tv British Prime Minister Theresa May on Latest Brexit Negotiations CSPAN November 27, 2018 12:02am-1:08am EST
after approval from the european union of the withdrawal agreement between minister theresa may reported back to the house of commons during this one-hour portion several members even from her own conservative party openly expressed that they would not vote for the final brexit deal set forth for september 2018. the party would oppose the deal calling it the worst of all worlds.rd the special counsel i've reached a deal with the leaders of the withdrawal agreement for the departure from the 29th of march next year and the political
declaration of the future partnership that had been our national interest. it delivers on the democratic position of the people and takes back control of the borders t ad ends the movement to once and for all and allowing the government a new skills-based immigration system it takes back control of the ball and the jurisdiction of the uk and are they being made in the parliament and forced to take back control so we can spend taxpayers money including the 394 million pounds of extra investment in the long-term plan for the national health service. by creating a new free-trade area with these restrictions or
rules of origin t that deal with the jobs w including those that supply chain and was a close relationship on defense and tackling terrorism that will help keep people safe and protect the integrity of the united kingdom meeting commitments in northern ireland and including overseas territories. we've worked with the government and i want to pay tribute in particular to the chief minister for his statesmanship in these negotiations. we have ensured it is covered by the whole withdrawal agreement and by the implementation period and for the future partnership the uk government will be negotiating for the whole uk family including the border.
as they said this weekend and i quote every aspect is a response to the united kingdom. weta worked seamlessly togethers we have with all other aspects in thiss two-year period and mot importantly they have not been changed and that is what the government repeatedly thought that they have not achieved that. the united kingdom has notot let us down. our message to the people is clear we will always stand by you. we are proud that its british and our position on sovereignty has not and will not change. the withdrawal agreement would ensure that we meet the european union the 29th of march in a smooth and orderly way. it protects the right of those living in the uk and the uk as a student living in the eu so they can carry on living their lives
as before and it delivers the timing and implementation period to get the business i businesseo prepare for the newto page meant during the implementation period theyen will continue so the business is only have to face one setet of changes. it ensures the settlement of the financial obligations than what some originally expect and demand and the commitment to ensure there is no border between northern ireland and ireland and in the event the future relationship is not ready by the end of the implementation period some vendors remain concerned so let me address. ths correctly. both the uk and the eu are having the future relationship in place by the first of january and the withdrawal agreement has a legal duty on both sides to
avoid. if we did choose a backstop it would be temporary and that the article cannot provide and there is now more flexibility that can be superseded. it includes the arrangements and the technologies to avoid on the island. there is a unilateral right for the joint committee to seek independent arbitration if you do not use good faith in this process.
furthermore as a result it is clear once the backstop has been superseded it would cease to apply. the backstop could not return. mr. speaker i. do not pretend that we or the eu are entirely happy with this agreement and that is how it must be with eitherwe party they would have o incentive to move on to the future the withdrawal agreement is accompanied by the declaration that sets up the scope and the terms of the
relationship between the uk and the eu. the details in the negotiators will be n used to buffer the agreement ocover theagreement oe relationship after we have left. o dethe linkages between the sis to give his best endeavors to get it implemented by the end of 2020. both sides are committed to making preparations for an immediate start to negotiations after the withdrawal with specific details of the future economic relationships this includes the free trade area. no other major economy has and it includes the trade in services well beyond the wto commitment. it includes new arrangements for the financial services sector and ensuring market access
cannot be restored on a whim and andiding stability certainly for the world's leading industry. instead is the political declaration it will be in the coastal states once again and we will take that control over our waters the eu have maintained throughout this process but they wanted to link overall access to the markets it as no surprise some are already trying to lead olaydown the markets again for e future relationships that they should be getting used to the
answer by now. it isn't going to happen. finally the declaration is clear whatever is agreed in the future partnership with recognized the uk trade policy beyond this economic partnership. for the first time the uk will be able to find new trade deals the future relationship also includes the comprehensive new security partnerships that close the law enforcement and judicial cooperation to keep all of our people safe. that the outset we were told we would be treated like any other state on security. on the name records, dna, fingerprints and registration
data have arrangements like those in the european way to share the type of information included in the database is for criminal records. it's been a long and complex negotiation that requires give and take on both sides of the negotiation that it honors the result of the referendum. in so doing offer a brighter future for the british people outside of thefo eu. there isn't ase better deal available and my fellow leaders were very clear on that it is to examine the detail to debate respectfully to listen to our
constituents and decide has been our national interest there is a choice that they will have to make. to move on to buildin onto builr future prosperity for all of our people to reject and go back to square one because it would open up the door to decision and uncertainty with all of the risks that would entail. the national interest is clear. they wanted to get on with a deal with it.
