04/03/2018 The Andrew Marr Show

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

tumbling snow?

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,

Simon Coveney.

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.

Good morning.

Donald Trump is threatening

to impose additional taxes

on cars imported to America

from Europe.

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

front-page stories.

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

anonymously.

A big operation by

Number Ten.

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.

She was

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.

In a

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.

So

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?

There

is something in that.

-- divergences

Brexit.

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.

The speech

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

further back.

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

that, or

Ollie Robinson, the chief Sherpa,

had influenced her to roll back on

it.

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.

Old you

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

chicken...

Why are we so obsessed

about that?

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.

A strong

defence of American food!

And other

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

Conservative.

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

appointment.

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.

Yes.

There is a real

possibility of the anti-Brussels,

anti-immigration five Star Movement

beginning to move towards power.

It

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

doing it.

If the Five Star Movement

took power, which is possible, it

would be a much bigger blow to

Brussels than Brexit. Huge to

have...

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

president.

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.

What fun!

There has been a lot of discussion

about Cabinet ministers and their

favourite childhood books, I need to

ask what your favourite book is,

Ian.

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.

I

would recommend the works of Terry

Pratchett!

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.

Take

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.

Overnight

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?

I mean

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...

She did

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?

This

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

single market.

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

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

UK.

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

happen?

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.

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

financial services,

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.

Hear, hear!

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

quite horrified

that passporting

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,

fisheries,

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

absolutely steely,

absolutely unyielding.

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.

How?

That's what

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.

All right.

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

between Northern

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.

Thank you.

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?

No, because

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

accept that.

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.

Sounds very

painful indeed.

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?

Far

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.

Absolutely

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.

That's

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.

Financial services...

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.

We are

jumping out of the Common Market

into an unfriendly world at the

moment.

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...

Chile,

Switzerland...

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.

I spoke

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

you.

And on that note, we are out of

time, gentlemen, thank you very much

indeed.

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.

Goodbye.

# 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

# Ooh...#