02/03/2018 Newsnight

I want to be straight with people.

Life is going to be different. We

all need to face up to some hard

facts. We are leaving the single

market.

Oh my god, oh my god, oh my

God! No!

Some of these ideas depend

on technology. Robust systems to

ensure trust and confidence as well

as goodwill. As frictionless a

border as possible. If this is

cherry picking, then every trade

arrangement is cherry picking.

Are

we there yet? Is a seeking a new

path through the Brexit blizzard. We

dedicate to Mike's programme to

asking if she is on the right track.

Good evening.

A few hard facts.

A bit of soft fudge.

And a warning to everyone

they would have to compromise.

Theresa May was speaking

today to her own sceptics

as much as she was speaking

to the naysayers of Europe.

If everyone or no-one ends up happy,

then perhaps her job is done.

The tone today was markedly

different from a year ago.

Then, she promised us

the same benefits in terms

of free access to trade.

Today, she warned starkly that

life after the single

market would be different.

Less sunlit upland, more hard graft.

The cake has not so much been eaten,

as ground up into crumbs.

And now we're just trying to squeeze

them back together into something

that resembles an offering.

As for the Ireland question,

Theresa May suggested

the border would be

as frictionless as possible.

We'll explore what that means later.

The PM offered herself today

as a pragmatist putting

options on the table.

Will Europe's negotiators bite?

Here's our political

editor, Nick Watt.

August, thoughtful, though at times

perhaps a little intimidating.

Peering down at Theresa May were

grand figures from the ancient

world, a reminder if one were needed

that the stakes are high. Today,

Theresa May set out her vision for

the UK's future relationship with

the EU at the Mansion house in the

City of London. Criticised for

indulging Brexit supporters, the

Prime Minister issued a warning that

they may not be entirely happy.

I

want to be straight with people

because 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.

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 the

benefits without all of the

obligations?

APPLAUSE

So a warm reception for Theresa May

from the city

from the city elite who just sat

through a speech which did mark a

marked change in tone from the Prime

Minister. Four months she's tiptoed

around Brexit supporters are gently

suggesting there will be challenges

they'll need to accept over Brexit.

But today she set out what she

described as a series of hard facts

they will have to accept as she

negotiates Britain's exit from the

EU. Those hard facts about Brexit

are... European law will still have

an effect in the UK. Leaving the

single market will have an impact on

the economy. No take it or leave it

approach on the Irish border. And

making binding commitments to remain

in step with the EU in some areas.

David Davis Kumar you going to have

to use all your renowned skills as a

diplomat to sell these hard facts to

your fellow Brexiteers?

I don't

think so. The simple fact is, go ask

Boris, ask the other Brexiteers the

Cabinet if you like. What the centre

of this is is parliament will always

have a say. Today the rules come

down

down through the European

Parliament, doesn't really have a

proper site. This time I'll have a

say, and they will exercise that say

in the knowledge and the consequent

is one way or another. Will it give

us access or not.

us access or not. That is what every

country will do, that's what will

deliver the best outcome for Britain

in the long run.

Lest any Brexit

support of year-to-date marks

betrayal, the Prime Minister warned

the EU that it, too, needs to hard

facts. Her fundamental vision for

Brexit remains unchanged. After the

single market and Customs union. No

direct save for the European Court

of Justice over the UK. These are

balanced by a call for the UK to

forge the deepest possible

partnership with the EU, possibly

including associate membership of

some of its regulatory bodies.

Brexit supporters gave the speech a

guarded welcome. Anne-Marie

Trevelyan, if you were Prime

Minister is this the speech he would

have given?

It was a very aromatic

speech. I'm not try would have given

it, I'm not in that position, I had

to plough through these incredibly

complex sort of departmental

de-radicalise to see where we sit

and what it looks like. It was a

very pragmatic speech talking to our

European partners.

Remain supporters

were unimpressed.

What strikes me as

we are almost two for years on from

the European referendum on the Prime

Minister is still trying to hammer

out the details about what leaving

the European Union means. What

struck me today was the focus wasn't

on negotiations with the commission,

wasn't with getting the best deal or

protecting public services, it was

trying to hold that fragile

coalition together in the

Conservative Party, which is being

led around by the hard right.