the prime minister may want to try to sell it as a great success, but the reality is nothing has changed. if we reject this appeal it will take us back to square one. the truth is under this government we've never gone beyond square one. it is a bad deal for this country and all he did his mark ythe end of the governments failed and miserable negotiations. theree can be no doubt that it was the worst of all worlds. this appeal mitigates most of the impact.
for much of the rest of the cabinet is telling they know these negotiations have failed and they know that it will leave britain were soft. it was 3.9% smaller than it would otherwise be. this is more than minute contributions to the european cion which is currently 8.9 billion here around 170 million a week. so, why is the feminist are claiming extra money would be due to the brexit dividend? of course, we look forward to the forecast and in the needed legal advice that has been seen nearly two weeks ago. the prime ministers claim this deal takes back control over the
borders and frankly is a falla fallacy. it should give comfort but in june of 2020 we can be faced with a choice we can agree to extend the transition of period or accept the backstop. can the minister confirm that under her deal if we are to avoid the backstop, we will have to accept whatever the european union demands to extend the transition period leaving a choice of paying more money or a enter a backstop leading to a regulatory border down the irish sea so much for taking back control of the borders, the money and. the law. it may not end there. they've already made clear from
negotiating the future deal before the end of the transition period and of course all our fishermen will be protected. isn't it the case that under the deal we will have to agree to those demands with access to waters if we want to finalize a future deal breaking every promise the secretary has madery to the industry and the coastal community. it is from any future relationship that is still to be
negotiated not something they minister presented last week. it is to pay more to extend the transition with no say over the money or the borders into the unacceptable backstop is only made possible by her own red lines most of which has been abandoned by her. is it not in the national interest for the prime minister this deal doesn't have the support of either side of the house or the country as a whole. it's an act of national self harm.
the feminist are now needs to prepare a plan be something that predecessors failed to do. there is a sensible deal that could win the support of the house based on a comprehensive customs union a strong single market deal. when the feminist are was addressing a made it clear that she should be heard and she was. it is doomed to fail. based on the comprehensive customs union a strong single market deal that protects the rights at work.
many young people seize the opportunities have been taken away from them. many people voted for an outward looking inclusive society in promoting this deal. likewise the areas that voted field that the deal is become brexit and doesn't take back control and obama makeit them better. this isn't a plan for britain's future. so for the goodd of the nation the house has very little choice but to reject the deal.
they want to bring the end one andat for all and that is becaue they are not responding. glit's both the single market ad the customs union. the right honorable gentleman talked about the importance of having a policy negotiating our own trade deal and an honorable member of the unio union which e was, you can't do that. so he's gone back on his word in relation to these issues and i
recognize that this has raised the a question but for those tht have commented i think it's important to recall if we were in the backdrop we would be in sight of the fishery and we would be deciding who has access to fish in our waters. they made very clea it very cled that the government stood by and we resisted change with the government. it has not changed and will not change and we are proud. i have to say finally he talked
about dealing with issues of our economy in those parts of the country that we do need to enhance and improve our economy, and i have to say to him by one thing that is absolutely clear and that will never deliver for our economy is on borrowing and spending. can i recognize the general endeavor and all of these matters and to just return her to the point about the backdrop does she recognize the genuine and real concern held on all sides of the house about what would happen if the uk was to be forced into the backdrop and if i listen carefully to what my honorable friend said the uk and the eu doesn'tdo want it and thy said no matter what, any
agreement they would never have any hard borders so it makes you wonder why is it in the withdrawal agreement at all. if the government going down the road for the negotiation and heading towards the plaintiff when the backstop will be coming does that not generally mean he's right and we will come up to an intolerable pressure to agree to almost anything to avoid the entry into what my friend -right-brace s -- says. >> i do recognize the concern there has been -- remain about this issue of the backdrop but i disagree about the position that we areai to entail because as i indicated in my statement it started to my honorable friend
and we are in this position of having within the withdrawal agreement the recognition of the alternative arrangement or the implementation period that would deliver for the border of north ireland. the reason is although as strange as it may seem there are members who think it would be a good place for the uk because of its access to the european union market without having financial obligations andar free movement.
thank you mr. speaker. the prime minister is deal has been taken out against its will it must be respected. we hit living standards and defend something that will make it harder to staff a. migration has been good for scotland. against the citizens that come here with complete disregard that we would all lose. we are not prepared to give up these rights. the prime minister's deals have
ofch turbulence. the debate for the minister of scotland it demonstrates the cost of being an independent country. we will continue to work to put in place another referendum on the eu membership. i will address needs to mean the planes that he mentioned the question of migration and i think it's important that we deliver on what people voted for in the referendum and that is
because they felt it was not right people have a right to come here based on the country they came from rather than the contribution to the united kingdom. we will be able to put in place a skills-based system that is based on people skills and contribution to our economy and defend the majority to the issue ofit the policy. who has been standing up for the conservatives it's all but the party wants to do and that would
stop. why could we not make the second half conditional on delivery? >> my friend is aware from the negotiations but we held on this particular issue they've been determined in the legal obligation i think it is important that as a country we stand up to the legal obligations as my right honorable friend also knows is spread over a period of time which is so important for the businesses to ensure they only have to makee one set of chang.
