working with their workers in the community in general and telling the story, but also on a larger scale, also the issue of really addressing at tivoli the notion that we need to look at where there is displacement. there's a study that talks about manufacturing jobs lost in the u.s. 87% is not due to trade. let's look at that the other way around. they be 13% and what can we do, what type of social safety net and make complete rethinking of what it means to retrain workers. ..
if there's any out there and if you are shy, i can toss another question to the panel. if you can wait for a microphone first. >> i would like to ask each of the panelists, given that we understand that the message in the u.s. public has not been presented well for a very long time. i remember when nafta was first going into operation, the canadians used to go around town and say, there's a secret that nobody in washington knows it. nafta is working. for some reason the americans don't want to talk about it. because the understandings have been so bad in the public, we have an incoming president who
has used the argument reflecting public opinion as a wedge issue in getting elected. he may be open to some arguments that you all have presented, if you had 50 minutes to talk to mr. trump, what would you tell him? >> -- 15. >> or a tweet even. [laughter] >> no one wants to go first. >> first, i wouldn't tell them him i work for ustr for 30 years. i think one of the points made earlierearlier, that's what i tt he would go first, is let's look at the facts and let's have a review and let's look at what
these agreements do and what they don't do. you know, one of the unfortunate things about tpp, for example, is that it was concluded in the middle of a presidential campaign season. that was not the plan. we were going to concluded a lot earlier but we were great negotiators and we knew the deal that was on the table two years earlier wasn't one we were prepared to take home. so we waited, okay? we got a good deal but a fortune the timing was really bad and tpp kind of became the manifestation of everything that was wrong with trade and wrong with globalization. so when people were on the floor of the various campaigns with their anti-tpp posters, if you asked any of them what was in tpp no one really knew and no one really cared. and so i think what i would recommend is kind of take a step back, look at what's in this
agreement, what's not in the agreement. we look at what's going on in the asia-pacific region and where it may be headed and what made he had with us or without us, and then we also look as annabella saying, let's look at the displaced workers and the people who may be left behind and let's find the appropriate policies to address their valid concerns but recognizing not doing the tpp is not the answer. it's not going to help them. who is going to follow? >> think you. i would simply say that for any government mexico, the u.s. or canada is looking for opportunity for economic growth, to increase employment in your country, trade is not the problem or the challenges of globalization. it is a mechanism that will help us to grow the economy because a majority of the customers of the world outside of north america. that's a realization that we
have to understand, and we had to understand the history, that throughout history countries that have opened up the trade have prospered. those have happened, have have not. there's a historical important election. there's wanting to look at both the operation of the government as you would a business, mexico and canada are your top customers. we are your top clients. as you is not a country that comes in simply as for concessions from the u.s. we work together with the u.s. but we sell a lot that the u.s. we buy more from the u.s. than all the bric countries combined and all of western europe combined so that has to be valued and we have to work together. because as i said competition s fierce, so strength in numbers. canada, mexico and the u.s. of building products that are better and cheaper can compete better worldwide and generate more employment in the united states.
spin i would say a few words but i would never talk to them probably. there's an opportunity to reconcile the american public, in particular the opinion in the states he won by surprise with globalization and with trade by doing a number of things. and people vote against trade agreements, protest against trade agreements because they cannot protest against technical solutions, change, the fact you know every year more proactive and, therefore, you produce moremore, you keep your staff or every year you have to lay off people. that's just a natural evolution of productivity. there's an opportunity between programs with other countries. talking from european perspective, american companies invested $2 trillion in europe
and vice versa. tremendous jobs, well-paying jobs on both sides depend on this investment and trade relationship and we shouldn't waste time to improve that. thank you. >> in some ways i would follow the theme from my neighbor here about competition being fierce. i think, you know, in a lot of ways in the africa context i would welcome a new lens from a number of fronts, a strategic lens. as i said, , i think, and i'm a bit different i think on the africa side. i think local voters don't really support in other policy related to u.s.-africa, know what you mean? at best you have a misunderstanding. you might actually have animosity so it's a product that trait i feel like in the africa work when they go out and talk to folks in terms of what kind of policies we support and
people support a cap far, something like far supported broadly. it wasn't but it was a lot of policymakers who push and took a lot of risk and pastor. now people are supported because he understand the positive stories only later are they supportive as the message gets out there. there were not supported at the time from a policy perspective but i would say on the africa context we all know it. chinese are kind of growing their market share everyday. i think it's a number of european countries that doing quite well. india has a strategic view on the continent and how their growing but when you look at the u.s. i think it's not just from a trade policy perspective also the support of elements when you think about opec, xm, which some of his things like actually being debated in terms of their existence. in reality we are still so slow in terms of execution. when i was in the infrastructure space-bar\space bar we would compete with the chinese most of the time we would lose based on
tiny. china's a going to be able to like sign and deliver a road in less than two years here your response of the u.s. saying i may or may not be able to get priority timing at opec or ex-im, stick with me. another year of this cobbling together the financing financinr year of other things. these are folks that are also trying to win elections in the local constituencies and the difference between four years and six years is losing. so think competition is very fierce and i'm not sure that's the mindset that we have taken and so we've taken care of a different mindset antagonistic towards a lot of these tools and i think a lot of our companies are certainly falling further behind in that competition. i don't think the rest of the world is taking the same antagonistic view toward some of the tools supporting their companies entering the africa market. >> i think maybe three points. one is that to make america
great again you need more trade, not less trade. the second point is that trade is not a zero-sum game. particularly in the world today. it's not that country a exports its own cars where each and every part of the car is made in country a to country be, then there's the question between the cars from country a and the cars from country b. trade doesn't look like that in the world today. and the third point is that there is a very valid, a very valid point in being concerned, for those were either losing from trade in specific communities, in specific regions, or those who have not been able to connect to the benefits of trade. so the question there is more what is the best instrument to achieve that cracks trade is not that instrument. because even if --
[inaudible] probably that manufacturing then will not come back to your region, or if it comes back it will be done in many cases most of the processes will be done by robots and not necessarily by all the people that you're thinking of. so think about the policies that will actually address some of those concerns and work actively to government those policies. >> -- to implement those policies. >> thank you to all the panelists for today, very informative. i just have a quick question. knowing that there's been strong interest in u.s.-uk bilateral post brexit, how possible is it that q-tip could resume before brexit is concluded? thank you.