Sparse, that has been the EU

complaint until now, about Britain's

vision for its future relationship

with Brussels. Today, Theresa May

fill that space.

Well, we did ask the government

for a minister to evangelise

for Theresa May's speech,

but nobody was available.

Brussels was rather more forthcoming

- Vice President of the European

Parliament Mairead Macguinnes

joins me now.

Thanks very much for your time this

evening, Mairead Macguinnes. This

was quite conciliatory, did you find

it a reasonable pitch that you could

work with?

Well I think I'm glad the

speech was made.

speech was made. It's a lengthy

speech that needs to be studied but

it had many audiences and I think

that is perhaps the most interesting

point of this. Much of it I think

towards the Conservative Party. I'm

glad there is some reality dawning

the Brexiteers and indeed within the

Cabinet. As to what leaving the

single market and Customs union

actually means. I think it needs

further analysis but on balance I'm

happy the speech is made. There are

many areas I remain very concerned

about. I do worry that the United

Kingdom wants to jump ahead of

further negotiations of where they

are at. Of course we need to know

what framework of relationship we

will have, but I'm also concerned we

haven't agreed a withdrawal text at

this stage. Nor a transition period.

We now have this speech. I've always

been minded to say that while

speeches are important particularly

in terms of the political climate in

the United Kingdom, they are not

negotiating documents. They don't

match what we have at EU level. We

will need a document.

I want to get

out of the specifics of the speech,

she talked in detail about the

Northern Ireland border, wanting to

make it as frictionless as possible

with technology and goodwill. Does

it ring the right chord for you?

Well I don't see much strange

really. I do welcome the

acknowledgement there will be no

hard border, I think that was very

important. I regret it's necessary

that this has to be said but I would

add concerned this is not just a

transactional issue on the border.

We're not dealing with a normal

border if you like, this is a border

that has history and geography and

politics behind it. There is a peace

agreement that is international. I

would be concerned about the idea we

can have small firms, trade as they

are today... That misses the point

why we in the Republic of Ireland,

this is shared by our EU partners,

are so concerned there will not be a

difference to the relationship we

have today.

What is wrong with it?

I

would like Theresa May to think

little more deeply, to think more

deeply about the consequences. Our

shared membership of the European

Union has facilitated a situation

where even the nationalist community

can accept they are part of the

United Kingdom because they're free,

we are all within the same space,

single market Customs union. Even

with what is in the speech today,

for somebody like me who travels

through Northern Ireland all the

time, there could be an impact

because objects that may happen

along the way. I'm trying to move

beyond the idea this is just an

infrastructure or lack of issue.

It's about the psychological issue.

Let me take you on. We don't have

long. Some of the other things she

was talking about, the associate

membership. Some of the EU agencies.

Is it something the European

Parliament, that the EU, would

welcome?

I think that is being

pushed by industry in the United

Kingdom and I'm very glad to see for

the first time very concrete

realities again dawning in the

United Kingdom, that leading

regulatory agencies will impact on

business in the United Kingdom and

patients. While there are people

like Norway part of many of our

agencies and our value -- are

valued. If the United Kingdom wants

that there is a price to be paid and

the Prime Minister has acknowledged

that. And value to be gained from

that as well. I would hope on those

issues we could make progress but it

would be part of an overall package.

And remember that the red lines are

still very heavily red, leaving the

single market and Customs union.

There is then a sense, adding laid

out those red lines, of saying, on

the other hand we like what the EU

has created in a whole range of

issues. As I read this its a bit

like saying, look, we want to be

part of the European Union but don't

want to be called part of the

European Union.

On that note we'll

leave it.

Let's hope it move things

forward and if it does I welcome

that.

Thank you, appreciate your

time, sorry to squeeze you.

Joining me now, cmmitted

Conservative Brexiteer,

John Redwood.

It feels like we're saying we want

to be part of the EU but don't want

to call it the EU, it's everything

but in name.

