Browse content similar to 04/03/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Good morning! Just sometimes when
you make a speech, you don't
actually want a very loud reaction
afterwards. So it was with Theresa
May and Brexit this week. Cries of
outrage from the Tory critics?
Barely a cheap. Howls of derision
from Brussels? No, not really. Was
it that nobody was quite sure what
she meant? Was it simply that
audience was hypnotised, like the
rest of the country, by the endless
Later, we'll hear
from the Prime Minister herself
in her first and only
interview since the speech.
And we'll get reaction
from Ireland's Foreign Minister
and Deputy Prime Minister,
As well as, closer to home,
former Tory leader and keen
Brexiteer Iain Duncan Smith,
and the prominent Remainer
and former Labour Cabinet
minister Peter Mandelson.
And if you're in need
of some musical healing after that,
playing us out live this morning,
the Swedish folk band
First Aid Kit.
# Why do I do this to myself? #
What are the papers
looking like this morning?
I'm joined today by the LBC
presenter Iain Dale
and Helen Lewis, deputy editor
of the New Statesman.
All that after the news,
read for us this morning
by Tina Daheley.
Donald Trump is threatening
to impose additional taxes
on cars imported to America
The US President tweeted,
saying he would "apply a tax"
to address what he called
a "big trade imbalance".
The row over tariffs began
on Thursday when Mr Trump announced
an increase in taxes on steel
and aluminium imports.
The EU responded by threatening
to increase charges
on some American products.
Snow and ice continue
to cause widespread disruption
across the UK despite
temperatures slowly rising.
Many rail lines remain blocked,
and drivers have been warned
to expect delays.
Two yellow warnings remain
in place, covering much of the UK,
while 16 flood warnings
have been issued
for the south-west
and north-east of England.
MPs have made public
a damning independent review
given to the board of the
construction giant Carillion,
four months before it collapsed.
The report said that the firm had
been "aggressively managed"
to make its balance sheet
look better than it was.
The chairman of the Commons Work
and Pensions Committee, Frank Field,
said the document showed "gross
failings of corporate governance
and accounting" at the company.
The Housing Secretary, Sajid Javid,
has hit out at so-called "nimby"
councils which don't build enough
new homes in their local areas.
Mr Javid said authorities
in England risk
losing their planning powers
if they don't comply,
and that he would be
"breathing down their necks"
to ensure targets were met.
The Government will announce
an overhaul of planning rules
in England tomorrow in an attempt
to increase house-building.
Polls have opened in Italy
to elect a new government.
Observers suggest an alliance
of right-wing parties
organised by the former
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
will emerge as the largest bloc
but fall short
of a parliamentary majority.
Pubs in England and Wales
will be able to stay open late
on the weekend of Prince Harry
and Meghan Markle's wedding.
The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd,
said bars would be allowed
to serve until 1am,
rather than 11pm,
on Friday 18th and
Saturday 19th May.
That's all from me.
Back to you, Andrew.
We have just heard that the German
SBD has voted in favour of a grand
coalition, and therefore, in effect,
Germany does have a government. And
so to the papers. As usual, the
observer has an interesting story
about the economic cost of the snow,
£1 billion a day, building sites not
working, shops empty, a significant
hit on the quarterly figures, they
say. They have also got one of the
critics of the speech, one of
relatively few critics of the
Theresa May speech, Michael
Heseltine writing in the paper as
well. The Mail on Sunday has a
report about Boris Johnson and dirty
tricks, described by Number Ten as
an old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon word I
cannot regale you with! The Sunday
Telegraph has a story about BBC
stars complaining over their taxes.
These service companies and so
forth. And also a story about the
abolition of rules when Brexit
happens. And finally, in the Sunday
Times, a story about internet giants
profiting from pop-up brothels. A
lot of stories attacking internet
companies these days in the
newspapers, and inside the paper
Lord Hall of the BBC is joining in,
talking about social cohesion around
Netflix, Amazon and all that. But
we're going to start with Theresa
May's big speech, Iain Dale, and
what is odd is the lack of
Which means it
is job done for the Prime Minister.
A couple of editorials in the papers
are quite revealing, because the
Mail on Sunday, not a huge fan of
Theresa May normally, they conclude
their editorial with the words, she
has brought a divided Cabinet
together, as he deserves support so
the hard work of getting the best
possible deal can begin. The
observer slightly different, there
is that she will make Britain a
poorer, meaner place. Well, you
could argue poorer, but I'm not sure
of the logic around me now. But
there are not huge numbers of Tory
critics coming out today, even
A big operation by
Before the speech, they
got a lot of people onside, Jacob
Rees-Mogg's reaction was incredibly
positive, which I was surprised
that, and even Nicky Morgan, one of
the main critics, was in favour. The
only grandee that the observer can
drag out isn't Michael Heseltine,
who has been critical, but he is
about the only one.
John Major in
the Mail on Sunday, he made a very
strong anti-Brexit speech before
Theresa May, but he's mainly
focusing on the Irish border today.
A crashingly banal thing, we cannot
take peace for granted, this is
within the lifetime of people who
were still alive when the problems
were there. There are two ways of
looking at the speech, either so
excellent it shut down all possible
criticism, or it kicked the can
further down the road, and is
therefore put off the arguments
further. I think there was a slight
element of low expectations, and
when she started talking about data
protection regulation is, I began to
question by life choices in joining
political journalism! But there was
some meat in it, talking about the
agencies we will stay in.
clear we will not get the same
access to European markets after
Brexit, so this exact same benefits
phrase has gone, and she was clear
we will be paying in money, and
there will be lots of areas in which
the European court will still have
some effect on British life.
sense, this was the speech she
should have delivered a year ago,
because a lot of the more hardline
Eurosceptics would not have
swallowed this, particularly those
things you have just mentioned.
why have they been so quiet this
morning and yesterday? Is it
because, perhaps, they realise their
best chance of getting Brexit done
and the deal signed is to keep
Theresa May there, get her to do it,
and then, after that, they can move
her to one side and put in one of
them and get the real divergent
spreads it they have wanted?
is something in that.