>> thank you very much. about the future economic relationship with the european union but they minister has done at the time that the eu would have because any future trade agreement would require unanimous approval of every member state how can they expect the house to vote to put the country in such a weak position. they are aware of the position that they cannot hide a trade agreement the union is not able
those of the labour party with a much larger party coalition [inaudible] g. and his honorable friend have asked me about their referendum on a number of occasions and my answer has not changed. i've been given the choice as to whether we stay in the european union that we now deliver on the choices of british peopleho made and i recognize that but i think a majority of the public wants uwant usto get on with doing why asked. >> does the minister appreciate that the agreement is incompatible for the whole of
the community we would regain the law does the prime minister accept that this agreement provides the provisions for the 2018 at and is therefore unlawful did she seek the legal opinion of the attorney general on this question in good time before the agreement was signed before her yesterday. >> one thing the act does is bring into the uk law such that there is that smooth and orderly transition when we leave the
european union and the withdrawal agreement will be implemented through the act of. >> the legal text isn't so clear once it ceases to apply. page 309 article to access the backdrop in whole or in part because it is the legal text that matters. it is bad for the union and bad for the economy. can you tell us what is so bad?
>> this is what we want to be able to do in the future to be able to have this trade policy one of the issues with relation to that is whether we would be able to do that. >> it is unsatisfactory as a bit of a statement that is hard to see how this deal can provide certainty to the business or to anyone else they will take back control of the laws.
those that are put in place it is accurate and as a reference earlier is why the european union is and happy with it. i recognize a concern that isen being expressed to negotiate free-trade deals with other countries on the basis of the arrangement we are putting in place with the european union and our relationships we will be able to negotiate those but i think every member of the house should be aware that when those trade deals are being consider considered, there will be issues this house will want to consider which will be nothing to do with whether or not we have a
particular relationship with the european union. it's absolutely clear we will be able to negotiate those with a relationship that is being proposed. >> the deal for the future is just a stopgap. whether it is norway or something worse than that. we have no idea where it is headed. other countries are already saying that it reduces our negotiating power. how canat she say that this is n the future interest ofre the country when nothing is agreed until everything was agreed when did she change her mind?
first of all i would point out what this political declaration does set out very clearly the basis we will be having on security and economicc arrangements with the european union and also sets out clearly developing good-faith agreements giving effect to these relationships is not about some other relationship it's about what is inn this document. we should get away from thinking about on the shelf models that exist already and what is being proposed here is a relationship who that hasn't been offered to any other advanced economy and it's a relationship that shows we are not just another third country. >> this agreement could cost a lot more than 39 million lots of
liabilities especially the next phase of to drag us into permanent transitions. >> there are clauses in the agreement that both sides will make to reach an agreement by the end of the implementation period it can be on either side in the way he's talking about. >> not suggesting that the proposals would mean the country would be economically better off if she? >> i do believe we can be economically better off if the
problem is there are those who think the only factors that are determined is whether or not we were a member of the european union. it will be our decision in many areas for the future. the are we nonetheless being asked to take a huge gamble without any firm commitment to dismantle the extra external to simply use best endeavors?
>> the position in relation to the declaration is exactly what i set out but it is impossible to sign thatan treaty until we e outside of the european union. >> the feminist or was told very clearly last november that it wouldn't be acceptable and she's carried along with the line in that way we can get under. there is no withdrawal agreement without a backstop and that is
the commitment both sides want to give that is very simple any other arrangement or agreement in the european union would have a backstop the debate has been made it to the public from all sides and from all parties how can they reassure the house but it's not more false promises to the people that when broken subsequently would damage the economyy even more. >> we are committed as a government to publishing the analysis of video and we will publish the analysis of various
aspects and they are aware and there are others out there looking at the economic aspects as well. she asked whether it is based on fact. i think it would be an interesting debate to the extent they can describe this fact. [inaudible] can i think that the minister for the efforts that she made personally on behalf of my constituents released this morning. if she is so confident for the public to support this deal why didn't she ask them? >> i thank the gentleman for his remarks and i have responded to the question about this second referendum issue before. it's very simple. i think it's right that this
house and politicians should seize the duty to implement to leave the european union. >> so when my friend describes the functioning of the free-trade area it sounds like the customs union. can you be clear where we are headed will we never reach the point where there are customs declarations? >> we will be working and see the references in the declaration for an ambitious relation but my friend would also be aware there is a balance between the rights in terms of the obligation that is set out clearly in the document as my honorable friend knows the
minister says a majoritministerf people want us to get onpe with brexit but it might be that inconvenient fact when going around the country -- stack to ask her question without being shoutedte out i thought we were talking about respect in the chamber by remembering it. maybe somebody doesn't care about that, but most do and i want to hear the honorable lady. >> we have heard why doesn't she try listening to the public
if there is one thing we can all agree which is it will be about the most important thing those of us in the house will ever hor vote on in our entire lives. this morning they described the deal as a surrender. i'm afraid it is [inaudible] including some that asks the question since they are tacklin your coffee he has a right to be heard. if you don't like it, listen with courtesy in silence.
