tv BBC News at 9 BBC News March 13, 2019 9:00am-9:31am GMT
you're watching bbc news at 9:003m with joanna gosling. the headlines... the government says it would slash tarriffs on a range of imports from outside the eu if there was a no—deal brexit, and there'd be no new checks across the irish border. this is a controversial measure that could be unpopular with some farmers and may leave the back door in northern ireland open to smuggling, but the uk government says it's the only thing it can do in its control to maintain an open border. the ayes to the right — 242. the noes to the left — 391. so the noes have it, the noes have it. unlock. after the prime minister's deal was overwhelmingly rejected, mps will vote this evening
on whether to leave the eu without a deal on 29th march. these are unenviable choices. thanks to the decision that the house has made this evening they are choices that must now be faced. mrs may is briefing her cabinets now after last night's shattering defeat amid signs she's not ruled out bringing her deal back for another vote. european leaders react with disappointment to the vote. the eu's chief negotiator says the ball is in the uk's court. again, the house of commons says what it doesn't want. now this impasse can only be solved in the uk. i hear you're very upset. is that true? in other news, three people are killed in an avalanche on ben nevis. australian cardinal, george pell, is sentenced to six years in prison
for sexually abusing two choirboys. good morning and welcome to the bbc news at 9:00am. the government has set out the emergency measures it would take in the event of the uk leaving the eu without a deal. mps will vote this evening on whether to block a no—deal brexit on the 29th of march, after rejecting theresa may's deal for a second time last night. if, ultimately, the uk were to leave, the government says a new tariff regime would come in — tariffs are the taxes charged on goods and services as they pass between one country and another. britain would slash tariffs on most imports under
a temporary scheme — 87% of imports by value would be eligible for no tariffs. tariffs would be kept to protect some industries, including beef, lamb, poultry and some dairy imports. and the government says that in the event of a no—deal brexit it wouldn't introduce any new checks or controls, or require customs declarations for any goods moving from across the border from ireland to northern ireland. in the last few minutes, the business organisation, the cbi, has given its reaction — describing any no—deal tariff regime as a "sledgehammer" to the uk economy. our economics correspondent andrew walker is here. these details just released earlier this morning giving us an idea of what it might be like under no deal. talk us through what the tariffs would be. we currently get something like 80% of the goods coming into the uk tariff free and that's because more than half our imports come from the european union. under
this new regime, and it's worth emphasising that this is still hypothetical at this stage, it's in the eventuality of a no deal departure, we would have goods coming from the eu, in some cases are subject to tariffs that currently don't apply, cars would be one example, a10% currently don't apply, cars would be one example, a 10% tariff on cars. we would have stuff coming in from outside the eu that is currently subject to tariffs but would no longer be. to give some examples of where the government is proposing zero tariffs where currently there are tariffs, wine, something like nine oriop are tariffs, wine, something like nine or 10p per bottle on still wines. citrus fruit, and on... just to check my notes... checking your scribbles! the overall impact, it must be said, is that we would be paying a bit more for something is
coming from europe, but significantly less for something is coming from outside the eu. one other point to make is that something subject to zero tariffs, for example, wine and citrus fruit, that's already subject to zero ta riffs that's already subject to zero tariffs when it comes in from some specific places where the eu has trade agreements or gives preferential access to a very low income country. somebody listening at home will hear the cbi save the tariff regime change would act as a sledgehammer, but then in some areas it would be better off so what's better for the economy and consumers? for consumers it would be a bit more expensive for some kinds of things where they currently come from the eu and they will suddenly face tariffs. i mention cars is one very striking example. i suppose if you are particularly fond of australian wine say, that will be a little bit cheaper, but it's worth
emphasising that the impact of the tariff is much smaller than the wine duty, the wine excise duty that is going to remain and has a bigger impact on prices. i think beef farmers might be a little bit uneasy about this. they will be getting, retaining significant protection by way of tariffs, but when it's coming... it will be reduced tariff in relation to stuff coming from outside the eu. for example, brazil and argentina, imported beef exporters. on the other hand, there will be a new tariff that goes up in relation to stuff coming in from for example. that currently comes in com pletely example. that currently comes in completely tariff free. so that's complicated, but basically what would happen if we were to leave without a deal on 29th of march. that's what mps will vote on later, is it something they will agree to oi’ is it something they will agree to or not. let's talk about the impact of all of this in northern ireland.
