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

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

it is an historic moment for our country - in what ways will Britain

be a better country for leaving the European Union? Well, you're

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 the 23rd of June last year to leave the European

Union. 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 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 in the country, and that is why, alongside the work that we

are doing on Brexit, I am clear that the Government has a plan for

Britain to build a more outward looking country with a strong

economy where everybody plays by the same rules, a Ferres -- there are

society, to ensure we are a more united nation, somewhere that our

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

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

The British people decided that they wanted to come out, and when they

did make that vote, when they gave that clear message to us as

politicians, 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 sent 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 that it is about our national self-determination as a

United Kingdom, about us having control. You have mentioned that

several times, so let me start with immigration, and I do that because,

for many people, the scale of immigration over the last ten years

was a major reason, not the only reason, a major reason why they

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

immigration will be significantly lower after Brexit? Well, you are

right, for a lot of people, immigration was one of the issues

that was key in their minds. Again, I think what they wanted to know was

that it was the UK Government taking control of our borders, that

decisions would be made here in the UK. Now, 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 upon which

people can come from the European Union. But will immigration be

significantly lower? 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 money variables, so many different things that can happen in

the world that affect the numbers of people trying to come to the UK.

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 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. What will the rules be for EU citizens in the

future? Well, we are looking at the moment at what we think should be

right, and we will be actually bringing forward a Bill in

Parliament in due course which will set out our proposals. There is, if

you like, a couple of this use around people from the European

Union. There are quite a few people from the European Union already

living in the UK, some for a considerable period of time, others

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 am talking about is people

coming here in the future from the EU - would you envisage, as part of

a Brexit deal, that they would still be some sort of preference for EU

citizens who want to work here? Well, what I am clear about is that

there will still be opportunities for people to come to the UK from

the EU, but we will bring forward specific proposals on what the rules

should be in June course, and those will go through out the parliament,

those will be looked at by Members of Parliament, and we will decide

what those rules should be. We want to make sure, of course, that our

economy is still strong, we see many people working in our economy,

working in the public sector, and we want to make sure that we still have

that strong economy. But people won't us to be in control, and that

is the important thing, and that is what we will be doing. The

Conservatives promise to cut net migration to 100,000 year, seven

years ago, and we're nowhere near that figure. Indeed, non-EU

migration, people coming from beyond the EU, that migration alone is well

over 100,000 a 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, gone up

again, and they are now starting to come down. They are higher than we

want them to be, and you are absolutely right about them being

higher than we want them to be. But that is why what I have just said is

so important, that, in immigration, you cannot one set of rules and

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

Actually, you have constantly to be looking at this, constantly working,

constantly saying, have we got the rules right? You cannot, I would

suggest, reduce net migration to 100,000 without major cuts in EU and

non-EU immigration, is that not right? We need to look across the

board, as well as introducing rules for people from the EU, we need to

continue looking across the board. But there is something else we need

to do as a country, of course, which is 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 continue to do pretty well this year. What happens

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

year? Would you let them in? One of the things I have just said is

crucial, we look to our economy for the future, it 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, for example, ensuring that young people

have the opportunity to get these deals they need. I want to see a

high-paid, high skill economy in the future, but we need to ensure 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 the. Some

have suggested it could be as much as ?50 billion, maybe more. Would

you contemplate a son anything like that? When people voted last year,

one of the things they voted for was to ensure that, in a future, outside

the EU, we are 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 will we pay an exit

fee of anything like 50 billion? As we look at the negotiations, we have

to decide what the obligations are, but what I am very clear about is

that what people want to see is that, in the future, we will be

making decisions about our budget, we will be deciding not to pay those

sums of money every year into the European Union. I understand we may

continue to decide with some programmes and make those

contributions, but I am not talking about that, I am talking about an

exit fee that the EU was talking about, demanding almost, around 50

billion. So I ask again, is that in the ballpark that you would

contemplate? Well, you talk about an exit fee, there has been a lot of

speculation. Actually, there isn't a formal demand, the negotiations

haven't started yet, I am very clear about what people in the UK expect,

but I am also clear that we are a law-abiding nation, we will meet

obligations that we have. And as a member, until the point and which we

leave, of course we will be continuing to pay according to the

rights and obligations of membership. Many people will be

wondering - we are leaving, why should we pay anything at all to the

EU? Well, we're not talking about paying to leave, we will be leaving

the EU. We are talking about ensuring that, when we leave, first

of all, when we leave, people will see that we will be taking decisions

about our budget, we will not 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 that, and that is what will drive us. The European

Union is talking about a divorce bill, Michel Barnier, the head

negotiator, is talking about that, are we prepared to pay a divorce

bill? There has been a lot of speculation and comment about this,

we're not in the negotiations yet, we will start those formal

negotiations soon. We have done the first step, which is triggering

Article 50, and as I have said, you know, the UK is a law-abiding

nation, we will look at the rights and obligations that we have. You

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 that you can resolve and announce this quickly?

