Brexit - What Next? The Andrew Neil and Gordon Brewer Interviews Britain & the EU: The Brexit Interviews

So Prime Minister, the negotiations to leave the EU begin. It is a

historic moment. In what whiches will Britain be a better country for

leaving? You're right, this is a historic moment. We are putting into

place the decision that was taken in the referendum on 23rd June last

year to leave the EU and the formal process has begun. I have written to

as they say invoke this Article 50 that people will have heard about,

which starts the process of formal negotiations. As we look ahead to

the outcome of those negotiations, I believe that we should be optimistic

as a country about what we can achieve. I think when people voted

last June, what they voted for was for us to be in control, in control

of our borders, in control of our laws. But I think people also voted

for change and that is why alongside the work we are doing on Brexit I'm

clear the government has plan for Britain to build a stronger economy,

where everyone plays by the same rules, fairer society, and to ensure

we are a more united nation. And somewhere that children and

grandchildren can be proud to call home. We couldn't have been better

in all these ways and remained in the EU? The people decided they

wanted to come out and I think when they gave that clear message to us

as politicians, I think what they wanted to see was the United Kingdom

making its own decisions and not feeling that decisions were being

maken in Brussels. In the letter I have sent today, I make the point

that we have not rejected Europe or values of democracy or European

values. What we are saying is it is about our self-dechl nation and us

having control. You have mentioned control several times, so let me

start with immigration, I do that, because for many people, the scale

of immigration over the past ten years was a major reason why they

voted to leave. So can the people who voted that way, can they be

reassured that immigration will be significantly lore after Brexit? --

lower after Brexit. Yes immigration was an issue that key in people's

minds. What they wanted to know was that it was the UK Government was

taking control of our borders and decisions would be made here. We

want to see migration, net migration coming down, we have been able to

put rules into place in relation to people coming from jute side the EU

and now when we leave we will be able to put rules in place decided

here about the basis on which people can come from inside the EU. But

will immigration be significantly lower after Brexit? I think what we

will see, we will see a difference in the number of people coming in,

but I was Home Secretary for six years and when you look at

immigration, you constantly have to look at this issue, because there

are so many different things that can happen in the world that affect

the numbers of people trying to come here. What we will be able to do as

a result of leaving the EU is to have control of our borders, to set

those rules for people coming from outside, from inside the EU into the

UK. We haven't been able to do that. So we will set the rules for that as

we have set the rules for others. What will the rules be for EU

citizens coming Hooker? We are looking -- Coming to the UK. We will

be bringing forward a bill that will set out our proposals. There is a

couple of issues around people in the EU, there are a few people from

couple of issues around people in the EU living here in the UK

already. Some will have been here for a considerable period of time,

others will have come more recently. One thing I want to do is give them

reassurance about their future, but I only want to do that when I know

those UK citizens who have moved to the EU will have that reassurance.

What I'm talking about is the future for people coming from temperature

U. Would you envisage as part of Brexit deal that would still be some

sort of preference for EU citizens who want to come and work here? What

I'm clear about is that there will still be opportunities for people to

come to the UK from the EU, but we will bring forward proposals on what

rules should be and those will go through our Parliament and be looked

at by members of Parliament and we will decide what the rules should

be. We want to make sure of course that our economy is still strong, we

see many people here working in our economy and in our public sector, we

want to make sure that we still have that strong economy. But people want

us to be in control and that is the important thing and that is what we

will be doing. The Conservatives promised to cut net migration seven

years ago. None EU migration, people coming from beyond the EU is over

100,000 a year. You must understand why people are skeltdical --

sceptical. If you look at what happened to those net migration

figures over the last seven years, they have gone up and come down.

They're still high. They're higher than we wants them to be. Almost

three times higher. You're right, but that is why what I have said is

so important, in immigration you can't set one set of rules and think

that is the answer and you go away and forget about it. You have

constantly to be looking at this, constantly working at it and saying,

have we got the rules right. You can' reduce it without cuts in EU

and non-EU migration. We need to look across the board. But we need

to make sure that people here in the UK have the skills they need to take

the jobs here so, businesses don't feel they have to reach out overseas

to bring people in. One final thing on immigration, the British economy

has done better than most forecasters said at the time of

referendum and it continues to do well, what happens if we continue to

do well and you need more than 100,000 migrants a year. Would you

let them in? One thing is crucial as we look to the future, is for us to

make sure that people here in the UK are getting the training, the

education the skills they need to be able to take on the jobs for that

growing economy in the future. That is why as a Government we are

putting more money into technical education, ensuring that young

people have the opportunity to get education, ensuring that young

the skills they need. I want to see a high paid, high skilled economy,

but we need to ensure that young people are going to be able to take

the jobs tomorrow. The EU's talked of a one-off multibillion pound exit

fee. Some suggested it should be ?50 billion or more. You'd contemplate a

sum like that? One people voted -- when people voted, one thing they

voted for was to ensure in the future, outside the. EU we are not

paying significant sums into the EU. Of course, we have to look at the

rights and obligations we have as a member of the EU while we continue

to be a member. We will continue paying according to the obligations.