>> i think the difficulty for any third country to maybe see a trade agreement with the uk is that you will want to know what you're negotiating print anyway, one of the preferences preferences you need in the negotiating, what is the entire schedule that you're negotiating from court what is the opening on services, the opening on procurement the uk is given to the rest of the world and the rest of the world has agreed with the uk? and last but not least, what is relationship between the uk and the 27 european union? what are the past 40 rights, financial firms, insurance companies, banks? are they allowed to sell? are they subjected to additional requirements? until you know these things, you can have dogs but those will be highly speculative and talks it seems to me. and, therefore, like the canadians, if you want to do a
deal for the uk, do it with the eu, while it is still in european union. thank you. >> thank you. don phillips consulting. perhaps this question has already answered. i got her a little vague. does anybody in this group think there's a chance the trump administration will change its mind on tpp? second question, present trump has said he's very interested in doing bilateral fta spare key has want to anymore big, multilateral types. any idea what might be first in the list of possible fda's, bilateral fda's? i guess also in another one. any sense whether they consider the eu to be, ttip to be a bilateral agreement or a multilateral agreement?
thank you. that was three questions. you didn't hear the rules. with respect to your first question, on what might happen with tpp, my belief, and it could be because i worked on it but also i think it's really because i believe tpp advances our economic and strategic interests in the region. i don't think it's a dead. i think right now it's going to be sidelined, but i wouldn't be surprised if it comes back in some form during the administration. i've seen this with other agreements. i worked on the course agreement, negotiated for the burst on current bush administration and renegotiate under the obama administration when the obama administration came in they were very critical of chorus but they did a very thoughtful review of the
agreement, figured out how they could improve it so it could receive support, not only from congress from the american public and from the uaw, and that was successfully done. once again i know things are quite different now and the magnitude of frustration and concern about trade and about tpp is much greater than chorus, but i'm an optimist at art and i have to believe that there's a way forward. with respect to the question of bilateral scope i touched on that. i don't think any of us know which countries, may be of most interest to the new administration and the goshen bilateral but some people are talking about a japan bilateral. what i mentioned earlier was that to date, japan has been pretty clear that it's not interested in a bilateral, that it just put all its political
capital into tpp. it wants original deal, wants to get the regional benefits and really join the tpp to help shape the regional rules of the road. so that's where they are right now, whether that changes going forward remains to be seen but i think they're putting their eggs in the basket of trying to be able to convince the new president that tpp has merits, is in the u.s. enters, is in the year strategic interests and its regional interest and its economic interest. >> i want to answer the question on tpp obviously we supported tpp all along. because we think it's good for the region and also good for our negotiations with the u.s. and with japan. i think in four years time if we
conclude all the negotiations we are currently pursuing, we will be the hub of the most impressive network of free trade agreements. i think that the u.s. wants to -- it would be dangerous. and finally with negotiating i i think 15 agreement for the moment, 15 countries or groups of countries with one block when it comes to trade. so i think as a result of the policy review they will probably find that if you want to deal with the european union it's just one deal. it's not a series of bilateral. >> doug palmer with politico. i just wanted to ask wendy,
there's some uncertainty about what would be the steps of usgr in the new administration, whether it will i guess still be a cabinet level or somehow play second fiddle to commerce department. i just wonder from someone who's worked there for a long time what do you think would be the impact on u.s. negotiating ability if it's not cabinet level or if the ustr is somehow seen as subservient to commerce? and if kenneth or damien have any thoughts on this, i mean, from a foreign perspective, does it matter much to a foreign government whether they are negotiating with the ustr or with the commerce secretary? >> having been around these issues for a long time working for the government, i've lived through many reorganizations debates, and i understand that
this debate is rearing its head again. i will say as a negotiator for the american people, you want your negotiator to be totally empowered to pick you want them to be senior peer to want them to have the mandate to do what they need to do. so if ustr is going to be negotiating deals, we need to keep it at a cabinet level. you need a minister to do this and can meet with other ministers at that level, and particularly in the asian region. those levels and the ranks of officials at the table are very, very important. and it would be noticed around the world if we were now going to denote the level of the top u.s. negotiator for trade agreements -- demote. >> the only thing i would say about that is that i would say that ustr has some of this best trade negotiation in the world.
i've worked with a lot of them for a very long time. that's it. [laughter] >> we need a negotiator in front of us who is indeed at an executive level and two is fully empowered, and that works both ways. that's what we also hear from our american partners, whose negotiating for the european commission? we negotiate with many countries and we don't have ustr in every country. >> brett with inside u.s. trade. tpp, ttip, these deals seem to come to a halt or be put in the freezer, for the most part because of donald trump's election.
ttip was struggling before that. tpp, the congressional fight was struggling before that. so what can be done with each of these different trade negotiations as a plural laterals to move them forward with a new administration other than just the education process? are there specific parts that can be taken away from them, whether or not it's japan bilateral, specific arrangement? >> i guess people are going to take that question for under advisement and come back. back over here. this will probably be, we have,, this might be the last one but we will see. >> tom, committee to support u.s. trade laws. that name alone let you know i'm
coming to the question from a certain attitude. okay, so we are almost another hour and half into a very intelligent, well-informed discussion on trade, what the american people think about trade. not one reference to unfair trade practices. and so can i conclude that a vote on this stage believes that there are no unfair trade practices that rise to the level of influencing trade flows in the united states? or the american people voted for trump because they feel they're not winning because they can't win? are they wrong? >> why do we take maybe two of the questions, too, while we -- i think there's some others, when bacteria and one over here. package of them together answer them altogether. >> thank you. melinda st. louis from public citizen. my question is for kenneth. in the context, i'm curious if there's any talk or anything you
could share about the mexican government is perceiving any potential for nafta renegotiation in terms of timeline? do we expect that to happen right away and terms of the trump administration asking for that, how the mexican government would respond, and what are the elements that the mexican government would be willing to renegotiate or not? thanks. >> and the last one over here. >> hi, thanks. william knew from intellectual property watch in geneva, and i'm tempted to ask ask, to say t for ustr will be elevated to the desk of president trump who said he will tour of all the agreements and renegotiate them himself, but i'm not asking that. i was wondering yesterday in
geneva there was a reference by the agreement and yesterday the two parties announced or tried to gain support for their new investor state i guess multilateral investment court there trying to create. i don't know if panelists are aware of that initiative yet, and if there's any reaction to the idea of a multilateral investor state court? thank you. >> great, thanks. ken will do the nafta question first of the will do in those estates and then up with the trade defense, unfair trade practices. >> with regards to the nafta and what will happen, as i have said, mexico is willing and ready to engage in a constructive dialogue with the incoming administration. we favor the possibility of having discussions along the lines of how we strengthen the
nafta, how we modernize it along the lines of what i mentioned. there are disciplines that did not exist when nafta was negotiated, and that has to be taken into consideration to bring up the agreement to the requirements of the 21st century economy, just a really, a fact. and that's a we operate in all the different trade agreements that we are negotiating, that we have negotiated. it's impossible to think that you can simply extrapolate what we have negotiated and other trade agreements and bring it exactly as is into north american region. you have to look at the specific peculiarities of each region. in terms of the timeline, of course we are working and, in analyzing what elements of the nafta constricted or quit going through a process of internal consultationconsultation, both r private sector, civil society and analyzing in the interest of economy. you can look at some the things they do in other trade agreements for a guideline to some of the key elements we are
interested in. being the world 10th largest exporter, we are interested in being able to eliminate all, not only careful barriers that no longer exist within nafta with very few exceptions but also look at elements that facilitate trade. elements that go beyond the border that help us get real access to our products to the world, and has also some of the elements we are working within north america. in terms of the timing, it really will depend and the substance of whatever we discussed with the u.s. will also depend from the perspective of what the u.s. and also candidly, let's not forget about candidate in the equation, bring to the table. as i said we said we are very open to working within the framework that allows us to strengthen the very successful free trade agreement that we have built over 25 years. >> yes, indeed. we've responded to the criticism in europe against -- as soon as
privatized justice is giving rise to civil rights for foreign investors, fake proceedings, arbitrators would be having topics of interest on such issues, and we proposed a modernized system which we agreed with the canadians and vietnam. but if you do that and tens and tens of agreements, you create a problem. so the way to solve it is to have investment where you could have judges settling these disputes. just on tbi tbi, maybe you're nt there but i talked about it already, that we are changing it to create exceptions to allow us when there is excess capacity or market distortions in security and so forth, to impose duties
that are higher than the current duties. and we're still analyzing our trade defense by proposing the removal of, i become an technical here, but the list of nonmarket economy countries that are making other changes to the rules. we need trade defense. you cannot do on one end trade without having a strong and robust trade defense industry regime, that's for sure. >> if i can just add to that, i think you're right, the conversation this morning perhaps focus more on negotiations of different countries in different regions of this world we are engaged in, but that by no means lessens the critical importance of addressing unfair trade practices. my colleagues at ustr, at the commerce department, at state come at our embassies abroad, they do this day in and day out.