Well, one of the things I've put in the letter to President 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 I recognise that they are, but as UK

Prime Minister I need to think about UK citizens living abroad as well.

But can both be reassured quickly? I want a reciprocal agreement in terms

of guaranteeing the status of EU citizens and UK citizens, and I have

said that I think it should be done at an early stage. I believe, from

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

there, 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 have just

said, people are worried about their futures, it is only fair to work to

give them reassurance as soon as we can. You believe 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 of the four freedoms that are indivisible, they go together,

so what are they? The importance of free movement, and we have said we

want to control movement from the EU. It is membership of the single

market, accepting that free movement. It also entails accepting

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. And so I have accepted that we cannot 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. Do you

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

get, and I accept your try to get the best you can, no matter how

good, it cannot be as good as unrestricted access that we

currently enjoy as members of the single market? I believe we can get

a comprehensive free-trade agreement, we would like to see as

frictionless free-trade as possible, tariff free across borders, so that

we can continue that trade with the European Union. But can you? It will

be a different relationship, because it will not be based on a bishop of

the single market and accepting all the other thing is that voters

rejected. -- waste on membership. It will be saying that we want that new

partnership with the EU, we want to cooperate with you, and actually

getting a trade agreement isn't 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 interests of both sides to

agree a really good deal. I understand that, but David Davis,

the Brexit minister, said there would be a free-trade deal which

would 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 a competence of

free-trade agreement which gives that ability to trade freely into

the European single market. -- comprehensive. 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 I think about 40 pan-European agencies

and other arrangements. In science, security,

air travel and healthcare. I want to ask about

two specific ones. One is a very timely

one, given the events Will our membership

of Europol, the police Europewide service,

will that continue post-Brexit? That's one of the things

that we will have to negotiate I think security co-operation

in a number of crime and justice It's not just Europol,

there are some other things. There are systems about exchanging

information about people crossing Which I think are valuable,

valuable to us and valuable But would you like to remain

a member of Europol? I've argued before, for exactly

this, when a couple of years ago, when we were looking at exactly

these justice and home I think it is important for us

and I want us to be able 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, If it lapses, would we cease

to share information with Europe? Well, we wouldn't be able to access

information in the same way So it's important, I think,

that we're able to negotiate a continuing relationship that

enables us to work together As I've said, right at the moment -

of course this is very much brought home to us in London last week -

right at the moment, now is not a time given the threats

that we face across Europe for us to see less co-operation

in this area. We want to continue that

co-operation and build on it. Let me ask you another question

something that concerns people. Will UK citizens still be eligible

for free access to healthcare across the EU through the European

health insurance card? Well, that also will be

a matter that will be part But 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

that people will have We want to get the best

possible deal for citizens I want to get the best possible deal

for everybody in what ever part of the United Kingdom

they are living. But we have a whole raft

of negotiations that A whole raft of issues

that we will be looking Of course, we need

the flexibility of being able The relationship will be

different in the future. It's not necessarily

a question of saying - are we going to replicate this

or replicate that? Actually, we will have a different

relationship with Europe. You talk about a whole raft

of things that have to be decided, Now, you need to negotiate

our divorce terms. You want a new free trade deal

for goods and services. You want new crime

fighting arrangements, new health arrangements

you needed to repatriate 50 You have to it all ratified by 27

other countries as well as our own. 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 is this, Andrew. 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've

got that trade arrangement. There maybe be a period

of implementation after the point of withdrawal, but we know

what that arrangement is, so everybody is certain

about where the future lies. So it's in both side's

interests to do this, but the other reason why I think

it's possible is because of course we're not a third country

in the sense of a country that's never been part of

the European Union. We are not suddenly coming knocking

at the door saying we want all of these things,

we have been part of the EU. We have been operating

on the same basis with them. So I think that puts us

in a different position for the future and makes it easier

for us to negotiate these arrangements than it

would if we were coming Do you rule out a transitional

period where some things, even after we leave, still remain to be

resolved? What I want is, by the end of the two years, everybody to know

what the withdrawal agreement is and what the future relationship is.