Will we pay an exit fee of 50 paying according to the obligations.

billion? As we look at the negotiations, we have to decide what

the obligationses are. But what I'm clear about is that what people want

to see is that in the future we will be making decisions about our

budgets and deciding not to pay those sums every year into the EU. I

understand that and we may decide to continue with some programmes, but

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about an exit fee the EU is

talking about, is demanding almost and it is around 50 billion. I ask

again, is that in the ballpark you could contemplate? You talk about an

sxit fee. There has been speculation, there is not a formal

demand, the negotiations haven't started, I'm clear about what the

people here expect. . I'm also clear we will meet obligations that we

have. And as a member, until the point at which we leave, of course

we will be continuing to pay according to the rights and

obligations of that membership. People will wonder, we are leaving,

why should we pay anything at all to leave? We are not talking about

paying to leave. We will be leaving the European Union, but we are talk

ing about when we leave, we won't be required to make significant

payments every year in into the EU's budgets. There might be be some

programmes we want to be members of that we wish to pay in order to be

members of, because it will be in the national interest do that. That

is what will drive us. The EU talks about a divorce bill, Mr Barnier, we

will pay a divorce bill? There has been speculation. He is the

negotiator. We are not in the negotiations yet. We are not, we

will start the negotiations soon, we have done the first step, that is

triggering Article 50 and as I have said the UK's a law abiding nation

and will look at the obligations we have. You have mentioned the

importance of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. Do you

believe you can resolve and announce this quickly? One of the things I

have put in the letter to president Tusk is that I want to get an early

agreement about this. And sometimes people say to me, as you have, that

EU citizens are concerned. But as UK Prime Minister, I need to think

about UK citizens living abroad as well. I mentioned them, can both be

reassured quickly? I want a reciprocal agreement. I have said

that I think that this should be done at an early stage. I believe

from the talks I have had, that there is a good will there and there

are those who recognise the importance of giving people

reassurance and I think we will be able to address this. By Arley could

bit -- early could bit the summer? I don't want to put a date on it, but

I want it to be as early as possible, because people are

worried. You believe that Brexit means we can no longer be members of

single market? Why? Because the other leaders in Europe have made

clear that what they call, they use this term, the four freedoms, and

they go together. What are they? It's the importance of free movement

and of course we have said we want to control movement from the EU.

That entails accepting the jurisdiction of European court of

justice. These are things that people voted to reject when they

voted to leave the European Union. I have accepted we can't have that

membership. Because that would mean accepting things the voters said

they don't want. What we can do I believe is to get a good trade

agreement with the European Union in terms of access for our businesses

too their sing -- to their single market. Do you accept no matter mow

good a free trade deal you get, no matter how good, it can't be as good

as the unrestricted access we currently enjoy?

I believe... What we will be working for and what I believe we can get is

a comprehensive free trade agreement. We would like to see

frictionless free trade is possible, Terra free across borders, to

continue that trade with the EU. It cannot be as good? It will be

different because it will not be based on membership of the single

market and accepting all the other thing is that voters rejected. It

will be saying that we want that new partnership with the EU, we still

want to work and cooperate with you, and getting a trade agreement is not

just about the UK, it is not just about our businesses but businesses

in other countries being able to about our businesses but businesses

trade with us. I think it is in the interest of both sides to agree a

really good deal. Your Brexit Minister David Davies said there

will be a free trade deal which will, quote, deliver the exact same

benefits we enjoy now. You and I know that cannot be true. The

European Union will never agree to the exact same benefits. What we are

both looking for is the comprehensive free trade agreement

which gives the ability to trade freely into the European single

market and for them to trade with us. It will be a different

relationship but I think it can have the same benefits in terms of free

access to trade. When we leave the EU we and our membership of around

40, I think, pan-European agencies, things to do with security, add

travel, health care. One is very timely given the events in

Westminster last week, will our membership of Europol, the police

Europe-wide service, continue post-Brexit? That is one thing we

will have to negotiators part of the negotiations. Do you want to remain

a member? I think security cooperation in a number of crime and

justice matters is important, not cooperation in a number of crime and

just Europol but systems about exchanging information, people

crossing borders, for example, which I think of valuable to us and the

other countries. Would you like to remain a member of Europol? I would

like to maintain the degree of cooperation on these matters that we

have currently. I have argued before for exactly this a couple of years

ago when we were looking at exactly these justice and home affairs

matters, I think it is important for us and I want is to continue that

degree of copper -- cooperation, but it will be part of a package of

negotiations because when we leave the European Union, unless we have

negotiated to still be members of those organisations and

arrangements, membership will lapse. And if it does, will be seized to

share information with Europol? We will not be able to access it in the

same way as we would as a member, so I think it is important to negotiate

a membership enabling us to work together as we have. As I said, and

this has very much been brought home to us in London last week, at the

moment now was not the time, given the threats we face across Europe,

to see less cooperation. We want to see that and build on it.

