01/02/2017 Wednesday in Parliament

Hello and welcome to Wednesday in Parliament,

to the bill beginning the process of exiting the EU.

So the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Jeremy Corbyn demands the Prime Minister retracts the invitation

for Donald Trump to come to the UK and meet the Queen.

Just what more does the President Trump have to do

before the Prime Minister will listen to the 1.8 million people who

have already called for his state visit invitation to be withdrawn?

and says Labour has nothing to offer the UK.

And the Trade Secretary dismisses accusations that his department

Do you regret the title to your press release?

Because it wasn't really your Department that

I think the more good news we give to the public,

After two days of debate and passionate speeches on all sides,

the moment finally came for MPs to vote on the bill

allowing the Government to trigger our exit from the EU.

The ayes to the right, 498. The noes to the left, 114.

CHEERING The ayes to the right, 498. The noes

to the left, 114. So the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

That result was the culmination of a process started

when the Government's right to trigger Brexit

without Parliament's consent was challenged in the courts.

There had been nearly 12 hours of debate on Tuesday,

and a further six hours on Wednesday -

At the start of day two, a former Labour leader saw a danger

in the UK now looking to forge a closer relationship

with the President of the United States.

I can go along with the Prime Minister that Brexit means Brexit.

But I cannot: with the idea that Brexit means Trump. Nor do I believe

that that is inevitable, nor do I believe that is what the British

people want. But the danger is this. The Prime Minister feels it is an

inevitable consequence of leaving the EU that we are driven into the

arms of resident Trump. We will see sweep aside the political damage. We

will not accept the proposals from Scotland to follow the votes of

people and a nation of Scotland that retain our European connection.

We're not interested in preserving Scottish jobs. That is the criteria

and attitude of government. If that is what this Prime Minister wants to

do with Scotland, if she's determined to throw down the

gauntlet, then she can be absolutely sure that Nicola Sturgeon as First

Minister will pick it up. We will need to have a bridge that we seek

with the European Union. At the same time, the European Union needs from

us financial commitments that it believes we entered into to pay for

European projects that were undertaken while we were a member.

In practice what that means is that the negotiation will be a trade-off,

as all divorces are, between access and money.

The debate featured a maiden speech from the House's newest MP.

I'm not a lawyer, but I fail to understand how one can ask the

electorate a question and then even consider disregarding the result. I

believe that the referendum is not advice but an instruction to us. We

asked the people, and the people said out, so out we must go. When

all is said and done, the decision on whether the deal but Prime

Minister negotiates is good enough will be decided by someone. Someone

will make that decision. Should it be the Prime Minister? Should it be

those privileged to be here? Or should it be the British people who

have delivered that decision? I say it should be put to the people in a

referendum. That is why the Liberal Democrats are fighting for the

British people to have the final vote on the deal this government

negotiates. Democracy! Democracy means accepting the will of the

people. At the beginning of the process and at the end of the

process. I would caution those thinking of voting against the night

to be careful what they wish for and to be careful for wishing for a

second referendums. I think the people, advocates of free speech and

free press in a powerful democracy would view their wishes dimly. So

much of this has been about how we defend democracy by voting for

Article 50. It should not be about that, it is how we strengthen

democracy over the next two years. This is the moment we begin to take

back control of outlaws, how borders and our money. Once again, we become

a sovereign nation state in command of our own destiny, and I'm

absolutely delighted about that. I campaigned like others fall remain

but I accept the Democratic revolt and I think we should allow the

article 50 notice to be triggered. I do agree with those that said that

if we do not do that, a crisis in our democracy helps no one. A Labour

A Labour MP who resigned from her front bench position

explained why she couldn't vote for the Bill.

I feel I would be abandoning my duty to my constituents who have over one

in the and unwaveringly made their point that they do not want to leave

the European Union. 75% of my constituents voted to remain in the

European Union. The DUP's Westminster

leader rejected warnings of dire consequences

for Northern Ireland of Brexit. The fact is that when we remained in

sterling and the Irish Republic join the euro along with other European

partners states, this would cause all sorts of problems on the island

of Ireland, this would lead to destruction, economic and political.

None of that happened. People adapted.

Well, that second and final day of debate was wrapped up

with the Shadow Minister for Exiting the EU confirming Labour would back

the bill before the house triggering the start of Brexit.

But she issued a warning to the Prime Minister.

This must be a deal worth the of the consent of this House. If she and

her negotiators failed to achieve a deal worthy of our country, they

will not achieve our consent. The Prime Minister must deliver the deal

she claims that she can. This is a straightforward Bill. It delivers on

the promise made do the people of the United Kingdom to honour the

outcome of the referendum. We must trust the people. I commend this

Bill to the House. attempting to stop

the bill in its tracks, but that was rejected

by 336 votes to 100. Then it was onto the main vote,

which won by 498 to 114. The cover for majority means the legislation

will now go on to be debated in more detail in the Commons next week.

Theresa May had faced the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,

for the regular round of Prime Minister's Questions.

He pressed the Prime Minister over her recent visit to the US

Theresa May was the first overseas leader to meet Mr Trump last week.

before giving a joint news conference.

