Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 14, 2016 5:31pm-7:34pm EST

5:31 pm
bond. >> and good afternoon. and be today the fomc
5:32 pm
decided to move the tirade for the fed funds rate by one-quarter percentage rates about three-quarters percent . in doing so we are recognizing in progress the economy has made with the price stability with two and 1/4 million net new jobs have been created as inflation has moved closer wheat expected economy to perform well.
5:33 pm
. >> fairness does not get even to democracy so they think it will not work when very well leading to a bad outcome.
5:34 pm
one but once you say that then you start asking what about the quality of the outcome? . >> this problem is it doesn't have words but the taboos of the idea is if 40 percent of affirmative-action that means there is the serious problem.
5:35 pm
>> mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations] we'll write. that we will cover this afternoon with the sistine
5:36 pm
cancers would help one and we will kickoff following the debate last week in the house of commons the government will publish the plan for when it is triggered and when to expect to see this quick. >> once the policy is complete. the reason for the of final possible date as march but one was the determination to carry all of the of policy first. >> so next month by january, february? >> we have carried out its
5:37 pm
analysis for the economy. so as soon as we ready. >> ken you confirm it is a white paper when published greg. >> has you will remember from the motion of that majority was that the government should do it. so it does not undermine our negotiating position. >> want to be as open as we can be but we must assure everybody is in position. >> so that has to do with
5:38 pm
the content. so given other treaties of the debate, and that is the form of the publication taken the form of a white paper on many occasions what is it a program for the content brecht's if we knew exactly what we will present ? >> can you confirm you will be sitting opposite when the negotiations began with the new framework for the relationship of the e.u.? >> yes. does the with the chancellor said there is an emerging view of the of regulators and thoughtful politicians to have a longer period so can't we classify you as a
5:39 pm
politician when it comes to transitional arrangements quick. >> i hope. but in that context let me be clear about wet -- where i think we are going. what we year after is a smooth and orderly exit was. but the point is that is what we're trying to do. that is the purpose. to beat the strategy berger and within that to have the maximum market access with a minimum disruption. >> what those are within the 18 months? >> i do think it is all
5:40 pm
negotiable. that is that the core of this really. it has a lot to do but it is one of the reasons that we have time to be prepared and that is why i ask for these studies everything except not affected by national trade. so to negotiate within the process it was written to allow a departure from the european union would and architects said it was time enough to do the job. it is one thing for the government and to say we are organized and ready within 18 months but with those countries to you are negotiating with is
5:41 pm
impossible to do then is of necessity to beat a transitional arrangement. >> that is a hypothetical question by will do my best. is many things to different people. the way i see it or the chancellor to be raised by a businessmen and thoughtful politicians. so this seems to me and that implementation and no matter what that transition rate is we will know that before we decide on the transition. you decide on that before you build a the bridge so it
5:42 pm
is possible to know what the endgame will be. as you are not opposed to those transitional arrangements. >> it depends what you mean by a transitional arrangement. if is necessary, yes. but understand many people that want this done and that is what we are trying to do. >> speaking on the 15th of november with that in formal record to have a chance to comment but not be particularly interested in those arrangements buffets are inclined -- but if they
5:43 pm
are inclined then it is the assembly would recognize. so i don't comment, i never comment on that. never. but not the commentary or the gossip. >> but if you think by the way it was the record of the conversation. >> but that does not correlate. >> but the 27 navy interested. >> as the chancellor said said, met it was businessmen regulated with a thoughtful european politicians. >> that may be true. i don't think that is true.
5:44 pm
>>. >> we said in terms that is what we want. white all of these things to go through the negotiation you deal with them. with business over and over to give the maximum opportunity for trade and minimum disruption. just the work does that include a contingency plan in case we end up with no deal? or visit is loaded down by the european parliament? is the government's thinking what to do if we execute and
5:45 pm
that is not our intention for free access to the possible markets? >> our membership of the customs union said it is not a pioneer option there are possibilities possibly more if we are still assessing them. so what are those possibilities? >> but first look countries that inside the union and countries like turkey which as an arrangement with the
5:46 pm
economy that allows very limited free-trade. you have a circumstance like norway inside the single market outside the customs union and switzerland who was outside the single market but our bilateral with the trade deals outside the customs union but customs arrangements. they are not comprehensive but are in that spectrum. >> the downside with a free-trade agreement with that customs arrangements, that is the spectrum.
5:47 pm
it doesn't include for the certain sectors. is a lot to decide. and are you looking in northern ireland? >> no. that is not one of the options we are looking insofar. in ebs some point but we are determined to maintain that open border but an example of how that might be dead the committee may look at the border where you have a single market through with the very open border with david titular arrangement designed to make the border a free border.
5:48 pm
>> just to set the scene as a continuance from november and the department there homage resources were in place in more is forthcoming could you update? >> the last time i looked we had over 300 and this has grown since july. in addition to that we have 120 but by definition there are experts and to provide
5:49 pm
expertise as well as the european interlocutors. i don't know the final number because frankly i think she may have been told this when you were there that we have 10 times as many applications so have very high quality staff and basically look at what has been done and to be put in place. the treasury accepted the budget if we need to go above that then we will use that contingency but it will
5:50 pm
exist over two 1/2 years. so we don't foresee the problems there. >> saw my teams with the cabinet office what? >> that is what makes it easier to manage. and we're doing this at the same time to build the machine. but barrett mind the policy department that it was not a wise approach to rip and
5:51 pm
every policy section. so people who are very capable man whose policy they are dealing with and to coordinate the. >> are there any plans or transitional arrangements for the of military purpose with those trade negotiations? >> one of the things is we have to focus and prioritize of the impeachment to the industry's and the sectors.