I don't think she is

understood the speech and I think

the speech was primarily aimed at

the European Union Prime Minister

rightly ended by saying, let's get

on with it, a message to the

European Union. One of the problems

is this ridiculous idea that you

have to negotiate something called a

withdrawal agreement first. Before

you can go on to discuss your future

partnership.

Let me bring you onto

the vision in this speech. This was

a very different vision, to become

associate member of agencies, to

carry on paying into those parts

that wants to belong. Having to have

a relationship with the ECJ. Does

that work for you?

I don't think

it's new at all, it was there in the

Lancaster house speech when the

original ideas Brexiteers had.

Not

the idea we be associated with all

the different bodies of agencies,

medicine, chemistry, aviation.

During the referendum campaign we

often said something like Erasmus,

which is a programme for students

that goes beyond the EU anyway, is

the kind of thing which, if they

were sensible terms for doing it,

why wouldn't we carry on?

Regulatory

agency, a sort of exchange

programme. I'm asking whether you

find that contradictory to what you

felt you were getting.

Not at all.

It would have to be very clear that

it doesn't put us under the control

of the EU and if there is any

payment, it's a proportionate

payment to the cost, it would save

us money setting up our own body

because the other option is to set

up our own body to do exactly the

same thing. We would need to

evaluate one against the other. Very

third order issue. You're trying to

make problems where there aren't

problems. The problem the EU now has

its every time the UK Government

puts forward something decent, often

very generous, they throw it back in

our face. They have no serious

interest, it seems, in negotiating

free trade agreement or a

wide-ranging economic partnership.

The British people are getting

mighty fed up with this. Why would

we want to be at all generous over

their so-called withdrawal agreement

if there is absolutely nothing

forthcoming. I hope for the sake of

the country on the Prime Minister

they read the speech again, realise

it was asking them to engage

seriously now to have a

comprehensive agreement.

They think

she's got her head in the sand.

There is no way the British

Parliament people will sign up to

their withdrawal agreement, that

dreadful draft they sent us, without

there being something really good on

the end of it.

You say there is no

way, you think there is still a no

Deal option on the table. A lot of

people thought she was moving

towards compromise, she was saying,

it's going to be tough. It wasn't

the speech she made a year ago in

March when she said, we'll have that

continued...

The EU is moving very

strongly to no Deal. As you just

heard it's very representative of EU

responses, everything the Prime

Minister has generously put forward

his two little or they don't agree.

You think no Deal is most likely.

If

they change their attitude of course

we end up with no Deal.

You wouldn't

mind that.

I've always thought no

Deal gives me four of the five

things as a Brexiteer I want, we

don't pay them any money, we can

spend it all on our priorities, we

can have our own trade policy and do

our own trade deals.

Is she wasting

her time?

Do you not want to hear

all the advantages?

I understand...

We can make our own laws and control

our own borders.

I've heard the

argument before. Would we like free

trade agreement? Yes, it might be in

their interest as well. A deal that

is better than no Deal is of course

possible. But if the EU is not

prepared at any point to say, yes,

we want a free trade deal, then

these talks are going to be very

difficult. Do you think Theresa

May's red lights have gone now?

Which talks about the need for

compromise and hard facts and

choices, do you think those red

lines have been eroded now and it's

up to the EU to start moving towards

us?

I think the Prime Minister has

been extremely friendly and generous

and positive towards the EU and she

wants now some response from the

country, the country needs a

response from them. Otherwise there

won't be a deal. I don't think she

has eroded the key red lines, she's

made very clear, as the EU used to

be very clear, you can't stay in the

customs union and single market if

you are leaving the EU. She's made

it very clear we want our own

independent trade policy which you

can't have in the or a customs

union. I don't think the customs

union exists. All the things Mr

Corbyn wants are clearly

non-negotiable and the EU will say

no.

John Redwood thank you very much

indeed for coming in.

Of course the speech Theresa May

made this afternoon had an eye

on her European audience,

reminding those we're leaving

that its also in Europe's best

interest to keep relations as smooth

and as close as possible.

Is that how Europe sees it?