There are lots of people
ready and willing to take over, but
no king or queen over the water, as
there was with Heseltine in Margaret
Thatcher's day. I do not think they
could come to an agreement on who
the best rival should be.
did set out how we would have these
powers but we might not use them
immediately, so it was an offer to
another Prime Minister pulling us
If she is sane, this
is my view, we will not diverged
very much, you can relax, they now
know this is only as long as she is
Prime Minister. Prime Minister
Rees-Mogg or Prime Minister Gove
would take a very different view,
and that will affect their attitude
to the negotiations. A week is a
long time in politics, and ten days
ago the summit at checkers happened,
and we were told they had agreed
there would be regulatory divergent.
When you listened to Theresa May's
speech, there was not of that,
either it was the Boris Johnson
briefing immediately after
Ollie Robinson, the chief Sherpa,
had influenced her to roll back on
Another big story which directly
affects this one, Donald Trump and
his blast against the EU and cars,
quite protectionist blast overnight,
and you have a tweet.
As ever, we
just comment on his tweets, if the
EU wants to increase their further
massive tariffs and barriers on US
companies, we will simply add a tax
on their cars. This is the politics
of the gut, not the politics of the
brain, and I suppose this is what we
are used to with Donald Trump, but
having imposed these tariffs on
steel, he is clearly thinking about
doing it in other areas.
could play this two ways when it
comes to Brexit. You could say, what
a crazy time to be trying to do free
trade deals with China and the US
president being increasingly
protectionist, or you could say,
better to be outside the EU bloc if
the Americans are going to treat the
EU this way.
The EU is a big trading
bloc, and we will necessarily be a
smaller one, but in Jeremy Corbyn's
speech on Monday, he talked about a
customs union, and he was talking
about the problems of chlorinated
Why are we so obsessed
It is horrible, we don't
want to eat it!
What's to be bullied
in the United States? They won't
even notice the difference.
defence of American food!
big story overnight, what the
Conservatives are doing about
housing. Go back if I had £1 for
every time the Conservatives had
promised a housing revolution, I
would be a lot richer than I am now.
They are talking by building a
corridor between Oxford and
Cambridge, new towns, and they want
to relax planning rules. The
question is whether they will allow
councils to build themselves,
whether there is the will to do so,
and there is a problem with
and there is a problem with taking
on nimbies, because another word for
nimbies is Tory voters. Homeowners
largely vote Tory.
Let's talk a bit
more about culture wars in politics,
Ian has raised the bar when it comes
to male grooming on this programme
with that jacket!
Very kind, I
didn't dare wear the trousers! This
is a story about someone who has
been appointed as a quality is
adviser by the Labour shadow
qualities minister, and it does look
slightly strange when you look at
some of the things she has said in
the past, but the Mail on Sunday has
got hold of some tweet she sent to
friends of the cells in 2010, 2012,
which look terrible out of context.
We have all done that, so I have got
a bit of sympathy with her on that
front, but in this interview in the
Mail on Sunday magazine, she says
this - I practice witchcraft, it is
something I have always been
attracted to, and I like it because
it is female centric.
And she also
goes, and I am black, voodoo is more
my culture than Christianity. And
she says, I don't understand how you
can be conservative and gay, all
Conservatives are racist. I would
love to have a meeting with her to
explain how you can be gay and
I find it a very
worrying story, because it seemed
she has been appointed purely on the
basis of her identity, which is
quite offensive to the qualities
agenda. Being a woman does not make
you an expert on feminism. So it
does feel like a very tokenistic
OK, now, I want to keep
moving to some of the foreign
stories as well, I'm afraid, a very
big day in foreign news, and I'm
going to go to Italy next, because
overnight we will get the Italian
election results, they are voting
today, I think.
There is a real
possibility of the anti-Brussels,
anti-immigration five Star Movement
beginning to move towards power.
is quite difficult to work out
whether they will be able to get
power, they have always said they
wouldn't enter into coalitions, but
they have a 31-year-old leader who
was softening on that a little bit.
The biggest block will be the one
that is effectively led by Silvio
Berlusconi, but he cannot become
Prime Minister, for Bongo Bongo Land
-- Bongo Bongo reasons. If the right
in Italy does as well as everyone
says, effectively, it means that
Britain will be the only country
where the hard left is really on the
march. You look across all of
Europe, and it is the right that are
If the Five Star Movement
took power, which is possible, it
would be a much bigger blow to
Brussels than Brexit. Huge to
I don't mean to boast
against the relative importance of
Italy in the European project...
Italy was there at the start.
Reading about Italian politics can
cheer you up about British politics.
Let's talk about Chinese politics,
tomorrow the Chinese Communist Party
is go to tear up the rules about how
long President Xi can carry on being
This piece in the Sunday
Times makes the point that some of
the reforms to transition China
towards democracy have been put off,
because it said that someone could
only be in power for ten years, and
there is or is it Trump tweet for
something, and private comments from
Trump saying, wouldn't it be great
if America did this too? We are in
an age where people are incredibly
authoritarian, Berlusconi is another
one, they come back like zombies,
they will not leave public life,
Vladimir Putin switched around
between being Prime Minister and
present. A return to the age of
strong men in politics.