Will UK citizens still be eligible for free access to health care

across the EU, through the European health insurance card? That will

also be a matter which will be part of the negotiations. Will it be your

aim to secure that? There are two macro issues, people currently

resident in European Union member states and the rights that they have

and, of course, the rights people would have as they move across

Europe. We want the best possible deal for citizens in the United

Kingdom, the best possible deal for everybody, no matter what part of

the UK they live in, but we have a raft of negotiations to go through,

a raft of issues we will be looking at in relation to these matters, and

we need the flexibility of being able to deal with those issues. The

relationship will be different in the future, it is not necessarily

saying, will we replicate this or that, we will have a different

relationship. You talk about a raft of things to

be decided and the different relationship, you need to negotiate

our divorce terms, highly controversial. You want a new

freight retail for goods and services which is complicated, new

health arrangements, you need to repatriate 50 trade agreements and

have it all ratified by 27 other countries as well as ours. All in

under two years. That is just not possible, Prime Minister? It is

challenging, but I think it is possible, and the reason is this.

There are two reasons, firstly because with goodwill on both

sides... I think both sides recognise it is in our interests to

make sure that we get these arrangements in place so that when

we leave we have that trade arrangements, we know what it will

be. There may be a period of implementation after the point of

withdrawal, but we know what that arrangement is. Everybody is certain

about whether future lies. It is in both sides' interests. The other

reason I it is possible is because we are not a third country in the

sense of a country that has never been part of the EU suddenly

knocking at the door and saying we want these things, we have been part

of the EUG is operating on the same basis with them, which I think that

says in a different position for the future and makes it easier to

negotiate arrangements than if we were coming at it completely fresh.

Do you rule out a transitional period where some things, even after

we leave, remain to be resolved? By the end of the two years I want

everyone to know the withdrawal agreement and the future

relationship. What I have called today a deep and special partnership

with the EU, because we are still part of Europe and want to work with

and cooperate with them. I think it is possible to work with them after

the two years but there might have to be a period of implementation

thereafter as people, businesses and governments are just to the new

arrangements. If there is a transitional, or as you call it,

implementation, period, will that transitional, or as you call it,

involve the movement of people and being individualistic share of the

European Court, or do these things both had two ends in two years? We

want to make sure that we are ending the jurisdiction of the European

Court of Justice and I able to control the movement of people from

the European Union. We want to have the agreements done in two years.

There might be a period from which we are implementing those

arrangements, a very simple example, if there are different these are

arrangements to be put in place, the Government here and governments

elsewhere will need systems working, we need to implement the decisions

taken. You said in the event of no deal we might have to change

Britain's economic model, what does that mean? On the no deal, first of

all, I think it would be better than a bad deal. We don't want to see a

bad deal. I say that because I think some people in Europe talk about

punishing the UK and I don't want to sign up to an agreement based on

that. Then there are others here who perhaps feel that we should be so

keen to get an agreement that we might sign up to things that the

British people rejected when they voted to leave the European Union.

What is the different economic model mean, that was the question? In the

letter today, I have said if we don't get a deal we would go on to

what are called World Trade Organisation arrangements for

trading, in those circumstances, I have made clear that is not what we

should want, it is not in either of our... I will come to the point of

economic model but it is not in the interest of either side to have

those arrangements. It is not just interest of either side to have

about us, it is about the EU as well. Whatever comes out, we want to

ensure we continue to have a competitive economy, that is what we

would be looking at. What is a different economic model mean? I ask

for a third time. We would take decisions at the time as to what we

felt was necessary to keep our economy competitive, keep jobs in

the UK, put in place arrangements for business to keep those jobs. I

is. Labour says it is a tax haven. is. Labour says it is a tax haven.

-- I am not show what a new economic model is. It is about making sure

that jobs stay here in the UK and new jobs are created here in the UK.

It is making sure we have the economy that enables people to have

high-paid, high skilled jobs and that we ensure that young people

here have those skills for the future.

One rather important question, if we don't get a deal, will that

jeopardise our existing cooperation against crime and terrorism with our

European partners? If there is no deal, will that we can it? If I can

separate those two out, on some of the cooperation we have with them on

terrorism, that takes outside the structures of the European Union. --

that takes place outside. It is we don't get a deal on the sort of

security and criminal justice Bill is I talked about earlier, the

exchange of information at our borders, that is one of the reasons

that we should aim not to be in the position of getting no deal but of

getting a good deal, because I think what oration is important. We are

leaving the customs union, Ireland is not. Do you accept that means

checks on the Irish border? We very clear, I and the Government in the

Republic, the Taoiseach macro, we don't want to return to the borders

of the past and we are working closely with the Irish Government

about arrangements put in place to ensure frictionless border, in a

practical sense, for goods and services and people travelling

between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Leave campaign promise