because you need to make sure that after we put all of our efforts in negotiating trade agreements, we want to make sure our trading partners live up to them, but we also want to make sure if there are unfair trade practices that are keeping our products and services out, that they are being addressed. i really welcome president-elect trump's emphasis on what is called kind of the enforcement issue, and really strengthening that function in the u.s. government under his upcoming administration. i think that's a very helpful initiative, and i think as a result we are going to see more cases filed both in the wto and more aggressive use of our trade laws. and as long as in my view, it's done in the context of living up to our rules that we've agreed to in the wto and elsewhere, then i think this is a very welcome step forward.
>> great, i think that's a good positive note to end this conversation on. i would invite ken backup to the podium to make some final remarks. >> thank you to our panelists. it's been a great conversation. we are looking forward to hosting more of these conversations in the months to come. a lot of questions in the trade community, around the world about what the u.s. is going to be doing and we plan on helping illuminate some of the speeches for all of you. thank you for an much. thanks all of you watch your inbox for more events coming up. ..
[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> if you missed any of this discussion, it will be available shortly in the c-span video library. go to cspan.org. join us later today for an event marking the 225th anniversary 25th anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights. a panel of judges will discuss it and its relevance today. you can see that live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. looking at some live programming
today coming up on c-span, the brookings institution hosting an event looking at nursing home rating systems. they will present a new study showing great inflation in the current grading system. you can see that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. a live look at trump tower as we have a camera here for several weeks watching as potential cabinet nominees come and go. certain celebrities walking through today. we will sit and watch the elevators. [inaudible conversation]
considered for the next press secretary. they have confirmed that he has officially chosen ryan ziggy to fill that role. he advocates for increasing energy drilling and mining on public lands and skepticism about the urgency of climate change. this is available on our website all day. go to cspan.org. every we can book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here are some of the programs coming up this weekend. saturday at ten eastern on "after words", georgetown university vassar looks at the failure of democratic systems to call for the best outcome and calls for a change in how government is run. he is interviewed by the president of the cato institute. >> fairness doesn't get you to democracy. why the people reject that
system, why they don't want that is because they think it won't work very well. they think it will lead to bad outcome and they're probably right. once you say i care about fairness but i care about this and now you're on my side asking about how are you going to way fairness versus the quality of the outcome. the book awards recognize outstanding literary achievement from the spectrum of the literary community. the awards are presented at the jazz center in san francisco. at five pm eastern, jonathan zimmerman, professor of education at the university of pennsylvania, on the increasing pressure to curtail free speech on college campuses. he talks about it in his book, campus politics, what everyone needs to know. >> the problem is the second kind of pc which doesn't taboo words but taboos ideas, right.
if 40% is opposed to affirmative action, we are not hearing from them. that means there is a serious pc problem. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider brexit secretary testified recently before a british parliamentary committee on the appropriations for the uk to leave the european union. he told members of the committee the government plan on leaving the eu will not be published are ready by january 2017. the plan is still being worked on. this is just under two hours.
>> right, well, can i welcome you to what i am sure will be the first of many appearances before the select committee. we have a lot of ground to cover this afternoon, so colleagues submit questions and the answers would be helpful. i am going to kick off. following last week's debate in the house of commons and the motion that was passed, the government government will publish its plan for negotiations before article 50 is treated. when can we expect to see this? >> once policy is complete. the reason for setting the final date as the first of march was
due to the termination to carry out all of the policy work. [inaudible] >> so next month january, february, there's quite a few decisions to be made. we have carried out about 57 separate analyses which has indications for individual parts of the economy and some of those are yet too be completed. we have work to be done. it will be as soon as we are ready. >> can you confirm it will be a white paper when it is published. >> what i would say is we will present a plan. as you all remember from the motion, one of the constrictions
in the government amended motion which got through by 372 majority was that i should do it in such a way, or the government should do it in such a way that it is not undermined our negotiating position so we need to be very careful what we do publish but i want to be as open as we can be, but we must be sure. >> with respect, that is to do with the content. now given that what was raised in the debate and it match the form of what the government is trying to achieve, took the form of a white paper and on many occasions, i'm just trying to understand why it wouldn't be. >> it will be appropriately toward what. [inaudible] >> can you confirm that you expect to be sitting opposite
when the negotiations begin and you intend them to cover the divorce arrangement and the new arrangement with the eu. >> yes, that's how that's going to work. >> now the chancellor said on monday there is an emerging deal against business regulators and thoughtful politicians that would be helpful to have a longer time period to manage the adjustment as we leave the european union. can we classify that as a thoughtful politician when it comes to transitional arrangements. >> i'm not sure about the second qualification. i hope you can classify me as a politician or let me be clear about where i think we are going. first, as the prime minister set a number of times and i've set a number of times, what we are after is a smooth and orderly exit. that. that is the over arching aim. the point is, that's what we are trying to do. that's the purpose of part of
the strategy of the spirit within that box, we want to get the maximum market access with minimum destruction. what if all of those things can't be negotiated within 18 months. >> well he said 18 months, and i think it is all negotiable in time. that's really the core of this. we have a lot to do. that's one of the reasons. it's one of the reasons that we are taking our time to get prepared on all fronts. that's why our 57 studies cover 85% of the economy, everything except sectors that are not affected by international trade. we're trying to get ourselves in
the position. it was written to allow departure from the european union. that's the purpose. it's one thing for the government to think will be organized and ready to do a deal within 18 months. will there need to be transitional arrangements? >> that's a hypothetical question, however i'll do my best to answer for you even so. >> look, the transitional transitional arrangement means many things to different people. if you think of it, the way i saw it, i think they use the term business regulator and
thoughtful politicians. it seems to me what their talking up a some sort of implementation. whatever the transition rate is, we need to know where were going before the transition. if you build a bridge you have to have both sides establish before you build a bridge. it seems to me it's possible to know what the endgame will be in two years. you're not opposed to those arrangements if they proved to be necessary but it depends what you mean. an implementation phase, if it's necessary, and only if it's necessary, but i think the thing to understand here is that the british people want this done with some degree of expedition. they wanted done properly and soon and that's what were trying to do. >> now was reported, you spoke to the city on 15 november, of
november, i think what they describe as their informer record and i don't know whether you've had a chance to read it or to comment on it, but it was indicated at that time that you are not particularly interested in the arrangements but said if the eu wanted them then you would be inclined to be kind to them. >> two things. firstly, i sometimes burst out laughing when i read what i am supposed to have said in certain circumstances. you will realize as well as me. so i don't, i never comment on these sorts of gossip. i think with the substance of your question would be, whether you think. >> by the way, as i understand that it was their record of the conversation they had with you which is rather different but anyway, what do you think the other -- >> it doesn't correlate with the
