:00:11. > :00:13.Hello, and welcome to an Ask This Brexit Special.
:00:14. > :00:16.Theresa May has finally fired the starting gun on the process
:00:17. > :00:20.We've been a member for more than 40 years,
:00:21. > :00:23.and although the Prime Minister famously said "Brexit means Brexit",
:00:24. > :00:26.and "no deal is better than a bad deal", we still don't really know
:00:27. > :00:28.what life outside the EU will look like.
:00:29. > :00:30.What will our trade relationship be with our closest neigbours?
:00:31. > :00:35.And what's the future for EU citizens living and working here?
:00:36. > :00:37.We'll try and answer some of your questions
:00:38. > :00:40.about Britain's exit from the EU. With me is our Economics
:00:41. > :00:45.Oliver Illott, Senior Researcher at the thinktank The Institute
:00:46. > :00:50.for Government, which works to make Whitehall more effective.
:00:51. > :00:54.And the UK immigration lawyer Natasha Chell,
:00:55. > :01:02.partner at Laura Devine Solicitors in London.
:01:03. > :01:09.It would be great if we could rehearse all of this, wouldn't it?!
:01:10. > :01:13.Let's make a start. We will try to look at all of the different aspects
:01:14. > :01:18.if we can. The first question, Oliver, we will start with you. What
:01:19. > :01:22.will happen if there is no deal at the end of two years? If we can't
:01:23. > :01:26.agree terms with the other 27 members? Well, if there is no deal
:01:27. > :01:31.at the end of two years, then we are out, that is the process we have
:01:32. > :01:38.started today. We have started the countdown timer. And if there is no
:01:39. > :01:42.deal by Marge 2019 -- March 2019, the way it is drafted in the EU
:01:43. > :01:46.treaties that our connection to Europe simply ceases to apply. That
:01:47. > :01:49.is problematic because the connections support things that we
:01:50. > :01:53.are used to doing here in the UK, and it is a scenario that both sides
:01:54. > :01:58.are trying to avoid. All sorts of work will go on to put legislation
:01:59. > :02:04.in place, assuming there is a deal, but working it -- a bit blind
:02:05. > :02:09.because you don't know what that deal is going to look like. There is
:02:10. > :02:12.a lot of work to be done to secure rights of European National is
:02:13. > :02:16.currently in the UK at the moment. That seems to be a priority for the
:02:17. > :02:21.government. Not just European nationals here but also for British
:02:22. > :02:27.to dozens in Europe. Oliver, for a lot of people, leaving the EU is the
:02:28. > :02:31.end of many, many years of campaigning, it is what some people
:02:32. > :02:35.have wanted for a very long time. But, once on the outside of the EU
:02:36. > :02:39.if we don't really like it very much everything, hold on, we would have
:02:40. > :02:43.been better thinking, will we be able to rejoin and what with that
:02:44. > :02:47.process by like? Technically, yes. The EU has a very well-established
:02:48. > :02:57.process for joining, they call that access. There is nothing in the
:02:58. > :02:59.rules around joining that prohibits you from so if you have already been
:03:00. > :03:02.a member. Technically we could rejoin. I think probably politically
:03:03. > :03:04.that would be a difficult sell. At the moment, the UK has a bespoke
:03:05. > :03:09.relationship with Europe and we pay a lot of less in as contributions,
:03:10. > :03:13.we aren't members of the Euro. If we were to rejoin there is a question
:03:14. > :03:16.mark about whether we would join on exactly the same terms. Politically
:03:17. > :03:22.it feels like we're a long way from that. Wouldn't we be in courage to
:03:23. > :03:25.join the euro, if it still exists? I think the lesson in Europe is the
:03:26. > :03:30.rule is laid down and there are other rules as they are interpreted.