to Brexit dividend of ?350 million a week, much of which they said could

be spent on the NHS. Should the Lions show go to the NHS, and how

big will the Brexit dividend be? People voted for the UK to be able

to vote how it spends its budget, to not spend significant sums every

year paying into the European Union and Brussels, so when we leave we

will have control of that many macro and decide how to spend it. How big

will the Brexit Debbie Denby? -- Brexit dividend be? Will it be

anything like ?350 million a week. As part of negotiations we will make

sure we do not spend those significant sums in the future, we

can see the size of the dividends and determined how the money is

spent. Shouldn't go to the NHS? That was on the size of -- side of the

bus during the referendum. During the referendum points were made,

often very passionately, on both sides of the argument. We are now

beyond the referendum and at the point where we are putting this into

practice, where we are starting what will be complex, challenging but I

think achievable negotiations, and I am optimistic about what I think we

can achieve in future. People voted for us to have control, that is what

we will have. You have rejected the demands of the

Scottish First Minister for a second independence referendum, saying now

is not the time. When you have done the Brexit deal and we know the

nature of Brexit, would you still rule out a second Scottish

referendum? The comments I am getting from the Scottish Government

and the SNP in Parliament at the moment that they want confirmation

now that they will have a second independence referendum. What I am

saying is I think now is not the time for a second independence

saying is I think now is not the referendum or to be focusing on

that. The life I accept that, but what about when the Brexit deal is

done? -- I accept that, but what about when the Brexit deal is done?

People would argue that they should have a second decision because they

agree to stay within the EU. If I can explain why I have said I think

now is not the time, it is relevant to the wider question, I think now

is not the time to focus on the second independence referendum or to

be looking at it for two reasons, now is the time when we need to pull

together as the United Kingdom, be talking about how to work together

to get the best possible deal for everybody about the whole United

Kingdom. Focusing on an independence referendum is not about doing that.

That is why it is so important for us to ensure that we focus on the

future. But do you rule it out in us to ensure that we focus on the

principle? Also I think it is important that we recognise... I

think, Andrew, the question is not whether there could be a second

independence referendum, it is whether there should be. In 2014

they voted to stay part of the UK, the SNP described it as a once in a

generation or once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to vote for

independence. The people gave their decision. Just as we are respecting

the referendum on EU membership that took place last year, we should

respect the 2014 independence referendum.

Jeering the referendum you said I think it is clearly in our national

interest to remain in the EU, now you say that Brexit will give a

better Britain. Who is the real Theresa May, the Lever or the

Remainer? I campaigned to remain and I voted to remain that I said I did

not think the sky would fall in if we left the EU, and it has not. It

is the mother of all U-turns. I have been put in a position as Prime

Minister, I believe, to respect the wishes of the people of the UK in

that referendum. I believe it is my job to deliver the best possible

future for the UK. It is not just about Brexit, it is my plan for

Britain, it is about a more outward looking Britain, a stronger economy,

fairer society and more United Nations, it is taking back forward,

which is about building a brighter future for everybody in the UK.

Touch and a more united nation. When you do the deal, why would you not

take it to the country in a second referendum or go to the country in a

general election and get the people to vote for the deal that you do?

When we have the deal there will be a vote in the UK Parliament, there

will be votes in parliament across Europe because there will need to be

a ratification process. I believe that is the right way to do it, to

say to the UK Parliament that this is your opportunity to vote for this

deal. You will not take it to the country? I am confident we will be

good for the British people. They have basically said to us, get on

with it. We want to leave the EU, get on with it, that is what we're

going to do. Prime Minister, thank you.

You. Prime Minister Theresa May speaking to Andrew Neil in Downing

Street, we can hear from the Brexit Minister from the Scottish

Government, in our Edinburgh studio. You heard Theresa May now is not the

time to talk about a second independence referendum, David

Mundell said it shouldn't be talked about, not just until we know the

details of Brexit, but after an implementation period. What is your

reaction to that? Well we seem to have moved in two different

directions. Theresa May didn't answer the question about when would

be the time. In fact she didn't answer anything in the last half

hour as far as I could see. We have heard the time scale and it confirm

what is we have been saying for weeks that the decisions will be

made and something will be available to be voted on within the two year

period. She was clear about that. She indicated what we have known

that not just the UK Parliament or the EU Parliament, but Parliaments

across Europe will vote. What she has said is everybody else can have

a choice and a vote, but the Scottish Parliament can't. That is

democratically unacceptable and it will have to be resolved by

negotiation, no matter what the Secretary of State thinks. David

Davies has written to you, responding to your paper, Scotland

in Europe, what is he saying. It is a long reference with a short

reference to Scotland. I spoke to him on phone. He rang me to have a

conversation about a range of issues out of today and tomorrow and the

tomorrow the Great reform Bill paper is published and that will be a

technical and difficult process. The UK Government have said they don't

believe that Scotland can be a member of the EU and EFDA. But they

don't match the work we have put in. The regrettable position that we are

in is that the Prime Minister's calling for unity, but the UK

Government have done nothing to foster a unity of purpose in the

last seven months. To be clear, you said in that paper that you accepted

that this idea of Scotland staying part of single market, via FDA

depended on the British Government taking that case up. David Davies

has said they're not going to do that? No that is clear from the

Article 50 letter. The opportunity was to put Article 50 letter into a

play with a reference to a difference yapted deal --

differentiated deal. Your prefer to stay in the UK and have this deal

with FDA. That is off the table? Unless there is a change of heart by

the UK Government. The Prime Minister has sought confrontation

and not compromise. We have sought compromise and the Prime Minister

has created constitutional chaos in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and

this afternoon we saw an extraordinary statement from the

First Minister in Wales, which lambasted the UK Government. In a

short nine months thepm has created a disaster right across the area.