The first tweeted responses from EU

negotiators suggested not -

and as Mark Urban explains,

the response is unlikely

to be unified.

I am afraid that the UK position

today is based on pure illusion.

It looks like the cake

fillers of a still life.

The warning was clear enough -

don't try to cherry pick.

Yet that is exactly

what Theresa May did today.

Why?

Because many in Whitehall don't

quite believe the EU's rhetoric,

thinking it's a negotiating stance,

and that some countries want to put

business ahead of dogma.

Those closest have the most

integrated economies with the UK,

but for the moment, France

and Ireland in particular,

are taking a tough

line on Brexit issues.

Further afield, the V4

or Visegrad Group -

Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic

and Slovakia - are critical

of the Commission and favour

a softer line on Brexit.

Some of the Scandinavians also

favour a conciliatory approach,

but who to lead this block

of moderates when Germany

in particular argues that the EU's

rules must be defended vigorously?

Quite a lot of member states

to a greater or lesser extent

would like a broader relationship,

a deeper relationship involving

more economic activity,

more trade investment between the EU

and the UK.

However the British should not

in my view get too excited

about these nuances around the 27,

because although a lot

of Governments as I said

would like a broader relationship

than that which Barnier

seems to be pushing for,

the French and Germans

and the Commission are very

powerful, very dominant.

So what are the chances

of a champion emerging,

to challenge the Germans,

in the interests of keeping

trade with the UK sweet?

Probably quite slim.

Why indeed should any country

want to organise others

in the UK's interests?

But if there is one possible

pragmatist in chief, it's

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte,

who has today questioned

the federalist ambitions

of some in Europe.

The European Union is not

many my view an unstoppable train,

speeding towards federalism.

Brexit shows that EU is not

an irreversible certainty.

In many member states,

political parties at the centre,

the centre-left, the centre-right,

parties with a long-standing

European tradition

are under pressure.

The European Commission tonight

praised Theresa May for at least

making clear she wanted a free trade

agreement, rather than a version

of single market membership.

Now, the work will begin on seeing

just how ambitious they can be

about that trade deal.

With me in the studio the finest

Brexit panel you can imagine -

Iain Dale, Nina Schick,

Paul Mason and Suzanne Evans -

to chew over the stuff

we haven't yet tackled.

Brexit, Remainers Right and Left.

Very nice of you to come to over and

chew up the stuff we haven't

tackled.

I will give the first panelist the

response, who tells me tonight, they

do not feel compromised by what has

been offered today?

I don't feel

compromised by it.

Took a pause, but

go on.

I only paused because when I

watched the speech, I am going to be

honest I found it difficult to

follow. It was very come expression,

every detailed, lots more than any

of her other speeches and it's a

speech you have to read a couple of

times before you get it. And I think

when you have, the Irish Government,

Barnier, Rees-Mogg and Chuka Umunna

finding something positive, she has

probably done something right.

You

fit yourself in the frame of mind

that says yes she has ticked the

right boxes?

I am not a dogma test.

I have believed in any negotiation

there has to be cop promises, today

she has said yes, up to now it has

been we will be able to get

everything we want. It will be the

same.

Are you there Nina

This is the

most interesting thing, is that

reality is hitting the Government in

the face really hard, if you look at

Theresa May's first speech at

Conservative Party Conference in

2016, the famous citizens of nowhere

speech then Lancaster House and

Florence, when she asked for a

transition at Lancaster House she

said the UK would be leaving the

customs union and the single market.

Today she admitted for the first

time, this is something I have been

saying since 2016, there have to be

trade off, there have to be

compromise, the magical dream...

You

were glad she said that?

Yes, the EU

will welcome that, nonetheless,

there are still problems, the most

fundamental issue in my view is that

the issue of the Irish border has

not been resome evidence. We have

seen the massive kick back in this

country to the draft withdrawal

agreement. That the EU laid out,

because they suggested that the fall

back option for Northern Ireland,

which has to be under pinned in law,

because the EU is an international

treaty organisation, under pinned by

a rule book, would be that Northern

Ireland remains in the customs union

or the single market. Of course the

UK said that is not possible, I

completely understand why, Theresa

May said that, but what is the

solution? So this customs

partnership that she put today, what

does that mean? We don't have enough

detail on that.