:03:31. > :03:34.We are probably talking many years into the future and it is probably
:03:35. > :03:37.not fair to say at this stage exactly what an accession process
:03:38. > :03:41.for the UK would look like. We don't know what is going to happen in two
:03:42. > :03:48.years, never mind longer than that. Come, how is the rest of the EU
:03:49. > :03:53.going to be affected by Brexit, Donald Tusk said it is not a reason
:03:54. > :03:57.to rejoice. There is the political shock to this long-term project that
:03:58. > :04:01.was built in the ruins of the Second World War to end conflict in Europe
:04:02. > :04:07.and to support economic growth and, to a large extent, it has been
:04:08. > :04:11.successful in that. I think there has been an economic shock, there is
:04:12. > :04:16.a feeling of economic shock across Europe. Businesses are worried,
:04:17. > :04:21.Britain is the second largest economy in the European Union and
:04:22. > :04:26.was an important player in the European Union. We were quite reform
:04:27. > :04:30.minded, I think a lot of countries like Germany and Sweden and Poland
:04:31. > :04:34.liked the fact that Britain was in the European Union, a little bit
:04:35. > :04:37.sceptical of the European Union, not the same sort of gung ho,
:04:38. > :04:42.pro-federalist approach of France for example. I think that balance
:04:43. > :04:47.was quite important to the European Union. I think the fact is that the
:04:48. > :04:50.EU feels that it has been negatively affected by Britain saying it wants
:04:51. > :05:03.to leave. But what it has done on the contrary side to that is it has
:05:04. > :05:06.sort of giving the EU that notion of, we need to pull together now.
:05:07. > :05:09.And we will deal with Britain as the EU 27, the other 27 nations. And it
:05:10. > :05:11.has given them that sort of burning platform idea, this is a real
:05:12. > :05:15.existential threat to Europe therefore we must pull together.
:05:16. > :05:20.Most of the polling has suggested that since Britain now Stitt was
:05:21. > :05:24.leaving the European Union, actually pro-European sentiment has slightly
:05:25. > :05:28.gone up across Europe -- since Britain announced. Although there is
:05:29. > :05:33.the political and economic shock, to some parts of the EU this could be
:05:34. > :05:39.quite a good sort of Gelling factor against further moves towards
:05:40. > :05:44.division. How will the rest of the EU cope, then, with a 38% drop in
:05:45. > :05:47.its income when we stop contributing, as many of those who
:05:48. > :05:51.wanted to leave said that we would be spending all of this money which
:05:52. > :05:55.we could spend at home. And of course, usually come in new
:05:56. > :06:01.countries that come into the EU are net beneficiaries, aren't they?
:06:02. > :06:04.Britain is a net contributor to the European Union, and certainly the
:06:05. > :06:09.countries like Germany, the biggest contributor to the European Union's
:06:10. > :06:12.budget, that net contribution from Britain was very, very important and
:06:13. > :06:17.I'm sure will be one of the big negotiating areas over the next two
:06:18. > :06:21.years. What does Britain continue to pay into the European Union for
:06:22. > :06:27.access to the Single Market, for access to the customs union? And for
:06:28. > :06:34.access to some of the regulatory bodies that written might want to
:06:35. > :06:38.retain and maintain operation with -- that Britain might. That will be
:06:39. > :06:43.one of the big debates. The issue is that Britain is a net contributor,
:06:44. > :06:48.an important part of the European Union budget. And I think Germany in
:06:49. > :06:54.particular will be pushing to ensure that there is some kind of deal with
:06:55. > :06:57.Britain, but as part of that deal there is some form of contribution
:06:58. > :07:01.from Britain into the European Union, although if there isn't,
:07:02. > :07:10.frankly, Germany will be paying more. This probably is too Oliver
