I am an old-fashioned,

pragmatic conservative, it runs all

the way through me. We both know

there are some in our party who are

not of that way, they are hardline

and they

and they will not shift. That

speech, the way she positioned it,

the reality she has accepted, the

judgments of the ECJ, is welcome

news. The reality of the

difficulties in Northern Ireland.

Emma Reynolds is absolutely right,

there needs to be an alternative and

non-is forthcoming.

What Theresa May

has just said in answer to a

question post this speech is no deal

is still better than a bad deal, do

you agree?

No, what I want to see is

the European Union making this

clear, there are many options that

will face us. I say in good faith, I

wish Theresa May all the best.

In

the way John Major did when he made

his speech?

I am not talking about

John Major.

He also wished her well.

I am saying this Prime Minister

wants the right thing for our

country and is driven by a sense of

public duty.

Does it worry you she's

saying no deal is better than a bad

deal?

Of course, when it comes to

the withdrawal agreement in October,

the EU has made it clear we still

have options. The agreement, we can

stay or become like Norway. It is

important parliament and the public

know there is an alternative to the

sorts of Brexit that unfortunately

is being put forward at the moment.

But the Prime Minister, her speech

is to be welcomed, she is moving in

the right direction and facing

Brexit reality.

Anna Soubry, thank

you. Emma Reynolds, Parliament is

sovereign she said, but could reject

EU regulations and standards but

accepted the UK would be locked out

in terms of access, what did you

make of that?

I welcome the fact she

has acknowledged we will not have

the same type of access to the

single market if we do not abide by

the rules and if we leave the single

market. But I would like her to

spell out what that means in terms

of jobs and investment. According to

the leaked report we saw on those

feet, it will mean growth will be

less than it would be if we stayed

in the single market and there will

be a threat to jobs and investment.

I would like to see has spell out in

Parliament when she comes to do her

statement, and I will ask her and

maybe Steve Baker could enlighten

us, it is good she had recognised

there are hard choices and we won't

have the same access to the EU

market. What does that mean in terms

of jobs and investment.

We're joined now by the Brexit

minister Steve Baker.

Theresa May conceded there will have

to be less access to the single

market at the Brexit, but David

Davis famously promised last year,

the exact same benefits in terms of

access to the single market after

Brexit, as we have now. Has the

government realised Brexit reality,

it is impossible to have back?

The

Prime Minister set out an ambitious

and credible plan and I think we can

be proud of what has been set out.

If we go forward with the plan, it

will serve our interest and the

European Union's.

Do you accept that

was was promised to the UK by the

Brexit secretary and others is now

possible?

The speech, as it was set

out should be taken on its own

terms. She set out how we can have

an enduring relationship with the

European Union, a vision on which

the country can unite and I'm

looking forward to delivering it.

Can you unite and support the speech

and some of the suggestions she made

in Britain staying in permanent

locks that in certain areas like

state aid, workers' rights and the

environment, where you pleased to

hear that?

We have been on a journey

of these speeches where the

Secretary of State set out we would

be high standards country. The Prime

Minister said there is no serious

political constituency in this

country to seriously reduce

standards.

And the European Court of

Justice still arbitrating in certain

areas pose Brexit?

Don't get carried

away on this.

In areas, do you

accept that?

The language people

should refer to as the Prime

Minister's. She was clear the

jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice will end in the UK...

She

said EU law and the decisions of the

ECJ will continue to affect us.

Number one, the jurisdiction of the

ECJ will end in the UK. Parliament

will be sovereign. But the example

she gave is a pertinent one. Even

the United States of America was

affected by the ECJ's judgment on

safe harbour. That is the reality of

international trade. When you are

cooperating with trading partners,

their domestic decisions will have

an effect on trading relations and

that is to be expected.

She did say

Parliament is sovereign but also you

would have the right to reject those

rules and regulations in the future.

Is it your belief we stay close to

them for now, those high standards,

but there is the possibility they

could be rejected down the line?

This is a matter for Parliament.

So

it is true, isn't it?

We will become

a normal, parliamentary democracy

operating at high standards with

liberty under the rule of law, all

those things the Prime Minister set

out. We will be on the basis of a

normal style of free trade agreement

with the European Union, albeit with

unprecedented ambition.

David Davis

wrote to Tory MPs this week to say

Britain wouldn't pay the £40 billion

divorce bill into law the issues

have been resolved. Is it still on

the table, should it still be on the

table as a threat to the EU if they

don't look at some of the offers

made by Theresa May?

It is not a

threat. It is a principle that

nothing is agreed until everything

is agreed.

So that could be Rene

don?

Nobody is threatening anyone,

we are talking in a spirit of

optimism. The principle of the EU

has articulated is that nothing is

agreed until everything is agreed.

Right, no deal is still better than

a bad deal, how much planning is

there going forward for no deal?

The

Prime Minister explained what we

cannot do is access the rights of

Canada and the obligations of

Norway. That is something people can

agree to. Of course, any responsible

government must prepare for all

possible outcomes and we continue to

do that. What planning is being

done? We have plans across all

relevant government departments.

Is

that still a very real option in the

minds of governments and ministers

like you?

The very real option is we

move forward now, prioritising the

implementation period which we

intend to deliver, and hope to

deliver in March. Once we have

agreed the implementation period, to

get on with negotiating for the

vision for which the Prime Minister

has set out.

She articulated a blue

sky vision for the border with

Ireland and Northern Ireland, no

acceptance of a customs union to get

over that issue, as some in

Parliament have suggested.

How would

it work? One of the points of the

customs union, it doesn't answer all

of the questions.

Answer how she

thinks it will work?

What the

Taoiseach and the Prime Minister

have agreed, the first that of rules

which arise is through our future

economic partnership. This is why we

need a set of recognition agreements

which deal with regulations on both

sides and we need free tariff access

and we need a customs agreement. If

we do all the things which the Prime

Minister set out, then I believe we

can deliver a borderless,

frictionless border in Northern

Ireland...

No checkpoints, no

lorries being stopped, totally

frictionless?

I am convinced that we

can do it. People need to look at

the report from the European

Parliament, and have a serious think

about what is possible if there is

the political will.

You are happy

with a closer alliance in terms of

rules and regulations with the EU?

I

am happy with the way the Prime

Minister has articulated her speech,

Parliament will be sovereign and the

jurisdiction of the ECJ will end and

we will be a free enterprise country

based on high standards in a race to

the top.

Steve Baker, thank you for

coming to talk to us. That was the

end of Theresa May's third Brexit

speech. I have to say thank you for

my guests coming in and keeping me

company throughout the show. I will

be back with the Daily Politics at

the usual time of noon on Monday.

Goodbye.