tv David Davis Says Brexit Plan Wont Be Available Until Early 2017 CSPAN December 16, 2016 6:13am-8:09am EST
>> that's helpful. >> thank you. >> they are up, correct, on the reporting to you. how they are also coonting to conduct business an members of the eu and for that -- [inaudible] >> the lead parliament. is that correct? >> bilateral relationships. where it's dealing with the council continuing in the union. david jones represents on the council. >> okay. >> to what extent are you taking
advantage of embassies across member states, are you going to use those resources to have bilateral discussions and are the embassies reporting to you? >> it's not an issue that's a problem in anyway. i mean, for example, on friday and saturday i was in madrid in seville. i saw the prime minister who has responsibility for brexit and i saw the very new foreign secretary, and the embassador accompanied me to the meeting, credibly high-quality meeting
and also gave me his read-out of the way we thought we would use -- that service doesn't work. that is one for which the british parliament services has a tremendous history and tremendous capability and so there's no clash in that division of accountability. >> okay. can i ask you in your discussion with particular members, is it your impression that generally they see this as the uk shouldn't state saving the way while the rest continue to proceed in the same speed and same direction? >> look, differs between country .
they do that because most of them regret our departure. i shouldn't conceal the fact. they wished we were staying. the reason we should be staying is because we have beena spokesmen. very free trading, responsible and budgeting and finance and so on. so they're sorry to see us go. so how they see the grand ship of the european states too continue i don't really know, i think that's a debate they will have amongst themselves. it's as much influence, i think, by their perspective of the way global politics are going as it is by us, by the -- the trump resolved referendum, issue there
and that worries them a bit, i think. but in mostly it's -- it's sort of regret is the emotion i see. >> i understand that they would also like to be pressing at the table and we won't be any longer. >> i understand. >> do they see the presence of the negotiations simply as reaching a deal for the uk with the european union or perhaps see this as an opportunity to raise the issues that will be discussed. >> i wouldn't be -- i wouldn't -- i haven't seen that. i haven't seen that. that hasn't come up and i haven't seen that. >> what i would observe is the union has a number of issues to deal with whether migration
issues, tariff issues and obviously the financial stability issue and frankly this nominates the thought process. that nominates more than the direction of the union. that's my impression. i can't say sort of. >> the uk to leave but we are given that opportunity so far. indications of a countries in the european, that is an issue that worries the commission more than nation states, i think. one of the issues i have to deal with is the nation states quite properly put the interest of
their own people on their priority list and that is helpful to us because free trade is one of the things that's been mutually beneficial. the commission is concerned about somebody else following suit and that has manifested itself in a slightly -- in a view, that's producing a bit but it's still there and but it's more functioning institutions. >> okay, thank you very much. peter lilly. >> thank you. >> what is the minimum of scope of issues which have to be covered in the withdrawal nees -- negotiations.
>> i think i've defined that. it would be free access, free trade from our point of view and hopefully the security issue. but that's pretty much what our ask is. >> i'm surprised. i thought they thought minimum scope. >> i'm sorry. this is the minimum deal that they will strike. >> sure. well, what would be the minimum that has to be covered by it. >> well, this brings you to the
interpretation itself which in essence say the arraignments for departure but also having regard to the on going relationship so i think the view that it's the whole thing, really, but we are going to have to discuss this. this is something where -- [inaudible] >> i'm going to be talking to them am some point. >> i will come back to that. once it's triggered, how are the negotiations likely to be sequenced? >> that's something that which -- we are going need at some point very early onto discuss
how we organize the whole -- the whole negotiation process beginning to end including we live time. but we haven't engaged in that point yet. when we do, we will have to think about the practicalities, how do you get to the thicks you get through. something is the union should -- taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the union. now, have you or will you seek legal advice, it seems to me that you cannot negotiate unless you know what the framework for its future relationship with the union will be.