:07:11. > :07:14.and, This was said to us via text. -- and come all. We should start
:07:15. > :07:19.making trade deals with Commonwealth countries, if the EU don't like it,
:07:20. > :07:23.what are they going to do, expel us? We are going anyway? I think there
:07:24. > :07:27.are probably a few things holding the UK back. The first thing is, if
:07:28. > :07:29.you are about to launch into the process of doing lots of deals
:07:30. > :07:34.around the world, you want people to think you are the kind of person who
:07:35. > :07:40.sticks to the deals on contracts you have already signed. Breaching our
:07:41. > :07:42.arrangements with the EU by running around the world doing trade deals
:07:43. > :07:45.doesn't send the best signal to those people we are trying to do the
:07:46. > :07:49.deals with. It is also reflecting on the fact that many of these
:07:50. > :07:52.countries, you know, Brazil, China, India, these fast-growing economies,
:07:53. > :07:55.there is a reason why not many people have trade deals with them
:07:56. > :07:59.already and it is because it is very difficult to get trade deals with
:08:00. > :08:04.these people. You can think a lot of time and resources into that and not
:08:05. > :08:08.get very far. The UK has -- the EU has been negotiating with Brazil for
:08:09. > :08:11.over 20 years now. Talks have been going on with India over and over
:08:12. > :08:14.again and you don't get anywhere. Finally I think the latter
:08:15. > :08:21.consideration for the UK on this is, at the moment, it has access to over
:08:22. > :08:25.50 European free trade deals. It won't keep that access
:08:26. > :08:28.automatically, so where it is focusing its time and resources is
:08:29. > :08:35.in carrying over the deals that it does have and then it can turn its
:08:36. > :08:39.attention to the new deals. Theresa May made it very clear today that we
:08:40. > :08:43.aren't law-abiding country and the regulations and rules of being a
:08:44. > :08:47.member of the EU is that you can't -- we are a law abiding country. I
:08:48. > :08:51.agree about the complexity of doing those deals in any case. But I think
:08:52. > :08:55.it is absolutely right that if we were to try to go beyond what I'm
:08:56. > :08:58.sure to informal behind-the-scenes talks with many nations about the
:08:59. > :09:05.types of trading relationships we could have with them, to do anything
:09:06. > :09:10.formally add to launch that type of aggressive position at a time when
:09:11. > :09:14.we are, it sounds like to me today from the letter being quite
:09:15. > :09:18.consolatory, I think would be very negative message to the rest of
:09:19. > :09:21.Europe and the rest of Europe would react very robust least by Garissa
:09:22. > :09:27.another text message. A lot of things are anonymous, people seem to
:09:28. > :09:32.not want to tell us who we are! Everybody says the EU will slap a
:09:33. > :09:36.10% tariff on our goods going into Europe, so why don't we just slept
:09:37. > :09:40.10% going back the other way? And as we don't import more than we export,
:09:41. > :09:46.why does it cost them more than as? It is a bit tit-for-tat? Neither
:09:47. > :09:50.side want a tariff war, I don't think that would be seeing as being
:09:51. > :09:59.good for the economy of the UK or the economy of the rest of Europe.
:10:00. > :10:04.Although, yes, we do import more than we export as a proportion,
:10:05. > :10:08.Britain's weight in Europe is far lower than Europe's's weight in
:10:09. > :10:13.Britain. Although on the actual number, yes, that is correct. On the
:10:14. > :10:17.actual quantity, the proportion, Britain is less important to Europe
:10:18. > :10:21.than Europe is to Britain in terms of the imports and exports. I don't
:10:22. > :10:29.think either side of this debate over the next two years once this
:10:30. > :10:33.notion of a battle of a sense of conflict -- wants this notion.
