Brexit - What Next? The Andrew Neil and Nick Servini Interviews Britain & the EU: The Brexit Interviews

So, Prime Minister, the negotiations to leave the European Union begin.

It is a historic moment for our country. In what ways will Britain

be a better country for leaving the European Union? You are absolutely

right, Andrew, that this is a historic moment for our country. We

are putting into place now the decision that was taken in the

referendum on June 23 last year to leave the European Union. And the

formal process has begun. I've 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 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 in the

country and that is why alongside the work we are doing an Brexit, I

am clear the government has a plan for Britain to build a more outward

looking country, a stronger economy, where everyone plays by the same

rules, a fairer society, where success is based on merit but not on

privilege and to make sure we are a more United Nations, somewhere our

children and grandchildren can be proud to call home. But we couldn't

have been better in all these ways and remained in the European Union?

Well, the British people decided they wanted to come out of the

European Union and I think when they made that vote, when they gave that

very 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 taken in Brussels. In the letter

that I have said to trigger this formal process today, I make the

point that we are not rejecting Europe, we are not rejecting the

values of democracy and European values. What we are saying is it is

about our national self-determination as the United

Kingdom. It is about us having control. You've mentioned in 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, not the only one but a major reason why they voted to

leave. Can the people who voted that way be reassured that immigration

will be significantly lower after Brexit? You are right, for a lot of

people, when they voted last year, immigration was one of the issues

that was key in their minds but again, what I think they wanted to

know was that the UK Government was taking control of our borders, and

decisions would be made here in the UK. Obviously, we want to see net

migration coming down. We have been able to put rules in place in

relation to people coming here to the UK from outside the European

Union. Now as a result of leaving the EU, 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 is a

difference in a number of people coming in. 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 variables, so many different

things that can happen in the world which affect the numbers of people

trying to come here to the UK. What we will be able to do as a result of

leaving the EU is to have control of our borders, is to set those rules

for people coming from inside the European Union, into the UK. We

haven't been able to do that. So we will be able to have control on

those numbers, set the rules for that, as we have been able to set

the rules for others in the past. So what will the rules be for EU

citizens coming here in the future? Well, we are looking at the moment

at what we think should be right and we will actually be bringing forward

a Bill in parliament in due course which will set out our proposals. If

you like, there's a couple of issues around the ball from the European

Union. Of course, there are quite a few people from the European Union

living in the UK already and some of them well have been here for a

considerable period of time. Others will have come more recently. One of

the things I want to be able to do is give them reassurance about their

future, but I only want to do that when I know that those UK citizens

who have moved over to countries in the European Union are also going to

have that reassurance and those guarantees. I understand that but

what I'm talking about is the future, for people coming here in

the future, from the EU. Would you envisage, as example, -- for

example, as part of the Brexit deal that there would still be some kind

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

am clear about is there will still be opportunities for people to come

to the UK from the EU but we will bring forward specific puzzles on

what the rules should be in due course and those will go through our

Parliament. -- specific proposals. We will decide what the rules will

be. We want to make sure of course that the economy is still strong. We

see many people here working in our economy, working 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 about is

what we will be doing. But the Conservatives promised to cut net

migration to 100,000 per year, seven years ago. Seven years ago and you

are still nowhere near figure. Indeed, non-EU migration, people

coming from beyond the EU, that migration alone is well over 100,000

per year. You must understand why people are sceptical about anything

you say on immigration? Well, if you look at what has happened to those

migration figures, those net migration figures, over the last

seven years, they went up, they have come down, they have gone up again

and now they have started to come down. They are higher than we want

them to be. Almost three times. You are absolutely right about them

being higher than we want them to be but that is why what I've just said

is so important. In immigration, you can't just set one set of rules and

think it is the answer and go away and forget about it. Actually, you

have to constantly look at this, constantly work at it, constantly

ask if the rules are right. But you cannot, I would suggest, reduce net

migration to 100,000 without major cuts in both EU and non-EU

migration, isn't that right? We need to continue to look across the board

as well as introducing rules for people from the EU. We also need to

continue to look across the board but there is something else we need

to do as a country, of course, which is to make sure that people here in

the UK have the skills they need to take the jobs here so that

businesses don't feel they have to reach out overseas to bring people

in all the time. One final thing on immigration, though. The British

economy has done better than most forecasters said at the time of the

referendum and it continues to do pretty well this year. What happens

if we continue to do well and you need more than 100,000 migrants per

year? Would you let them in? One of the things I think, as I have just

said, that is crucial for us as we look at the economy in the future is

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

the education and 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, for example,