wouldn't that be helpful for us to say what -- free trade and only trading organization in terms, so we know which of those two frameworks it is, we can't really negotiate anything else according to the treaty? >> i mean, i would love to take your encouragement to take legal advice hasn't been successful legal advice so far. [laughter] >> but let me -- i'm teasing you. i'm teasing you. the simple approach to this would be to talk about practicalities of it. you're making a good opinion. i think settle in court and we talked about. he wants to get a practical outcome out of this as much as i do.
i know -- you know, he will be a tough negotiator but he will want -- he aims this for all of us the best outcome in the united kingdom and the best outcome in the union. we are negotiating in good faith and clear on what we want to do. we will get a good outcome and i don't think we will have a -- it does require for us to talk -- >> at least my colleague. >> i will try to bring others in. it's really helpful. >> you told the chairman earlier that you couldn't confirm that brexit negotiation plan would be a white paper.
that's still possible. >> i just don't know. the decision -- i mean, in my mind, the decision is work out what content i can put into it and decide whether i'm -- it's very important to me. you all know my history parliament. i don't mislead you and it's content first. >> i understand that. >> so is it possible -- >> tush out not to be a white paper. >> what would you think it would have? >> i don't know yet. i haven't worried about it. i haven't spent time worried about this frankly. they care about what we say and where we are going, now how it's
formatted. i haven't thought about it yet. >> once it's been published, it would be consulted upon over a period, six weeks, whatever. >> in what context? >> public -- >> by march or earlier if we can. and bare in mind that we have to amass the content and some of the research is not complete yet and the policy decisions are not complete yet. it will take us a little time to get us to that point. >> that would constrain the -- >> allows much time as we can
but will be dictated by the outcomes. >> so you're allowing as much time as you can for consultation. you made the point a moment ago that it's very important that the uk should be clearin its negotiating objective. do you accept the view that having a clear and full statement of uk objectives endorsed by parliament will strengthened and the negotiations that follow? >> i mean, to be honest, it's not a major component of the discussion. what i think will take over is a couple of -- probably your colleagues is that the other day it would be the collective interest of the united kingdom that would be the predominant
driver of the negotiation. i tried to characterize it in terms of the mutual interest and mutual benefit. >> wouldn't it strengthened to have a document setting out objective which parliament has endorsed -- >> i can see where you're going with this. [laughter] >> i want to hear a little bit further about the content for the plan. i mean, we've had a discussion this oorch about how many options there are for future relationship with the customs union. would you envision the plan would sent out the option which the government wishes. >> my expectation is, yes. >> we will say as clearly where we want to go. in the event there's more than wasn't option, we might put more
than one option up. >> what about the uk should stay in the union or not? >> that's quite a lot of way down the detail. i wouldn't have thought it would be that detailed. again, it depends, you're asking me to make judgments about outcomes we haven't arrived at. >> so i wouldn't have thought that. >> presumably the plan will set out the uk government's objectives. they may not all be achieved. a clear statement of the objective would be included there. >> what can i put in the public domain without jeopardizing the negotiating brief?
that's it. as much as i can, i will put under that criteria. under this anal, i don't know what it'll be. >> a couple of documents that could be 30 to 40 page. you're able to indicate -- >> you're asking -- >> yeah. yeah. [laughter] >> for no big picture, that's right. >> are you able to turn -- the custom union. more details thicks about the union. are you able to tell us any other points of content that you would expect to be in the plan. >> not to this day. i just say content first and that decision requires to know what the policy aims are in
detail. we know they are now but then to say, we will release that information be hazardous or not and if they are not hazardous then we will release it. >> jonathan. can we just take the legislation that you bring forward? can you commit today that this community at large -- >> no, i can't. what i'm -- it is to try and give parliaments what we are trying to do but we have a timetable. timetable issue here. it's in the queen's speech for the next session. we will need to get that out or get that out of the way or get it done.