government position. >> you made that very clear. >> it's whether the 27 might be interested in transitional arrangement. >> will they may be. as the chancellor said, his group of people were businessmen, regulators and he said thoughtful european politicians. >> that may be true. i don't think. [inaudible] do you worry about the prime minister acknowledging and answering the question. >> we have set in terms we want to have a smooth exit. that's what we want. like all of these things, when you go into negotiation, you tried to see where the issues are and you deal with them beforehand and then you don't have to worry when you get to the end. that's the purpose. we have set this over and over again. we are trying to give get them
the maximum opportunity for trade inside and outside europe and minimum disruption and that's what were after. the work that you are currently set in trade, does it include a contingency plan in case we end up with no deal or say the deal, say the deal were voted down by the european parliament, is the government thinking about what it would do in those circumstances if we exited with no deal whatsoever. >> i will reiterate, that is not our intention, we intention, we are aiming for a free access to all possible markets, but we will do planning for all the likely outcomes. >> finally for me, before i turn to colleagues, you told the house last week, you said, this is not a binary up ration. there are about four different possibilities, possibly more and we are still assessing them. could you briefly set out what those possibilities are.
i'm not asking what the conclusion will be because you haven't reached one yet but what are the possibilities. >> will give you both ways of looking at it. first you have to look at what exists. you have obviously the union, countries like turkey which has an arrangement which puts it inside the economy and allows it to do very limited free-trade agreements, you have circumstance like norway which is inside the single market but outside the customs union and you have countries like switzerland who are outside the single market but with bilateral, a large number number of trade deals, but they have customs arrangements. the four i had in mind and they're not comprehensive, but it's like a spectrum, a
partially inside turkish model, if you'd like, outside but with the free trade agreement and a customs arrangement. that's a spectrum, if you like. >> so as i understand that that doesn't seem to include certain sectors. >> will that's why said, there are others. they're not on the spectrum. i had a spectrum in my mind. >> are you looking at all whether northern island might remain in order to avoid our order. >> no, that's not one of the options we booked that so far. we are determined to maintain that with an open border.
as an example of how that might be done, the community might look at norway whether both a single market but it's a very open border with particular arrangements designed to make the border a free border. >> okay, thank you. maria. >> thank you chairman. i really want to discuss the progress in this department itself as we went from november, and we were told at that time, when we asked about how much resources were in place that there were about 300 people on on the team but more was forthcoming. could you update us on the progress of the department itself. >> we have, the the last time i look we had 330. bear in mind, this has grown
from about 40 since july. that department didn't exist in june. in addition to that, we have 120 who, obvious they have a representation role in the union, but they're also experts who come from all the different departments and they provide expertise to us as well, as well as what our european lobbyist views are. i don't know what the final number is, because frankly what we do, and i think i think you may have been told this when you were there is we also have a lot of applications from outside. we have ten times as many applications as we can take.
we have a very high quality staff, which you saw when you came. we basically look at what has to be done and see what needs to be put in place. the treasury accepted our budget info. if we need to go above it then we will need to use contingency, but because the department will only exist for about two and half years, that's not that's not the same set of problems that would be as if we had a permanent department. we don't for see problems there. the other issue we have had his geography and that is, i think you're all still in the cabinet when you visited with the chairman. were on my team still on the cabinet office when you visited? >> i think they were about too move. >> so we have a floor now which will make that easier to manage. we are not constrained, what
were doing it quickly and were building the machine well were doing the work. that is an issue for us. the other thing to bear in mind is that there is a mixture of a coordination and a policy department. we decided from the beginning that it was not the wise approach to try to replicate every policy section inside my department. so we have people who are very capable, who normally come from the department and they both coordinate and deal with it. >> are there any plans or transitional arrangements that it could be three or four years down the line, is there any arrangement for monitoring progress because it will be
ongoing trade negotiations. >> is to have years enough? >> we see what we get closer. one of the things i hope you realize as we have to focus on prioritizing the policy work, being engagement work and getting out and talking to the industries as well as the diplomatic work. that's our focus at the moment. the requirement have changed so from now until shortly after march, it's very policy driven. from march onwards, there there was still be policy action because we may need to switch some approaches, but when we get
toward the end of that time period, we will have a good idea idea well before then whether we need to extend anything, but generally speaking i don't think we are expecting a major demand for the department thereafter. >> obviously we were very impressed when we went to the department and it's an excellent senior experience. there was some concern that a large number of the team was processed driven rather than looking at the individual areas of expertise such as with trade and universities, is that experience coming through? how are you going to address some of those gaps? >> two different ways. firstly, you're right, although they do come from departments that have that experience, we
have been. [inaudible] involved in engagement activities with serious stakeholders who themselves, i say to all of them, put in papers and analyze it so we can understand and quantify and give us your solutions and tell us what you're worried about with respect to our policy proposal. we do all of that and were also taking on some outside, but you're quite right, the cleverest servant in the world may take some time to get up to speed on insurance past porting or just-in-time manufacturing systems or custom systems, those sort of things. so we are doing that more gradually. with respect to the administrations, we have put in
place a committee, and as a part of that, there has been a fairly sizable set of bilateral meetings between the services and those in the ministration. we take very seriously indeed. the first place i went to visit, i been to scotland and wales, and that's the other thing were doing there. that is getting stronger with time. >> there were about seven boards that have been established, three of which are looking at
the process of leaving the eu. there was just one around markets, one around justice and security, one about, one about trade and one on eu funding. do you think the focus of the department is enough about parts of the country that will be positively or negatively affected or do you think it's still in the process of the actual exiting. >> let me go back to that, let's look at the analysis i talked about before where we reviewed 57 industrial and other sectors. we will, as we go through, do two things. firstly, what were already doing is we are talking to scotland, northern northern ireland, wales about specific areas of interest
the employment in agriculture varies. scotland, having a financial services sector of significant size, that's the first cup. beyond that we haven't gotten there but we will look at the regional effect as well. the idea of the same is to get the best outcome and make sure everybody get it's right. >> and my final question, being london-based, is that a different this advantage for some department. >> as i said, the first was in cardiff and then i went to glasgow. >> the department member is
primarily coordinating, it's not doing all of the work itself, and that's one of the reasons why the jnc was set up not just as a particle exchange, but also to cause an exchange to take place at the official level. it's very difficult if you have a department doing a hard job, you've got to do something. so we are conscious of the need everywhere in the uk. we will continue doing that. as i said, we haven't done enough yet on the regional, but that will come. >> thank you. jeremy.