:10:34. > :10:37.Whether it is over tariff barriers or nontariff barriers, rules and
:10:38. > :10:41.regulations. Both sides want to start on a good footing. If we were
:10:42. > :10:45.to approach it like this text question came in, I think that would
:10:46. > :10:49.soon disperse and that would be a real problem for both sides. Just to
:10:50. > :10:53.jump in, I think there is a technical point to be made about how
:10:54. > :10:57.parrots work in the world. There are rules that have been set out that we
:10:58. > :11:01.have all signed up to about how tariffs work precisely deliver this
:11:02. > :11:05.kind of trade war. The World Trade Organisation says that if you have a
:11:06. > :11:09.10% tariff on cars like the EU does come EU charged that 10% tariff on
:11:10. > :11:17.cars from all over the world - from India it is 10%, from Russia it is
:11:18. > :11:22., you treat everybody the same. If there is no deal between the UK and
:11:23. > :11:25.the EU, we're not going to find an EU slapping 100% tariff on cars
:11:26. > :11:29.because it is not allowed to. Equally if there is no deal, it
:11:30. > :11:32.could not put a tariff on us because it would be treating people the
:11:33. > :11:37.same. If there is no deal, the 10% tariff on cars is where the EU is
:11:38. > :11:43.false to go, it is not a question of starting a trade war. Liam Campbell,
:11:44. > :11:46.who was not afraid to tell us his name on Twitter, sent us a question
:11:47. > :11:50.- the Prime Minister said there will be no Scottish referendum until the
:11:51. > :11:56.Scots know what the Brexit deal will be. Why was that kind of thinking
:11:57. > :12:00.not applied to the EU referendum, in other words, we think we want to
:12:01. > :12:03.leave, but we will make our real decision when we know what the terms
:12:04. > :12:10.of the deal would be and then we can pull back from it if we don't like
:12:11. > :12:13.it? We are all -- not a country with a rule book with referendums.
:12:14. > :12:17.Different referendums are set out in different ways. If you want to know
:12:18. > :12:20.why we went into the referendum in the way that we did, you will have
:12:21. > :12:28.two as David Cameron and that MPs empowerment. We went into the EU
:12:29. > :12:32.referendum and voted without knowing what the new relationship would be.
:12:33. > :12:35.The parallel vote in Scotland is voting to leave the UK without
:12:36. > :12:40.knowing what your relationship with the UK is going to be. That I think
:12:41. > :12:44.is the parallel that we would draw. In this referendum, David Cameron
:12:45. > :12:47.did have a deal of sorts. Of course you remember him rushing around
:12:48. > :12:52.European Capitals saying, I'm going to get some kind of good deal to
:12:53. > :12:57.offer the British public. There was some notion of limits on benefits
:12:58. > :13:03.for EU migrants coming here. Something around red tape. It was
:13:04. > :13:07.relatively limited. Something around red tape! It was limited and not
:13:08. > :13:11.very convincing, frankly. There was a deal of sorts that was put to the
:13:12. > :13:16.British public before the referendum. It was a deal on what
:13:17. > :13:18.kind of Britain would remain in the European Union, rather than what
:13:19. > :13:23.kind of deal would we have if we said we were going to leave. Exactly
:13:24. > :13:26.as Oliver says, the fact is that Scotland wouldn't know the deal
:13:27. > :13:34.precisely would beat with the UK if it voted to leave the UK. Another
:13:35. > :13:37.question to do with Scotland. If the UK has to pay this exit bill of 60
:13:38. > :13:43.billion euros to the EU, if Scotland were then to leave the union, with
:13:44. > :13:49.the UK, would Westminster, the rest of what remains of the UK, be able
:13:50. > :13:53.to claim some of that money back from Scotland? If Scotland votes to
:13:54. > :13:56.leave the United Kingdom there would be exactly the same debate about
:13:57. > :14:02.what might be described as the divorce bill. There are huge
:14:03. > :14:07.liabilities, shared between the four, you know, constituent parts of
:14:08. > :14:12.the United Kingdom, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales,
:14:13. > :14:14.on things like the operation of government, pension liabilities,
:14:15. > :14:19.regulations. All of the same issues that were now all talking about in
:14:20. > :14:23.detail about the European Union and Britain's relationship with Europe
:14:24. > :14:27.would be exactly what would be similar to the ones that would be