ensuring that young people have the opportunity to get the skills they

need. I want to see a high-paid, high skilled economy in the future

but we need to make sure that young people today are going to be able to

take those jobs tomorrow. The EU has talked of a one-off, multi-billion

pound exit feet. Some have suggested it could be as much as ?50 billion

will stop maybe more. Would you contemplate a sum anything like

that? When people voted last year, one of the things they voted for was

to ensure that in the future, outside the EU, we're not paying

significant sums of money on an annual basis into the European

Union. 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, until we

leave, we will carry on paying according to the obligations we have

as a member. But we will pay an exit fee of anything like 50 billion? As

we go through the negotiations, of course, we have to decide what the

obligations are. But what I am very clear about is what people want to

see that in the future, we will be making decisions about the budget,

and we will be deciding not to pay those sums of money every year to

the European Union. I understand that we may decide to continue with

some programmes and make a contribution to them even after we

leave but I'm not talking about that. I am talking about a exit fee

that the EU is talking about, is almost demanding, around about 50

billion. I ask again, is that in the ballpark you would contemplate? You

talk about a exit fee the EU is demanding and there's been a lot of

spec version but actually, there is not a formal demand. The

negotiations have not started yet. I am very clear about what people here

in the UK expect but I'm also clear that, you know, we are law-abiding

nation and we will meet the obligations we have. As a member, as

I say, until the point at which we leave, of course we will be

continuing to pay according to the rights and obligations of the

membership. Many people watching this will wonder, we are leaving,

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

paying to leave. We will be leaving the European Union. What we are

talking about is ensuring that when we leave, first of all, when we

leave, people will see that we will be taking decisions about our

budget. We won't be required to make significant payments every year into

the EU's budget. As you say, there may be some particular programmes we

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

because it would be in the national interest to do so and that is what

will drive us. The European Union is talking about a divorce payment,

Michel Barnier, the head negotiator, is talking about a divorce payment.

Are we prepared to pay a divorce payment? As I say, there has been a

lot of speculation and comment about these comments. We are not in the

negotiations yet. We will start the formal negotiations soon. We have

done the first step, triggering Article 50. As I have said, the UK

is a law-abiding nation and we will look at the rights and obligations

we have. You have mentioned already the importance of EU citizens in the

UK and UK citizens in the EU and they would like to be reassured

about their future. Do you believe you can resolve and announce this

quickly? Well, one of the things I have put in the letter to President

Donald Tusk is precisely that I want to get an early agreement about

this. And sometimes people say to me, as you have, that EU citizens

here are concerned about their future and of course, they are, and

I recognise that. But as UK Prime Minister, I need to think about UK

citizens living abroad as well in the EU. So will they both be

reassured quickly? I want a reciprocal agreement in terms of

guaranteeing status of EU citizens and UK citizens and I have said I

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

talks I have had with other leaders that there is a goodwill that, that

there are those who recognise the importance of giving people

reassurance. And I think we will be able to address this as one of the

early things that we talk about in the negotiations. By early, could it

be this summer? I don't want to put a date on it but I wanted to be as

early as possible, precisely because, as you just said, people

are worried about their futures. I think it is only fair to work to

give them reassurance as soon as we can. You believe that Brexit means

we can no longer be members of the single market. Why? Because the

other leaders in Europe have made very clear that what they call, they

use this term the four freedoms and they are indivisible, they go

together. So what are they? It is the importance of free movement, and

of course, we have said we want to control movement from the EU. It is

membership of the single market which entails accepting that free

movement. It also entails accepting that Europe -- the jurisdiction of

the European Court of Justice. These are exactly things that people voted

to reject when they voted to leave the European Union. I have accepted

we can't have that membership of the single market because to do it would

mean accepting things that the voters have said they don't want.

But what we can do, I believe, is to get a really good trade agreement

with the European Union in terms of access for our businesses to their

single market and of course, for their businesses to our market. But

do you accept that no matter how good a free-trade deal you are going

to get and I accept you are going to try to get the best you can, no

matter how good, it can't be as good as the unrestricted access we

currently enjoyed as members of the single market? Well, I believe that

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

comprehensive free-trade agreement. We are looking. We would like to see

as frictionless and free trade as possible, tariff free across

borders, so we can continue that trade with the European Union. But

it can't be as good? It will be a different relationship, that is the

point, because it won't be a relationship based on membership of

the single market and based on accepting all the other things that

voters rejected. What it will be is saying that we want a new

partnership with the EU. We still want to work with you and cooperate

with you and actually, getting a trade agreement is not just about

the UK. It is not just about our businesses. It is about businesses

in other countries being able to trade with us. So I think it is in

the interest of both sides to agree a really good deal.

I understand that but David Davis said the deal will deliver the exact

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

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

both looking for is that comprehensive Free Trade Agreement

that gives that ability to trade freely into the European single

market. It cannot be the exact same. 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 end our membership of 40 pan-European

agencies, other agreements, I want to ask about two specific ones. One

is very timely, given the events at Westminster last week. Will our

membership of Euro poll, the police Europe-wide service, will that

continue post-Brexit? That's one of the things we will have to negotiate

as part of the negotiation. Do you want to? I think security

cooperation is important for us. It is not just Europol, but things like

information about people crossing borders. Would you like to remain a

member of Europol? I would like a degree of cooperation that we have

currently. I've argued before for exactly this, when a couple of years

ago, when we were looking at these these home affairs matters. I think

it is important for us and I want us to continue that degree of

co-operation, but it will be part of the package of negotiations, because

at the moment when we leave the European Union, unless we've

negotiated still to be members of those sorts of organisations and

arrangements, our membership will lapse. If it lapses will we cease to

share information with Europol? We wouldn't be able to access

information in the same way we can as a member. It's important to

negotiate a relationship that allows us to work together in the way we

have. As I said, right at the moment, and this is very much

brought home to us in London last week, right at the moment, now is

not a time, given the threats we face across Europe, for us to see

less cooperation in this area. We want to continue that cooperation

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

aim to secure that? There are two issues, the issue of people who are

currently resident in European Union member states and the rights that

they have, and then of course the rights people would have as they

move across Europe. We want to get the best possible deal for citizens

here in the United Kingdom. I want to get the best possible deal for

everybody, in whatever part of the United Kingdom they are living in.