5:52 pm
as well as those interlocutors. but those will change so now shortly after their will still we a policy action as we get towards the end of that period we will know if we need to extend anything but we will make the decision closer to the time. >>. >> we had excellent and senior experienced team
5:53 pm
members to give perspective as far as being processed to look at the individual with the administration or trade or the concerns from the university so how will you tap into that quick. >> first they do tend to come from the department's second we have these impeachment activities with the various stakeholders to analyze the of problem to know your solutions are and
5:54 pm
also you are quite right the cleverest civil servant in the world may take some time to get up to speed with the manufacturing systems. so we can take some time over there. but with respect to the administration, behalf put in place a committee of the european negotiations and as the part of that it is fairly sizable with those meetings and the civil
5:55 pm
servants the beach. and then ireland or scotland or whales. that is the editing -- the other thing getting stronger overtime. >> looking at the process of leaving the e.u. one is around the trade is the services department enough to be affected positively or negatively? that is still on the process >> so i will get back to that analysis of the
5:56 pm
industrial and service sectors. as we go through, and what we're already doing is talking about the specific areas of interest. did agriculture is one half% and in certain perspective to have the financial service sector and then
5:57 pm
beyond that we look at the regional. to get the best outcome. >> and being london-based o it it vantage to the department quick. >> one of the first ones was of glass co but they are primarily a coordinating the work itself and that is one of the reasons why weber and was set up in to cause in exchange to take place is very difficult you have a department because you have
5:58 pm
to do something. and those ministers in particular. and to continue to do that. with those regional engagements. >> and with those negotiations what importance has been given an with those negotiations themselves? with those 27 number states.
5:59 pm
>> brcs slightly constrained of the commission sensitivities and the member states of that constraint but nevertheless to bulgaria or spain or the ambassador's wife. to have those leaders of the 27 states. . .
6:00 pm
>> the interest of the various other countries. and building interest in alliances. our approach to negotiation is on the premise of a few things. number one, something called the mechanical list, it's an economic premise. that other people have common interest and trade is a good thing. we have 67 billion trade deficit with the european union. so they they have an interest in that. it's not just that. beyond that that we have every intention of continuing to be good european citizen. so leaving european union doesn't mean were going to stop taking interest in european security. where european military defense.
6:01 pm
we make a huge contribution to counterterrorism. all of these interest we're interested in. i expect in the six months of next year i'm going to get. >> is there a plan within the government to make sure that these are being built up at the moment? >> yes, that is going on. >> now a question of non- terrorist which seems to be a greater concern, how important part of your negotiation objective is a to ensure that non- terrorist terror do not reappear? >> one of the reasons we left
6:02 pm
the strategic game is because we recognize the nontariff barriers are probably a bigger issue than terror barriers. partly because we actually have a surplus and services. and where they hit most. so were putting a lot of effort into understanding and grounding things like the nontariff barriers and financial service. you have a very wide range of views of how important this is. it's quite easy to work out tara for whatever it might be. it's it's much harder to work out the impact of the removal of a ponzi scheme. because sometimes when it's grounded.
6:03 pm
they'll probably take it disproportionate a larger than average. >> one thing european citizens are very used for the past two years is easily available -- and with the european citizens one thing they did not bofors a reduction the top of the negotiating objective. >> the top i be putting it, the whole thing would be equal first i've had a roundtable with myself as well as with industry.
6:04 pm
britain is a is a very major destination. british airlines are important as art others of course so we have a fair degree of interest to maintain this. so were very keen on that. it's not just at the national level. if if you are the mayor of a town in one of the mediterranean states that benefits from easy jets are one of the other low-cost airlines you have an interest too. so there's all sorts of leverage but will work on that. >> last week there was a decision about the european what
6:05 pm
would be a benefit to the british business. have you given thought to such importance institutions given that the u.k. has a very large -- they'll be vital to our economy? >> the answer would be s on both counts. two points. let me separate out. one of the things that falls my department is a continuing relationship with european union. and we have taken the very firm view that we continue to be good european citizens and support these measures for the last couple of years as well as taking to maintain relationships. on the european agency we have had -- just this week i was in cambridge last week as well and
6:06 pm
we are still getting clear from the industry what their preferred alchemists. there are some slight difference in outcome but again it is one of our high priority areas. >> thank you. [inaudible] the government any contribution, nonoaud i assume what you're
6:07 pm
talking about or is it something beyond the transition? >> at this stage three months short i hold every option open that i can. i'm not going to shut something off unnecessarily. so to not counted out is to not counted in. it was slightly over but what i'm trying to do is keep open as many negotiating tools as i can. >> so when you reach that agreement? >> i'm not ruling it in either. when we get closer to the negotiation i'm able to come back and talk to about that. i
6:08 pm
may need need to do that in close session. >> so about the arrangement they are speaking about. >> i'm not talking about it right now. i'm not drilling it in either. >> so what were you talking about last week? >> what he said was we'll make every effort to keep this market open and i said yes. that's all. no no more. >> and the consequences? >> we don't know yet. one of the issues here which is it's not the first time i've phrased it is that we have it in negotiation coming up and i have as much as i can at this point to make playing what the negotiating lines are. you can control control of immigration in our laws. get the best possible deal for the companies and manufacturing
6:09 pm
and services across the board. another reason we haven't specialized in more detail than that is there many ways of achieving those outcomes. this is more complicated than a chess game but i won't be able to tell you the mid- game in the endgame, or the outcome until we are well into the negotiation. it would depend on the attitudes and approaches of other members 27 other members as well as the commissioner itself. so to try to say we do this or that, it could actually limit our ability that i made earlier. we do not want to do things that undermined our negotiation. >> you're talking about something that may or may not
6:10 pm
involve the market in the future. >> three years ago, many years ago. [inaudible] >> can answer the question of the involvements, you describe the. [inaudible] that sizzle early pulmonary speech. [inaudible] with your evidence, the
6:11 pm
involvement in the vault administration when it comes to the actual negotiation? >> will they will have, the ideas i have the input from all of the development administration onto what they viewed the policy to be. for example, at the next jnc in january, i think they're presenting to us views and the aim is to absorb the into the joint negotiation brief and make a decision an informed decision on what the and should be. that is the primary role. >> and if you have conflicting between the evolved administration question i. >> a maybe. we'll have to do that and make a decision. that is exactly what will
6:12 pm
happen. and and of course they may be conflicting. because i was in the debate this week i was unable to share the jnc which i would normally do. but the debates on justice affairs there and immigration i have not yet read the transcript of the debate that took place will be surprised if it was different views on some of the elements of immigration and there'll be others. we'll have to resolve them as best as we can in the national interest you mentioned a number of financial services and i think -- how do you accommodate the wishes of the defaulted ministration like we have in scotland the interest? >> we haven't haven't gotten to the point. we are as far as we can.