our ireland correspondent emma vardy is at stormont. what with the impact of tariffs be there? what has been announced this morning is this very special set of circumstances for goods that are exported from the republic of ireland north to be sold in northern ireland. what the government has announced is that yes, there will be new tariffs on stuff coming from the eu or outside but ireland would be exempt from those tariffs for goods coming from the south to the north to be sold in northern ireland. the reason for this special measure for northern ireland is to keep the open border, the open land border on the island of ireland. it raises a number of issues. could this be unfairon number of issues. could this be unfair on northern ireland farmers, because they may have to face ta riffs because they may have to face tariffs on stuff they sell to the republic of ireland, but the irish farmers would be exempt from that on goods going the other way. at the moment the uk says it doesn't know what reciprocal arrangements will be
from the eu into northern ireland. another question is, does this open the back doorfor another question is, does this open the back door for smugglers. another question is, does this open the back doorfor smugglers. if another question is, does this open the back door for smugglers. if you are an irish producer selling to great britain, could you re—route your stuff through northern ireland to avoid tariffs. stuff coming from the eu, could you route it through the eu, could you route it through the republic of ireland and northern ireland in order to reduce tariffs? the uk government admits it's not a perfect system and there is the risk of smuggling, but it's the only thing the uk can do on its own to ensure an open border and it believes it can catch people out through intelligence —based detection. but yes, smuggling is one of the risks. the third question that has been raised, if you are going to go to zero tariffs for ireland, under world trade organisation rules, doesn't it mean if you do it for one country you have to do it for all, so how can you have a special case for ireland? the uk government's answer to that is that it believes it can get around it through a moral exemption clause, saying because of the
special circumstances needed for an open border, it can put in these special arrangements for ireland. the bottom line is, it will be controversial among some farmers and the uk government says it would have to be temporary. so what happens next? later today mps will vote on whether the uk should leave without a deal at the end of this month. if parliament votes in favour of no deal then brexit will go ahead as planned on the 29th march. if parliament rejects no—deal, then there will be another vote tomorrow. the prime minister will ask mps to decide whether to extend article 50 and for how long. if that passes, then the prime minister will need to ask the eu for a delay in brexit. if it's rejected, then we're back to leaving on the 29th of march. the conservative party deputy chairman, james cleverly joins us from westminster this morning.
thank you forjoining us. do you confidently predict that mps will vote against no deal later?|j confidently predict that mps will vote against no deal later? i think the days of confidently predicting how brexit related votes are going to play out are long past us. i don't know how this will play out. we are likely to have a significant number of amendments to the motion put before the house today and that could change, distort, mutate that motion in any one of a number of ways so it's really difficult to predict how things will play out over the next couple of days. are we closer to just not leaving the eu at all potentially? that was my fear. i have voted consistently for the mechanism whereby we leave the european union. i campaigned to leave and i feel we european union. i campaigned to leave and ifeel we have european union. i campaigned to leave and i feel we have to european union. i campaigned to leave and ifeel we have to honour the referendum result. i campaigned for the withdrawal agreement in its first draft and i voted for it in
its first draft and voted for it again last night. one of the reasons why a lot of people who voted against the first draft voted for the agreement this time was because they fear that there is an enhanced chance that the house of commons will do a very foolish thing and overturn brexit completely. today we have had the tariffs regime that would come into effect in the event of no deal. there are concerns about what it means for goods coming in through northern ireland, potentially a haven for smugglers to get goods in the tariff free. there isa get goods in the tariff free. there is a theoretical chance but you have to remember the republic of ireland is in itself an island. in orderfor people to smuggle things into the uk through the republic of ireland, they have to get it to the republic of ireland. they have a professional and effective border control policy, i have no doubt. whilst there is a theoretical chance, in practice, it's something that is modest and