I want to spend time

on the Irish board e before we do

that, Suzanne, do you hear a woman

or a leader who has had to

compromise, get rid of her red line,

is it the Brexit you want?

Some of

it is. We had a clear commitment to

leaving the single market, we had a

clear commitment to leaving the

customs union and a customs union in

a snub to Jeremy Corbyn rightly, we

also heard strong commentments on an

end to free. Only do of movement,

other thing she didn't lay down

strongly enough, the idea we could

walk away with no deal, that seems

to be off the table, she talked

strongly about the European Court of

Justice, in a way that was almost

treating it like a grandfather,

saying we needed to listen to it, we

would take advice from it. That is

not the position we wanted

eitherment I am particularly worried

about what she said about fishing,

because for us in Ukip, fishing was

one of the red lines, fishing

industry is the one that has been

absolutely destroyed perhaps more

than any other by our membership of

the European Union, and to hear her

talk today about our shared stocks,

was a massive indication, I think

she is going to use perhaps fishing

as a bargaining chip with the

European Union so our fishermen will

not get the rights they would have

under international law which would

be a disgrace, really.

Paul?

Theresa

May just effectively applied for

off-peak membership of the European

jib, so she was to pay for the

treadmill and the sort of skipping

rope but not the weights and the

spinning class, and remains, they

are glam she has made an application

-- glad, and we will find out what

they think about it. John Redwood is

De Leeuwed, to be honest, I wish he

was still sitting here because the

point I I would make to hick him, is

that the fantasy of hard Brexit

evaporated, number one, forget, an

independent fishing industry, we

will give Europe full access.

We

should not.

That is what she has

offered. And to be honest, he talks

about the will of the people and

what the British people will put up,

with there is no majority in the UK

Parliament for a customs union, and

the moment they put that vote to a

vote, I think we will find out she

has actually negotiating from a weak

and non-representative position.

You

are cheering that are you?

I think

we should do a job for the viewer to

explain what has happened before we

unleash our own prejudice on it.

Yes, I am against a hard Brexit, I

want the softest possibly Brexit. I

want customs union, I am glad core

Bishop has gone in the direction of

trying to negotiate closeness to the

single market. The other thing that

evaporated the David Davis's promise

that we would get the exact same

trade deals. That has been shown to

be a fantasy. That is very powerful

people like me.

What would you say

that? This idea that everything that

was promised, the trade benefits

would be the same, the up land were

going to be there,

They will be

there. To say the idea of a hard

Brexit, which I think is actually

Brexit has evaporated is ridiculous,

we are going to leave the single

market and the customs union, those

were war the soft Brexiteers used to

describe as a hard Brexit but no

longer do. I think it is a great

thing that we now have another

divide in British politic, between

the Conservative Party and the

Labour Party and we heard from

Jeremy Corbyn on Monday, and he

outlined very clearly what he wans

to do but he knows he can't deliver

it because the EU will never accept

Britain at the negotiating table for

new trade deals if we are still in a

customs union.

Are you closer to the

Corbyn view?

No, absolutely not. It

is a fudge, it is completely

unachievable.

Why is it any

different? Why is this union

different to an arrangement or...

Theresa May spelled out clearly in

her speech why Jeremy Corbyn's

version of a customs union won't

work. I think the problem that we

have got, is that Theresa May is

still in a sense negotiating from a

point of weakness, she is still

listening to too closely to her

advisers, who are really don't want

to come out of the European Union at

all. Expert remain aers, and she is

not actually telling the EU strongly

enough what we want. The end of her

speech today she started to sound

like she was a woman who believed in

Britain, who believed in the Brexit

cause...

It kind of backtracked on

that they agreed at Chequers were

the politicians said we would have

divergence and all she talked about

was more alignment. The other point

is I think there is a mood in the

country for people to just get on

with this and get it over with, and

I think I had a lot of people on my

phone in today saying look, give the

woman a chance, we like the speech.