6:13 pm
the company all of them. if they're not in conflict with each other that is the main issue here. you cannot give what part of the country veto over the outcome shall we do everything possible to make sure we get the best offer. if i may switch from yellow for a second. the very high priorities was issued northern island of the border and maintaining entry and i've been a very plain that the high priority. nobody nobody on the amc has argued against that at all the summaries is going to be a degree of anonymity. i can't debate what will turn out for you. >> and on a similar but different topic, there's a question on the government of gibraltar. what engagement we have with the government of walter? >> the chief administrative see me sometime ago we've been in touch on several occasions.
6:14 pm
the issue with gibraltar, the primary issue is sovereignty. an argument over 70 and we have made very plain that will always respect the wishes of the people of gibraltar. >> it is written into my blood. >> think very much indeed. so i think a chair. chair. thank you secretary for coming before such afternoon. and asking a question from michael their view to list of outcomes they are looking for, is going to ask you what are the key strategic objectives you set for yourself within negotiation. >> the laws, borders, money, and beyond that taking the best national interest outcome in terms of trade and the best
6:15 pm
security outcome in the latter case the closest we get to the current operation organization. >> no you have given up options, in relation to the single market you're saying that it should stay in the single market and i've heard you say really what you set a what you have an say can you tell us know you have reached a view whether we should stay missing a market? >> this is one of those things were we have to work out what is practical. in our view at the moment is to keep that general-purpose option open and a come to a conclusion. >> is a range of options? the prime minister is said a binary choice.
6:16 pm
[inaudible] this is one of the things we have to see what develops. one different piece and you will appreciate as much as me, is that were in the early stage of negotiation were it's a very strong one. it's requite hard to read how -- but that. [inaudible] were speaking to the absolute possible access services, goods network. >> you be aware for the gmc that they have all said that they would go back to the single market. >> the thing here is to distinguish i think she made this point last week.
6:17 pm
the thing is people often complain and the ability to sell out europe manufactures and providers. i'm a big believer in free trade. >> they have asked you to look into the e.u. budget can asked you have you put any limits on the level of payment to be prepared. >> leaving something open is something you're going to do it. i said to say this. i've been asked and the chamber for a number occasions in you
6:18 pm
play whatever it is, this or that, i could think of little more use from the other side with negotiation to answer questions like that. but as i said, we're keeping something open does not mean were doing it. >> now just turning to the subject of the border and violence. [inaudible] what are your views? >> the aim here, very important part of the peace agreement was the removal of any visible border and so on. it doesn't mean it can't be contractual regimes on the north and south but it is a very single port part of the peace
6:19 pm
agreement. i have to say that i'm optimistic that the european union will be helpful. an old colleague of mine is also very seasoned at this. when i saw we did not talk about negotiations, but he did raise an issue, he talks about his commitment to it and he gave me some comfort. >> when he said can you explain to his house common travel area. [inaudible] >> firstly in terms of leader
6:20 pm
legal issues that were trying to talk about the common travel area there's a clause in that agreement. it's not quite perfect because it talks in terms of different areas of the union. but it's all we recognize. secondly, really their 15 million people land every year, it's it's a very long-winded way to get into the uniting kingdom to come by dublin. if you want to come and you come in as a tourist tourist and you say, that's what happens if people are trying to come in illegal at some point. i also don't perceive circumstance where we are going to stop tourism. we will have lots of people coming in and out to britain. i. i don't see it as big of an issue. the other thing i would say is
6:21 pm
this, i also think it's equally key to maintain this and we may well have discussions with them at some point about their own security so we have at least some idea but that's for them to decide, not me. >> what your vision for the united kingdom after breaks it? >> first thing is my job is to bring the decision back to the u.k. the main point i would put here because people jump to conclusion that i would expect in the future government to run our control border in the national interest which means that as they have already said,
6:22 pm
allowing movement, running think so the economy works well. >> thank you. last week the committee met and i asked them and not one was aware was aware that a deal could be reached what this committee has seen so far, we take an opportunity question on. >> somebody better than me is doing it in this committee right now. he knows this inside out, i know the broad outlines, what i can tell you. [inaudible] but beyond that i recommend it.
6:23 pm
>> 200 tell you what is been talked? [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] is a possible secretary of state to conceive of a sentiment for gibraltar or northern ireland that does not differentiate in its terms and somewhere relation to the rest of the u.k.? >> can you restate the question i'm not sure i understand. >> we talked about northern ireland to have a hard border and mr. carmichael has raised
6:24 pm
some of the concerns of the government of gibraltar. my question question to us, is it possible to conceive of a settlement sheet that doesn't differentiate into my in relation to the particular cases of gibran's or northern ireland them to have a different deal from the united kingdom because their particular circumstances. >> i would be loathe to go down that way. i think it's very important for the people of the northern islands to see themselves until he choose otherwise. similarly they express it very forcibly in a referendum on sovereignty. was 19 something% so i don't think it will be a good idea to go down, look, we are looking at options that we can conceive of and so were not ruling anything out.