There has been a lot of discussion
about Cabinet ministers and their
favourite childhood books, I need to
ask what your favourite book is,
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor,
you would have thought he might have
used this as an opportunity to
appear a little bit more human -
1980-4 by George Orwell was his
favourite childhood book! -- 1984.
would recommend the works of Terry
Thank you both very much
indeed, and so to the weather, which
as Mauro less elbowed aside the rest
of the news this week.
I didn't see much of it myself,
spending most of the week hiding
in the pub, self-medicating
with cooking whisky.
But it was really hard trying
to get home afterwards.
Well, this might infuriate some
of you further north, but it's
feeling positively spring-like
here in London this morning,
so over to Chris Fawkes
in the weather studio.
Not much snow left in the capital,
and it is more what has fallen
that's causing the problems.
this for example, south Wales
weather watchers spotted what looks
to be a greater buried in one of the
snowdrifts and there is more snow to
come today but it won't cause
significant problems, it's more what
is on the ground. This perhaps
turning more of a wintry mix across
coastal areas, rain and sleet mixed
in, where was further south it's
mainly rain showers for south-west
England. This rain affecting eastern
areas of Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk.
areas of Kent, Suffolk and Norfolk.
Overnight that area of rain fills
out into the North Sea before
pushing back into the cold air,
heading into Scotland. We will see
the rain increasingly turn to snow
again here. It will be a chilly
night but not as cold as it has been
in recent nights. Still cold enough
for pockets of frost in rural areas.
It is more snow that is forecast for
Scotland, particularly in the hills
on Monday. Rain for south-west
England and with temperatures rising
the thaw set in place. The beast
from the east is turning less
beastly but for some of us there is
a bit more snow to come.
beastly but for some of us there is
a bit more snow to come. That is
what you call a north-south divide.
One of the big issues tackled
in Theresa May's speech
was, of course, the Irish border.
So what does her solution look
like from the Republic?
The Tanaiste, Simon Coveney -
Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister
and Foreign Minister -
joins us now from Cork.
Welcome. Can I ask you first of all
what you made of the Irish border
part of Theresa May's speech?
we certainly welcome the fact that
she was very definitive in terms of
her continuing commitment to the
Good Friday Agreement, which of
course is the foundation stone for
the peace process in Northern
Ireland. We also welcome the fact
that she renewed her commitment to
the agreement that was made
politically before Christmas in the
joint paper between the UK and the
EU, but beyond that she hasn't
really gone into any more detail
than we have already heard in terms
of how she's going to solve the
problem of maintaining a largely
invisible border on the island of
Ireland, which she referred to
essentially in terms of detail was
the basis of two papers published
last summer which talked about a
customs union partnership and also
talked about the streamlined customs
arrangements, those being the two
options she wants to explore
further. And of course she didn't
refer to the detailed...
give some detail, she said 80% of
small businesses will be ignored
completely and the 20% of the really
big companies with very high value
goods crossing the border can be
dealt with electronically. Doesn't
that make some kind of sense?
is the mistake I think is made in
Britain all the time, when someone
definitively says something will be
the case from the British
government, people assume that is
the negotiated outcome. Of course
it's not. I'm not sure the European
Union will be able to support a
situation whereby 80% of companies
that trade north-south and South
north will protect the integrity of
the EU single market which will be a
big problem for the negotiating
team. Whilst we will explore and
looked all of the proposed British
solutions, they are essentially
starting point in negotiations as
opposed to an end point. Our
responsibility in Ireland is to work
with Britain... Give me a second,
our responsibility is to work
positively with Britain to try to
explore solutions but if we cannot
agree on solutions of course what we
have is the backstop, which is a
commitment by the British government
to maintain full alignment with the
rules of the customs union and
You know that
backstop is completely unacceptable
to the British government because it
looks like an attempt by the EU and
by Dublin to effectively appropriate
Northern Ireland as part of the EU
system. You have suggested that if
you don't get what you want, it
could be the Irish side that splits
up the hard border. The British
government have been clear, under no
circumstances will be put up a hard
border. Are there
border. Are there circumstances that
Ireland would put up a hard border?
I haven't said that so don't put
words in my mouth. Theresa May was
clear the British government
understand how the single market
works. It was Britain probably more
than any other country that helped
design the single market in terms of
how it functions today so everybody
understands it is part of the
negotiation, that this isn't a
question of either side wanting to
put up orders. If you have to
protect functioning single market,
the same weight as Britain wants to
protect its own single market, you
have to understand that if goods
move from one customs union to
another than there needs to be some
checks, unless there is some
mechanism that's negotiated and put
in place that prevents that. The
British government, whether people
want to accept it or not, committed
clearly in December to end showing
that if there wasn't a political
agreement on option A or B, then the
default position which was agreed to
reassure everybody in Northern
Ireland and people living on both
sides of the border and the many
companies that trade on an
all-Ireland basis,... We
all-Ireland basis,... We want with
the British negotiators to get a
better solution that applies to all
of the UK so that Ireland's trade
with Britain east-west and
north-south can be maintained as it
is today. It is a 65 billion euros
trade relationship, there are
200,000 jobs in Ireland dependent on
that, and 40,000 companies in the
Another thing Theresa May said
was from now on this very difficult
issue of the border would be solved
jointly by London, Dublin and
Brussels, in some kind of tripartite
system where you settle down and try
to work it out. Is that going to
We are already talking
together so the negotiating team and
task force has already mapped out
areas of cooperation linked to the
Good Friday Agreement and there are
hundreds of those. I have a very
good relationship with Karen
Bradley, the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland, and with many of
the British Cabinet members, who we
have already met and discussed many
of these issues with, but the formal
negotiations have to be between the
British government and the EU as a
whole. Of course there will be a lot
of Irish import in that but it
doesn't mean these issues will be
easily solved because they won't.
easily solved because they won't. It
is a very complex thing for Britain
to leave the European Union. There
are 45 years of agreements and
negotiations that are result of UK
membership of the EU and it will not
be taken apart easily. On top of
that Good Friday Agreement and
complex and fragile peace process,
this is a significant responsibility
for the British government and I'm
glad the Prime Minister made that
clear during her speech. I think
it's important to say we welcome her
speech by and large. There's a lot
more detail than we have previously
seen but essentially what she is
outlining is that the British
approach will be to look for some
kind of hybrid model between the
kind of FTA the EU has with Canada
today and the kind of market access
Norway has into the single market
today. Now that we at least know
that, we can negotiate accordingly.