Just hours after Mrs May left Washington,

the President announced a ban on people from seven mainly Muslim

The Labour leader took Theresa May back to what she'd said

to the Commons just ahead of her visit.

The Prime Minister told the House, I'm not afraid to speak frankly to

the President of the United States. What happened? I'm happy to say to

the right honourable gentleman that when I visited the United States,

I'm pleased to say I was able to build on the relationship we have

without most important ally, and do get some very significant

commitments from President Trump. And crucial among those was a 100%

commitment to Nato. Nato, which gives us safe and keep Europe safe

as well. Downing Street has not denied that the prime Esther was

told by the White House that the executive order on travel to the US

was imminent. Let's be clear, was the Prime Minister told about the

ban during her visit, and did she tried to persuade President Trump

otherwise? If the is asking me whether I had advance notice of a

ban on refugees, the answer is no. If he is asking me if I had advance

notice that the executive order could affect British citizens, the

answer is no. If he is asking if I advanced notice of the travel

restrictions, the answer is that we all did because President Trump said

he was going to do this in his election campaign. The question is

how you respond. The job of government is not to chase the

headlines. The job of government is not to take to the streets in

protest. The job of government is to protect the interest of British

citizens, and that is what we are doing. President Trump has torn up

international agreements on refugees, she has threatened to dump

international agreements on climate change, he's praised the use of

torture, he has incited hatred against Muslims. He has directed

attacked women's rights. What more does the President Trump have to do

before the Prime Minister will listen to the 1.8 billion people who

have already called for his state visit invitation to be withdrawn?

The right honourable gentleman's foreign policy is to object to add

insult the democratically elected head of state of our most important

ally. Let's just see what he would have achieved in the last week.

Would he have been able to protect British citizens from the impact of

the executive order? No. Would he have been able to lay the

foundations of a trade deal? No. Would he have got a 100% commitment

to Nato? No. That is what Labour has to offer this country. Less

protection for British citizens, less prosperous molest safe. -- less

prosperous, less safe. He can lead a protest, I'm leading a country.

You're watching Wednesday in Parliament with me, Alicia McCarthy.

Up on the committee corridor, the International TradeSsecretary

told MPs that the UK is already having talks over potential trade

deals with countries including Australia,

Liam Fox told the Commons International Trade Committee

that the new trading relationships could not be a "substitute"

for the EU's single market, but hoped they would be in addition

to a free trade deal with the remaining member states.

A Labour MP questioned him about claims made by the department.

You wrote in the Telegraph on the 18th of January, embraced the Brave

new world of free trade, and you talked about... The headline was,

Liam Fox confirms Brexit talks with 12 countries across the world. Could

you list those 12 countries? I won't list them all because some of them

we are still in confidential discussions with. But I can say that

in terms of Australia, we have a trade working group. In terms of

China, we have a trade working group and I'm chairing the committee in

Beijing in April. With the collection of Gulf states, we are

working with them to determine what our relationship would be, given

that they are keen on our potential future FTA with India, we have a

working group. We have embarked on a process of trade on it. If you were

to add up all of those potential countries, the level at their

exports that you are talking about, all the lists you have that, it

doesn't come anywhere near the level of exports that we have today you.

Relative to our primary block, that set of relationship comes nowhere

close, does it? I'm sure the former chief secretary is aware that adding

a small mummers gets bigger in the end. Of course, it is not an either/

or. We are looking at either we trade with the EU IP body else. But

it is not a substitute, is it? Nobody has said it is a substitute.

Your Department released a press release at the beginning of the

dear, securing over 60 billion of foreign investment. The financial

Times went through the lists that you had here. In fact, most of those

had already been secured long before the referendum. Fake news?

It's the continuity of what UKTI is doing. And it was an antidote to the

idea that people are not going to be investing in the United Kingdom. We

will be chairing the UK Qatar investment conference in March. Do

you regret the title to your press release? I don't regret it at all.

Liam Fox. The former UK ambassador to the EU,

Sir Ivan Rogers, has told MPs that Brussels could issue a Brexit bill

of up to 60 billion euros. Sir Ivan made the headlines

in December after the BBC reported his private remarks

to the Prime Minister about how long

Brexit negotiations could take. Sir Ivan stepped down last month -

ten months earlier than expected. In his resignation letter,

he told officials to challenge "muddled

thinking" in the Brexit process. Now, in his first public appearance

since his resignation, he has told

the European Scrutiny Committee that Brexit negotiations

could be difficult. It is a negotiation on the scale

that we haven't experienced, probably ever but certainly since

the Second World War. I think there's always a danger in

generalising from specific experience in budget negotiations

I've had all tax negotiations or emissions. They all have a

specificity to them. This is going to be on a huge scale, we will have

enormous amounts of business running up various different channels. And

they involve difficult trade-offs for Her Majesty's governments and

difficult trade-offs for the other 27 on the other side of the table.

Sir Bill Cash asked him about an assertion in the letter

last October that exit negotiations could take ten years.

You said that it was going to take ten years. Can you confirm whether

in fact you actually said that? Or was that meant to be, was it a leak?