if you are welcome to leave the chamber. the gentleman will be heard. end of subject. >> the whole house knows the mathematics.ic this will never get through and even if it did, which it won't, the majority said they would review the confidence and supply agreements so i am pleased with you that they've never surrendered to anybody and it won't start now. >> in relation the united kingdom hasn't surrendered. they talked about the position and that they've always had th
consisted to constituents let us get back to the european union. this parliament decided overwhelmingly they voted and gave that view and it's our duty to deliver on it. >> me i think my honorable friend for the statements and we have a legal obligation. we have no money at all and therefore what do we find with
the taxpayers money. >> i haven't forgotten how good it is a different opinion in relation and there are legal obligations in any circumstances and i think it is important that we are a country that upholds the obligation. >> from the labour party they are going to the courts of justice in luxembourg. it would give the parliament
[inaudible] i know she has consistently raised this issue and as she knows it isn't going to happen. >> thank you mr. speaker. the prime minister said in her statement can i ask you to tell me which regions will be more prosperous for the productivity then pay well under the arrangements with the eu? >> we are able to enhance the prosperity and the number of jobs in the kingdom.
the budget that was given in november also had 800,000 jobs. the prime minister has been very clear about what happens next on the deal but she has done. can she therefore confirm if they vote down her deal she wouldn't seek to force a second wivote on the deal or will we fd out for anyone else? >> i will be working to ensure for the members of this house. it is delivered as does so while
protecting jobs and security and the united kingdom. >> we hoped i would be able to support whatever the prime minister brought back from her negotiations and can i say how sad i am i couldn't possibly support this deal to simply kick the can down the road and how can we possibly agree to an arrangement in the moment where we have aho unilateral right to leave the european union but no such unilateral right to leave these arrangements subject to giving up the control. >> back to the backstop of my tunorable friends referred to looking at the future treaty arrangements which will cover
>>s i have responded on a number of occasions on the question of the second referendum. >> the right honorable chancellor tells me the uk is split down the middle over the european union and anything that looks like one half of the country willing - - winning the other half losing his disastrous. in that case does the prime minister agree with him and if so?di what was the point of holding the referendum in the first place?
what was the point of holding the referendum in the first place? the point is very simple it is time for the country to come back togetherrto again it is tie to recognize that people voted for in 2016 and given by those people in the referendum. and with the security of the united kingdom. and we asked the country to come back together to get behind this deal so we can build a better future for all. >> last week the prime minister managed to insult and upset over 3 million european citizens who live and work in this country. and to be here over 30 years
and it is thrown away spending decades here looking after us. >> will the prime minister take the opportunity to apologize for thoughtless and insulting comments? we mac i should not have used that language in that speech. the point i was making like we said from the very beginning that this was right with a key issue we want to seead addressed. it is one of our priorities and we have delivered that. but can i also say to the honorable lady that for most people here in the united kingdom they want to see people coming to this country to make a contribution here in this country. they want people to be judged on theiril skills to our economy
rather than simply where they come from. >> it is the easiest thing in the world. it is easiest for one - - in the world for people to remain in those positions. but it is a challenge with those elected representatives to give the deal the scrutiny that it needs and then to realize. >> can i also say this is a point made by our right honorable friend this is a
very important moment for the country and that is why when people calm to debate on the, topic i hope they will look at the terms of analysis and for those british people on brexit but also the constituents job for the future. and the debates in this household but it is a historic moment for the country.
british ambassador to the us discussed relations at an event hosted by the hudson institute in washington topics included brexit, north korea and uk relations with russia. >> think you. thanks for being here and to all those folks watching on c-span as well as the people in the hall. what do you prefer? ambassador? we met kim is fine. the question that everybody wants to have an answer what is going on with