:14:28. > :14:30.involved in any debate between Scotland and the rest of the United
:14:31. > :14:34.Kingdom if Scotland decides to leave. So there would be a debate
:14:35. > :14:41.about the divorce bill. I doubt the rest of the UK would try and claw
:14:42. > :14:48.back money that had already been paid to Scotland. But certainly the
:14:49. > :14:51.fact that the UK contributes support to Scotland under the Barnett
:14:52. > :14:55.formula would become part of the debate about Scotland's exit. That
:14:56. > :14:59.was another thing that those who said the union should stay together,
:15:00. > :15:04.Scotland couldn't afford to sit outside the UK. What would
:15:05. > :15:08.Scotland's economic position by? That is hugely disputed, it depends
:15:09. > :15:13.to an expense on the price of oil, that is a huge part of Scotland's
:15:14. > :15:18.economy and GDP. Scotland's deficit is substantially higher than the
:15:19. > :15:26.UK's overall deficit. Some people suggest that Scotland's economy is
:15:27. > :15:29.weaker in productivity and performance terms than the whole of
:15:30. > :15:31.the UK economy. But Scotland is a highly educated, small nation with
:15:32. > :15:33.resources. It has a pretty developed financial services sector based
:15:34. > :15:39.around Edinburgh and Aberdeen and Dundee. It has good industry, good
:15:40. > :15:42.manufacturing. It has oil. So there is nothing to say economically that
:15:43. > :15:46.Scotland couldn't exist as an independent country. But unwinding
:15:47. > :15:50.itself from the rest of the UK would clearly be a very compensated
:15:51. > :15:55.exercise. Let us move on, thank you for now, and look at some of the
:15:56. > :16:00.immigration issue that clearly bound up in these deals with Natasha
:16:01. > :16:05.Chell, an immigration lawyer. Quite a few questions of a similar sort
:16:06. > :16:09.coming to us in various forms, e-mail and text. What will happen to
:16:10. > :16:13.EU nationals living and working and studying in the UK? Will we need a
:16:14. > :16:17.visa to travel? Will people be kicked out? First of our like to
:16:18. > :16:23.just reassure European National that nothing has changed. They have the
:16:24. > :16:27.right to remain in the UK, exercised their treaty rights, which include
:16:28. > :16:32.working, studying here, and many other rights under EU law. And that
:16:33. > :16:38.will remain the same until we leave. Those rights, however, once we
:16:39. > :16:45.leave, they will no longer apply. Law in the UK. So those EU nationals
:16:46. > :16:49.will have to seek permission under the UK Immigration Act, like other
:16:50. > :16:57.currently non-EU nationals have to seek permission to remain here.
:16:58. > :17:00.Whether or not the Government may seek to carve out something more
:17:01. > :17:05.favourable within the immigration rules for EU nationals remains to be
:17:06. > :17:09.seen. And I think much of that shall depend on the negotiations with the
:17:10. > :17:16.other member states. Because, let's not forget, we have over 3 million
:17:17. > :17:19.European nationals in the UK, but we have nearly over 1 million British
:17:20. > :17:24.citizens who are living in Europe. So it is important for us to secure
:17:25. > :17:28.their position. So any reciprocal favourable agreement that we can
:17:29. > :17:32.reach, the Government would no doubt seek to get that. Will any of it
:17:33. > :17:36.depend on your marital status or for example the length of time you have
:17:37. > :17:42.been here? MSAs, my husband is Italian, he has lived here for 11
:17:43. > :17:46.years, what is his status, living and working here, paying taxes and
:17:47. > :17:55.owning property and married to a British woman? -- Emma says. They
:17:56. > :17:59.acquire permanent residency after five years. They don't need to apply
:18:00. > :18:04.to the Home Office, they did acquire it under EU law and Saudis of their
:18:05. > :18:11.family members. -- they do not need to acquire it. -- so do some of
:18:12. > :18:14.their family members. If they have acquired permanent residence one
:18:15. > :18:18.would hope they would have something similar, maybe in the form of
:18:19. > :18:21.indefinitely to remain under the current UK immigration rules apply
:18:22. > :18:28.to them and they may be in secure position. But how this is all going
:18:29. > :18:34.to work out to be seen. Having said that, by Government's very keen to
:18:35. > :18:37.provide some clarity as soon as is a reassure those European national is
:18:38. > :18:41.what is going to happen in the lead up to Brexit -- as soon as possible.