We have a raft of negotiations we have to go through, a raft of issues

will be looking at, in relation to these matters, and we need the vet

flexibility of dealing with those issues. The relationship will be

different in the future. It's not necessarily a question of saying are

we going to replicate this or that? We will have a different

relationship with Europe. You talk about a whole raft of things that

have to be decided under different relationship. You need to negotiate

our divorce terms, highly controversial. A new free trade

deal, new crime-fighting arrangements, health arrangements,

you need to repatriate 50 international trade agreements. Then

you have to have it all ratified by 27 other countries as well as our

own. All in under two years. That's just not possible, Prime Minister,

is it? It's challenging but I think it is

possible. The reason I think it is possible with this... There are two

reasons. First of all I think it's possible because with goodwill on

both sides, I think both sides recognise that it's in our interests

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

we leave we have that trade arrangement, we know what it's going

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

withdrawal, but we know what that arrangement is, so everybody is

certain about whether future lies. It's in both sides interests to do

this. The other reason why I think it is

possible is we're not a third country, in the sense of a country

that's never been part of the European Union. We're not coming

suddenly knocking at the door saying we want all of these things. We've

been part of the EU, we've been operating on the same basis with

them. I think that puts us in a different position for the future

and makes it easier for us to negotiate this arrangement than if

we were coming at it fresh. Do you rule out a transitional period?

Where some things even after we leave remain to be resolved? What I

want after two years as everybody knows what the withdrawal agreement

is and the future relationship is. What I've called today a deep and

special partnership with the EU, because we're still part of Europe.

We still want to work with them and cooperate with them. I want that

agreed by the end of the two years, I think that is possible, but it

maybe there is a period of implementation thereafter as people

and businesses and governments are just too whatever the new

arrangements are. If there is a transitional period or

implementation period, will that involve the free movement of people

and being under the jurisdiction of the European Court, or do both these

things after ending two years' time? We want to make sure that we are

ending, that we are ending the jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice and we are able to control movement of people coming

from Europe. We want to have the agreement stunning two years. There

may then be a period where we are implementing those arrangements,

just as a very simple example, if there are different visa

arrangements that needed to be put in place, the government here and

governments elsewhere will have to have their systems working, so they

can operate. There may be a period where we have to implement the

decisions taken. You said in the event of no deal we

may have to change Britain's economic model.

What does that mean? On the no deal, I said no deal first of all would be

better than a bad deal. We don't want to see a bad steel. I say that

because I think there are some people in Europe who talk about

punishing the UK. -- don't want a bad deal. I don't want to sign up to

an agreement that is based on fact. 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 does a different economic model

mean, that was my question? What I have said in a letter today

is if we don't get a deal, then we would go on to WTO, World Trade

Organisation or arrangements for trading. In those circumstances, as

made clear in the letter that's not what we want, that's not in

either... Can I just make the point, it's not in either sides interests,

I think, to have those arrangements. It's not just about us, it's about

the EU as well. But of course what ever comes out, we want to ensure we

continue to have a competitive economy. And that's what we would be

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

third time, what does it mean? We would take decisions at the time to

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

the United Kingdom, make sure we were putting in place arrangements

the business that kept those jobs and so forth. You do that anyway? We

do work to do that. Am not sure what the new economic model is. A tax

haven? Labour set up all sorts of strong men about what this might

mean in the future for what it's about is making sure that jobs stay

here in the UK and jobs are created in the UK. What it's about is making

sure we've got that economy that enables people to have those

high-paid, high skilled jobs and that we are ensuring that young

people here have got those skills for the future. Let me ask you 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 it weaken it? If I can

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

terrorism, that takes place outside the European Union and outside the

structures of the European Union. If we don't get a deal on the sort of

security arrangements, the sort of criminal justice things I was

talking about earlier, the exchange of information at our borders, then

I think that's one of the reasons I think we should aim not to be in the

position of getting no deal but in a position of getting a good deal,

because I think cooperation is important to us. We're leaving for

customs union. Ireland is not. Do you accept that must mean checks on

the Irish border? We are very clear, both eye, and I

have talked to the government in the Republic about this, we are very

clear we don't want to see a return to the borders of the past. We are

working very closely with the Irish government that can be put in

place to ensure a frictionless border in a practical sense, for

goods and services and people travelling between Northern Ireland

and the Republic. The Leave campaign for Mr Brexit dividend of ?350

million a week. Much of which they said could be spent on the NHS. How

big do think the Brexit dividend will be entered the line shall go to

the NHS? What I think is what people want is what voted for it in the UK

to be able to decide how it spends its budget. Not to be spending

significant sums of money every year paying into the European Union and

Brussels. So when we leave, we will have control of that money and we

will decide how we spend that money. I think that's what people want. How

big will it be? Anything like 350 million a week? We will be ensuring

we are not pay no significant sums in the future. We will then be able

to see what the size of that dividend would be an determine how

that money is spent. Should it go to the NHS? There are lots of things we

need to think about. It was NHS in this -- on the side of the bus in

the referendum? During the referendum there were points made,

often passionately on both sides of the argument. We are beyond the

referendum, at the point where we are putting this into practice,

starting what will be complex, challenging, but I think achievable

negotiations. I'm optimistic about what we can achieve in the future.