>> thank you very much what importance is being given to the relationships, good relationships that are needed, not just with the negotiators themselves, but, but with each of our 27 member states with whom we hope to have good and expanding relations in the future? >> we are slightly constrained by the commission sensitivities on no negotiation before notification. the member states want to obey that constraint, but nevertheless, i have been able to talk to ireland, spain, hungary, poland, finland ministers and investors. there's others but i can
remember them all. most of the leaders at the various 27 states, as an important part of the negotiation, she got in trouble last week for quoting someone but the truth is, the plan will be the plan we start. it will be modified by the interests of the various other countries and we are building interest and alliances. our goal is on two or three promises. number one, what someone called the catalyst premise or an economic premise that trade is a good thing.
we have 67 billion trade deficit with the european union so they have interest and all that, but it's not just all that. beyond that beyond that we have every intention of continuing to be good european citizen spread the fact that we are leaving the european union doesn't mean were going to stop taking interest in european security and military defense. we make huge contributions to counterterrorism in europe. we are on that process and i rather suspect that in the first six months of next year i will have a lot of miles under my belt. >> as their coordinated plan within the government and the cabinet for ensuring that all these relationships are being built up at the moment. >> yes, that's going going on as we stand. >> thank you. can i turn to the question of
non-terrorist barriers which seems to be a greater concern. how important a part of your negotiation objectives is it to ensure that non-terrace barriers do do not reappear in the way that we saw in the past. >> you're quite right. one of the reasons we have left the aim at the level of generality that it is is because we recognize the non- tariff area is probably a bigger issue than tariff barriers in the long run, partly because we do actually have a surplus in services and services is where they hit most. we are putting a lot of effort into understanding and grounding things like nontariff barriers in financial services.
it's a grounding because you've got a very wide range of views about how important this is but it's quite easy to work out the impact of a 10% percent or 7% tariff. it's much harder to work out the impact of the removal of passports or something like that. we are doing all of that. that's probably taking a disproportionate amount, larger than average. >> one thing that uk citizens are used to in the past few years is very easily available and cheap air transport. i was there on sunday and it was
full of people wanting to travel. i wonder if the open skies agreement and negotiations at the top over negotiating objectives. >> the top, the transport sector, i've had meetings with him and a roundtable with the industry myself as well as once he has had. we think we are in a good position, too be honest. britain is a very major destination. british airlines, are important as are others of course so we have a degree nonoaud, but it's in other people's interest to maintain this as well as ours. we are very keen on that. it's also not just at the national level.
if you are the mayor of a town in one of the mediterranean states that benefits from easyjet or one of the other low-cost airlines, you've got an interest too so there's all sorts, but we are well aware of that. >> last week, they came to a decision about the european. [inaudible] have a given thought to such important institutions given that they have a very large pharmaceutical industry which is vital to our economy. >> the answer is yes on both counts. two points however, let me separate and then i will answer anyway. one of the things that falls on my department is the continuing relationship with european union
general affairs council and so on. we have taken the very firm view that we can continue to be good european citizens in support these measures for the past couple of years as well as seeking to maintain elation ships "after words". on the european agency, we have had a lot of -- i was in cambridge last week as well and we are still getting clear from the industry what their preferred outcome is. there are some slight differences in terms of outcome but again,. [inaudible] >> thank you very much. you are asked in the chamber the government was making any
contribution on the single market and you said the goal is that we get the best services for the european market. [inaudible] i assume that was transitional he that you are talking about here, am i correct in that assumption. >> what they're saying is that at this stage, three months short of the negotiation, i'm going to hold every option that i can. i'm not going to shut something off unnecessarily. do not count it out is also to not count it in. so, it was slightly over interpreted but i'm trying to keep as many negotiation tools as i can. >> so.
[inaudible] >> i'm not ruling it in either. when we get closer to the negotiation i will be able to come back and talked about that. i may need to do that closed session. >> i'm not ruling something out. not ruling it in either. we set will make every effort to keep this market open and i said yes. that's all. >> and the consequences of not getting that?
>> we don't know yet. one of the issues is, that's not the first time i faced it is we have a negotiation coming up and i have done as much they can to remind you get control over immigration and are laws in the bastille for british companies and manufacturing and services across the board the reason we haven't specified them in more detail is there are many ways of achieving those outcomes. in fact, this is much more, located in a chess game game. what i will be able to tell you is the opening of the chest game. i can't tell you the mid- game or the outcome until we are well into negotiations because it would depend on the attitudes and approaches of other members as well as the commission itself
i will not limit things or do things which undermined. >> last week you were talking about something that might be transitional or might be permanent and might involved or may not involved with the single markets in the future. >> many years ago -- >> thank you very much. >> many years ago your father gave me strong advice and it was don't let anyone put words into your mouth. [inaudible]
there is an early preliminary speech, what is the involvement of the administration when it comes to the actual negotiation? >> well, the purpose is to get the input from all of development administrations unto what they view the policy to be. for example, at the next in january, i think they are presenting to us the views and the aim is to absorb that into the joint negotiations and inform the decision on what the
aim should be. [inaudible] >> we will need to debate them and make a decision. that's exactly what will happen. because i was answering this in the debate i wasn't able to chair the dnc which i would normally do. i have not yet read the transcripts from the debate or the notes but i was surprised there weren't different views.