the reason i say that is because bare in mind what's it's going to do. it will take them and pretty much untouched into brit asia law but after that, there will be consequential legislation and therefore time to go through before the ratification, anyway. also secondary legislation. it will still require time and a fair amount of it. look. we've been in the union for 40-something years. we have lots of law, many thousands of pages of statute we depend on it and much of it is
in way that is relate to european institutions or guidances which we are no longer there. we will have to do that as well. we have to make sure we have the time to do that. >> i don't think -- i have to come back and speak about repeal bill in some lens on another occasion. >> we will be on a time con -- constraint. >> do you think they should bring legislation before brexit day one? >> i think so. >> a bill which sends -- >> no, i think it's going to be simple bill. but then with the major parts of
change, i don't know. it's a reasonable assumption. we will have to do something about other agriculture raised earlier. a bill to be -- maybe migration. i don't know. i'm guessing at this point. really a reasonable guess. >> consequential more interesting -- >> it might well be. >> new dau last u from domestic law, would that be done by prime ministers or -- if it's material, it would be primary.
administration as a whole and we've argued very high levels of concentration and involvement but no veto. but the other side of the coin is what happens to return and i expect that to be a major debate to get the right outcome. you know, i'm -- we've got make it work. make it work for the single market. >> we get to this debate, all so based on technique, if are being returned from brussels, they should be doing automatically --
>> the -- my preference is for evolution, you have -- you may have to give into the international reserve. you have to maintain the ability to do that. given you've got a single market, very important, very important -- [inaudible] >> very important. you have to take measure. it's not that ewe don't -- i take, i'm listening to where you're coming from. >> wasn't final question here. >> sure. [inaudible] >> the british government would decide. >> okay, thank you. >> you recently described these
negotiations back in september as maybe the most complicated negotiation of all times, can i take from that you believe that a divorce which would take six months would be unfeasible. >> i always get into trouble when i use metaphors. you may remember line that got me in trouble. so let me be specific, i take the view that the best outcome is a negotiated free access to markets and with it negotiated outcome on justice, foreign affairs and security. >> okay, thank you. >> you appear very confident in the answer you gave the chairwoman that you can wrap all of that in article 50 and isn't it the case that the council would be giving guidelines on
the basis and actually eu free trade agreements with third countries up until now have been based on article 218 of the treaty and even if the council cob seeds -- concedes are parallel negotiations to do that. >> you're right that our expectation is that there will be guidance both in the beginning an ongoing. that decision as far as i'm aware, has not yet been taken. that's the first thick. the legal basis is one of the things where we are looking at ourselves at the moment. the legal basis of the outcome, it becomes a very important
issue. one of my discussions must be about how -- the end game or outcome. the end outcome will be. that's one of my discussions will be. >> it's one that we wouldn't want to emulate because it doesn't cover financial services, id did take seven years and it was mixed agreement and therefore subject to ratification of 38 member state parliaments. it was yet to be -- >> there's one very big difference to bare in mind. it plays back into the bill as well. most of these free-trade agreements particularly with 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 we have identical product standards and so on to the european union. we have perfect recognition for most areas, so that bit is -- the second component -- >> let me interject, obviously standards will be developed in the future. the swiss have arrangement and they have to have arbitration of developing standards in the future. >> that's right. you're quite right. indeed, thetreaty has exactly such an arbitration arrangement in place.
but just to finish my original point. >> sorry. >> that's all right. it's very important. the other element is an entry. very often the industry is a period when things come into effect and in either case, where we have -- you're taking out those elements. one of the reasons of design of the strategy was the appeal bill. >> the great incorporation bill. >> that doesn't quite have the same appeal. [laughter]
relationship between the council and the commission, the amount of freedom the commission has. therthere's brace aspects of tht which am still thinking about in terms of whether we phrased a long or short letter. the second thing is we will stated in terms of objectives, not in terms of things to avoid. we are not going to this negotiation as supplements. we are going as equal partners. that's how we're going to conduct ourselves. this is going to be done in a way in which we hopefully everybody will treat each other with better intentions and the better aims. >> it's the government objective to have better access to the rest of the european market then simply debbie to access, without the -- >> it's to have as close level of access that we currently have as we can achieve.