What people voted for is for us to have control, and that's what we'll

have. You've rejected the demands of Scotland's First Minister for a

second independence referendum. You say now is not the time. What about

when you've done the Brexit deal, when we know what that nature of

Brexit is? Would you rule out a second Scottish independence

referendum? The comments I'm getting from the

Scottish Government and SNP in Parliament at the moment are that

they want a confirmation now that they're going to have a second

independence referendum. What I'm saying is I think now is not the

time for a second independence referendum or the time to focus on a

second independence referendum. I accept you don't like the timing,

but later, when the Brexit deal is done? The Scots can see what it

looks like, they voted to remain in the EU, they should then, people

would argue, have a second referendum, are you against in

printable? If I can explain why I said now is not the time, because it

is relevant. Now is not the time to focus on a second independence

referendum or to be looking at that second independence referendum

because... The two reasons. Now is the time when we need to pull

together as the United Kingdom. We need to talk about how we can work

together, to get the best possible deal for everybody across the whole

of the United Kingdom. I understand. Focusing on an independence

referendum isn't doing that. Do you rule it out? That's why it's

important for us to ensure we do focus on the future. Do you ball it

out in principle? And also I think it's important we recognise... I

think the question isn't whether there could be a second independence

referendum or there should be. Should there be? Hazard the people

in Scotland voted in 2014, to stay part of the United Kingdom. The SNP

described as a once in a generation, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to

vote for independence. The people gave their message, just as we are

respecting the referendum that took played here last year on EU

membership, so we should all respect the 20 14th Scotland referendum.

During the referendum you said you thought it was clearly in our

national interest to remain a member of the EU. Now you say Brexit will

quote to build a better Britain. Who is the real Theresa May? The

Remainer Leaver? I did campaign for remain NUT but I also said that I

didn't think the sky would fall in if we left the European Union, it

hasn't. It has you doing the mother of all U-turns? Hazard my job, I've

been put in a position as Prime Minister I believe to respect the

wishes of the people of the United Kingdom means that referendum. I

believe it's my job to deliver the best possible future for the UK.

That's why I have... It's not just about Brexit .my plan for Britain,

about a more outward looking Britain, a fairer society, stronger

economy. It's taking that forward which is about building a brighter

future for everybody in the UK. If it is for the will of the British

people, when you do the deal, when it is clear the terms of which we

will leave the EU, why would you not take that to the country, either 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? Why not? When we have

the deal there will be a vote in the UK Parliament. Of course, there will

be votes in parliaments across Europe, because there will need to

be a ratification process. I believe that's the right way to do it, to

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

deal. You won't take it to the country? I'm confident we're going

to get a deal that's going to be good for the British people. The

British people have basically said to us, go on and get on with it. We

want to leave the EU, go out there, get the deal, get on with and that's

what we'll do. Minister, thank you. That was Theresa May's view on what

has happened today and the triggering of Article 50 but what

about the view in Wales? Good evening. I'm Nick Servini in Cardiff

and welcome to a special programme in which I will be exploring what

the impact will be in Wales of the start of the official Brexit

negotiations. The Prime Minister has already said that more powers will

be given to the Welsh government when we leave the EU, but what will

it mean for trade and immigration? In the next half-hour, I will have

reaction from the leaders of the main parties in Wells, Plaid Cymru's

Leanne Wood, Ukip's Neil Hamilton and Mark Williams from the Liberal

Democrats. But first I have been joined by the First Minister, Carwyn

Jones. Good evening. This has been a great day for Wales, hasn't it? Huge

democratic exercise last year and Wales voted to leave and that is

precisely what Theresa May has given us today. Yes, that's right, no one

is fighting the referendum of last year again. That was last year and

it has been decided. The question is now, how do we move forward? There's

lots of unanswered questions and there will be over the course of the

next few months but for me, I'm interested in getting the best deal

for Wales. Quite bad-tempered initial response from you today,

saying you had been persistently ignored in this process. You have

got a responsibility here, to some extent? She's going in to bat

against 27 other European nations and she should be able to rely on

your support in this? I never bad-tempered, Nick. We start from

the perspective of wanting to support the UK Government in its

negotiations, not from the position of trying to cause problems but if

they take a position which is something we think is wrong, we

won't hesitate in saying so. Today, I thought the tone she adopted in

Parliament was the right one. In fact, she started talking about

fellow Europeans and a deep and significant relationship with the EU

which I very much welcome. I think there is still an air of unreality

about this. There's not going to be agreement in two years, it's

impossible, it will be five years before we get anywhere but it's a

start. That is the time frame and those are the rules. We knew that in

the beginning but it won't start until the autumn and it would have

to be 12 months, for the ratification process to take place

in all the European Parliament of the deal on the table. But what is

important is that we were involved in it. We were not involved in the

drafting of the Article 50 letter and I regret that so it is hugely

important we are part of the process of developing a negotiating stance.