And it is surely in your interests
to make sure that kind of deal
happens. Sir John Major is quoted in
the British press quoting himself
the Irish Central bank saying a
difficult Brexit deal would cost the
Irish economy 40,000 jobs and over a
decade shrink the Irish economy by
3% so you have a real stake in this
game, don't you?
We do. Brexit was
not the choice of the Irish people,
it was the choice of British people
so there is a responsibility on
Britain to ensure the impact of
Brexit on its neighbours is also
managed, but of course, Ireland has
said from the outset here is the
result of Brexit for us in terms of
what we want is the closest possible
relationship between Ireland and the
UK and between the EU and the UK. We
need to be realistic, when a country
leaves the European Union and state
they will leave the single market
and customs union as well, you
cannot expect to hold onto all of
the benefits of EU membership.
Indeed, we are out of time I'm
afraid. Simon Coveney, thank you for
joining us from Cork.
After Theresa May's speech
at the Mansion House,
she made her way back
through a blizzard to Downing
Street, where I sat down
to talk with her about
it. Most people don't really
follow the Brexit detail -
I pointed out to her -
so for non-experts,
what was new in what she was saying?
Yes, what I was doing in his speech
was setting out an ambitious vision
of the future economic partnership
that we want the UK to have with
the European Union once we've left.
And it was a vision
that was ambitious,
but it was also practically based,
and therefore a credible vision.
It goes beyond anything
that the European Union has done
before in free trade agreements,
because it's very broad,
so it was covering issues
like industrial goods,
like cars, but also
energy, transport, law,
science, agriculture, fisheries.
So it was setting out
that ambitious vision,
but also speaking to people
here in the UK and saying...
Quite bluntly, you're quite blunt.
Well, I was being straight
with people, I think it's important
to be straight with people.
But there's also one of the messages
behind the speech, I think,
was to say to people,
as I think most members
of the public feel, that the time
for arguing either side
of the referendum has gone.
Actually, this was about setting out
an ambition for our future.
And also saying to the
European Union, the 27 and also
the European Commission,
we've set out what we want,
we've set out where we think we can
have this ambitious relationship
that's good for prosperity on both
sides - let's get on with it.
And now it's crunch time,
and in the course of the speech,
I thought you buried a couple
of the famous sayings that have
dogged the Brexit talks.
Liam Fox's terribly cheerful
assertion, "This is going to be
the easiest negotiation
in human history."
It's not been like that, has it?
Well, in one sense, we are doing
a very simple thing,
we are leaving the European Union.
In another sense, of course,
having been a member
of the EU for over 40 years,
there is a complexity
to the relationship that we've
developed, and what I was setting
out in the speech today was showing
how, in a very practical way,
we can move forward on parts
of those relationships.
So for example, if somebody
is building cars here in the UK,
they're probably using parts that
have come from parts
of the European Union...
And they go back and
forth the whole time.
And I was saying, we recognise that,
because we recognise
the importance of people's jobs.
What I set out today was a way
we can continue to trade that
ensures we maintain those jobs,
maintain that prosperity.
But it's certainly not easy.
The other thing that
I thought you buried,
finally, was that this,
in terms of access to European
markets, this will deliver the exact
same benefits as we have now,
which was something that David Davis
said, and then later
on you rather backed up -
so you've changed your mind on that.
No, we're very clear that in terms
of the benefit of being able
to trade with the European Union,
yes, we do want to be able
to continue to do that.
But the access won't
be as good, will it?
Well, there were some areas
where we've looked at the issue
of the single market,
we're coming out
of the single market.
Being a member of the single market
is an intrinsic part
of being a member of the EU so...
But you say, "Our access to each
other's markets will be
less than it is now."
Yes, and I set out in the speech
also a couple of areas
where that will be the case.
Actually, one of them
might be of particular
interest to you, Andrew,
because it's about broadcasting,
because there are certain rules that
follow from being a member
of the EU, and what I said is,
let's face it, you know,
there are lots of people
in the member states
of the European Union who actually
like to switch on and watch the BBC.
Let's make sure we can
continue to do that.
Let me therefore move a little bit
away from the BBC and broadcasting
and ask you about the other big one,
which is the City - and passporting.
Now, again and again,
Philip Hammond, your Chancellor,
has said that passporting is really
important to be City,
it's absolutely crucial,
and that we could not accept a deal
if we did not have proper
access for the City,
and yet in his speech,
you effectively bury passporting,
you say it's not going to happen.
What I said in the speech
is that we recognise
that passporting is,
again, part of being a member
of the single market,
which is part of being
a member of the EU.
We're coming out of the EU,
we won't be a member of the single
market in the future.
But what we are looking at,
what I set out in the speech
is a new relationship on financial
services based on this concept
of mutual recognition,
of agreement on regulations.
One of the key things in financial
services is the regulatory standards
that banks and others are abiding
by, cos that's in the interests
of consumers, the interests
of individuals and businesses.
And, actually, if we look at the way
we can achieve the ability
for our banks to still be operating,
still be providing the huge
financial support that they do
to other countries and business...
Very important for our economy,
40% of our exports to the EU
are in services, banking
and financial services.