intelligence led customs checks by the irish authorities i think would dramatically reduce the risk of that. so if it is as simple as all this, why have we had all these endless rows about the backstop? the backstop is not about smuggling from the republic of ireland to northern ireland, it's a very different subject. it's about trying to find a situation where there is no hard border and it seems by what has been announced today, you have kind of found a way around it.|j announced today, you have kind of found a way around it. i have always felt that the chances of the uk entering the backstop were always very, very modest indeed. some of my collea g u es very, very modest indeed. some of my colleagues who felt there are technical solutions to the customs border between northern ireland and the republic of ireland, those technical solutions are one of the unlocking mechanisms of the backstop and that's why one of the reasons why i was less concerned about the
attorney general‘s legal advice because i have never been convinced the uk would ever even entered the backstop. why wasn't this spelled—out previously? if this could have unlocked it yesterday, why weren't these tariffs put out yesterday and why wasn't this out there yesterday so mps could have had everything on the table to think about before they voted. the tariff regime, whilst it is linked to customs arrangements, is not necessarily linked to the backstop. it has been spelt out. this is my personal view and not everyone agrees with my view, and they felt they had to vote against the withdrawal agreement and they voted according to their concerns. i voted for the withdrawal agreement because i want to leave the european union and do so in a way that protects business, protects economic growth, andi business, protects economic growth, and i felt the withdrawal agreement does those things. and so the ta riffs does those things. and so the tariffs that have been announced today, the cbi described them as a
sledgehammer to the british economy. would you conquer if we went down that route that that would be the case? no, because we are applying zero tariffs to products we already import tariff free. in some insta nces import tariff free. in some instances where we don't have uk producers to protect in any way, for example citrus fruits, there is no economic damage because we don't have citrus fruits of any scale being grown here in the uk. and on things like fully completed cars, where we have a number of uk—based car manufacturers, and what would likely happen if, and it's a big if, if those tariffs were put in place in the event of a no deal, and we are trying to prevent a no—deal brexit, but if those tariffs were put in place then we would have what economists call substitution. people would buy uk built cars, for example, rather than european
imported cars. do you think it might be quite confusing for someone listening at home to have been hearing from the government that no deal is a disaster, the backstop, there has to be a way around the ha rd there has to be a way around the hard border. we have had all those arguments for so long and now suddenly today you are saying actually it wouldn't be so bad, the wto rules. it makes it quite confusing and it makes you wonder whether some of the arguments we are hearing over the last few years have been bogus. it's worth remembering that wto rules only affect products, tangible things. that is predominantly manufactured goods and agricultural food predominantly manufactured goods and agriculturalfood products. the wto doesn't have any say at all on services. 80% of the uk economy is services. 80% of the uk economy is service based. there are lots of things that tariffs don't touch.
financial, legal, business and technical services. the wto takes no view on those things. it is not as simple as saying these tariffs sort out all there were difficulties. but the government's position has been consistent. which is that we have to leave. we would much prefer to leave with an agreement, which is why the withdrawal agreements were presented to the house. but we do have to leave and if we can't agree with the eu, or if the house of commons can't vote on an agreement with the eu, then that we will be forced to leave without a deal and that is not the desired outcome. do you expect the withdrawal agreement to be put again before the commons? it's very difficult to say. the amendments coming forward over the next couple of days might make that difficult or indeed impossible. i felt co mforta ble indeed impossible. i felt comfortable with the withdrawal agreement, so from a personal point of view i would like to have the chance for the house of commons to recognise what is at risk through
not voting for the withdrawal agreement, and what is at risk, my main concern, is brexit, which could be put at risk by not voting this through. i would like the house to have another opportunity to think carefully about the implications of not voting for the withdrawal agreement. thank you to james cleverly. our assistant political editor norman smith is outside number 10 this morning. we have had the list of tariffs and there is another vote later. what's there is another vote later. what's the latest developments from where you are? mrs may is now briefing her cabinet as they try to pick up the pieces after last night's shattering defeat. the thing that strikes me, the signs are that mrs may has not given up on her deal. even though it was another colossal, catastrophic majority against her. she seems convinced that her deal remains the only and best deal available. that means she may indeed try to bring it