[inaudible] >> we haven't got to that point yet, but we went as far as we can. you can't give one part of the country a veto but you can do everything possible to make sure you get the outcome. one of the very high priorities as the northern island of the border and maintaining that. i was very clear that's not my priority. no one has argued against that at all. >> on a similar but different topic.
[inaudible] >> the chief minister came some time ago and we have been in touch on several occasions. the issue, the primary issue, not the only issue we hadn't made very plain we will always respect the wishes of the people >> thank you very much indeed. >> thank you for coming before us this afternoon. what are the keys strategic objectives you set for yourself in the article 50 negotiation.
>> respecting the request of the representative referendum which means bringing back control and money, and beyond that, seeking the best outcome in terms of trade in the best security outcome in the latter case, as close as we can get to the current operational administration. >> you've given us options on the customs, in relation to the single market, when i turned to that in particular, do you think we should stay in a single market? i heard you say earlier but can you tell us now if you've reached a view if we should stay in a single market are not. >> no, this is one of those
things where we have to work out what's compatible. our view at the moment is too keep that general-purpose option, that strategic game open at the moment and not come to a conclusion until we've done more work. >> are you looking at a range of options on a single market? >> she said that about customs union, not not about single markets. >> although, this is one of those things where we have to see what develops. one of the difficulties, as you will appreciate, as much of as me is that we are in the early stage of negotiation where the stone stands with a very firm one. it's quite hard to read how will develop beyond here, but that is part of it. broadly speaking we are speaking
to the overarching aim, maximum possible access, services goods and so on. >> you'll be aware from the jnc that the devol stations have all said they want access to the single market. >> the thing here is to distinguish. [inaudible] the thing to bear in mind is people often discuss membership but what matters is to sell services in other parts of europe and for european manufacturers and providers, i'm a big believer in free-trade. >> mr. carmichael's asked you
about paying into the eu bucket for exchange for access to the market. is there anything you would be prepared to consider? >> as i said to him, leaving something open is not to say that you're going to do it. i have to say this, by way of, i've been asked in the chamber on number of occasions, would you pay whatever it was, would you pay this, would you pay that, i can think of little more use for the other side them for me to answer questions like that. as i said, i said we are keeping something open doesn't mean were doing it. >> turning to the subject of the border in ireland, on a visit in september you said there wouldn't be any return to a hard border. is that still your view. >> yes very much so. >> what you mean by a hard
border. >> offense in the checkpoint and all those things. the aim here, a very important part of the peace agreement was the removal of a physical border. it doesn't mean there can't be different tack regimes in the north and south things that separate the north and south in different ways but it's an important part of this treaty. i have to say, i am optimistic that the european union will be helpful. >> an old friend of mine is also very seasoned at this. when i saw him, we didn't talk about the negotiations, but he did raise, out of nowhere, his involvement and commitment to it. they gave me a degree of comfort
>> he said no fence and no checkpoints, can you think that we can continue to work within these islands. [inaudible] >> in terms of legalistic issues, in the amsterdam treaty which i negotiated, the common travel area is part of the treaty. it's not quite perfect because it talks in terms of different members of the union rather than one in, one out, but it's recognized. secondly, what in ireland be routed to britain. really, there are 15 million people that land every year. it's a very long-winded way to get into the united kingdom to come by through dublin. if you want to come you, as
tourist and you stay. that's what happens when people are trying to come in illegally in some way. i also don't for see a circumstance where were going to stop tourist at all. we have lots of people coming in and out of britain. i don't see it being an issue. the other thing i would say is this. i also went to dublin and they were equally keen to maintain this and we may well have discussions with them at some point about their own incoming security so we know, so we have some watchlist there but that's for them to decide. >> what do you envision for the united kingdom. >> the first thing to say is that my job is to bring a decision back to the uk for the home office. it's really a question you
should put to the secretary. the main point i would put here, because people sort of jump to conclusions is that i would expect any future government to run, to control the borders in the national interest, which means that, as the chancellor has already said, the transfer of the movement to power, people running things. [inaudible] >> last week the committee and people there, asked all of them and not one of them was aware of the deal that's been reached. there's also a budget responsibility to the european commission. you are the only person this commission has seen so far.
we take that opportunity this afternoon? >> actually somebody better than me is doing it in front of this committee right now. he knows this inside out, i know that broad outlines, but what i can tell you is there was no undertaking to match because that's illegal. beyond that i do recommend you take a listen. >> are you not in a position to tell us what's been talked about [inaudible] so you're saying it's been done by another element. >> that's more detail than you been able to tell a. >> i'm assuming so, i'm assuming that's why he's here. >> is it possible to conceive of a settlement for gibraltar or northern ireland that does not negotiate arrest of the deal
with the uk. >> can you restate the question. >> we talked about the northern islands and their desire not to have a hard border and mr. carmichael has raised some of the concerns of the government of about that my question to you is is it possible to receive a settlement that doesn't differentiate for them to have a slightly different deal than the rest of the united kingdom because of the location. >> i'll be hesitant to go down that road. i think it's important for people of northern ireland to see them as part of the united kingdom until they decide otherwise. they have expressed that very forcibly in the referendum on sovereignty, some years ago. ninety some% felt that way.
i don't think they will go down that road. we are looking at all options that we can conceive of so are not ruling out anything, but were looking at all options. the more difficult problem, the more options will look at, but at the moment i don't see one that you just describe. >> just on that last point, could you confirm that gibraltar already has a differentiated statement because it's not part of the customs. >> yes, there are are distinctions. >> that's helpful indeed. thank you. john would injure. >> thank you. we understand that brussels are
reporting to you. are they also conducting eu business, and for that the foreign office is the lead department. is that correct? >> that's not quite the right distinction. the distinction is where they are maintaining bilateral relationships with other countries around europe, where it's dealing with the general counsel continuing day-to-day business with the european union, that's our lead. :
for example, on friday and saturday i was in madrid and seville. as near as there is one, i saw the deputy prime minister who's got responsibility for brexit, and the ford secretary -- foreign secretary and the ambassador accompanied me to these meetings, and also gave me his readout of the way without we would use it. that service as it were is one for which the foreign service has a tremendous history and
tremendous capability. there is no clash that division. >> can i ask you, in your discussions, is it your impression that generally they see this, proceeding at the same speed and in the same direction? >> look, i mean, it it varies. it covers between countries. most of the ones i've seen so far have volunteered to see me, rather the other way around particularly. and they do that because most of them regret our departure. i shouldn't conceal the fact they wish we were staying. and the reason they wish we were set staying is because we have
been a spokesman for a certain mindset inside european union, more decentralized, very free trading, responsible on budgeting and finance and so on. so they are sorry to see us go. so how they see the grand chip of the european state as it werewere, if that's the right pe for it, to continue, i don't really know. i think that's a debate they will have amongst themselves. it's as much influence i think either perspective of the way global politics is going as it is by us, by the task, sorry, the trump result, the referendum, the issue there. that worries them at it i think. mostly it's sort of friendly regret is the emotion i see.