:18:42. > :18:46.Sheldon is asking a question going on the other direction. He says, I
:18:47. > :18:49.have a property in France and want to continue to stay there as and
:18:50. > :18:55.when and eventually to live there permanently. Will I be able to do
:18:56. > :18:59.this? Again, very similarly, for British citizens they will continue
:19:00. > :19:06.to have the freedom to live and reside in Europe until the UK leaves
:19:07. > :19:11.the EU. We would hope there would be some reciprocal agreements between
:19:12. > :19:14.the UK and the EU, and one would hope it will be favourable. Yes, it
:19:15. > :19:18.does remain to be seen. In that scenario they would need to comply
:19:19. > :19:23.with the domestic legislation in that country when we leave. Don't we
:19:24. > :19:27.have any other immigration regulations which are our own, which
:19:28. > :19:31.are not necessarily pertinent just to EU nationals that might be
:19:32. > :19:39.relevant after we leave to everybody? Yes, we do. Under the UK
:19:40. > :19:42.Immigration Act of 1971 we have immigration rules which enable
:19:43. > :19:47.migrants to come to the UK to work, to study, to set up businesses. And
:19:48. > :19:53.yes, of course, EU nationals after we leave the EU, you would think
:19:54. > :19:56.could therefore apply and be subject to those rules. Absolutely that
:19:57. > :20:01.could certainly be the case but it would be quite onerous for them.
:20:02. > :20:07.Because the UK economy relies so heavily on EU nationals, one would
:20:08. > :20:12.hope that there would be some carve out within immigration rules to
:20:13. > :20:17.provide a more favourable route for those nationals. Another anonymous
:20:18. > :20:21.e-mail... What happens, Oliver, if there is no qualified majority on
:20:22. > :20:30.the exit conditions in two time? Code those in the EU, -- in two
:20:31. > :20:36.years' time? Code they stop us going? The short answer is, no. We
:20:37. > :20:41.have triggered Article 50, and the way that Article 50 is drafted says
:20:42. > :20:44.you have got two years to get an agreement, and if you don't, you're
:20:45. > :20:48.just out. The treaties of the EU is in police is to apply to you. The
:20:49. > :20:54.only way of getting around that at the moment -- cease to apply to you.
:20:55. > :20:57.If the UK and the other 27 want to keep talks rolling, there is a
:20:58. > :21:01.question mark about whether the UK can reverse the process but we don't
:21:02. > :21:06.know the answer to that yet. There is no scope, I think, for the EU 27
:21:07. > :21:12.to hold us in the EU against our will. When all of this was being
:21:13. > :21:20.discussed before the vote happened last year, there were lots of voices
:21:21. > :21:24.saying, well, Article 50 is a very sort of vague thing, it's so short
:21:25. > :21:27.and nobody has tested it before. I mean, how clear is Article 50 about
:21:28. > :21:32.what it means and what you can and can't do with it? It is not as clear
:21:33. > :21:37.as some of us would like it to be at the moment. It is very short. The
:21:38. > :21:42.most contentious bit and the bit that the UK is probably focusing on
:21:43. > :21:46.most is that Article 50 really sets the terms for your divorce. It sets
:21:47. > :21:50.the terms under which the UK leaves. And then it says, paying regard to
:21:51. > :21:55.whatever your future relationship is going to be. So the focus of Article
:21:56. > :21:58.50 is really on the divorce. What the UK is more interested in talking
:21:59. > :22:03.about is what the new relationship is going to be, that is included in
:22:04. > :22:07.Article 50 but it is not the focus. The challenge for Theresa May, which
:22:08. > :22:10.she clearly has set her ambition on, is trying to get the future
:22:11. > :22:14.relationship into the divorce talks and have them at the same time. We
:22:15. > :22:18.talked about it being in line with the constitutional relationships of
:22:19. > :22:21.the country that wanted to leave. That is why we went through the
:22:22. > :22:26.Supreme Court about the role of Parliament. Is it clear, the role of
:22:27. > :22:29.parliament now? Most of the questions about Parliament's
:22:30. > :22:33.involvement have been settled. Parliament voted to give the
:22:34. > :22:36.Government the right to regard to go 50 and they will have a vote at the
:22:37. > :22:39.end of this process, although we have only got two years to negotiate
:22:40. > :22:46.the deal. If the deal is rushed to Parliament very late in this
:22:47. > :22:49.process, parliament might have a take it or leave it type option. The
:22:50. > :22:52.wild card in terms of how much involvement parliament is going to
:22:53. > :22:55.have is how at access they are going to have to do is talk as they go on.