That should be something worth thinking about, considering she is

meant to be in charge of the most difficult set of negotiations the UK

has faced. There is a huge problem ahead. She said both in Parliament

and in her writer to Donald Tusk, there could be a significant

increase in powers for the devolved administrations in the UK,

presumably at least with that, you are delighted? Well, if she said

that unekwif cabby. But it said that the UK Government has an expectation

that there would be a significant increase in powers. There is two

problems. An expectedation effectation is not -- expectation is

not tradeable on and when the white paper is published. We look to see

if the frameworks will the transferred back to Scotland or kept

at Westminster. Things like agriculture, fisheries, whole areas

of justice. If it means that the UK Government is holding on to them and

what is what the letter seems to look like. That will be a diminution

of powers, no matter what thepm said. That why the Welsh and the

Welsh First Minister are concerned. I spoke to the Welsh minister in

Wales, and we are both worried about that. On this letter that you have

received from David Davies and the phone call from him, you say that

because of what they have said, you original idea in Scotland and Europe

paper is off the table. Did he make any alternative suggestions for a

special deal for Scotland? No, you have heard the Prime Minister and he

said, we entered as one UK and we will leave. That shows a lack of

understanding of what devolution has done in the last 43 years. But it

doesn't actually tell you what the current constitutional position is.

There is a range of powers in different places. It seep -- seems a

simplistic view will be damaging to the UK. Because it doesn't

understand how things work. Just as she doesn't seem to understand the

importance of migration for example to key industries in Scotland. 90%

of our population increase in the next ten years will come from EU

migration. If that is choked off, there will be whole areas of our

national life where we won't have people to work. That will be

disastrous. Both the Prime Minister and the Scottish Secretary have made

clear there will be no section 30 and the Scottish Secretary have made

order at the moment. That they will not be entering into talks with the

Scottish Government about the timing of a second independence referendum,

David Mundell seemed to be suggesting it could be some

considerable number of years in the future. I know you don't like that,

but realistically, what can the Scottish Government do about it?

Well, step by step, we will ensure that that is not the final word. We

start by saying, they're creating an additional crisis to add to the

crisis that exist. There has never been a moment in devolution where

the UK Government has refused to have a Conference with a devolved

administration. That is a new low. Whatever happens, there will have to

be next. What the First Minister has said is we will inform the UK

Government of the vote and the two parties voting together and if there

is no movement on that, the First Minister will come back to

Parliament and outline the options we have. What options do you have?

The first option is to say that that's democratically unacceptable.

But there are option and they will be used, because the Scottish

Parliament has spoken. If the Prime Minister is a democrat, she has to

accept that. You say there are options and many people in Scotland

are concerned about this, they're worried about going into a period of

great uncertainty, Nicola Sturgeon herself talked about this in the

last few days, to put people's minds at rest, can you confirm right now

that you will not hold a referendum without a section 30 order? Its not

our intention to do anything that is contrary to the law or the

constitution. That is not our intention. Our intention is to have

proper negotiation. Of course people are concerned and the right way to

move forward and the uncertainty has come from the decision to try and

solve an internal Tory problem by having a referendum. We need to

contain that uncertainty and we do it making sure the time table is as

short as people. That time table should contain the referendum and

the Brexit vote. No referendum without a section 30 order, what

about legal position, I mean, is one of things you're considering that

you could go to court and say that by simply ignoring the vote taken

yesterday in the Scottish Parliament, that the British

Government is acting outside the law? I don't want to escalate this

beyond the discussion we need to have and the conversation and

negotiatedion we need -- negotiatedion -- negotiation we need

to have. Does your Government believe that there is any case for a

legal challenge here? The Scottish Government believes there are steps

that can and should be taken. We are not going to escalate it by

speculation, not even with you. We are going to take it calmly a step

at a time to make clear a democratic decision of a Parliament based on a

manifesto commitment is binding. That's axe owe Mattick. That is the

democratic fact. If the Prime Minister is trying to go into

negotiations in Europe... If the Prime Minister is trying to go into

negotiations in Europe and denying democracy, she is in a difficult

position. I don't want to escalate this, it can be escalated, but let's

do it calmly. I come back to this, there is nothing much you can do,

the other option. You believe that, I don't. In time we will see which

is correct. Could you withdraw co-operation from the

is correct. Could you withdraw Government, with the British

Government in the Brexit process. That has been talked about. I don't

understand what that means, mraps you could explain. No, I'm not going

to get involved in escalating this on TV or with you. I will say what I

have said and the First Minister has said, the Parliament has voted,

there is a democratic decision made, we now look to UK Government to

decide on it. If they continue after the Easter recess, the First

Minister will come back to the Parliament and we will then lay out

our next steps. That is the right thing to do. The wrong thing is to

our next steps. That is the right work it with speculation. Many

people will think, what is wrong with what Theresa May is saying, it

is common-sense to say leave it until we know what the Brexit deal

is and how it will work. We don't need to be talking about this. Just

wait and see. She is right we need to know the details of deal and she

has confirmed when that will be. That will be in in 18 months to o'