6:25 pm
sorry to set phrase again but the more difficult problem the more options will look at. at the moment i don't see one that meets what you describe. >> thank you. >> just on that last point, could you, could you just confirm that joe already has a differentiated state question. >> as yes, as in other ways there are distinctions. >> is very, very helpful indeed. thank you. >> can i return to the other question. we understand with the department a few weeks ago that there's been an uptick in reporting in brussels to you and they have to conduct business in the e.u. and elsewhere for that the phone office -- is that
6:26 pm
correct and is that what you want. >> that's not quite the right distinction. the distinction is where they're maintaining bilateral relationships of the countries around your then the foreign office's elite. when it's dealing with the general affairs council continuing day-to-day business with the european union, that's ours. david jones represents the government of the general affairs council. >> and to what extent are you taking advantage of embassies across the state? are you going to use those resources to undertake bilateral discussions with individual member states? and other reports to you -- >> the foreign office is correct on these issues, there's -- for
6:27 pm
example, on friday and saturday i was in madrid see same as there is there is one saw the deputy prime minister has responsibility for brexit and i saw the very new secretary and the ambassador completely to meeting and provided me a very high-quality briefing and also gave me his read out the way he thought it has gone. that services were is one for which british foreign service has a tremendous history and capability. so there's no question that division of account ability. >> in new your discussions with
6:28 pm
the state is it your impression that generally they see is that the u.k. should have stayed in the way of the convoy or they should proceed at the same speed ? >> look, it varies. the difference between countries. most of. most of what i've seen so far have volunteered to see me a rather the other way around particularly. they do that because most of them regret our departure. it's for to say, i should not mention the fact, they wish we are saying. and the reason they wish were staying because we have been a spokesman for certain mindset inside the european union. more decentralized, very free trading, responsible budgeting
6:29 pm
and finance and so on. so there sorry to see us go. so how they see the grand ship of european states to continue my don't really know. i think that the debate they will have amongst themselves. it's. it's as much influence i think by their perspective for the way global politics is going as an isp by the trump resolved, the referendum and that worry some of it. but in mostly it is friendly regret is the most icy. >> i understand that they would like us to see be at the table which were not going to be any longer. >> and they understand that, do they see these negotiations is
6:30 pm
simply reaching a deal with the u.k. and the european union are was sunset as opportunity to raise the kind but actually more generally for reform of the whole european union? >> see i have nothing that. a better not try to read their money, but that hasn't thought that i it. what i would observe you is that the union has a number of issues to deal with, whether migration issues, issues, terrorism issues, or domestic state and obviously their financial stability issue and frankly i think that dominates their thought process as well as their own at home domestic economy issues. that dominates more than the grand direction, that's my impression but it is the impression that i sort of try to analyze that.
6:31 pm
>> is there any recognition that the u.k. leaving is the only country that given its people opportunity so far that there's indication should the other countries hold reference? >> worry that is an issue which worries the commission and the nationstates i think one of the issues i have to deal with his nationstates quite properly put the interests of their people high on their priority list. and that's helpful to us because free trade is one of the things is mutually beneficial. the commission was honestly concerned about the risk of somebody else following suit and so on. that has manifested itself in a slightly -- interview that we
6:32 pm
can't do well after this. that is -- but it's still there. but it's more extreme institutions than as a member state. >> thank you very much. what is the minimum scope of issues which have to be covered in the withdrawal negotiations? >> i think i pretty much defined that. in a way if you asked me the simplest scope rather than the minimum scope it would be free access, free trade. and hopefully the security issue. that's pretty much what the ask is in a way.
6:33 pm
>> i'm surprised. >> i'm sorry the minimum deal that they will start. >> if they want to keep the negotiation short and sweet what would be the minimum that they would have to comply from their perspective. >> this brings you to the interpretation of article 50 itself which i might getting the word slightly wrong but in essence say arrangement for departure but also having regard to young going relationship. so i take the view that is this
6:34 pm
the whole thing really. you have to discuss this. this is something where there's views and working out to talk to each other about ideas. >> was come back to that business once article 50 is triggered, how are the negotiations likely to be sequenced? >> that is something that we have not yet decided. we are going to need very early on to discuss how we organize the whole negotiation process beginning to end including whether we leave time for ratification. but we haven't gotten to that point yet. when we do, will no doubt need to think about the practicalities, how to get through the things you get through the time available.
6:35 pm
>> something that will influence its sequencing is a bit of article 50 which does the union shall negotiate an agreement taking into account i'm sorry taking account of the framework for future relationship with the union. now have you or will you seek legal advice in this? it seems to me that means you cannot negotiate unless you know an outline at least with the framework for future relationship with the union will be. when it be helpful for us if you can say decide what the framework is going to be, and the going be probably free trade and various? so until we know which of those two frameworks it is we can't really negotiate anything else. >> like to take your encouragement to take the lead
6:36 pm
wife it hasn't been always. >> i'm teasing you, the simple approach to this would be to talk and you're making a point. the so something is to be settled in court. it's a him a plea talked about. of every belief that he was a practical outcome of this society. he'll be a tough for shader. you want to best outcome. the aim of this is the best outcome for the united kingdom and the best for the european union and i am entirely persuaded that if we maintain that will good faith
6:37 pm
will get a good outcome. i do not think we'll have a serious problem with that but it requires us to talk first. >> i believe my colleague would like to share my time. >> i will try to bring others and when i have gone through, that was really helpful peter. >> you tell the chairman earlier the content the stage confirm what think negotiation plan that clearly it might be a white paper. that's a strong possible possible. >> i just don't know. the decision is what content to put into it and then decide with right formative. i don't want want to mislead you on that. it's very important to me you all know my history with the parliament, answer important to me that i'd deal properly with you.