It is not a good start, saying you have been ignored so will you throw

your toys out of the pram at every stage? It is too serious for that

but we will make a point on behalf of Wales if we think it is worth

making and they have not listened to us. If they have listened to us, to

an extent, they've moved closer when it comes to recognising the

importance of the single market, as I say, I come from the perspective

of wanting to formulate a joint position with the UK Government but

clearly, if they take a position we don't agree with, we will say so.

Whisper it quietly from your perspective but she appears to be

giving you everything you want at this stage, trying to get tariff

free trade, pretty conciliatory tone, as you said yourself, in the

letter and even giving you further powers. What more do you want? There

is an issue which is not yet resolved, what happens to the powers

that currently sit in Brussels when they come back? Our view is, where

they are devolved, where the large assembly has responsibility for

them, they come directly to us and they don't go to Westminster bus but

they have a different view. There's a debate at least be had there about

where those powers go and I think they should come to Wales because I

believe that is what people voted for last year. That position is as

yet unresolved. But the tone today I think what the right one. It was

sensible, mature. We have to make sure we get the bestie for Wales,

the UK and the EU. Of course, everyone is after tariff free-trade,

that is to say, Welsh companies exporting to the EU don't face an

extra charge over and above what they do now. The reality of the

situation is, though, that it is going to be nigh on impossible to

get it in the current circumstances. You must acknowledge that. I think

it is possible to do it, it's possible to look at alternative

models, to start. We have suggested that the UK should look at being in

the EEA at least temporarily which means access to the single market

and being able to sell goods freely until we get a final deal. The EEA,

European economic area, this is a legacy of the current arrangement

but it is all going to change, isn't it? Why would they give us easy

access to trade when we are leaving the club? They have free-trade

agreements with other countries so there is no reason why there should

not be a free-trade agreement with UK but these things take more than

two years so we should be realistic about that. My thought is that

free-trade agreements tend to exclude agriculture and fisheries

and tariffs applied to them and the biggest tariffs on food, like 40% on

dairy products. The last thing we want is for Welsh farmers to have

massive tariffs on what they produce while at the same time bomb is huge

uncertainty as to whether there will be any money available for subsidies

beyond 2020. There is difference on immigration between you and the UK

Government. You think the current, unrestricted free movement of labour

should be controlled but fundamentally stay the same. She

believes that there has to be a major change. She is more in tune

with the Welsh public venue on this, isn't she? We have suggested a

system of freedom of movement where someone has a job, not a general

freedom, I think that's perfectly sensible. Besides, people have been

sold a pup on this. The idea we control our borders is a whiz

nonsense. You can't say, we will control our borders and

incidentally, we will have an open border with the Republic of Ireland.