That deep - what I have called today - a deep and special partnership

with the EU. We are part of Europe. We want to work and co-operate with

them. I want that agreed by the end of the two years. I think that's

possible. It may be that there have to be a period of implementation

there after as people adjust. As businesses adjust. As governments

adjust to whatever the new arrangements are. If there is a

transitional period, or an implementation period, would that

still involve the free movement of people and being under the

jurisdiction of the European Court or do both these things have to end

in 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 that

we are able to control movement of people coming from the European

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

There may, as I say may be a period from which we are implementing those

arrangements. A simple example, you know, if there are different visa

arrangements that need to be put in place. The Government here and

governments elsewhere will have to have their systems working so that

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

the decision that is have been taken. You said in the event of no

deal, we may have to change Britain's economic model. What does

that mean? Well, on the no deal, I've said that no deal, first of

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

deal. I say that because I think there are some people in Europe who

talk about punishing the UK and I don't want to sign up to an

agreement which is based on that. Then there are others here who

perhaps feel thatle 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 our different economic

model mean, that was my question? What I've said in the letter today,

if we don't get a deal, then we would go on to what are called these

WTO, the world trade organisation arrangements for trading. What, in

thosishing ises I've made clear in the letter that's not what we should

want. It's not in either of our interests - I will come to the point

about the economic model. It's not in in either side's interests, I

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

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

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

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

third time. What does it mean? We will take decisions at the time as

to what we felt was necessary to keep our economy competitive and

keep jobs here in the United Kingdom and putting in place the

arrangements for business that kept those jobs and be so forth. Don't

you do that anyway? We do work to do that, but - I'm not sure what a new

economic poddel is. Labour say it is's a tax haven? Labour set up all

sort of straw men about what this might be in the future. What it's

about is making sure that jobs stay here in the UK and new jobs are are

created in the UK. It's aboutic making sure we have the economy that

enables people to have those high paid, high skilled jobs and that

we're ensuring that young people here have got those skills for the

future. I understand. Let me ask you one rather important question. If we

don't get a deal, will that jeopardise our existing co-operation

against crime and terrorism with our European partners? If there is no

deal, will that weaken it? Well, if I can accept vat rate those two out.

On some of the co-operation we have with them on terrorism, that takes

place outside the European Union and outside the structures of the

European Union. But 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

would - that is one of the reasons why I think we should aim not to be

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

good deal because I think that co-operation is important to us. We

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

must mean checks on the Irish border? We are very clear, both I,

eye' talked to the government in the Republic, the Taoiseach about this,

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

We are, woing very closely with the Irish government about the

arrangements that can be put in place to ensure a frictionless

border in a practical sense, a frictionless border for goods and

services and people travelling between Northern Ireland and the

Republic. The leave campaign promised a Brexit end dividend of

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

How big do you think the Brexit dividend be should the lion share go

to the NHS? What I think is what people want is for, what they voted

for, is for the UK to be able to decide how it spend its budget. For

us not to be spending significant amounts of money every year paying

into the European Union and Brussels. When we leave we will have

control of that money. We will decide how we spend that money. How

big will the Brexit - That is what people want to see. Will it be

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

be ensuring we are not paying the significant sums in in the future.

We will then be able to see what the size of thatdy veried individual end

will be and determine how that money it spent. Should it go to the NHS?

There are lots of things we should think about. It was the NHS on the

side of the bus during the referendum? During the referendum

there were points made, often very passionately, on both sides of the

argument. We are beyond the referendum. We are at the point

where we are putting this into practice. Where we are 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. That is what we'll have. You have rejected

the demands of Scotland's First Minister for a second independence

referendum. You say now is not the time. What about when you have done

the Brexit deal? When we know what the nature of Brexit is? Will you

rule out a second Scottish referendum? Well, the comments that

I'm getting from the Scottish Government and from the SNP in

Parliament at the moment are that they want a confirmation now they

are going to have a second independence referendum. What I'm

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

referendum. I understand that? Now is not the time to be focussing on a

second referendum - What about when the Brexit deal is done. They can

see what it looks like. They voted to stay in the EU. People will argue

they should have a second decision. Are you against it in principle? If

I can explain why I say now is not the time. I think it's relevant to

the wider question. It's not the time to focus on a second

independence referendum or to be looking at that second independence

referendum because, for two reasons, now is the time when we need to pull

together as a United Kingdom. We need to be talking about how we can

work together to get the best possible deal for everybody across

the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand that? Focussing on an

independence referendum isn't abouting doing that. Do you rule it

out? That's why it's important for us to ensure that we do focus on the

future. Do you rule it out in principle? Also, I think it's

important that we recognise - well, I think, Andrew, the question isn't

whether there could be a second independence referendum it's whether

there should be. Should there? The people of Scotland voted in 2014.

They voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. The SNP themselves

described it as a once in a generation, indeed a

once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to vote for independence. The people

gave their message. I think just as we're respecting the referendum that

took place here last year on EU membership, so we should all respect

the 2014 Scotland referendum. During the referendum you said, "I believe

it's clearly in our national interest to remain a member of the

EU. " Now you you say Brexit will "great a better Britain"? I said I

didn't think the sky would fall in if we left the European Union. It

hasn't. It's the mother of all U turns? My job, I have been put in a

position as trm Prime Minister, I believe, to respect the wishes of

the people of the United Kingdom in that elf are ref. I believe it's my

job to deliver the best possible few fur for the UK. It's not just about

Brexit, it's about my plan for Britain. A more outward looking

Britain, a stronger economy, a fairer society and a more united

nation. 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's 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 doings? Why not? What I've

said is when we have a deal there will be a vote in the UK parnlt.

There will be votes in parliaments across Europe 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 will not take to the country? I'm confident we will get a

deal that is going to be good for the British people. The British

people have basically said to - go on and get on with it. We want to

leave the EU. Go out there, get the deal, get on with it. That's what

we're going to do. Prime Minister, thank you. Thank you.

That was me speaking earlier to the Prime Minister, Theresa May, on the

day that she triggered Article 50, beginning the formal negotiations

that will lead to Britain's departure from the European Union in

two years' time. For the next half-hour, and going to

be talking to a number of the party leaders about what they want to see

from the negotiations, and how they see Britain after Brexit. I'm joined

now by the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, welcome to the

programme. Your Shadow Chancellor has said Brexit offers, quote, an

enormous opportunities. What are these opportunities? Well, the

opportunities are the opportunities that we all want to take, which is

an investment led economy, higher wages, good quality manufacturing

industry, and a good trading relationship with Europe, because

after all approximately half of all our trade, both manufacturing and

services, is with the European Union at the present time. Many of our

industries, as you know, closely interlinked with production across

the continent. So don't we have these opportunities at the moment? I

don't understand how leaving the EU improves these opportunities.