A lot of bankers will be
is now officially off the table.
You've got a new idea -
to put it into the free trade deal.
How many trade deals have included
financial services in the past?
Well, there's quite a few
that have financial services
commitments in them.
The one that had the most breadth
of financial services in it
was the trade deal
that the EU were negotiating
with the United States.
Which failed, yeah.
For other reasons.
Financial services are
referenced in, for example,
the deal with Canada.
Yes, we want to go further, yes,
but that is a recognition
of the very important role
that the City of London plays,
not just for the UK,
but actually for the rest
of the European Union.
If you look at the significant sums
of money businesses in, you know,
the EU 27, in those
countries, actually raise
through the City of London,
it matters to them as well.
But if we were to accept
passporting, we'd just be
a rule taker, we do have to abide
by the rules that were being set
elsewhere, and given the importance
of financial stability,
of ensuring the City of London,
we can't just take the same rules
without any say in them.
A lot of bankers, and a lot of big
financial services company
say that without passporting
they will have to move
the centre of their operations
onto the European continent -
what is your message to them today?
My message to them is that
what we are looking to develop
is a relationship that means
that they can stay here in the UK
as part of the City of London,
that they will be continuing
to provide their services
across the European Union,
but they will know,
given the sums of money involved,
given the importance of financial
stability, given the risk that,
actually, the UK bears as a result
of having the City here,
that it's important that we do
that on the basis
of recognised regulatory standards,
but we can't just accept rules
that are made elsewhere
without us having a say in them.
It's never happened before,
this kind of deal,
this is a new deal that you're
starting off from now
to try and negotiate for the first
time, so they're taking a risk
if they stay here, in their view.
Can I ask about an area
which is, perhaps, easier?
Can I ask where regulatory
divergence, doing things
differently, is going to benefit
Britain and benefit British jobs?
Where should we look?
Yes, well, we can look at a number
of areas of where we are aiming
to do things differently
in the past from the way
that they have been as a member...
One will do.
Well, I was just going to come
onto one - don't you worry, Andrew!
But I wanted also to say that this
is EU of regulations is important,
because there will be some areas,
actually, where it's important,
like the car manufacturing
we would talking about,
where being able to operate
on the same basis is important
for that business,
that supply chain,
and the links of the supply chain.
But if you look at, for example,
and we're going to come
out of the Common Fisheries Policy.
If you're going to look
at agriculture, I think there's
a lot we can be doing there.
We want to maintain
our high environmental
and animal welfare standards but,
you know, actually look to say,
as I put in my speech,
we want a fairer allocation of,
you know, waters to UK fishermen.
Agriculture is, I think,
0.7% of the British economy.
Even if we do things better,
it's not go to make a huge
difference to the whole country.
It will to farmers, obviously.
Let's turn to the big central area,
which is manufacturing and goods,
and in that, again and again,
in this speech, you have said
we are going to stay very closely
aligned to EU regulations,
EU standards going forward.
For how long would
we remain in line?
Well, decisions will be
for Parliament to take,
because people voted for the UK
to take back control
of its own laws, and so it
will be for Parliament.
But what I said in the speech is,
and I think this is why I described
the speech as being practically
based, what I said in the speech
is if you look at industrial goods,
if you look at manufacturing,
there are many links
that have been made
- the supply chains across the UK
and other countries in Europe -
and what's important is that,
if you're making a car, for example,
you want to know that
you're making it at a standard
that you can sell in the UK
and into the European Union.
So there will be areas
where maintaining those standards...
Now, we might do it sometimes
in a different way from the EU,
sometimes it might be exactly
the same, sometimes
we'll achieve the same outcome
but do it in a different way.
Isn't this the centre
of the problem, however,
that you've got, which is that
you want to stay aligned
in all these regulatory areas,
and you say we're not going to
have a race to the bottom,
we're going to do things
at least as well as we do them now,
and in the same way that you do
them, and presumably in the future,
if they change their laws,
them, and presumably in the future,
if they change their rules,
you will change our rules
accordingly in order
to keep that market access,
but you can't bind your successors?
No - crucially, Parliament will be
able to take decisions
about the rules that are set,
so in the circumstances, say,
in which the EU changed
a particular rule,
there'd be a decision
for us to take.
Did we accept it
in the future or not?
But if we didn't accept it,
there'd be an arbitration mechanism,
an independent arbitration
mechanism, so people would
look at it and say,
actually, you know what,
if the UK doesn't accept that,
does it make any difference
to the trading relationship?
And they might say no, it doesn't,
so there's no consequence.
They might say yes, it does,
and so there would be a consequence.
So you're saying
we might lose market access -
the more we diverge, the more market
access we might lose in the future.
There'd be a decision to be taken,
but the point is it would be
here in the UK that Parliament,
if you like, the UK people
through Parliament, would be
taking a decision and balancing
the interests there between
keeping the same rule
or changing for the future.
And, you know, as we look
at markets around the world,
what we want to do is to ensure
that, yes, we are able to
trade well with the European Union,
but we can also trade well
with countries around
the rest of the world.
If you look at markets elsewhere,
this is very important.
If you're somebody like James Dyson,
a very keen Brexiteer,
a great British entrepreneur
and inventor, he's had lots
and lots of trouble with EU
rules on the energy use
of vacuum cleaners.
He thought Brexit was going to let
him leap free of all of this -
off with the manacles!
But your vision seems to be
absolutely not that -
we will stay closely aligned
to those rules.
A lot of manufacturers,
a lot of pro-Brexit people
will be very disappointed.
No, there's a lot of areas
in manufacturing where people
are actively saying to us
that they want to maintain
the same standards.
But what we're doing by coming out
of the European Union
is giving us the choice.
So there will be some areas...