6:38 pm
so it is content first. so it's possible to the white paper, and if it would turn out not to be a light paper status which you envision that it would have. >> i don't know yet. i haven't worried about this. because i think the public at large care about the content and format. they care about what we say, were were going, were going, not how it's formatted or whether it's a command paper, i haven't thought about it is would you look once it's been published and consulted upon over six or 12 weeks is in more context, will there be a public consultation? >> whether simon debate about it i should think there might were trying to look at the 31st or
6:39 pm
earlier if we can. in mind that we have to amass the content and some of the research is likely that the policy decisions are not complete and because so much to get quite lot of policy decision coming. together for some interact on each other. so it will take us a little time to get to that point. >> so the point you make it as that would constrain. >> it will we will allow as much time as we can but it will be dictated by the outcomes. >> so you allow as much time as you can for full consultation. >> made the point a moment ago that it's very important that the u.k. should be clear as negotiate an object is coming to accept the view that having a clear full statement of u.k. objectives endorsed by
6:40 pm
parliament will strengthen the hands of the negotiation that follow? >> to be honest it's not a major component of the of the discussion. what i think take over as i've said to a couple of colleagues, your colleagues really, is that at the end of the day will be collective interests of the european union, and united kingdom of the predominant driver of the negotiation. this is me this is not going to be in a single dimensional dimensional handling match. be like that. which is why i have tried to characterize it in terms of visual trust to benefit winded strengthen the administers hand
6:41 pm
to see which parliament has endorsed? >> i can see where you're going with it. >> stalked me for about the content you envision the plan. we had a discussion this afternoon about how many options there are for future relationship with the union. would you envision the plan will set up the option which government wishes? >> my expectations yes. we will say as clearly as we can where we want to go. in the event there's more than one option. >> what about something like whether the agency should send the u.k. or not? would you envision that? >> that's quite a long way down
6:42 pm
in the detail. i would not have thought it would have been that detailed. but. but again it depends on, you're asking me to make judgments about outcomes we have not yet arrived at. so so i would not have thought that. >> presumably the plan will set up u.k. governments objectives recognize and it not all be achieved. how long of a document to think this is going? >> my test will be okay put for the public to know without jeopardizing the brief. and that's it and that the stage i don't know what it will be. >> so do you envision a document that might be a couple of size or a document that is 30 or 40 pages. able to indicate? >> you're asking me things i do not know.
6:43 pm
>> the big pictures. >> are you able to tell us more detail things about the agreement be able to telecine other points of contents that you would expect to be in the plan? >> that at this time. his content person that decision requiring to know what the policy are in details. and then to say will really set information whether it's hazardous or not. >> jonathan,. >> can we just turn to the legislation you be bringing
6:44 pm
forward? can you commit today that this committee -- >> no i can't. what it organ it try to get parliament summit fans time of what were trying to do, but we have a timetable issue here. it was in the queen speech for the next session. we will will need to get that out and get it done. and the reason i say that is because consequential upon and what is going to do is pretty straightforward. it will take and put it pretty much untouched into british law. but then after that be consequential legislation. now some of it will be time legislation and will need time to go through before the
6:45 pm
ratification. they'll take some time. also will be some secondary legislation to go through. and that i will expect quite technical but it will still require time. and there's a fair amount of it. , ben and the union for 47 years. we. we have a lot of law many thousands of pages of statutes and much of it is quite in ways which related to european institutions or european guidance are no longer there. so that will take time. we have to make sure we have the time for that. i have to say all have to come back and talk about the bill at
6:46 pm
some length that's helpful for the committee. but we will be on the time constraint on this. >> do think there is sufficient time to bring forward the bill and the legislation before brexit day one? >> i think so and so will be a confidence of bills i think it's going to be a simple bill but then with the major parts of change. it's a reasonable reasonable assumption. but have to do something about the concerns raised earlier. of the other elements may be on immigration. but i'm guessing at this point. beside is reasonable guess.
6:47 pm
>> so the consequential will be a little bit more interesting perhaps? >> it might well be. >> if they say it offered domestic while that be done by the primary legislation in? >> if it's material it would be primary. if it's technical amendments to it you can no longer put something in the european journal any of the government website then -- wears major policy decision be prime legislation. >> say don't envision any of those changes? >> the sis are by definition -- i therefore see major changes.
6:48 pm
>> sure you follow the of the supreme court [inaudible] there is an interesting debate about the two than the government would not normally legislative, can you do find what you'll be doing? >> their sorter to elements you. one is whether or not the development administration is going to veto over the mold. we have argued very high levels of concentration and involvement but no veto. but the other side of the coin, what happens to the powers? next line that to be a major debate to get the right outcome.
6:49 pm
some of your college may know a very pro- -- but we have to make it work. >> potentially by the time we get to this based on that, technically technically of major policy fields were limited from brussels they should be going on? >> will be a matter of some debate. my preference is that it would be possible. but given that you have to maintain the ability to do the negotiations. it's very important to maintain a u.k. single market and you
6:50 pm
have to do that. so it's not quite universal. but i take it where you're coming from and i'm listening. >> if there are disputes, honey want to be resolved. >> the final analysis the government will decide. >> thank you. thank thank you secretary of state. he recently described these negotiations before house of lords committee .. in september and as may be the complicated negotiation of all-time i take from that that you believe the so-called quickie divorce which would take six months be unfeasible? >> i was get into trouble with these metaphors. you may remember the line i said
6:51 pm
earlier that got me in trouble for to be specific. i take the view that the best outcome is a negotiated free access to markets outcome. and with it a negotiated outcome on justice of affairs and security. i don't think it can be done in six months. >> thank you. he appeared very confident in the answer you gave the charities specific point that we could wrap this up in the two years in article 50. is the case case of the council of the giving guidelines to them on the basis of article 50 and actually e.u. and free trade agreements with third countries up until now have been based on article 218 of the treaty and it may well be the case even if the council concedes that these are
6:52 pm
parallel negotiations. >> has a good question, we have not resolved the counsel of any to to do that. you are right, our expectation is that there will be guidance given both in the beginning and i'm going. that decision as far as i'm aware has not yet been taken. it may be done tomorrow or the future, but that the first. the legal basis is one of the things that were looking ourselves up a moment. the legal basis of the outcome is that it becomes an important issue so my discussions with michelle about what the timetable of the end outcome will be that's one of my discussions. >> indeed although it was an
6:53 pm
ambitious free-trade agreement is one that we would not want to emulate because it doesn't cover financial services and some of the various things would be interested in, it didn't take seven years and it was deemed to be a mixed agreement and therefore subject to modification 38 member state state parliaments and region parliament. >> there is one very big difference to bear in mind with this, it plays into the great repeal bill as well, most of these free trade agreements most in any part of the world will come in large part of the negotiating phrase is negotiating over the question of common standards. from the left of our membership with the u.k. we have a debacle standards to the european union,
6:54 pm
we have perfect mutual recognition for most areas, so that the takes a slice out of it. the second component component. >> i just interject on that, obviously the representative will be that these regulations and standards will be developed in the future and the swiss have an arrangement whereby they have to have arbitration of developing standards in the future. >> you're quite right and indeed the the seta treaty is exactly such an arbitration in place. but let me finish my original point. >> the other elements of it is an entry. its harmonization time when things come into effect in either case will we have props
6:55 pm
that's why think this can be done in two years because are taking on these elements. it's one of the reasons the strategy with the great repeal bill. >> great incorporation fill. >> it doesn't quite have the same appeal. >> i'm sure didn't do and it wasn't me that your conference. we've had a range of witnesses representing different parts of industry. we've asked a number of questions about the roles and tariffs. every witness that we have that represents different businesses have said that they would not want to fall back on wta rules and tariffs in when with the. you have said repeatedly this afternoon that you want maximum access to the single market.