It doesn't work unless people are prepared to do with the political

consequences of a board in Ireland which would be entirely wrong, I

think. I remember saying that people last year, it was never going to

happen but let's acknowledge people are concerned about immigration so

let's see how we deal with that. For me it means having a system which is

sensible, fair, and people feel does not impinge on their ability to get

a job. They want a system that fundamentally changes and you don't

offer them that. We don't know what they want. Theresa May offers them

the change. I know people were very concerned about immigration but I

don't know what sort of system people wanted. Some people said they

don't want any immigrants at all and some people say they wanted a small

number of people or they should not be here in the first place but the

majority of people wanted a sensible approach to immigration which is

what we offered. If someone has a job, they can come and do the job

without any restriction. Let me give you an important example, Airbus,

the biggest single employer on one site in Wales, their people will

literally move from being in the north side of Wales, Deeside the

mandate, to Toulouse the next and if you are saying to them, every time

there's people move back and forth, they have to fill in a form and have

a Visa, that could be very difficult to keep investment in Wales. No one

wants to see that so let's make sure it does not happen. Let's move on to

what we touched on earlier, the extra powers she has promised. On

this, at this stage, she is giving you everything you want. That's not

clear because what we don't know... What they have not said if the

powers that currently sit in Brussels, that are in areas already

the responsibility of the assembly, that those powers should come

straight here, not through London. That has not been made clear. It may

well be that there's a need for all for governments -- four government

is to work together to build a common framework on agriculture,

fisheries, or what happens to the internal market of the UK because

there won't be any rules. It makes sense to work together to agree

those rules but they have to be agreed, not imposed by one

government on the others and it has to be an independent system where

there is a dispute about the rules. These things are not in place and

they need to be. And talking about the legislation, it is meaningless

without the money, obviously. Absolutely true. Do you think you

will get the required funding in areas like farming, like regional

aid? That was the promise, the promise was Weise would not lose a

penny in funding and died ten to hold the people who made that

promise to it. -- I intend to hold. Let's take agriculture, we don't

know if there will be money available after 2020 at all but the

farmers need the reassurance. To my mind, the way you do that is to say,

a pot of money will be set aside... But it's not a realistic amount of

money. Why not? That is what people were told, point Blank, that Wales

will not lose a single penny in funding, whether it is farming in

terms of -- or terms of economic funding. That is what the Levers

told us and I expect the promised to be kept. Still so many divisions on

this in the country, on this hugely symbolic day. Add you feel about the

future now? There's lots of work to be done. If this is done properly,

then actually, the effect can be minimal. It can be such that it

won't cause us any difficulties at all or minimal difficulties. If it

is done badly, it is a potential disaster, it makes Wales and the UK

look like we're out on a limb, a group of islands off the coast of

Europe which is not part of a very large market. Of course, we have the

referendum result last year and it has to be respected. What do you

think will happen? Will it be minimal or disastrous, as you say?

There's no reason why it should be disastrous but I think it will take

much more than two years, maybe five. We have to be patient, we have

to make sure we get it right and don't rush it or get it wrong. First

Minister, thank you. Let's get a different perspective. Earlier this

afternoon, I spoke to the leader of Plaid Cymru. Leanne Wood, a tough

day for you today, isn't it? We have got a Tory Prime Minister,

delivering what you absolutely don't want to see happen, but the people

you represent in the Rhondda wants to see it happen. I don't believe

people in the Rhondda or anywhere else in Wales voted to leave the

European Union, voted for an extreme Tory Brexit, which could result in

the finances that we currently get for agriculture and regional

development disappearing beyond 2020, whereby people who live in

Wales from other European countries have no guarantees over their

future, or I don't think people voted to leave to put at risk some

of the economic gains we have made in this country in recent years.

Hold on, and extreme Tory Brexit. People voted to leave the European

Union and Theresa May is taking us out of the European Union. There was

no question on the ballot paper about our continued participation in

the single market, and she's made that clear, that we won't continue

with the single market. What is important for us now... Because she

wants to control immigration, surely one of the big messages from the

referendum campaign? Again, that was not a question on the ballot paper.

Now I accept from some of the conversations I have had with people

that immigration is an issue. But I'm not convinced that some of the

problems and concerns that people have with immigration are going to

be resolved by Brexit. Many people are concerned about low wages and

losing local services, for example. The reason they are losing local

services is because of Tory austerities. Regardless of what

happens with Brexit, some of the reasons people have given for

pulling out are not going to be seen through. So people's expectations

are unlikely to have been met and at the same time, they're all these

risks. But the central issue was, and I think people didn't really

like this, was the uncontrolled element of the free movement labour

within the European Union and that is what she is addressing. But there

are loads of controls on immigration, both within the EU and

certainly from outside the EU. If you speak to people, they may well

want to control immigration from eastern Europe but the numbers of

people coming from other EU countries into Wales are very small.

People may believe that immigration is the cause of many of their

problems. I sense that they are going to be disappointed because

even as those problems are ostensibly dealt with, people are

not going to feel those pressures decreasing in their lives. If you

look at the demands of Plaid Cymru in the negotiating process, you talk

about continued membership of the European economic area, membership

of the customs union, quite technical terms but the important

point is, all of these are legacies of the single market. And quite

clearly, we are coming out of that. This is Lala land, isn't it? At what

point are you going to have to realise that your demands have no

connection with the reality of the negotiations that are going on? What

does it mean, then? We have absolutely no idea other than what

it is not going to be, what it does mean. The key thing for us now is

the question of tariffs and the additional costs that could be

imposed from other regulatory costs will stop his Mrs have told me that

it is very -- businesses have told me it's very important they don't

have additional cost. In some cases, they are already struggling to keep

going and it does not take a genius to work out that if you put a 10%

tariff on parts coming into a company, or the finished product

going out, that many Welsh businesses are not going to hang

around and face those costs. It is pretty obvious but we have had no

guarantees about tariff free access to date. That is why membership of

the single market was so important to us because that participation

would ensure that those additional costs don't fall on those employers

which are providing really important jobs for people throughout the

country. Jill Evans, your MEP, said this is the start of Wales'

renaissance as an independent European nation. Is that how you see

it? Do you think this is the start of Wales becoming an independent

nation? Well, that is the potential for us, isn't it? To try and find

ways of making this beneficial for Welsh people. I've always believed

that decisions about Wales are best made in Wales and what we have to

make absolutely sure of through this process is that those powers that

are going to be coming from Brussels don't end up getting stuck in

London. Theresa May said that today, they will come to Wales. I will wait

and see the action on that because the Prime Minister did say that

there will be consultation with the devolved nations that make up the

UK. I've not seen any evidence of that having happened yet. So I've

heard a lot of words from the Prime Minister. His actions I am keen to

see and actions I will judge her on. Do you think this huge process,

redefining our relationship at the European Union, at the same time,

people in Wales are really interested in independence? The

question has been thrown up in the air now. What is going to happen to

us in the longer term? If Scotland becomes an independent nation, the

UK will no longer exist. It is up to people in Wales to decide what we do

with our future and it is a matter of principle for me that people

should have the self-determination in order to decide where they go

next. And they decided they wanted to come out of European Union and

the truth is, Plaid Cymru is out of step with the people.