In any trade agreement,
when two countries or when the EU
with another country is sitting down
to say, "These are the terms
on which we will trade with each
other, sell products to each other,"
they agree certain rules that
they're going to operate on.
So there will be commitments
made, probably in areas
like fair competition -
we believe in fair competition,
we want to make sure competition
for our businesses in Europe
is going to be fair in the future.
But then we also look
at other issues, saying,
"Where does it make sense
for our businesses,
for European businesses,
for people and their jobs
to keep the same standards?"
"Where is it right for us to say,
actually, we'll have the same
outcome in standards,
but we might get at it
in a different way,
achieve it in a different way?"
"Where actually do we think,
no, we should diverge,
we should have a difference?"
This may be getting complicated
for people watching,
so let me try and sum up
where I think we are.
There are some areas
where we will lose access,
and we've talked about passporting.
There are other areas
where you think diverging
is going to be very good for
Britain, and you've cited fisheries
and farming, and there's other
areas where we will stay
quite closely aligned.
Manufacturing and cars
in particular, you mentioned.
So those, as it were,
three different areas.
That is why the EU talks
about cherry picking.
No, well, first of all, if I can
just sort of on the three areas,
actually, we would look
inside each of those areas
as to what is right for the future.
And on financial services,
we are looking to ensure
we get that good trade arrangement.
We're just doing it
in a different way.
This is what's important.
That's the ambition
I was setting out today.
But as regards to this reference
you've made to cherry picking...
You gave a very rigorous defence
of cherry picking in your speech,
you said yes to cherry picking,
lots of cherries,
cherries all over the place.
What I said was, if you look
at what Europe does today,
if you look at the European Union
today, it has different trade
agreements with different
countries around the world.
Each of those is different,
so if you're, say, looking
at what suits your particular
economies and putting that
into a trade agreement is cherry
picking, then they're cherry
picking in every trade
agreement they put forward.
But on this particular issue,
I mean they may be bluffing,
but at the moment they sound
You know all the Barnier
and Tusk and other quotes.
But forgetting them,
I mean John Major himself has said
the chances of getting this kind
of deal, the cherry picking kind
of deal, is somewhere
between zero and zilch.
This is an ambitious deal,
but what I've put forward
is credible because it's
based on practicality.
But it also recognises
what the European Union,
the 27 themselves said
at the beginning of this
process when they set guidelines,
because they talked
about an ambitious and wide-ranging
relationship for the future,
and that's what I believe
is in the interests of people.
People often talk about the UK and
the EU and what we are negotiating.
What lies underneath this
is people and their futures,
and that's what I was setting out
in my speech.
An ambitious, credible vision
that is also a vision
for Britain once we have left
the European Union,
because Brexit isn't
just an end in itself.
Actually, it's about the sort
of country we are going
to be in the future.
There's been a lot of controversy
about the border issue in Ireland.
During the referendum campaign,
you said, "If you pulled out
of the EU and came out of free
movement, then how could
you have a situation
where there was an open border
with a country that was in the EU
and had access to free movement?"
How does your speech
help solve that?
Well, it sets out some ways,
particularly on the issue
of customs across the border,
in which we can resolve that.
I'm pleased to say that
the Taoiseach, when I met him
recently, has agreed that the UK
and Irish governments
and the commission can sit down
and look in more detail
at the proposals
we have put forward.
What I also set out in my speech,
what we've been talking
about on regulatory standards,
is also another important element
of that issue of the movement
of trade across borders.
But you say very clearly in that
part of the speech that those
new regulatory standards -
which would remain at least as high
as the EU's - would constrain our
ability to lower regulatory
standards for industrial goods,
so you accept your model
for the Irish border
does tie the hands of industry
if they want to diverge from the EU?
I think we're talking about slightly
different elements to this.
Sorry about this, because it is
a complicated subject,
but there are various elements
of ensuring that we don't
have a hard border between
Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Part of it is the customs
arrangements, part of it is
the standards we abide by.
What I'm saying on the standards is
that it will be, we will be looking
to say where does it make sense,
in a practical sense,
because it's important for people
- for their jobs and prosperity,
for our country's prosperity -
where does it make sense for us
to say actually we will abide
by these standards?
But don't just...
Can I just add this point
because it's quite important?
We talk about EU standards,
but actually often what we are
talking about is not EU standards,
it's not European standards,
it's international standards.
Because many of these
things are developed
in an international market,
so we would be ensuring
we are actually meeting standards
that enable us to trade elsewhere.
And do you think that the borderline
between Islington and Camden
is a very useful comparison
of the Irish border?
I think the Irish border
is something which we
are all committed.
We're committed, the Irish
government, all of the parties
in Northern Ireland, to making sure
there is no hard border
for the future, and that's why I'm
pleased that with the commission
and the Irish government,
we will be able to sit down
and, in a very much more detailed
sense, say what the proposals
are that we put forward,
how would they work,
let's see which is the best
option for the future.
Boris Johnson thinks there might
have to be a hard border.
No, Boris is absolutely clear
that there won't be a hard border.
That's what he wrote
in his letter to you.
He's clear that there
won't be hard border
between Northern Ireland and
Ireland, and we are working to that.
We have got proposals as to how
we can achieve that.
Now we are going to be able to sit
down and talk with others
about how we do that.
That's part of my message in this
speech overall was that we have
set out our ideas for the future,
for this ambitious relationship.
Let's actually get on and start
the negotiations, start sitting down
and talking in detail about it.
We've covered quite a lot
of different areas already,
but let me ask about
another really important one,
which is about migration
and free movement of people.
In the speech, you said,
"UK citizens will still want to work
and study in EU countries,
just as EU citizens will want
to do the same here."
"We are open to discussing how
to facilitate these valuable links."
What does that mean?