two years. The difficulty she places on everybody, is you can't hold a

referendum by snapping your fingers. We are saying a section 0 order

allow us to make the appropriate preparation. No one says it firing

the starting gun on campaigning, but it puts in v us in that position. If

you don't actually have a the section 30 Order in place now, you

can't made the arrangements to have it at the time which means least

uncertainty. The uncertainty is the time scale. The danger for you is

you have lost the moral high ground, you could have waited a few years

and said the people of Scotland are not happy, you have jumped in about

two and a half years be people said they want to remain in the UK. A lot

of people are saying, this is just a bit ridiculous and just game

playing. Even people... That is not what happened. That not what they

are saying. We started in June and said we will look at the options.

The First Minister said it had to be the backstop if nothing else could

be a arranged. I have spent weeks and trying to get a compromise deal

and we produced a comprehensive programme for that and we got

nowhere, because the UK Government would not compromiser negotiate.

That is why we are in this position and that is the reality of the

situation. You're now in a position, where Theresa May can claim to be

speaking for the people of Scotland on the subject of a second refer

dam, -- referendum more than you can. You in that sense on the wrong

side of people of Scotland, now let me put to it you that Alex Salmond

was never in that position until the day he lost the last referendum and

he wouldn't have got himself into the position you and Nicola Sturgeon

are in? The Scottish Parliament, the democratic institution of Scotland,

voted yesterday to seek a section 30 order and indeed based on a

manifesto commitment from the SNP that said the the trigger would be

being dragged out of Europe. I can't see how that is on the wrong side of

anybody. We have gone the extra dozens of miles to get a settlement

and the Prime Minister is spreading chaos. I would appeal to her to

start listening and negotiating. If you hold a referendum, will it be

the SNP's position that Scotland should become a full member of the

EU? ; That is exactly where we are. We would the Common fisheries policy

and the Common agriculture policy? A member of the EU you have certain

responsibilities, but we would discuss... To be a member of the EU

you have to be a member of... The reality is on fishing, it is a

subject we should talk about, the UK Government is already preparing to

trade away fishing as it did in the 1970s, there is plenty of evidence

of that. The future of the fishing industry under Brexit am

particularly under this present Prime Minister faces that reality.

Which currency would an independent Scotland have? We could go through

these issues all-night but the right time is when we have the proposition

in terms of what Brexit means and in terms of what independence means. I

will come on and discuss those issues with you at that time until

we are both blue in the face. Your critics will say that you have told

the British Government it is not reasonable for them to have a chance

to negotiate a deal on Brexit with a view, you have already demanded

another referendum, but when you asked the most basic questions about

another referendum, but when you what your independent Scotland would

look like you say wait and see, it is not reasonable to ask is at the

moment. Did you listen to the Prime Minister's interview? Repeatedly

Andrew Neil asked her questions about substantial detail and she did

not answer a single one of them. The reality is the lack of information

in this is coming... The information together and have a

case, we will put our case and there will be a proper debate, but nobody

can tell me the Prime Minister is putting forward anything other than

the most vague and thin of cases. Mike Russell, thank you for joining

us. Earlier I spoke to Scottish Labour

leader Kezia Dugdale, who was at the Welsh Assembly.

Theresa May today spoke about a significant increase in the powers

of the devolved administrations, including the Scottish parliament.