The changes would be that the European Union would not be able to

influence an economic model, one of my concern is that I expressed about

the form of the European Union, the way it wanted to prevent government

intervening to protect industries, and I think government should

intervene to protect industries. But actually, the reality is that we are

leaving the European Union, so let's look to the relationship with Europe

in the future and the way in which the Government is going to pursue

those negotiations. So more state intervention after Brexit if there

was a Labour government, more state intervention in industry? I have

always said this, because I think we do need to have an investment led

economy. We do less investment than most countries in the OECD and

across the European Union. We need to invest in hi-tech manufacturing

industries and sustainable industries and jobs. We have great

levels of inequality in Britain, amongst the greatest in Europe, and

the prime Minster today is talking about the possibility of trading

under WTO rules, which would be pretty catastrophic for most of our

industries. You have set at six tests for Theresa May in the

negotiating process, and one is the exact same benefits as we currently

enjoy as members of the single market. As I said to her, I say to

you, you know that is Mission: Impossible. David Davis said this in

a house on the 24th of January. Doesn't make it right! He says many

things. Why do you make it one of your tests? It is a test on the

Government, they said they would achieve it, so how do you achieve

it? You achieve it by the basis upon which you trade within the European

market, and I give you an example, I mentioned industry. The car

industry, 1.5 million engines made by Ford, they have to go to Europe

to be put into cars. The same with Airbus, Rolls-Royce, lots of

companies. There is a huge integration. That integration has to

continue, otherwise it is very hard to see how those big industries will

remain in Britain. Do you believe we should remain members of the single

market? I don't think we can be members of the single market if we

are not members of the European Union, so the issue is access. It is

an agreement which would be a trade deal with Europe. So on that, your

policy is the same as the Government's? We would fight to have

that trade relationship, and we would not be threatening, which is

what the Prime Minister was doing in our interview, saying, if we have to

trade under WTO rules, we might adopt our own economic model, which

can only lead to lower levels of taxation and all the problems that

come with that. Corporatist -- corporate taxation, that is. Should

we remain members of the customs union? The customs union is the

trade arrangement for the rest of the world. If we remain members of

the customs union, we have the same trading relationships with the rest

of the world, fixed agreement on tariffs and two as the EU, so should

we remain a member? I suspect we're not going to be allowed to remain a

member, so we will have to develop our own trade policies with the rest

of the world, and this is where it becomes very complicated, because if

we cannot trade with the rest of the world and the current agreements and

we have to develop new trade arrangements, it becomes very

complicated. On the customs union, the broad principle of the policy is

the same as the Government. Norway, for example, is not a member of the

EU but follows the customs union rules. Norway is in the single

market. You agree that we cannot be in the customs union even if we want

to be. You say we should honour our obligations, the so-called divorce

settlement, would that come anywhere near the ?50 billion that the EU is

talking about? I'm not really sure where this figure comes from. There

are obviously issues about ongoing commitments to staff... Which the

Prime Minister talked about, but that is a different matter. The

other way around, the agreements we have made with the European Union

for, for example, capital investment programmes on railways in the

south-west, Southeast Wales, all those agreements, we either have to

pick them up and fund them ourselves or pay the European Union. I don't

know where this figure comes from. Can you imagine it being close to 50

billion? No, I couldn't. If the Prime Minister does not meet all six

of your tests, will aide vote against the final deal? Keir Starmer

has made our position very clear in a House on Monday, we set down those

points about protection of jobs, protection of conditions, trade

arrangements with the European Union. Obviously, if those are not

met, we will not supported. And you would vote against it even if the

consequence of that would mean that we would crash out, in your words,

on WTO rules? This is where the pressure from the Labour Party and

the opposition to the Government will ensure two things - one is that

there is a final vote, because the Government did not want that, and

secondly that there is regular reporting to Parliament. If there is

not likely to be an agreement, then surely the obvious thing to do from

both the point of view of the 27 other countries, the commission,

Parliament and us is to continue those negotiations by an extension.

Within Article 50, there is provision to continue those

negotiations. But you would need all 27 to agree. This is true, and you

might have to argue very strongly with them, but I have done my best

to reach out to colleagues in Socialist parties in everyone of the

27 in the States to do two things - help us reach a sensible agreement

with Europe, but also to protect British nationals living in their

country. Not many of your socialist colleagues are in Govan and in

Europe. Some art, and they are still a factor in politics, still a factor

in government. Would you support a second referendum on the outcome of

negotiations? No, at the moment, we have made a decision in this

referendum, and I think it has been put to politicians to deal with the

issue, and we campaigned for a Remain vote, it was not successful,

the country voted to leave, we respect the result of the

referendum, and we want to be able to speak for the entire country in

holding the Government to account. People might have voted to leave the

European Union, but they didn't vote themselves out of a job at the same

time. Both you and the Prime Minister were Remainers, and Mrs May

now sounds like an enthusiasm for Brexit. You said before the

referendum that you were seven out of ten in staying in the EU. How

much are you out of ten on leaving? Well, we are leaving. Ten out of

ten? Well, there isn't a debate, we are leaving. Are you becoming

enthusiastic like her? Not enthusiastic like her. Brexit is

happening, there is no debate about it, it is a question of how we leave

and the terms by which we leave, and the relationship we have with Europe

in the future. My concern in the referendum was that I wanted to see,

as I said to one of your earlier question is, a reformed European

Union. I wanted much more of a social Europe, much more equality

across the continent, because that is a problem. But there are also

huge issues facing this country on equality, poverty and injustice

which we have to face. What controls, because if and when we

leave, or when we leave, we will have to devise a number of policies

which we haven't had to as members - one of them is on immigration from

the European Union. At the moment, there is free movement because that

is a condition of membership of the EU and the single market. What

controls would you place on migration from the EU post-Brexit?

Well, it depends what the trade deal is, quite clearly, and what

incidences but there, but Britain has benefited greatly from European

workers here, our health service relies on them, many of our hi-tech

industries do, and indeed British workers across Europe. So there are

always going to be movements across the borders, and I think we have to

accept that. But would you put any controls on it? What I would do is

end the process of agencies recruiting people to come to this

country and undercard construction workers, and that people in call

centres and factories, and make sure there is local advertising of jobs

and proper wages and conditions, rather than what goes on. But let's

be serious about this, our country is an industrial country, as well as

having service industries, agriculture. All of those, in part,

need European workers, as indeed to British workers across Europe. Would

you have any controls on EU migration to the UK? Well, clearly,

and any future arrangements, there will have to be an agreement on

British people going to work in Europe, and European people coming

to work in Britain, but we always go to have a close relationship because

everybody, me absolutely, is signed up to the concept that all EU

nationals currently resident here must have a permanent right of

residency. They have families, and there is always going to be

movement. I understand that, and I asked the Prime Minister about that,

but I want to be clear - with the movement of people, when we leave

the EU, would it be any different from where it is now? I suspect it

will probably be different, because both sides would have a debate about

that, but actually we are two years away from this disease in. You don't

have a policy? We will be consulting on this, working out a policy

proposal, and the issue is one of the terms of trade with Europe and

protection of EU nationals here and British nationals living in other

parts of Europe. Jorg Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, she says