We accept the result. The question has been for us since the referendum

is how we leave. I see from today that the Prime Minister is

determined to go ahead with an extreme Tory Brexit, and that is not

going to be good for the majority of working people here in this country.

Of all the senior Welsh political leaders I've interviewed after

Brexit, you were the one who is most concerned about the impact of

Brexit. How sad you today, personally?

I've been disappointed ever since the referendum result. I consider

myself to be a Welsh European. I would like Wales to continue with

the links we've built up with countries in other parts of Europe,

and in particular those stateless nations. Even though we are outside

the European Union, I very hope that those good relations can continue

because it's very much our wealth is Welsh national interests for them

to. -- our Welsh national interest. Thank you. Leanne Wood there. Ukip

was a party formed with a specific intention of taking us out of the

EU. A little earlier I spoke to the party's leader in the assembly.

Neil Hamilton, the Ukip job is completed, you can put your feet up,

your work is now done. You must be joking, this is where the hard

business of playing a full part in the Brexit process begins for us,

because over the next two years there will be a negotiation by the

British government, and we need to ensure that we get the best, most

Eurosceptic outcome from this process.

You have to manage expectations, haven't you? There are very high

expectations on the issue of immigration. This is going to be

difficult, isn't it, to introduce full control of our borders? How are

you going to manage that is, people have been sold a pup on this haven't

they? We want an Australian style points

system which enables us to take from those who want to want to come here,

those who can contribute to the British economy and not be a burden

on it and to fill the skills gaps that exist because of the failures

in our education system and so on. We think we can cherry pick from

those around the world who want to come here. My doubts are about the

willingness of this Conservative government to deliver on what is the

implied promise of controlling our borders, because they've had the

ability to do this in respective countries outside the EU and

dismally failed. That's a problem, you can't take on

immigration policy in isolation from trade. We have is to strike decent

rules on trade as well. Is immigration the be all and end all

for you, in the sense it doesn't really matter if it ends up wrecking

the economy at the same time? It wouldn't wreck the economy

anyway, we have to keep this in perspective. If we were reduced to

just go back to the World Trade Organisation's rules and were able

to do a deal of any guide with the EU, that would hardly be the end of

the world. There would be a price we have to pay, change always brings a

cost. Hold on, very substantial tariffs,

extra charges for Welsh exporters into the EU. Under the World Trade

Organisation rules that will be devastating for people you

represent, farmers, across Wales. It would affect some sectors of the

economy more than others. Bearing in mind... Farming for example, the

total value of farming output in Wales is less than half a billion a

year. In the Welsh -- the Welsh Government spends ?15 billion a year

is a relatively small amount of money. So it doesn't matter about

the farmers Margo would not at all. Given the Brexit dividend, we will

get back from the EU eight alien pounds more, the UK Government will

have money in its pockets to ensure that farming doesn't suffer,

whatever the trade terms are of our relationship with the EU. We want to

continue the arrangements for trade broadly speaking as they are now.

It's up to the EU whether they want to take that offer or not. We put

the offer on the table. If they don't want it, that's not something

we can control. Is there such a thing as a bad deal

for you? Or any deal would be good? There are better and worse deals,

but for me self-government is the issue, above all others. The world

is our oyster. We can trade more happily and more prosperously with

the rest of the world outside the EU than we can within it. Because we

can do deals with the United States, for example. 22% of' exports go to

the United United States. And we can develop that. The Trump

administration, whatever you may think of it, Trump is very

pro-British and we should trade on that.

Let's talk about the divorce payment that will come at the start of these

negotiations, the financial liabilities that the UK will owe to

the EU. In a way it's a bit like paying a tab at a bar. We owe money,

we might not like to have to do this, but we're just going to have

to pay it at the end of the day? In a division of assets in the

divorce there is trade both ways. If the EU wants us to continue to pay

for the revenue streams that we leave behind us, we want a share of

the assets as well. The buildings owned by the EU, for example, and

other assets, those don't seem to be on the table. I think this is

playacting by the EU, actually. Any British government that agreed to

pay substantial sums of money to the EU on leaving it would undermine one

of the main purposes of Brexit. Could discover the entire

negotiations, right at the start? Should we end up walking away and

crashing out? I don't think we should walk away

but it's up to the EU ultimately to decide what they are prepared to

accept. I think Britain should have a

certain number of red lines and one of them should be that we're not

going to pay any more into the EU budget. We've paid ?500 billion into

the EU over above Eric Berry anything we've got back in the last

40 odd years. A big day for you, I wonder if you

and your wife Christine opened the champagne today or if you're going

to? We certainly will crack a bottle

later on! It is a day to celebrate, because it's 50 years ago almost to

the day since I joined the anti-Common market league and I've

been fighting the battle my life. Will you still be smiling in two

years' time? I hope so. I'm optimistic about written's and

Wales's future outside of the EU. Becoming self-governing again. In

result of Brexit, Wales will get more powers. It is a great day for

the Welsh Assembly because we will get more power.