Presumably he would welcome that? Very much so, but first of all I

have to say how regrettable today is, it is deeply divisive for our

country and I wish the result had been different. The Prime Minister

earlier spoke about significant additional powers for the Scottish

parliament and if she is true to her word that would be very welcome, I

would like to see a reformed United Kingdom, I believe that is what

Scots voted for. Two and a half years ago they voted to remain part

of the UK but they wanted an alternative to the status quo. It is

not the same thing, more powers, as staying in the single market. You

have written a letter to Theresa May saying you want to stay in the

single market, keep free movement of labour and, if necessary, there

should be a separate Scottish deal providing bad. There is nothing in

what was said to date to give you that? No, indeed, which is why

Brexit is very worrying for the Scottish economy, Scottish jobs, the

living standards of people in our country. I will continue to make the

case, like Nicola Sturgeon, for why we should have free access to the

single market, it is incredibly important so Scottish businesses can

trade with the European neighbours and we need to make sure that the

rights of EU nationals are protected in Scotland, I do not want then used

as a bargaining chip. Equally we need to add knowledge how important

being a member of the EU is to universities in Scotland. -- act

knowledge. Given there is nothing in what Theresa May said today about

staying in the single market, keeping free movement of labour,

what you are asking for is pretty much the same as what Nicola

Sturgeon is asking for. David Davies this afternoon has written to Mike

Russell, the Scottish Government Brexit Secretary, rejecting the

paper which the Scottish Government put to them which suggested staying

in the single market and keeping free movement of labour. Given that,

would you support the Scottish Parliament's call for a second

independence referendum? It is deeply regrettable that the Tory

Government has taken this approach, but not a surprise. What is

abundantly clear is that however much and however damaging Brexit

will be to the Scottish economy, it is not as bad as what independence

would mean. Nicola Sturgeon has been looking for an excuse, another

grievance, any opportunity to pursue a second independence referendum but

she will not tell us what she wants to do with regards to the membership

of the EU. At least Nicola Sturgeon has a strategy to try to exert

leverage on the British Government and get what both she and you want.

You don't appear to have any strategy other than write another

letter, perhaps? strategy other than write another

I don't accept that, neither do I accept that Nicola Sturgeon has a

strategy to deal with Brexit. She has a campaign for independence,

strategy to deal with Brexit. She that is her priority above governing

for Scotland or making a case for what happens to

the powers coming back from Brussels. We know you do not want

another independence referendum, but EU support Theresa May's refusal to

negotiate over the timing of one? Both I and Jeremy Corbyn have said

we cannot countenance a second independence referendum before

Brexit. The root of that is Nicola independence referendum before

Sturgeon's own words when she said Scots deserved a choice and clarity

over the options before them, we will not have that until after we

leave the EU. Just a moment before, will not have that until after we

I said Nicola Sturgeon has had three positions on Europe in the last

week. I just want to be clear on this... Now she says we would

reapply and sometimes you hear Alex Salmond... I want to be clear on

your position. Nicola Sturgeon is one a second independence

referendum, saying Scots should have a choice but she is unable to

articulate what would happen on the issue of Europe, before we get to

big questions like the currency, for example. Just to be clear, you

clear, you say you support the British Government's refusal to

allow a second referendum before Brexit actually happens, but at that

point, for example when Nicola Sturgeon is talking about Spring

2019, you would presumably, as you have said in the past, I accept that

now the Scottish Parliament has voted for a second referendum, there

should be one. Maybe not until then, but after that it is the duty of the

British Government to allow one? The God I don't know how to be clearer

with you, the Scottish Labour Party stands against a second independence

referendum. Is Nicola Sturgeon insists on dragging us back to the

argument of the past, we have made it clear we could not support but

before Brexit. After that point we would not seek to block it. If you

want your version of what should happen to have some credibility, the

idea of the people's Constitutional assembly which comes up with an idea

of a federal Britain, it only makes sense if there is a prospect of a

Labour Government to implemented, but that is so far away that the

only Labour MP in Scotland will not even serve as Shadow Scottish

Secretary because he describes Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the

party, in his words, as destroying the Labour Party. No one will take

Scottish Labour seriously until you've stored -- sought this

situation out. Will you sort it out? I have been in Cardiff University

with a number of people from across the Labour movement, including

Gordon Brown and a representative for Jeremy Corbyn. This is

important, with Carwyn Jones and various other Labour figures across

the UK, they collectively make the case for a federal solution to

reform the UK. But it is not just us talking about this, there are people

the length and breadth of Scotland and the UK that want to reject both

forms of nationalism we are being presented with, the SNP version...

Would you get Jeremy Corbyn and Iain Murray together to sort out the

situation and at least have some credibility? You are the leader of

the Labour Party in Scotland. The goal might credibility is to

represent what the majority of Scots want, to remain part of the UK and

have a close relationship with the rest of Europe. That is what I will

continue to advocate. I am not alone in doing that, people across the

labour movement and trade unions do not want to choose. They do not want

to choose between the SNP or the hard -- hardline Tory Brexit. Thank

you for joining us, Kezia Dugdale. In the studio is the leader of the

Scottish Lib Dems, Willie Rennie, and co-convenor of the Scottish

Greens, Patrick Harvie. Willie Rennie, you said you were not just

against a referendum but you thought your MPs in Westminster should vote

against one, is your view on that changed by the fact that the

Scottish Parliament has now requested formally Section 30 order?

No, we made it clear manifesto commitment that we would stand

against independence, and another independence referendum. If you look

at the mandate the SNP say they have, it is based on a campaign

where they are using the European Union to get the referendum, but

they can't guarantee, as we heard from Mike Russell earlier, to get

the European Union as a whistle to the referendum. But a vote to the

Scottish Parliament... That is the way democracy works. If it is a

feeble mandate, there is no way I can supported. I know what you will

say, but it does not matter. A vote in the Scottish parliament is a vote

in the Scottish parliament. Labour and even the Conservatives are

saying, or seem to be saying, we are and even the Conservatives are

not ruling this out. You are the only one who is saying that somehow

or other the vote is illegitimate. You can make your point about

Patrick Harvie now! Bring it on. You can make your point about

Patrick Harvie was very clear and honest, he said we would need a

million signatures before it would trigger another independence

referendum, that would be the threshold required. It was

referenced in his manifesto, a speech following a year of the

anniversary from the independence referendum. I think on that basis it

is not unreasonable for us to continue... I should not need to

remind you of all people but political parties sometimes go

against what they say in manifestos. Boy, have we learned that lesson.