free movement is a worker's right. You wouldn't want to take that away,

would you? She supports the principle that workers should be

able to sit the best job they can, and that is what goes on at the

present time. My point, and I am sure she would agree if she were on

this programme, in the way in which groups of workers, particularly from

two or three European countries have been grotesquely exploited in this

country. That is a shame on us and terrible for them. Scotland voted to

remain in the EU at the referendum, the Scottish Government was elected

with a second referendum in its manifesto, the Scottish Parliament

as voted for one this very week - would you deny these got a second

referendum? I don't think the Westminster Parliament should block

a referendum once it has been proposed by the Scottish Parliament.

I am not in favour of a second referendum, and I think the economic

arguments in Scotland are very serious and very strong. There is a

15 billion gap between Scottish taxation income and the requirements

of Scottish public services, and so I have made that adamant in

Scotland, at the Scottish Labour Party conference and other places.

-- that argument. So you would grant the First Minister a referendum?

Parliament has made reference to it, has agreed it wants to do it, I

don't support that, but I think under devolution, we agreed

devolution in 1997. I don't think Westminster should block it, but I

think they should be a serious discussion about the timing of it,

because if the referendum occurs during the Brexit negotiations, it

becomes a bit complicated. I understand that, but I am confused.

Would you back Nicola Sturgeon's timetable, from the back 18-19 or

not? It should not take place until after the Brexit negotiations have

been completed. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland voted to remain.

You have been a huge supporter of a united Ireland in the past, is it

time for a referendum on that? I think we have to recognise that

there is going to be an enormous complication about Northern Ireland,

the border with the Republic after the exit from the European Union.

No-one wants a hard border, everybody wants to support the

Belfast agreement, that is built into the whole European Union

arrangements, and so there is going to have to be an agreement on

movement of people and goods across the border between the Republic and

the six counties. Would you welcome that referendum? It is up to the

people of Northern Ireland. If the assembly wants to have one, they

should be allowed to, but the important thing now is to beat an

agreement to ensure that the good relationship between the six

counties and the Republic continues... And that the border

stays open? Yes, so that people can freely move across it. Jeremy

Corbyn, thank you. What do some of the other political

parties in England want to see from the Brexit negotiations? The Liberal

Democrats say Britain's best chance of to succeed is within the EU. They

support a second referendum at the end of the negotiating process

because they argue people voted for departure, but not for a

destination. Think are campaigning for Britain to remain a member of

the single market. Ukip says the party will hold the Government's

feet to the fire over Brexit. They have laid out six tests for the deal

between the UK and the EU to ensure that leave means leave. These

include, no divorce payment with the EU. A significant fall in net

migration and the Brexit deal finalised by 2019. The Green Party

position is to campaign against what they call an extreme Brexit. They

say they will oppose any measures taking to turn the UK into a tax

haven or take away the rights of UK and EU contribute accidents. They

support a second referendum on the terms of the deal of Britain's

future relationship with the EU. I'm joined by the Liberal Democrat

leader, the Ukip leader and the co leader of the Green Party. Welcome

to you all. Are you out to reverse the decision this country took on

June 23rd? No, I don't want a rerun of the referendum we had last June.

It was narrow there. Was a majority for Britain leaving the European

Union. Thats with a vote on departure not destination. As the

detail of the deal becomes more clear. Theresa May doesn't know what

that deal is, how can any of us be expected to know. Fair enough. At

the end, this deal will be signed off and agreed by politicians or it

should be signed off by the people. The Liberal Democrats have the view

that the people should have the final say on the destination which,

at the moment, is unclear. You think when the Government, if the

Government comes to a deal on our terms of Brexit, that should be put

to the people in a second referendum? Yeah. I mean, the first

referendum on the deal. No-one had sight of that deal. You know what I

mean? I do. It's of real significance. At the moment we don't

know what it will look like. We have various things from the Prime

Minister, the extent to which immigration will be controlled, the

extent to which we will have a relationship with the single market.