>> my own thought, do like to be as -- given will not be any longer spirit they understand that. >> do they understand these negotiations simply is reaching a deal for the uk, in your opinion, or would some see this as an opportunity to raise what was discussed, more generally, for the whole european union? >> i wouldn't be, i haven't seen that. i better not try to read their mind but that hasn't come up and i haven't seen that. what i would observe is that the union has a number of issues to deal with, whether migration issues, harrison issues. -- terrorism issues. and, obviously, financial issues. frankly i think that dominates the thought process as well as
their own domestic economic issues. more than the grand direction of the union. that's my impression but it is only an depression. i can't say i sort of tried and lies that. >> have you detected any recognition that the uk, where the only country that is given its people the opportunity that far, other countries might believe -- [inaudible] >> that is an issue which worries the commission more than the nation-states i think. one of the issues i have to deal with is nation-states quite properly for the interest of their own people, high on their priority list, and that's helpful to us because free-trade is one of the things that's been mutually beneficial. the commission is concerned about the risk of somebody else
following suit and so on. that has manifest itself any slightly, not aggressive, the wrong word. in a view that may be we can't do too well out of this. that's producing over a time frankly, but it's more a function of institutions that of the member states. >> thank you very much. peter lily. >> thank you. what is the minimum scope of issues which have to be covered into withdrawal and negotiations if either side wanted to examine them? >> i think i pretty much defined that, but in a way if you ask me the simplest scope rather than the minimum scope it will be free access, free trade, to
goods and services from my point of view and hopefully, hopefully the security but that's pretty much what our ask is in a way. >> i'm surprised. i thought they thought the minimum as being the divorce settlement. >> on sorry, i misunderstood. this is the minimum deal that they will strike. >> what would be the minimum that would have to be covered by it? >> this brings you to the interpretation itself which i'm always getting a slightly wrong but in essence is the arrangement for departure but
also having regard to the ongoing relationship. so i taken the view that it's the whole thing really. we will have to discuss this. this is something where there's view is dead and i will have to talk to others at some point. >> i want to come back to that business about taking account of future framework but one article 50 is figured, how are the negotiations likely to be sequenced? >> that's something we haven't yet, that is something which, we are going to need from very early on discuss how we organize the whole negotiation process, beginning to end, including whether with a time for ratification.
but we have not engaged in the point. when we do will no doubt need to think about the practicalities,, how you get through the things you get through the time available. >> spirit something which will influence that sequencing is a bit of article 50 which you mention which says the union shall negotiate and include an agreement taking into account, sorry, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the union. now, have you will you seek legal advice? it seems to me that means you cannot negotiate unless you know, and at light at least, what the framework for its future relationship of the union will be. wouldn't that be helpful for us if we could say let's decide, will it be broadly free-trade, or you want to go to trading on world trade organization terms? and telling know which of those
two trade works it is we can't really go to anything else according to the treaty. >> i mean, i'm less to take your encouragement, to take legal advice that hasn't been wholly successful, legal advice i've had so far. but let me -- >> i'll offer you legal advice spirit i'm teasing you. the simple approach to this will be i think to talk to michel about legalities. you are making a good point but i think it will not be settled in court. i have every belief he wants to get practical outcome of this as much as i do. i know michel, i mean for 20 years. he will be a tough negotiator but he want the best outcome. the aim is the best outcome for
united kingdom and the best outcome for the european union. and i am, if we maintain that, we negotiate in good faith with clear with what were trying to do. we'll get a good outcome and i don't think that we will have a serious problem with that but it does require us to talk. >> i believe my colleague will share my time. >> i will try to bring up when i've gone through, that's really helpful, peter. >> you told the chairman earlier that you couldn't at this stage confirm that brexit negotiation plan will be an white paper. it might be a white paper. that's -- >> i just don't know. the decision, in my sort of mind, the decision is what context i put in it and decide whether i format it.
i don't want to mislead you. it's very important to me. you all know my history up all of it. to me ideal probably -- i deal properly with you and it don't mislead you. >> is a possibly could be a white paper? if it wasn't, what status would you envision that it would have? >> i don't know yet. i haven't worried about about, t spent time worrying about this, frankly. because the public at large care about the content, not the format. they care what we say, where we're going, not how it is formatted. i just haven't thought about it yet. >> would you envision once it is been published it will be consulted upon over a period of six, 12 weeks, whatever?
>> in what context? >> will be a public context? >> there will be a debate. bear in mind that we have to amass the content, and some of the research is not complete yet. the policy decisions, a number of policy decisions are not complete yet. because so much of this is done in parallel you get quite a lot of policy decisions coming quite late on together. some interact with each other. it will take us a little time to get to that point. >> so the point, that would constrain -- >> we will allow as much time as we can, but it will be dictated by the outcomes. i won't have much choice spirit you allow as much time as you careful consultation but wouldn't necessarily be -- you u made the point a moment ago that it's very important that the uk
should be clear in negotiating objectives. do you expect the view that having a clear informed statement of uk objectives endorsed by parliament will strengthen ministers hands in negotiations that follow? >> to be honest, it's not a major component of the discussion. what i think will take over as i said to a couple of my colleagues, your colleagues already, is that at the end of the day it will be collective interest of the european union, united kingdom that will be the predominant driver of the negotiation. this is not going to be a sort of single dimensional haggle. it will not be like that which is what i've tried to characterize it in terms of the
mutual interest and mutual benefit. >> wouldn't it strengthen ministers hands to have a document setting out an objective which parliament has endorsed? >> i can see where you're going with this. >> just a little further on the content you envision for the plan. we had a discussion already this afternoon about how many options that are for future relationship with the customs union pier would you envision the plan will set out the option which the government wishes for -- >> my expectation is yes. we will state as good as a where we want to go. in the event there's more than one option we might put more than one option up but i would expect us to characterize all what to do spirit what about something like whether the european agency should stay in uk or not? would you envision that sort of
level? >> that's quite a lot of detail. wouldn't have thought it would have been that detailed, but again it depends on, you're asking me to make judgments about outcomes we haven't arrived at yet. so i wouldn't have thought, so i don't know. >> presumably the plan will set out the uk governments objectives, recognizing they may not all be achieved, but clear statement of the objectives will be included. just how long a document do you think this is going to be? >> that depends upon the content. my text will be what kind of put the public without jeopardizing the negotiating brief. that's it. as much as i can i will put in under that criteria. at this stage i don't know what it will be. >> one could i suppose envision
a document, a couple site of one could envision a document that would be 30 or 40 pages. are you able to indicate which is going to be closer? >> get ask me things i don't know, so i don't know. [inaudible] >> there speaks the times of journalist. enough to fill the page. >> but no big pictures, that's right. >> are you able -- i mean, customs union, detail thing about the european pressure are you able to tell us any other points of content that you would expect to be in the plan? >> as i say it's content first and that decision requires to know what the policy aims are in detail. we know right now what policy aims are in detail. we will release that information, hazardous or not. if it is not hazardous then we will release it.