Patrick Harvie has not. He has gone right against it. We are against

independence, we are against another independence referendum. I have a

right to reply at some point? Willie knows he misrepresents our

manifesto, we said our preferred means of discussing future

independence referendum was by that public participated measure, it was

never supposed to be the only way it could happen. I would still prefer

that we were in that situation. What has happened over the year... We did

not say only, we said it was one means of triggering the debate. We

never said it was the only way, we never said the Scottish Parliament

should be stripped of its ability to make a choice. What happens when

Nicola Sturgeon tells me I have to vote for it? You know as well

anybody else in Scottish politics that we hope the SNP to account as

much as any other party. A number of votes have gone against them because

all of the opposition parties vote against them when we think they are

wrong. The position now, what the UK Government has done over the last

year, is not only hold a reckless referendum but take a narrow Leave

mandate as a mandate for hard Brexit, which takes is way beyond

what they said in their manifesto and the promises made even to leave

voters. Scotland is stuck between a rock and a hard Brexit and the power

needs to go back into the hands of the people. I want to move on to

what happens next, Patrick Harvie. You are part of the pro-independence

movement, the British Government has made it clear that not only will

there be no Section 30 order, there will be no talks on the timing of

when one might be. I spoke to Mike Russell about what some of the

options might be, what options do you think there are for the Scottish

Government and people like yourself who support independence? Is there

anything you can do other than keep complaining? You explored some of

the possibilities and I have not heard the Scottish Government yet

spell out what those will be. Either forward to hearing about if the UK

Government continue to dig in their heels. He ruled out a private

referendum, you would agree with that? That is not the position

anybody should want to be in. The idea of a referendum has to be based

on an agreement on how the rules are conducted. He didn't, he said it is

not our intention, that does not mean he is ruling it out. It was

pretty clear that was a range of options that Mike Russell was

contemplating, he did not want to go into it with you but he was

seriously considering other methods, which I think is deeply regrettable.

What it boils down to is that Scotland voted to stay in the UK,

then by a higher margin just nine months ago to stay in the European

Union. If we want to resolve that we cannot now ask Westminster to block

Scotland's only remaining past EU membership.

STUDIO: You have not give me your ideas as to what they can do. I am

not in Government... Dream, just for a second. I could pretend I was in

Government and was surrounded by the kind of legal advice that a minister

is surrounded by and needs to have in order to explore... You raise the

question about legal action, you explored about noncooperation with

the Brexit legislation. You would need clear legal advice in order to

give real answers to that, and I hope we hear more detail on what the

options are. The UK Government needs to be put on

the spot to recognise that it has failed to live up to the promises

even to wait for a shared agreement across the UK before triggering

Article 50, that was one of the earliest promises Theresa May made

after the Brexit vote, she has completely abandon that, as well as

forcing us into a hard Brexit which the Tory manifesto promised would

never happen. At least Nicola Sturgeon Patrick Harvie have the

bones of a strategy to exert some pressure on the British Government

given that what it is about to do is not something they like. You do not

like it any more than they do. We have a strategy. It is to make sure

that the British people have the final say on whatever deal is... You

have no way of getting that. Kuwait final say on whatever deal is... You

for public pressure to influence this process. Look at the Iraq war,

people with spitting at Charles Kennedy in the street before the

Iraq war, after which they were standing with him -- you wait for

public pressure to influence this process. Like the fuel dispute in

nearly 2000s, public opinion changed and the politicians had to follow.

We need to set down a process. Is that something you would support?

With the best will in the world we that something you would support?

might have been on the same march against the Iraq war, I spoke at one

of the biggest demonstrations in Scottish history before the onset of

the Iraq war, we were dragged to war against the will of the public. I

think we will be dragged into a hard Brexit against public opinion.

Forget independence, their idea is that when the deal is done and it

should be put to the British people? I can understand why the Lib Dems

and some of my Green Party of England and Wales colleagues make

that case. What I cannot understand is why that would prevent exactly

the same thing happening again, with Scotland voting Remain, other parts

of the UK boating Leave and Scotland being dragged out of the European

Union against our will, with rights of free movement and our social and

environmental protections stripped away. Patrick is using the European

issue to drive the vision not just... He is using it in Scotland

and also the UK. I think it is unacceptable. We don't need more

division, we should be trying to bring together to tackle the big

challenges that Brexit faces. That is the challenge that I think all

politicians had to do. I want to clear up the mess of Brexit, I don't

want a compounded with another a lot of division within dependence, that

is what I will always oppose. But putting off the vote would extended

to four, five or more years of uncertainty, let's deal with it in

this period and give people the power back.

Thank you, that is all we have time for. There will be Brexit, they

might be more devolution of power to the Scottish parliament but maybe

another independence referendum.