All of those things the Liberal Democrats believe we should fight to

be members of the single market. They are up for grabs we are

expected to allow a stitch-up between civil servants between

politicians in Whitehall toll decide our future. Liberal Democrats think

the people should have the final say. If we don't like what the

Government comes back with we should be allowed to remain in the European

Union. If the Prime Minister succeeded you will have read her

letter to the EU. If she succeeded in all the aims she sets out in

that, come the final deal, would you support that? Extremely unlikely. I

can't imagine there is deal. Would you? On offer for the you United

Kingdom that is on often now. That is my question. The weakness of her

position is shown in the fact that the big thing she should be seek

something membership of the single market. How can you remain members

of the single market and not be subject to free movement, rules and

the jurisdiction of the ECJ, in other words, you are member of the

EU? Norway and Switzerland are members of the single market and not

members of the European Union. They are subject to the jurisdiction by

one court removed in the ECJ? That is certainly the case. I would

defend freedom of movement. If you are listening to anything coming out

of the capitals of the other European Union countries at the

moment, you will be hearing governments which are prepared to

compromise on that issue. If Theresa May really wanted to fight for what

was in Britain's interest, we stay in the single market, if she had the

courage of those convictions she may get what she wanted. She is not

fighting that battle at all. What did the Prime Minister say today

with which you disagree? Very little, actually. I think that she's

talking the talk, but then again Theresa May has been very good at

this kind of thing. When it comes to walking the walk she generally

fails. I found very little I disagree with the Prime Minister

today. We don't really - you described yourself as the guard dog

of Brexit. Yes. We don't need a guard dog with no MPs. You are a

guard dog with no teeth? I'm not convinced the Prime Minister won't

barter things away. The fishing industry may go first and foremost.

As I say, in terms of not having an MP any more because Douglas Carswell

left on Saturday, it doesn't really matter. If you think, Andrew, we

forced the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, into giving a

referendum that he never wanted to give when we had no representation

in the House of Commons. You won, job done? We won. As I say there is

a two year process now. We have got to be there. We have got to be

electorally strong and ensure the Prime Minister doesn't barter things

away. The Green Parties talks about an extreme Brexit. Tim Farron talks

about hard you talk about extreme? Fundamental list Brexit. Out doing

each other. You had the Prime Minister today and you heard the

response from Donald Tusk the head of the EU council. What was extreme

about am any of that? Look at what is on offer. An end to freedom of

movement. I'm passionate about freedom of movement I will defend it

to my dying day. My children will benefit from. It I enjoyed it, my

children won't get it. It's not extreme to be against it. Not just

to stop people coming they voted against free movement. That was not

on offer in the referendum. Everybody knew that was important.

There were plenty - some people in the Conservative Party that were on

the leave side say it wouldn't be an end to freedom of movement. Really?

Tim highlighted Uncontrolled freedom of movement? Absolutely, yes. You

thought people voted to leave, but still knew that even leaving

wouldn't mean the end of uncontrolled - Yes if you have

access to the single market, you would still have freedom of

movement. You said it your eself, Andrew. Actually, I didn't. Let me

come back to Tim Farron. The Prime Minister says Brexit will build a

better Britain. That is her aim. The President of the European Commission

said Britain will be weaker once he said we leaves the "beautiful EU"

are you with Mr Juncker or Mrs May? I take the view Britain will be

better if it's part of that family of nations we have been in for the

last 40 odd years and being in the European Union is something that I'm

passionately in favour of. The fact we lost the referendum means I

respect the outcome, but it doesn't mean I've changed my view. Do you

respect the outcome though? If you saw a chance to review it you would?

Only by democratic means. Of course. Not saying you are going to mount a

coup? I'm glad that particular accusations is off the table.