It means that we will, when we come
out of the European Union, be able
to set our own immigration rules.
That was one of the reasons many
people voted to come out
of the European Union.
But what we are not going to be
doing is saying that nobody
from the EU is ever going to be able
to come to the UK.
So easy movement, perhaps?
No, that's a phrase that's been used
by the Labour Party, I think,
to try and fudge their approach
between free movement
and other sorts of immigration.
You're trying to fudge it too,
aren't you, from what you said?
No, the important thing
is we will set of rules
for who can come into the country.
That's what many people voted for.
That was an element for a lot
of people in the reason
why they voted for Brexit,
but what we are saying is that
actually we are going to want
to ensure that people from the UK
can still go abroad to the other 27
members of the EU and vice versa.
we will be negotiating.
We will be setting out
our immigration rules.
We will negotiate with the EU,
because obviously we want to look
at what happens to UK citizens
as well as what happens
to EU citizens.
You said, the hard fact is the EU
law and the decisions
of the European Court of Justice
will continue to affect us,
and you give lots
of different examples of that.
Lots of people thought that,
by leaving the EU,
we were going way away from the ECJ.
It's going to carry
on being involved deeply
in British life, is it not?
No, it's not.
The jurisdiction of
the European Court of Justice
in the United Kingdom will end.
That is an important part.
You're right, lots of people
were also very concerned
when they voted about this issue
of who makes our laws
and whose courts do people go to.
The jurisdiction of the European
Court of Justice in the UK will end,
but there will be some circumstances
in which the ECJ will
continue to have an effect.
Let me give you an example,
not from the UK but elsewhere.
The United States agreed...
I'd prefer one from the UK, really.
No, this is a practical example
of something that's happened,
Andrew, which I think helps to show
what I'm talking about.
The United States made
an agreement with the EU
about the exchange of data,
sharing of data.
The European Court of Justice said -
because they determine for the EU
whether that's lawful -
said it wasn't.
So it would be the same
for us in lots of ways.
It affected the overall agreement.
So that's not saying the ECJ can
reach into the United Kingdom,
it won't be able to,
but obviously it has a role
for people who will be living
in the remaining countries
in the European Union,
and for the governments
who are making those decisions
in those countries.
Whenever we finally leave,
we are going to see
things very, very differently.
Can you give people a picture of how
different life will be for
businesspeople once we have left?
Well, I think the important thing
for businesspeople once we have left
is that we will be ensuring
that they are able to operate not
just in a good relationship
with the European Union,
continuing to trade there,
but actually trading around the rest
of the world as well.
But crucially, of course,
it isn't just about Brexit.
The future for businesses in the UK
is about our industrial strategy,
the balanced approach we're
taking to our economy.
Ensuring our young people
have the technical skills
for the jobs of the future.
One of the problems we have had over
the last 12 months or so is that
Brexit has completely swamped
all other political debate.
You have got a big announcement
on housing, for instance, coming out
this weekend and a lot of people
look at that and say it's all right,
it's very interesting but it's
really fiddling at the edges.
It's not going to solve
the fundamental problem
we have in this country of not
nearly enough houses.
Well we do have a real
problem in this country,
we need to build more homes.
We need to ensure -
there are too many people in the UK
today, particularly young people,
who fear that they're never
going to be able to own a place
of their own.
What I'm doing on Monday
is setting out how we are
rewriting the rule book
in terms of planning
so that we are saying to councils,
you've got to take local
communities into account,
you've got to make sure
you have a proper plan
for your local area.
If you don't have it,
the Government will intervene.
We're ensuring that we won't see
so much money being spent
on expensive consultants by setting
the number of homes on a national
framework, national calculating
the number of homes needed
in each area.
Also, what we as a government are
going to do, is release more public
sector land for homes and make sure,
actually as we do so,
some of those homes
are affordable for key
people like nurses working
in our public services.
You are going to face
in the House of Commons quite
a serious challenge,
as you know, about
the customs union.
What happens if the House
of Commons vote down,
votes through that amendment
on the customs union?
If the House of Commons tries to tie
your hands, what would you do?
First of all obviously we will be
having a discussion with members
in the House of Commons
because what I have set out today,
in terms of the future customs
arrangement of the EU,
I think is what most people
actually want to see.
Because what I think is of concern
for a lot of people is making sure
we have that trade across the border
that is as frictionless as possible.
I've put forward proposals
in the customs arrangements that
I believe will actually...
They are determined
to vote you down.
Is this a motion of confidence,
as far as you're concerned?
If they vote you down, you couldn't
stay as Prime Minister, could you?
What we're doing in looking
at the customs issue, as we go
through these various bills
are going through Parliament,
is saying what's the right customs
arrangement for the UK to have
with the EU in future that ensures
we can have tariff-free
and as frictionless trade
as possible across the border?
We need to do that in any case
but of course we need
to do that for the border
Ireland and Ireland.
What I've set out today is a customs
arrangement that achieves that.
Now I want to get on with discussing
it with the European Commission.
Very final question.
Are there any circumstances
in which you walk away
from these negotiations?
I've said before that no deal
is better than a bad deal but I'm
confident we can get a good deal
and get the right deal
for the British people.
I'm confident about that
because the EU themselves have said
they want an ambitious
and wide-ranging relationship
with us in the future and I'm
confident that if we...
I set five tests, and if we look
at our future prosperity
and security in the UK
and in the other 27 countries,
actually the right deal for us
will be the right deal for them too,
and it will be the right
deal for our people.
Prime Minister, thank you very
much for talking to us.
Listening to that, the arch
Remainer and former
Labour Cabinet minister
Lord Mandelson, and the leading
Brexiteer, one-time Tory
leader, Iain Duncan Smith.