6:56 pm
i take it from the that the plan that you presented to parliament in the letter that will trigger article 50 that you would explicitly set out that your overall objective is to avoid that scenario? >> i will stated in the first really in terms of letter. there's never been one before alex phrased may be -- in terms of the relationship between the council and the commission so that is very fast facts of that which i'm still thinking about it in terms of whether we do a longer short letter. thus the the first thing. the second thing to say about this is a well stated in of objectives, nothing boy. not going to this negotiation
6:57 pm
and supplements were going as equal partners in that and how we are going to conduct ourselves. this is going to be done in a way which we hopefully everybody will treat each other with the best of intentions. >> it is the government objective to have better access to the rest of the european market and simply wto access? >> is to have as close to the level of access. >> in terms of the t have a good understanding idea of what the other side expects? this hasn't been done before and if we get ourselves in a situation where the other side expects more detail on the government present something very non- detailed back consent things off. >> i have an idea of what they expect. forgive me if i don't detail
6:58 pm
anymore. >> ls question is parliament recently visited india to talk about a future trade agreement with the indian government and it is interesting that the indian government to just talk about treaty they want to talk about visas for businesspeople and international students. he said in the house, it's recently that you keep the option and you keep that exchange with mr. carmichael and possibly pain in. is that also the case that given that we want as close as possible the access to the e.u. single market that although we would take back control is immigration that we could still and up with the preferential system for e.u.? preferential system for e.u. market. >> i think take back control is going to cause issue here. the example i will point you to is the swiss example. we thought they had control of their own migration through
6:59 pm
emergencies situation but when they try to exercise that they were able to tighten so many other treatments. so i have to bare mind is that we had to look at the respective the referendum and there has to be clear controlled by this parliament. >> understand that but to be a different between low skilled and high skilled immigration? >> again, my job is to bring the decision back here, not to not to exercise a decision thereafter. >> and you don't think that'll be part of the negotiation question or scenario, i don't. i think the operation of that decision after we have left the european union will be in the national interest that will determine what's necessary for business.
7:00 pm
>> pledges pull up one point on that because a number of the possibilities you outline this afternoon as well involve some arbitration arrangements thereafter to sort out whether there are differences of interpretation, the the government would be prepared to accept such part of the deal? >> almost any free-trade arrangement is one option. may have an arbitration arrangement. >> that would involve the u.k. having to abide by the outcome of their patrician? >> it depends on how it's written in. >> for example the arbitration says that one party has not met this standard and that it may mean they can no longer export a certain good that's hardly
7:01 pm
onerous me. >> but that would meet us subjecting ourselves to the decision of a higher body. >> it might that we do anyway we subject ourselves to -- and. >> i'm just trying to understand what is the difference in principle between accepting those higher authorities in those examples that you have just given and accepted the higher authority of the european court? >> because one relates just to trade in the other relates to the intrusion of law that operates in this country. >> and that's what you think the distinction it. but if it prevented us from the arbitrary decision from exporting goods it would impact upon this country. >> when you expertise if you did with the united states to be subject to the operation of the
7:02 pm
course of the united states for meeting their standards. there's nothing unusual about that. the idea that you deal someone on a commercial basis means you accept their standards for selling the goods. and thus are not. >> thank you. it is better pleasure to listen to a pro at work. >> should i take's a cop a compliment? is. >> you made the point at the end of the day whatever it is that we would like to set out by way of objectives in the negotiation will come down to mutual benefit between the two, can you confirm that is really the case. we have we have enough a lot of public comment in this country just seems to suggest it is all about us at the end of the day. we are big trading nation. the fifth largest economy, and when push
7:03 pm
comes to shove the trade issues will dominate every health. you can actually is not the reality. >> of course it is. for many many of the nations of europe, europe represent something much bigger. it has democracy. like it all the countries that came out of the soviet empire. for them this is not just trade. trade is important trade is important but not just about trade. i was conscious -- >> you were some of the councils too. are different in some ways. they had a view of this institution. this is a wise say that what we want to have is a successful e.u. and the successful uk, it
7:04 pm
is and why a defined terms of greater than economic and in terms of security and mutual values and so on. i say because i believe them. but it it is important part of the argument. >> i grew that. i think it's very helpful the secretary of state. in that case, in relation to something you have said unanswered city thought it was more e.u. that was worried about issues of cohesion that necessarily the nationstate. in my conversations with colleagues recently over the past few months, politicians representing national states in different parties, they have expressed their countries are as concerned about cohesion as to the european commission was. >> cohesion is a word with two very different meanings. >> what is your evidence
7:05 pm
suggesting that the e.u. that's great about the. >> a public statement statement which is only really just an institution talking publicly about britain not doing better about this. that's that's what drives it. it's not malice, not anonymity. it's they fearfully come out very well than other countries will be tempted to emulate. so i do not, i don't blame them for that fear, i just think it's misplace and they're wrong about it. some of the other countries do take a similar view. probably, i have actually spoken to germany yet but i think they may take of you on that. and it may well be france does as well. i haven't talk into a french minister on it yet he probably speaking it's more predominant amongst institutions and nationstates.