Pleased to be exonerated. Not the courts, not Parliament, the British

people should have the right to look at the deal, say we like it, in

which case I will say, we're out. Or that we actually have the chance to

remain in the EU. The whole point about the referendum is people

getting back control and people being part of a process that began

with the referendum. It didn't just stop there. Suddenly the 48% had to

suck it up and the 52% get everything. 48% of people were

voting for a different vision. If Theresa May is serious about uniting

the country she should be listening to these people and taking them with

her and not having this extreme version of Brexit. If we committed

to another referendum at the end on the deal, I can guarantee to you now

that the European Union would ensure we got the worst deal possible to

ensure that we voted to stay in and reject it. I think Is there Let Tim

Farron to answer that? It's a complex situation that we have found

jours selves in. That is the doing of David Cameron who put this

half-baked referendum to the public it was about departure and not

destination. Whatever happens we are in a weak position. She has started

giving away our membership of the single market. If she announced she

was going to have a second referendum would she be in a weaker

position because the EU would give us a bad deal so we voted against

it? She is is saying we don't want to fight for our right to be in the

single market. I don't see how democracy makes it worse. For the

reason Paul Nuttall gave. He has the right to negotiate Brexit. She

absolutely has. His spot is spot on. If she inherited as Prime Minister,

as she did, a dead heat, a narrow win for leave you would seek a

consensual Brexit. You would OK exit from the European Union, you would

maintain your place in the single market. Paul Nuttall? Fair time.

Tim, the point is, we are you can talking about the single market as

if it's the be -all and end-all. It's a shrinking economic block we

do less trade with the European Union year-on-year and more with the

rest of the world. We can sign out on free trade deals with America,

China, India - the EU signs them on our behalf. Once we leave we can

take back our seat on the world trade organisation. Two parties

talking about trade deals, they are talking about the single market. We

are forgetting about people. Not one mention from any politician about

climate change and the environment. Not one mention in Theresa May's

speech about it. Nothing in Jeremy Corbyn's six tests. This is facing

my children's future is climate change. You are the Green Party, I

understand why you say that. You are in favour of a second referendum. A

referendum on the deal, too, like the Liberal Democrats? We are. What

would happen if people voted no? You put a pause on it and listen to the

people. It's about listening to what the people are saying and take a

long hard look at it. What would happen? Ask if you want it look at

the terms of the deal -. If the EU say, you triggered Article 50, time

is running out. That is why I'm bringing a court case through Dublin

to the European Court right now - Another court case. Can we finish

this point. We started on triggering Article 50 not knowing how to stop

it, if there is a financial crisis and if things go wrong. How could we

pause it? There are so many unknowns. The Prime Minister is

taking us into it without knowing how she can push the ut abouton to

stop it if she needed to. The good news - Here is the hill silver

lining if you think triggering Article 50 is a sad occasion. The EU

confirmed in writing that article 350 is revokable within the two

years by the UK without anybody stopping us elsewhere in the EU.

That's important. What Theresa May has done is jump out of the plain

without a parachute, the EU chucked us a parachute. If the people don't

like the deal they have the right to say, thanks, no thanks we will stay

point. You need the Brexit talks to fail, don't you? We want to do as

good as possible as a country - you Want them to fail? I don't. I want

us to be close to Europe as humanly possible. If we believe the rhetoric

Theresa May came out with today she apparently wants that to too we want

a deal going forward that that allows us to stay close to Europe.

You want them to fail. If they fail you can re-open the issue again and

perhaps this time get your way. Win this time rather than losing last

time. If they don't fail, you don't win? Don't get me wrong here, my

sense is that the European Union and the Commission in particular has got

lots wrong with it. I've spent most of my time in politics being someone

who is sceptical about what the Commission does. The idea of Europe,

the unity of 28 countries that were once at war on the other side of the

iron curtain recently, that is massively important. Whether we

succeed or fail in the negotiations the idea of Europe and European

countries working together is a good thing. Given your attitude, for you,

surely, no deal is the best deal for you? Do you know what, I will put

country over party. I want the best deal for Britain. That means

controlling our own borders by reducing immigration, doing away

with freedom of movement. Control of our own waters. Not paying a

membership fee any more. Able to sign our own free trade deals around

the globe. 100% of our laws are made in this country, not Brussels. In a

sense you are the other side of the Tim Farron coin. You need Brexit to

be a betrayal to maintain electoral relevance? I think she will barter

things away and want won't go through - I'm willing her to do so

because I will put my country above party. Is she going to do so? I

don't think she will, no. You don't? You think it will be a betrayal?

Look at her record at Home Secretary, she is good at talking

the talk. When it comes to you can walking the walk she generally

fails. You wouldn't voluntarily jump out of the single market. I don't

agree with him on tuition fees and on this. We need to see the big

vision. I'm in favour of a big vision for Britain where we see

where we are going. This is bigger than Brexit. This issue is about our

future - On that bigger vision we are out of vision. Thank you for

joining us tonight. I thank all my guests this evening on joining us on

this day that saw Britain begin its official departure from the European

Union. Good night. Hello, I'm Sarah Campbell

with your 90 second update. It's been a momentous day

in the history of Europe. A letter from the Prime Minister has

been handed to Brussels to kick off divorce talks,

starting the long and difficult