back for another go. i think the view of those around her is that last night a number of brexiteers, yes, they did come on board, even some of her predominant seemingly die—hard opponents like former brexit secretary david davis, kamath the hour, they voted for the deal. the european research group is a lot more squidgy and soft than some people might think. and people might have to come to terms with the fact that brussels will offer no more concessions. there is no magic new deal they will offer so that might concentrate minds. if you ask for a delay it might come with a high price tag as the eu says, that's fine, but we might want to talk a little bit about gibraltar. do you wa nt little bit about gibraltar. do you want a short delay? no, we have to talk about a long delay. when that's factored in, there are people around
number ten who think that meaningful vote number three is a runner. but the priority is on these votes today, taking no deal off the table. there is also a row about that. everything to do with brexit there isa everything to do with brexit there is a row about. the motion mrs may has put down will only take no deal off the table for march 29 and a cross— party off the table for march 29 and a cross—party group of mps say that's not good enough, they want no deal taken off the table completely. what does the man who was dubbed steve briggs it by one of my colleagues this morning make of it all? —— mike steve briggs it. that's brexit minister steve barclay. —— mike steve brexit. ultimately, john, if you push me to the absolute end point where it's a choice between no deal and no brexit — and i don't think
that's what the vote today will specifically be on — but ultimately on that i think no deal will be very disruptive for the economy and i think no deal also has serious questions for the union, for example in northern ireland where there isn't a government in place, serious questions raised by the head of the civil service, and i think there's questions for the union in terms of no deal. but i think no brexit is catastrophic for our democracy. between those very unpleasant choices, i think no brexit is the bigger risk. but i don't think that's the vote today. we need to see what the amendments are, and then we'll have a vote on those amendments. as for mrs may, is she a goner or aegon are sometime soon? not so says some cabinet ministers. this is work and pensions secretary amber rudd. we'll see. it's a free vote, so everybody can do what they think is the best thing for the country. i know what i think, which is that leaving without a deal would be very bad for our economy, very bad for our security. but overall, i'm just very disappointed that so many of my colleagues decided not to vote for the withdrawal agreement yesterday, which was a good deal, a sensible way of leaving the european union and delivering the referendum. does the prime minister still have confidence of the party? she has.
do you think she'll be voting in the same lobby as you this evening? i think so, but as i say, it's a free vote. thank you. meanwhile, on the labour side there has been some irritation thatjeremy corbyn has not pressed the button marked our referendum, last night insisting he would try to get labour's brexit deal through the commons. what are they up to today? here's a shadow cabinet minister rebecca long—bailey. the position has always been, firstly to respect the result of the referendum, to rule out no deal, and secure a deal that puts jobs and the economy first. in the event that we seem to be hurtling towards a no deal or damaging brexit, we've said all options need to be on the table, and that includes a public vote. and that is still the position. so we'll be constantly assessing what happens over the next 24 hours. obviously, we want a deal that will pass through parliament that will secure support for the economy and protect workers' rights, will protect environmental standards and make sure our industries can be invested in and supported
and we will be working hard across the house and the party to secure that. going straight to michelle barney, the eu chief negotiator speaking in strasbourg. translation: that is the most important one because it's about the future relations that we wa nt to about the future relations that we want to build with the uk, which, whatever the circumstances, will remaina whatever the circumstances, will remain a country our friend, a country that is an ally and one that isa country that is an ally and one that is a partner. so, that is what we have done in our negotiations over several months with the government of the united kingdom. with them, and never against the government of the united kingdom. the withdrawal agreement, which is in the interests of citizens, of business and of all stakeholders on both sides of the channel. and on both sides of the irish sea. let me just channel. and on both sides of the irish sea. let mejust remind
channel. and on both sides of the irish sea. let me just remind you channel. and on both sides of the irish sea. let mejust remind you of one point, ladies and gentlemen, and i want to remind you all of this. if the united kingdom still wants to leave the european union and want to do so... if that is still the intention of the united kingdom, then this treaty, which we negotiated with the government of theresa may for a year and a half, this treaty is and will remain, the only available treaty. i want eve ryo ne only available treaty. i want everyone to understand that fully. and we, alongside this treaty, have done an awful lot of work with the uk government over the past few days to explain, to clarify, to guarantee things through documents that we have agreed on, that we agreed on here in the very parliament, on monday evening. mrs may said to us