7:06 pm
>> the practical outcome of this is that the factory negotiations as well. >> of course. you made a reference earlier to the negotiations have reached further and we have the issue of how you can keep parliament up-to-date with negotiations as they get more detailed, you you mentioned something about close sections and you say little bit more about that? is it your intention to come back to calyx in a close second session in a different time? >> is a possibility. the the thing at this stage what happens is you will remember in the negotiation's information is sensitive for a few days or a week or two, but not not for months or years. and the other thing is that sometimes will try does we were
7:07 pm
to the point where it's no longer sensitive and very occasionally one wants to save this is how it looks, this is a position so i would not want to be in the public domain at all. but that's a circumstance under which we might have a close session. >> thank you. >> my last question is to say do you find it helpful to come to the point of details negotiations and discussions with colleagues in europe that quite large group of people and tweaking this by writing letters to and signed by lots of was some challenge or other, stiffness helpful to you? it you? it is harmful to you? or is it annoying and of no consequence? >> what you started by calling me a pro -- that is duly noted.
7:08 pm
>> is going going talking back to the start of the session hopefully it will be short and sweet. went to ask you about stuff in your department always visit we told 307 staff at that point have been appointed. in some of and some of those or dismayed to find -- with service if anything we want happened in the next two years on your team which is going to be good for you in the country is that we need good people. my question to you is, as this may be a bit of a top gun analogy, you want the best of the best periods of the new 23 people they said there's about 330, have any of those people up upon the upon the civil service,
7:09 pm
writing from outside with outside expertise, because do not agree that actually probably have enough ice men and you probably need some mavericks? >> i'm going to resist, your dragging me into -- to have enough are ready. in the political and the simple answer to your question is that if i were able instantly to snap up a hundred people were well-qualified in a perfect fit i would do it. but real world and have it on the job. that's doing in the moment. a lot of the source of the work comes from outside, from businesses were talking to someone. in terms of pace this department is a little different from the yes minister time.
7:10 pm
because they're all volunteers. every single one of the new group coming volunteers. we have vast numbers of volunteers for small number of jobs and they want to make it work. and that's what we'll see across the nation. >> am very pleased to hear that you have every confidence. just want to point out that they may not all be volunteers but -- but there's no performance and enhancement form if it all goes wrong will be going to their outside jobs so do you think you do not need outside expertise? >> the reason there volunteers is because this department is that the prohibit of a historical change in the country. they they want a part of that. i will take civil servants as long as the next. very familiar with -- with these
7:11 pm
people want the best for the country. and as to why and everyone in this room. and they will do their best for the country. >> thank you secretary of state, clay sq a little bit more about immigration. immigration to the u.k. currently run something over 300,000 per year, split roughly 50/50 between e.u. and non- e.u. immigration. slightly more from outside. the immigration policy is going to change as a result of us leaving the european union. what is the policy objective of the change that we will make? it is still to reduce that immigration to tens of thousands
7:12 pm
rather than 300,000 plus? >> i can do, my task is to bring the decision home is at work for us to exercise the decision. i draw your attention to the comments by the prime minister and the secretary said that he is still there but they have also warned it's not going to happen overnight in my own view of this is a said earlier is ill be exercised in the national interest which means it will not be suddenly denying university nobel laureates going there are denying businesses the ability to transfer managers from tokyo or berlin, or wherever. and it doesn't involve shutting down -- >> is it a reasonable expectation on behalf of the
7:13 pm
public that the policy outcome of taking back control of immigration is for them to see it reduced to less than 130 this country? >> a third of what? a third. >> i think the reasonable expectation, but over time. >> what have you made of the aims of the e.u. 27 and what you think the commission criteria will be for the success of these? >> is not quite concluded his tour of 27, when he gets to the end of that he will come back and he will have a view which will be laid down, he'll make a presentation and then they will lay down the negotiation.
7:14 pm
and that's what he'll have to take as his guidance. in his criteria for success will make this point as an aside to that. i think that michelle got criticized unfairly. when he was a financial services he was very tough but the judgment i came across was that he was pragmatic in the conclusion. that's my memory of him. from the past. the past. they didn't ask that but that's that. they vary. there's a point nobody nobody's asked but which i think is important not is from the beginning of this process
7:15 pm
there are 17 events between the beginning of the probable conclusion. and from from now since we had italian referendum in the austrian election are still 15 to go assuming we go the distance. so the way the water is changing and altering so the aim is a little bit different. the second thing is the different parts of the union tend to follow different categories. you may have to look at migration on the high order the swedes were free trade, the spaniards protein free trade. some of it is driven by the strength of the links with us. so when i was in madrid
7:16 pm
ambassador is had strong links so it is not a single entity. i was given examples. but at the end of the day think we are to have to harness two things, one of self-interest, maybe security self-interest and the other is a persuasion of them that's in europe's best interest. >> you stress the diversity across the european union. i'm thinking that britain is one of the two european countries with a significant force in more only britain and france can defend baltic states. so be there and interest to make
7:17 pm
sure that britain remains a strong defense. >> yes, that's right. >> having stress the diversity across european union, to think it conceivable that a country like spain, faced with pressure from other countries from arrangements within state that they would want to see differential treatment for different parts of the united kingdom? >> probably not. >> given the diversity of opinion across the union that's being made the commission will want to punish britain in order to show that leaving the union has consequences entity speaking up a chance of half of the council -- what is over so if they decided they wanted to go for. >> i'm not going to put ideas in anybody's head. is it just a to come if you're looking for answers. firstly, much of this is at this
7:18 pm
stage. even your comments about saying. it's at this the stage where they may change their mind. the but there is a viewpoint testing which is only really just fading among some europeans that we can't really be us. we that we could be persuaded to change our minds. maybe that's what he was trying to do i don't know, can't read his mind. but, as recently as october government was saying how are you going to change the admin together still feel it can't really happen. so that is currently the mindset as we get further into this one of the virtues it's very
7:19 pm