:22:56. > :22:58.David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, has said he wants MPs to have the
:22:59. > :23:04.same love love access to the talks as members of the European
:23:05. > :23:07.Parliament. -- he wants MPs to have the same access to talks. If that is
:23:08. > :23:11.what is replicated in this situation, that has the wild card in
:23:12. > :23:17.terms of what role in bees might end up playing. The Tasha, what is going
:23:18. > :23:23.to happen, says an anonymous person via e-mail, to any cases that are
:23:24. > :23:27.going through the European Court of Justice, which looks after anything
:23:28. > :23:31.to do with EU law and regulation? For example, cases against the UK
:23:32. > :23:36.from to Dearing to EU rules? There are some cases which may arise after
:23:37. > :23:42.negotiations have been saddled. Those cases will need to be
:23:43. > :23:46.considered on the legislation which was applied at the time. With
:23:47. > :23:51.regards to the decision that has been challenged. If at that point
:23:52. > :23:54.that case is challenging an EU part of legislation then they will have
:23:55. > :24:00.two apply that in considering whether or not it is right or not.
:24:01. > :24:04.What will happen after we leave, then? If we have taken a lot of EU
:24:05. > :24:09.regulations in under the Great Repeal Bill, but we are not part of
:24:10. > :24:13.the EU any longer, should we have to be under the jurisdiction of the
:24:14. > :24:20.European Court of Justice or should we need another supranational body
:24:21. > :24:24.which will, which we will refer cases to that become difficult? The
:24:25. > :24:28.key question is, what the future relationship about in terms of
:24:29. > :24:32.regulation. We have copied across the EU regulations as they are at
:24:33. > :24:35.the moment, but that doesn't mean that if Brussels passes new
:24:36. > :24:39.regulations in the future they will end up in our statute book. That is
:24:40. > :24:42.the key question for the easy day. If it is going to be the case that
:24:43. > :24:48.new regulations made in Brussels are going to apply in the UK, then you
:24:49. > :24:51.can see a role for the ECJ, or another of these courts to have a
:24:52. > :24:55.role in interpreting these things. But if we are going to strike a
:24:56. > :24:59.trade deal whether UK is going to have more independence in terms of
:25:00. > :25:03.setting its own regulation then you might find something else, something
:25:04. > :25:07.slightly lighter touch, is established. Kamal, from a
:25:08. > :25:10.journalist does not point of view, how hopeful are you that we will
:25:11. > :25:15.find out what is going on in this negotiations? There has been a
:25:16. > :25:19.signal that there will be a bit more transparency than initially thought.
:25:20. > :25:22.Michel Barnier, who is going to lead the negotiations for the European
:25:23. > :25:26.Commission, has said that he wants to see a relatively transparent
:25:27. > :25:31.process. There could be some announcements from the EU about how
:25:32. > :25:35.they want to actually approach the trade deal. And I think in the
:25:36. > :25:39.letter today there was some signal about certainty, dealing with issues
:25:40. > :25:42.like immigration, dealing with issues about regulation of business
:25:43. > :25:48.relationships with the European Union, which means that there could
:25:49. > :25:52.be some issues of substance sorted and announced before the end of the
:25:53. > :25:55.process. I think the consolatory tone of the letter today does
:25:56. > :26:01.include some notion of greater transparency then maybe we thought.
:26:02. > :26:04.Thank you for all of you. Oliver Illott from the Institute for
:26:05. > :26:09.Government. Immigration lawyer Natasha Chell. And Kamal Ahmed,
:26:10. > :26:13.thank you very much. And thank you to you if you sent us some
:26:14. > :26:16.questions, anonymous or otherwise, to BBCAskThis.