that she also wanted to publish a unilateral declaration. so, what did happen monday in that last round of discussions between the eu and uk government? that was to provide the house of commons and the uk parliament with new assurances, new explanations, such as the temporary nature of the backstop. we went as far as we possibly could in order to help the uk government get the support of the house of commons. with one concern always in the back of our minds, which i expressed in your name also, which is that we have to always maintain peace and stability on the island of ireland. and we have to respect the good
friday agreement in every aspect of that agreement, the belfast agreement, as it's also known. and also for us the importance of maintaining and keeping the integrity of our internal market, which is the internal market of our 28 countries at the moment, soon to be 27. that is to preserve the quality and safety that consumers are owed for the goods that they consume. we have to have food security, we have to preserve against any animal feed problems. we have to look at customs rights, vat, we have to have protection and clarity and security for all businesses in all your countries. we have to ensure we have standards for all our goods. ijust have to ensure we have standards for all our goods. i just want to say to you that in ireland... it's not a
question of theory or of dogma whether or not we will show flexibility. it's a very practical issue that deals with peace in ireland, and that peace must be lasting and also deals with the protection of the single market. all goods, any living animal that goes into northern ireland, after brexit, that comes from the eu, from great britain, could then go to poland, slovenia, germany, to any one of our countries. because it's a single market. and there will not be a border. so we do have to find a way, and that's what we will take the time to do to ensure that these controls on the three aspects that i mention, that is consumers, the budget and businesses, that they are in place and we do not want to recreate a hard border. on yesterday's vote, then, well, i see
that there are some members of the house of commons who want a second referendum. others want no deal. and these just run counter to all the legal assurances that we found in oui’ legal assurances that we found in our discussions with theresa may. but i think these explanations, and the guarantees, are indeed significant, and we agreed them on monday evening with the support of the uk government. president jean—claude juncker also said that there will be no further interpretations, no further assurances. we can't go any further. to conclude, a word about what will be happening now, where are we this morning? the prime minister announced a vote on no deal this evening and on the possible extension. these will take place in
the house of commons. after those votes it will be up to the uk government to tell us what and how they intends to proceed, and we hope ina they intends to proceed, and we hope in a positive way so they can eventually have a constructive majority on a proposal, and it's the responsibility of the united kingdom. they have to tell us what it is they want for our future relations, what will their choice be? as you said, madame minister, what is the clear line that they will take? that's the clear question that we need an answer to now. that's the question that has to be a nswered that's the question that has to be answered before a decision, really, on any further extension. why would we extend these discussions, because the discussion on article 50, that's done and dusted. we have the withdrawal agreement. it is there,
and that is the question asked. we are waiting for the answer to that. so we are at a critical point. the risk of no deal has never been higher. that is the risk of an exit, even by accident, by the uk of the rule european union in a disordered fashion, and i urge you not to underestimate the consequences of that. in all seriousness, we now call on all those players involved... studio: strong words from michel barnier saying the risk of the uk leaving the eu with no deal has never been higher. he was throwing into doubt even talking about the possibility of an extension to article 50 saying, why would we extend discussions? we have the withdrawal agreement and there is nothing else that will be
negotiated. full coverage coming up inafew negotiated. full coverage coming up in a few moments live with victoria derbyshire. hello, it's wednesday, it's 9:30, i'm victoria derbyshire. where do we go from here? theresa may's brexit deal has been roundly defeated for a second time in parliament the ayes to the right, 242. the noes to the left, 391. so the noes have it, the noes have it. unlock! could we be heading for no—deal, a re—negotiation of the deal, another referendum, even a general election. anything is possible. theresa may is beefing her cabinet now, amid signs she has not given up on bringing her deal back for another