difficult to see it revoked and we don't see that being revocable. so the that is the route were going on. and i expect at least at that point peoples calculation will change from how can we make them change their mind to how to lead us to this? >> i'm anxious because we may have to go over. >> one last question. >> for a quickly. >> is it within the realm to think about changing the regulatory tools within its control to make written a more attractive destination for investment if the european commission and the council seemed intent on trying to punish us? >> can explain that more detail? >> i'm not sure i do want to
7:20 pm
explain. >> the simple point is, were invited invited to believe the european union the group is not spread the truth is if they do so they are harming themselves more than the must and we have many tools which we can make our country are more attractive destination for investors than can make their country. so the assumption which underlies the common terry around the switches we are weak their strong is a misleading situation. >> made a good point that i'm a natural catalyst. the tax policy is probably above your pay grade. >> it's an interesting formulation early on about britain remaining in the e.u. when we talk about the details and also about what we don't want there is a risk within government and parliament that we found -- and i wonder if you share high-level ambition that
7:21 pm
it's perfectly impossible, subject to negotiation which is a two-way process that britain can be an even better trading partner. outside of the eu. i wonder wonder if at the highest level that is not to be the government can push. >> yes, that is my view. that is inches and at the end of the day this is a change in turning point in our history in which we are going to have a lot of opportunity to seize, which will give britain a better future with a stronger economic future we can be a better economic security, cultural, diplomatic labor. so yes is more than my view. >> thank you. >> thank you. we had. >> thank you. we had a very interesting
7:22 pm
discussion earlier about facts and opinions in the debate. >> i'm tempted to close -- >> i just wanted to ask a couple of quick questions. he talked about the best outcome for britain. my interpretation of a set is spelled largely be around what's best for the british economy and our security. that be fair? >> yes, those are two high-level things which are maternal to the interests of every citizen. they want to have jobs and be better off they want to have a secure life. but they're not the only aims to just speaking now he made a good point about the position we held in the world if you like. that's also quite important. >> i was also having some
7:23 pm
meetings with businesses and was struck by the feedback from a range of organizations subfolder has not finished structured consultation with businesses in different sectors. i'm not sure if you would feel if you agree with that plan i be interested to know how you been reaching out in communicating the findings from any of your discussions and indeed whether or not the findings will be reflected in the white paper he what the document might be and when that is published. as part of the conversation is interested a, the feedback i have is they didn't feel that you and your department had understood the implications of the financial services and didn't understand your position on that in the moment. >> say that last sentence again. >> where of your position on
7:24 pm
financial services passport and whether they felt that you had understood from their point of view the implications of losing that and indeed their concerns around equivalence rules with the stability that would bring in that it could be much more subject for regulatory changes for political reasons. >> okay. firstly, in terms of the passport, that is a complicated subject. there's about nine different categories in aggregate they affect more than half a dozen areas of finance, but there's one area where necessarily ratted disadvantage, for example something like five and half thousand british countries seek passports, so so there's a quid
7:25 pm
pro quo, in terms of our conversations with -- this is a whole of government operation, it's not simply -- to use a formal acronym. every other department in virtue of government events in their own group. we've had vast numbers roundtables, consensual list if you like of those. of course we cannot guarantee every company, what we are doing is understanding the the detailed approach and the detailed problem in each area. my approach to that is fairly straightforward. i said to them, first give me what the problem is, quantify, give give us an indication of how much were talking about in terms of employment, cost,
7:26 pm
capital and also what your policy are what you want our policy answers to be. some of it is complex. talk about mutual the compliance. there's a whole series of scenarios where we are working on solutions. we understand only only to clearly some of those mutual equivalents on their view. >> i would just reiterate the feedback the consultation hasn't been structured and they have not found has been much communication. so i'll just leave it there in terms of the feedback. >> i'm happy to hear from you in terms of areas where you think that is happen. welcome will go back to it again.
7:27 pm
but i can tell you in terms all is better fast effort in terms of my experience in government and it's done very quickly. because we have to get on with this. but the conclusion the conclusion hasn't, and that's the point. >> for obvious reasons you have quite often today is the phrase that you're not ruling anything out. there's one issue i would like to hear you rule out, you mentioned that you wanted to see new hard order between just back in the house republic, but can you rule that will not be left or be delivered by having the border controlled -- in great britain. >> my view here, i don't, i don't see that will be the solution to be honest. but i don't want to do, the
7:28 pm
primary concern is for me is to make sure that we don't have that. there's various technical ways of resolving. we have not finished that process were doing it in consultation with the irish government, we may not have a solution to a the next few months. what i will do is look at that matter was we've had for the think. consider issues for and i can see where thou be a second-best solution. i will make a promise today i'll make a point of writing to further down the road with a solution. >> with a great repeal bill be published in draft to allow for
7:29 pm
the legislative scrutiny question. >> said earlier, i don't think we'll be able to hit that timetable. >> secondly, invited you in the debate last week on the question of whether parliament will have a vote on the final deal it's been negotiated to move from the words that you have been using to which the committee in the eye and answer single yes, would you like to take the chance to do so. >> will say to you is that there's a constitutional reform in the bill which covers lists and we will obey the law to the letter. >> so can i take that be? >> i'm i'm going to return to with your words, don't let anybody else put words in your mouth. >> thank you very much for coming to give evidence this afternoon. order, order.
7:30 pm
>> and. >> live coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. earlier today the federal reserve announced an increase in interest rates by quarter%. the fed share held a briefing to outline why the federal open market committee decided to increase the rate and what we can expect in the near future. see her comments tonight at 80 eastern on c-span to . .
7:31 pm
>> >> about 10 years ago i got
7:32 pm
a call from a writer who said i read your article of your father's gas station on the arizona highway and ever like to interview you. i said sure he said the first question was the very first question was what was it like growing up in such a historic place? oh. >> my father and another was the civil war and rose also enamored with the women of the west so i am sure it was both military. >> nike just graduated from
7:33 pm
seminary school when the civil war broke out and lincoln called for volunteers. so he went back to his hometown in new york some tiny town and started to recruit and betrays his own company of soldiers and a dkb corporation recruited 33 of his own cousins and the bible study class. he even recruited the town band. >> one example of the of how to live in the desert southwest. it was used as of laboratory he was working to create a new type of architecture for america.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on