Was it an intention that you thought you would be able to get across a

message without anyone really knowing quite... Can you give us

some more information about that? I can indeed. I never said it would

take ten years. I think what I put in print, as I say, I have the

formula here somewhere but I'm not shy can lay my hands on it. What I

put in print was that Mike summary of the Beltway wisdom from the

people I talked to on a daily basis was that a negotiation on FTA and a

ratification process from all 28 parliaments would probably take

until the early born mid-2020s for ratification. I think those were my

exact words. Is this reporting by BBC based on off the record remarks

and observations that you made them? No. It isn't? No. Where do you think

it came from? I had no idea. I know the origin of it in terms of which

bit of text it comes from and I've just given you the more accurate

account of what that bit of text said and wrote that before the first

Council appearance. The route by which it got to the BBC by December

15 which was the day of the European Council issue when it exploded and I

was all over the screens on the 15th, why it took two months to get

there and buy what route it got where I couldn't possibly say. But

to be very clear, I never leak, I never have never would, never have

under any Government. The origin of this has nothing to do... We hear

threats and I can only issue they are threats that we will have to pay

billions of pounds to leave this club. You don't pay to leave a club.

You say thank you very much indeed and leave. So do you think this is a

genuine threat to us to have to pay billions of euros to a club that we

are leaving? Do you think that is a reasonable thing? I think it can be

both genuine and reasonable, if I may say so. I think it is genuine

and you have seen the coverage in various Bahrain newspapers so it is

being said by others in the commission that the total financial

liability as they see it might be in the order of 40- 60 billion euros on

exit. I think they do believe that. I don't know the origin of that

figure but I think I can guess it. I think they will mount up that

figure. He called it a predictably very hard

line coming from the EU commission A Foreign Office Minister has told

peers that President Assad cannot be trusted and is incapable of bringing

an end to Syria's bloody conflict. Last week the Foreign Secretary,

Boris Johnson, appeared to suggest to a Lords committee that the UK

might have to reconsider Answering questions in the Lords,

Lady Anelay was adamant Could we not have a new realistic

approach recognising that we cannot remove Assad? In the words of the

patriarch of the Orthodox Church here a few months ago, he should be

a candidate in any election, far be it from me to suggest that if he

wins he be invited on a second state visit... But my Lords, should we not

establish diplomatic representation in Damascus and be at the centre so

that when peace is eventually restored, we have played a

constructive part in restoring it? This is, my Lords, a country where

Assad has shown he is incapable of protecting his own people. But my

Lords, where I agree with my honourable friend is that we should

not dictate an outcome. What we are saying is that Assad has not proved

that he can bring peace to the country. Can the noble minister tell

us whether the Foreign Office are considering any increase or any

installation of diplomatic presence in Damascus? My Lords, certainly

not. What we found in the past is that Assad is an unreliable person

come in dealings we had with him. It would not be appropriate to show

that we trust him in anyway, because he isn't to be trusted.

the SNP's Westminster leader offered his congratulations.

The Prime Minister had a very successful international visit in

this last week. To Ireland! And there she spoke publicly about her

commitment. And it's very important, I think, this. Commitment not to

have a hard border on these islands, that there should continue to be

free movement of peoples on these islands and that trade should be

protected and enhanced. So given that people will be watching this

not just in Britain but in Ireland, would she take the opportunity now

to explain how she will deliver these sensible and important

outcomes? These are absolutely the outcomes that we want to see. I was

very pleased to meet and discuss the joint intent that both his

Government and mine have to ensure that we don't see a return to the

borders of the past in Northern Ireland. Just do say that of course

we focus on the land border that is between Northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland. Of course the issue of movements from Ireland

affects other places as well, it affects sports in Wales and of

course Stranraer. The Prime Minister has very helpfully explained that it

is perfectly possible for parts of these islands to be in the single

market, without hard borders, with free movement of people, and at the

same time protecting and trading with one another. This is very, very

welcome, Mr Speaker. So a commitment to work with the Irish Government

and to work with the Scottish Government to deliver all of these

things... He really should listen to the answers that are given because

he is trying to imply something that isn't there. Yes. We're very clear

that we want to see the frictionless border between Northern Ireland and

the Republic of Ireland. But I'm also clear that one of our

negotiation objectives is to see as frictionless a border as possible

between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. And of

course, if he is so worried about having a frictionless border between

Scotland and the European Union, he shouldn't want to take Scotland out

of the European Union with independence!

A Conservative stood up next and asked when MPs would see

the Government's policy document, or white paper, on Brexit.

EU nationals provide a vital and experts that this in my local

hospital in Basingstoke. And along with thousands of others, they face

an uncertain future. I know this is something the Prime Minister wants

to give priority to in sorting out. Will we be hearing more about it in

the forthcoming White Paper? I hope we will be working to ensure that

this is an issue we can deal with in the early stage. It was one of the

objectives I set out in the plan and it will be referenced in the White

Paper which will be published and I can inform my right honourable

friend and the house that that paper will be published tomorrow.

Theresa May announcing the publication

of the Government's Brexit policy paper.

but do join me at the same time tomorrow,

MPs will debate the harm caused by alcohol.

But for now from me, Alicia McCarthy, goodbye.