Neil Hamilton, thank you very much. Neil Hamilton planning a

celebration, but one party which won't be popping corks are the

Liberal Democrats. I am joined now from Westminster, where the leader

in Wales Mark Williams joined us. Good evening. In contrast Neil

Hamilton I guess you will be drowning your sorrows tonight?

I don't know about that, the Prime Minister said in a statement today

there will be celebrations for some, disappointment for others. I think

measure be a category for those who are disappointed and genuinely

worried about the course of the events that will happen over the

next several years. She's going after a free-trade deal,

to make it as easy, potentially, for exporters. She said she's going to

give more powers to the assembly. This is exactly what you called for,

isn't it? The proof of the pudding is in the

eating. I listen to the statement and heard the words, I heard her

talk about that deep and meaningful partnership with European countries.

It depends what that means and it depends what that is, if an

agreement is able to be concluded within two years. That is

questionable. She talked about how was that the

National Assembly coming after consultation. Some of those powers

will reside in Whitehall still, others will come to Cardiff. Which

ones? We are in the preliminary stages now the phoney war has ended.

And earlier in a statement you said she has chosen to force her own

interpretation of the referendum out, and Wales and England, tearing

Wales' industry, farmers out of the world's biggest single market. So we

ignore the referendum result? Notes. I think the referendum result

illustrated a vast array of genuine concerns. It illustrated a departure

point, but not the destination. I think it's quite clear that the

impact of leaving a market of 500 million people, where for instant

60% of our agricultural exports go, it's a real concern. As part of

negotiations, there has to be an alternative. We don't know what that

alternative is here. The negotiations haven't started. More

worrying if the negotiations are not continued concluded in two years,

the World Trade Organisation tariffs, 40% on dairy products.

Genuine concerns. I hope the warm words of the Prime Minister are

achievable in many areas, but it's the job of opposition politicians,

Labour, Plaid and ourselves to ask questions, to hold them to account

as this process proceeds and we will do that. You have very much staked a

claim on this. She also said we should no longer be defined by the

votes we cast. In other words, a real appeal for unity. Isn't it time

for very divisive messages still from the Liberal Democrats, to come,

to certainly change, as you say yourself, the phoney war comes to an

end and we get to the business end of things? It's not divisive

language from Liberal Democrats that genuine walks genuine concerns we

get this right. I have to go back to my constituents, farming families,

the manufacturing sector, and talk about people's livelihoods. This is

what is at stake. I understand what the Prime Minister is saying but I

have to say, there has to be some sense of compromise from the

government. We had the enacting 50 bill, sensible search opposition

members put forward an accountability, status of EU

nationals and Wales, we were ignored every step of the way. Like the

First Minister, I have concerns about the extent to which the Welsh

voices being listened to in Whitehall. That issue needs to be

addressed. If there's going to be an agenda of us coming together then

there has to be some movement from the UK Government as well. All too

often, I have to say, it strikes me these days that Mrs May is looking

over her shoulder at what certain elements of the Tory party are

saying rather than the national interest quite the Liberal Democrats

used to be the party of the middle ground, the middleweight. I can see

politically why your messaging is tailored to those on the Remain

side. In a way does your kind of message broadly reflect the general

public out there, and the public in Wales?

I'm not going to dispute the legitimacy of the referendum result

on June 23. My constituency voted Remain, most others didn't. I

understand that and respect that, but we now have to move on. I can't

emphasise enough, the phoney war has ended, now it's to the

practicalities, the hard realities as to what this means for the people

of Wales. I just think we'd be doing a huge disservice to the country if

we didn't raise the legitimate concerns of the manufacturing

sector, the farming unions, the people from overseas who now work in

the national health service in Wales, all those groups need a

voice. You read Mrs May's statement and letter to President Tusk on

their point of consensus, if it can be achieved. My fear is that can't

be achieved, certainly within the time frame that has been set for us.

The First Minister earlier saying the impact of this could be minimal.

What is a decent deal for you, what does it look like? I do believe that

the tone that the First Minister and the principal opposition party by

default, and my party, that document which talked about unfettered access

to the single market is absolutely critical. The Prime Minister has

talked about a deep and meaningful partnership. Is there a big gap

between those two things? I don't know. More fundamentally, not a gap

between the national assembly government and the UK Government

that the gap between this country and our friends in Europe, what is

achievable? Certainly access to the market is absolutely critical for

the communities they represent, and right across the country as well.

That goes to the very heart of this issue.

Very briefly on this, can this be done within two years question at

what sort of time frame do you think we are looking at?

I'm genuinely concerned about that. The Welsh affairs committee went to

Brussels two or three weeks ago. The message we heard, you might get your

divorce in two years but the trade negotiations, which won't run in

tandem, could go on for seven or nine years. OK, Mr Williams, we have

to leave it there. Thank you. That is about it from us

on the day the Prime Minister triggered Article

50. Ahead, at least two years of negotiating, working out how the

details of how we will leave the EU. More coverage later this evening on

Wales Today after the News at 10pm, but from this special series of