>> thank you. >> jonathan? >> can we just turn to the major piece of legislation you have forwarded? can you commit today that this committee will launch -- [inaudible] >> no, i can't. what i am of mind on that, to come back to this is to try to give parliament some advanced time of what we're trying to do, but we have a timetable, a timetable issue. it was in the queens speech for the next session. we will need to get that out, get out of the way, get it done. the reason i say that is because consequential -- bear in mind what is going to do. it's pretty straightforward. it will take -- put them pretty
much, not quite but pretty much untouched into british law but then after that there will be consequential legislation. some of it will be primary legislation and, therefore, we need time to go through before the conclusion that association or before the ratification anyway. and that will take some time. there's also, there would be some secondary legislation. so that i will expect quite technical, not contentious at all but it will still require time. there's a fair amount of it. because look, we have been in the union for 40 something years. we got a lot of law, and many, many thousands of pages of the statute which depend on it, and much of it is coined in ways which relate to european institutions or european guidances which are no longer there. some of that is very technical so it will take time.
we have to make sure we have the time for that. i don't think, and actually what i say this, i had to to come back and talk about the bill at some length on another occasion, if that's helpful to the committee. >> i'm sure it will be. >> but we will be on a time constraint on this stupid do you think there sufficient time to bring forward the bill on the consequential legislation before brexit day one? >> yes, i think so. >> will be a comprehensive bill, are just -- >> it wil will be, i think it wl be a simple bill, but then with the major parts of change. i don't know. it's a reasonable assumption that we will have to do something about the agricultural, fisheries, one of those may well be a bill within,
there will be other elements, maybe on migration, i don't know. i'm guessing at this point, but that's really i guess and we have to leadtime for that. >> consequential -- >> it might well be. >> would that be done by primary legislation? >> if it's material it will be primary. if, as i say, it its technical amendments, you no longer put those in the european journal but put on the british government website. then that's something i would expect to be done. it's a major policy decision, would be a primary legislation. >> you don't envision any of those changes at all?
>> the as eyes i suppose by definition, i don't pursue major changes on si. i'm sure you've followed the discussion of the supreme court of the evidence before the welsh government and the scottish government in terms of the convention. there was a very interesting debate, not normal, government would not normally legislate and default competencies. could you define what not normal is? >> there are sort of two elements here which i think, one is whether or not the administration which should have a veto over the whole involvement and we've argued very, very high levels of concentration involvement, but
no veto. the other side of the coin is what happens to powers return? i expect that to be a major debate to get the right outcome. as some of my colleagues will know i'm very pro-devolution but we've got to make it work. make it work for the uk single market, make it work for whales and so on. >> potentially you get to this debate all default governments, based on that technique if major party -- from brussels, agriculture, fisheries? >> i think matters, a matter of some debate. my preference is for devolution to be possible but you've got to do, you may have to, given the international negotiation, you have to maintain the ability to do that.
if you have a single uk market you have to maintain a uk single market. very important to the irish markets also. you have to take measure to do that, too. it's not quite universal but i'm listening to where you're coming from. >> if there are disputes around where there was -- how are they going to be resolved? >> final analysis is the british government will be decide but it will be guaranteed process. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you for coming before the committee. you recently described these negotiations before house of lords committee in september as mamaybe the most complicated negotiation of all times. can't i take from that you believe a so-called quickie divorce which would take six months would be unsustainable?
>> i always get in trouble when i use metaphors here you may remember the line which got me in trouble as well about a trepidation. so let me be specific. i take the view the best outcome is a negotiated free access to markets out, peer and with it a negotiated outcome on justice, home affairs and security. i don't think it can be done in six months. >> thank you. you appeared very confident in the answers you gave that chair on this specific point, that we we could wrap all that up in the two years on article 50. but isn't it the case that counsel will be giving guidelines on the basis of article 50, and actually eu free-trade agreements with third countries up until now based on article 218 of the treaty and it
may always the case even if the council concedes that these are parallel negotiations that they recommend none that the uk recommended? >> good question do we haven't resolved with the council how are they going to do that. you are right that our expectation is that there would be guidance given both at the beginning and ongoing, but that decision as far as i'm aware has not yet been taken. may be taken in the baby take tomorrow actually are in the near future. so that's the first thing. the legal basis, one of the think actually when we look at ourselves at the moment. the legal basis of the outcome is become a very important issue. one of my discussions about how we get, what the timetable of the in game or the end outcome, the end outcome wil will be, and
that's one of my discussions. >> indeedindeed, although it was ambitious free-trade agreement is one that we would want to emulate i would suggest because it doesn't cover financial services and it doesn't cover some of the other areas we be interested in. it did take seven years and it was deemed to be a mixed agreement and, therefore, subject to ratification of 38 member state parliaments and regional parliaments that have yet to be -- >> there is one very big difference to bear in mind with this and it sort of plays back into the bill as well. most of these free-trade agreements, particularly with the european union, most of them in any part of the world, a large part of the negotiating phrase is negotiating over the whole question of common standards. and on the last day of our
membership of the european union have identical form standards, sorry, identical product standards and service standards and so on to the european union. we have perfect mutual recognition for most areas. so that bit is sort of result, take a slice out of it. the second component -- >> sorry, obviously the rub will be that these regulations and standards will be developed in the future and the swiss have an arrangement whereby they have to have an arbitration called developing standards in the future. >> that's right. you're quite right. and, indeed, the ceta treaty has exactly such an arbitration arrangement in place. now, but just finished my original point. that's all right. it's very important. the other element of -- and
entry, very often the entry is a harmonization. when things come into effect. in neither case will we have those problems. that's what i think this can be done in two years. because you are taking of those elements. it's one of the reasons the original design of a strategy with a great field bill. >> great incorporation don't spirit that doesn't have quite the same appeal. >> without a range of witnesses representing different parts of industry, and we've asked a number of questions about wto rules and tariffs. every witness that represents different businesses and interest that said that they wouldn't want to fall back on debbie tl rules and tariffs in march 2019 once we leave.
you have said repeatedly this afternoon and in the chamber you want maximum access to the single market. can't i take it from that that there's been the plan that you present parliament and the letter that will trigger article 5050, that you will explicitly t out, that your overall objective is to avoid that scenario, to avoid a a wto sonority in march 2019? >> i wouldn't say it in those terms. i'll stated in terms, well, firstly until the letter, there's never been any before, so how it is phrased may be important in terms of the relationship between the council and the commission. there are various aspects of that which am still thinking about in terms of whether we phrase a long or short letter.