I might have voted remain but give

her a chance.ment so we are talking

as if it is up to us now, it is down

to European Europe and what the

divided voices say.

We are still a

long away away from the future

trading relationship. We first of

all have to get that draft

withdrawal text agreed and the UK by

the way despite all the anger at the

EU's draft agreement, hasn't put

forward their own. Then we have the

issue of the transition, know that

Theresa May has sold this as an

implementation phase, but that is of

course not the case, because the

idea by March 2019 that you can have

an TFA ready to go is De Leeuwed.

The next question is, can hard

Brexiteers accept, and what I found

interesting, is that given that what

was promised and what Theresa May

said today, everyone seems to think

there were good parts in that, it is

not what was promised. Jurisdiction

of the ECJ or whether or not direct,

and the same will be the case for

transition.

My point now, is that if

there is at least some overlap

between what people broadly want,

does the EU hear it in that way? You

have heard from Barnier, we have

heard from people saying she has her

head in the stand, people saying it

is vague.

They are going to say

that. They are the two most

Europhile politicians in Europe.

They are because they are fully

bought into the project. What I

would say federalism or not, the

centre in Europe knows it is in

trouble. What this, I read this as a

gamble by the British Foreign

Office, I see the Foreign Office

hands on this as well as Olly rob

Bishops because they have been doing

a lot of bilateral talking to

European capital, they see, the

gamble is, the European project is

in so much trouble they will allow

what Britain has asked for, which is

a specific despoke free trade deal

and go round the Commission

position, which is to offer us

Canada or Norway. I think the

problem is, we perhaps in the vote

Leave campaign underestimated the

ability of Brexit and the Civil

Service, the Government and Civil

Service to deliver the Brexit that

the people voted for. And I think

what will ultimately come out of

this today, I think the EU will see

Theresa May as another bit of a push

over and they will push back harder.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you all very much.

Eskimos, they say,

have 50 words for snow.

The Inuits of Canada's Nunuvik

region actually do have 53.

The Sami people of Russia have 180.

The Inupiaks of Alaska do justice

to ice with another 70 of their own.

It seems only right,

since we have embraced -

albeit temporarily -

the beast from the east -

to come up with one of our own.

The stuff that's covering

Britain right now -

making many lives a misery -

is, experts tell us,

known as Champagne Powder.

It's too refined to build a snowman.

It doesn't mould

easily into snowballs.

At the end of a week of the white

stuff we sent John Sweeney out

to get the scientific low

down on why.

Government and Civil Service

Something has gone horribly wrong

with the great British snow man. The

snowmageddon has produced no the fat

dough boys of yesteryear by a series

of weird shrunken mutants.

What do these snowball engineers

make of it on Primrose Hill? What is

the problem with the snow?

It's too

soft.

Doesn't stick.

No.

It is a

work of art this.

Time to call in an expert.

Time to call in an expert. This

woman is a Professor of

snowflakology. There is a problem

with our snow man, what is the

problem?

Well, first thing we don't

want to discriminate because our

snow man is tiny, but there is a bit

of a damage challenge in making a

bigger snow man using this kind of

snow, the reason being that the snow

we have add the moment is very dry.

And it is the liquid part that makes

snow stick together. So if we are

missing that, the snow just can't

pack together very well, so it has

been incredibly cold because it is

coming from the east. It hit

cyberian temperatures, I don't know

if you have noticed six sided

snowflakes we are getting, they are

tiny, because of the fact it has

been so cold, the water vapour has

frozen to make this small crystal,

very powdery snow.

It is the wrong

kind of snow.

It Tees wrong kind of

snow.

The big fat flake at the top is the

perfect building block for a good

snow man. The stuff at the bottom is

too dry makes rubbish snowmen.

Bad for snowmen, but this kind of

powdery snow is seriously good for

St Legers, and skiers too.

The science behind the wrong kind of

snow is so compelling. Other life

forms were drawn ircystibly to the

Newsnight snow man.

That just John Sweeney.

That's all we have

time for this evening.