The week ago, Peter Mandelson, it
looked as if Theresa May was facing
a serious challenge in the Commons
on the customs union which might
have blown a hole through her entire
strategy. Has this speech removed
most of that threat?
it's raised a whole series of
questions about how she's going to
arrive at the destination she has
described and I think she has
described the destination better
than she's ever done before, but she
posits two leaps of faith about how
she's going to get there. The
European Union is going to accept
not only that we will cherry pick
sectors in goods trade but according
to her interview parts of sectors as
well. I think that's possible, but
the EU has already said it's not
going to accept that, and the second
leap of faith is that when it comes
to regulations we are going to look
for mutual recognition, not
alignment, but mutual recognition
which we are then going to be free
to diverged from further down the
course. I don't believe the EU will
As a past commissioner
yourself, when they say we will not
put up with bits, you don't think
they are bluffing?
They are basing
this on the legal basis of the
single market, the rules and
established trade policies of the
European Union and that's why what
Theresa May is doing is trying to
dance on the head of a pin that
simply doesn't exist.
It would be very
painful for the country as a result.
Iain Duncan Smith, what's gone on
with the Brexiteers after this
speech? She said we will lose access
to the single market, we will be
paying in, and there are areas the
European Court of Justice will still
be effective, and yet no criticism
from your side? Is that because you
want to get rid of hers so you can
diverged properly in due course?
too devious. Not at all. I saw the
speech before it was made and I
reached the conclusion it was a very
good balanced speech. She has
restated the key elements is that we
are leaving the single market
customs union, taking back borders
and money. Those are now locked in,
but the question is around those how
do you adjust your relationship with
the European Union and what she has
offered I think is common sense and
practical solutions to some of the
issues they have talked about. Of
course there will be an area in a
period of time that British industry
might want to stay, it takes us to
-- longer to get ready for things.
She's right, a lot of this is
international agreement anyway,
environmental for example is fourth
international stuff, so not a big
problem but the key area is
Parliament ultimately decides and UK
courts don't adjudicate.
right but we will not get "The exact
same benefits" in terms of market
access as we have now?
We won't, for
obvious reasons, because we are not
in the single market but does that
affect your ability to trade and
does it mean you will trade less
well or will you see your trade
increase? America isn't in the
single market but they trade with
the European Union -- their trade
has risen faster than the UK's. My
point is the answer to your question
is in all of these other countries
that are not in the single market.
They managed to raise their trade
and do trade deals outside. Up until
2015, the last year before we voted
to leave, the EU did $7.7 trillion
of trade, countries like Switzerland
and Singapore did weigh more. I
think Switzerland did nearly 40
trillion and Singapore did nearly 50
trillion more and that shows big
isn't always necessarily powerful.
The United States is apparently the
Government's chief target to do one
of these ambitious global trade
deals. President Trump has said
overnight free-trade deals are very
stupid, I don't think that bodes
well for the negotiation.
fair, that's true.
What Mr Trump
often tweets out after watching his
Fox programme isn't necessarily
always what happens.
Let me explain
how this works. You can only get a
free trade agreement, and they are
very hard to negotiate, if there is
a balance of benefits for both
sides. When it comes to the United
States, they have made it clear
their target is Britain's
agricultural market. They want their
chicken, their hormone injected
beef, which Michael Gove has already
said no to. We want in the US market
access of their public procurement.
No, we have
plenty of financial services and
what we can get extra we can eke out
from commercial diplomacy. What we
really want, hear me out, is access
to public document and this is a
resident who says America first. The
chances of our getting access to an
opened up public procurement sector
in America are near zero.
jumping out of the Common Market
into an unfriendly world at the
I come back to the point I
made. It's fascinating, of all of
the trade arrangements made by
smaller countries like Switzerland,
far more trade arrangements and
bigger value than the EU has managed
in the same period. Hang on a
second, of course...
Your comment is you
cannot do trade agreements unless
you are in a big block. Let me
finish this point. What I'm saying
here is these countries have done
far more wide reaching deals... And
only 68% of trade deals made by the
EU include financial services. In
all of those trade deals, nearly 90%
include financial services.
to officials in China and said what
about a trade deal, they said why do
we need a trade deal? Britain is
already open to us. What's more, if
you think you are going to land your
services into our market, no thank
And on that note, we are out of
time, gentlemen, thank you very much
Now a look at what's coming
up later this morning
on the Sunday Politics.
Here's Sarah Smith.
On the Sunday politics we will get
thoughts on Theresa May's big speech
from two leading Conservatives on
opposite sides of the Brexit divide,
the former leader Michael Howard and
backbench MP Nicky Morgan. Labour's
Shadow communities sector Andrew
Quinn will give Labour's reaction to
the big speech. Then Theresa May's
unofficial deputy David Lidington
will be here to talk about how the
Government intends to fix the
housing crisis. That is at 11
o'clock this morning.
Almost out of time for this week.
We're back at the same
time next Sunday.
Now, with all the Arctic weather
we've been having, it's very
appropriate to have some great live
music from Scandinavia this morning.
First Aid Kit hail from Sweden,
but their brand of folk music
is steeped in pure Americana.
From their new album,
Ruins, this is Fireworks.
# I could have sworn
# I saw fireworks
# From your house
# Last night
# As the lights flickered
# And they failed
# I had it all figured out
# Why do I do this to myself?
# Every time I know The way it ends
# Before it's even begun
# I am the only one
at the finish line
# I took a trip out
to the frozen lake
# And you felt
# So far away
# But I could feel it
washing over me
# There's no escaping
# The harsh light of day
# Why do I do this to myself?
# Every time I know
the way it ends
# Before it's even begun
# I am the only one
# At the finish line
# I could've sworn
# I saw fireworks
# From your house
# Last night