>> in terms of a letter to you feel you have a good a good understanding of what the other side expects from the letter? this hasn't been done before and if we get ourselves in a situation where the other side expects a lot more detailed and the government presents something very not detailed then -- >> i think, i have an idea what to expect but forgive me if i don't detailed anymore. >> my last question is that the prime minister visited india to talk about a future trade agreement with the indian government. it was interesting that the indian government didn't want to just talk about trade. they wanted to talk about visas to businesses and international students. you said in comments you keep the option open. we had that exchange with mr. carmichael. it is also the case that given we want as close as possible maximum access to the eu single
market, that although it would take back control of immigration, that we could still end up with a preferential system for eu migrants versus non-eu migrants? >> i think take back control is an important issue. the example i'll point you to is the swiss example who thought they had control of the own migration by an emergency brexit situation. it was tied into so many other treaties. so i think what we have to bear in mind is we have to pay respect to the outcome of referendum and, therefore, it's got to be clear controlled by this parliament. >> i understand that but made there be a different just look between low skilled and high skilled emigration? >> again my job is to bring the decision back to come not to exercise a decision thereafter.
>> you don't think that will be part of a negotiation? >> no, i don't. the operation of that decision after we left the european union will be in the national interest, and that will affect all levels of skill. the judgment the government comes just do what's necessary for universities, what's necessary for business and what's necessary for others. >> thank you. have a talk about one point on arbitration, because a number of the possibilities you've outlined this afternoon, mr. davis, could well involve some arbitration arrangements thereafter to sort out where there are differences of interpretation. the government would be prepared to accept such arbitration arrangements as part of a deal? >> almost any free-trade arrangement which i guess is oe option. almost any free-trade has an arbitration arrangement. >> and that would involve the uk
having to abide by the outcome of the arbitration? >> depends on how it's written. for example, if the arbitration says that the one party has not met this, not met this standard or some of that, that it may mean they can no longer export a certain good. that's hardly onerous. >> but that would mean as us subjecting ourselves to the decision of a higher body. >> it may. we do anyway. >> i agree. and the question -- >> we subject ourselves -- we are a member of a number of bodies. >> what is the difference in principle between accepting those higher authorities in those examples you have just given and accepting a higher authority of the european court? >> because one relate just to trade and the other relates to intrusions and laws that operate within this country.
>> and that is what you think the distinction is? >> yes. >> if it prevented as from exporting goods, well, it would impact upon this country. >> when you export goods, if you did, let's say to the united states you would be subject to the operation of the court of the united states to be permitted their standards. status. nothing unusual about that. the idea you do a summit on a commercial basis means that you accept their standards for selling them goods or services and that's fair enough. >> thank you. it's been a pleasure to listen to this afternoon, a pro at work. >> should i take that as a compliment? >> you should. could i stop asking about negotiations come something you said which would be very helpful. you made the point at the end of the day whatever it is that we would like to set up by way of
objectives, the negotiation will come down to mutual benefit between the two. could you confirm that that is really the case? we have an awful lot of public comment in this country. it seems to suggest it's all about us at the end of the day. we are a big trading nation, sooner or later when push comes to shove in negotiations the trade issues will dominate everything else. actually that isn't the reality. >> of course it is. for many of the nations of europe, europe represent something much bigger than trade. it represents democracy. represent a rule of law. look at all the countries it came out of the soviet empire. for them this is not just about trade. i was acutely conscious when i was a minister back when you're still in school -- >> i was and another -- >> i know you were. i'm getting my revenge.
and you would've said some of those councils, too. we were different in some ways than the others. not a claim of benefit our greatness, it's just that they had a view of this institution ithis is why i say what we want to have is a successful eu and the successful uk. it isn't why i defined it in terms of greater than economic come in terms of security, and mutual valley, or text mutual values and so on. i say those things because i believe them but it is an important part of the argument. it is an important part of the argument. >> i think it's a helpful the second estate states that in such way. in that case in relation to something you said in answer to sir john, could i just probe slightly when you said you thought it was more the eu that
was worried about issues of contagion and cohesion necessary necessarily than nation-states? in my conversation with colleagues we haven't debated over the past two months, politicians representing national stakes in different parties, they expected their countries are as concerned about cohesion is probably the european commission was. >> cohesion is a word with two very different meanings. >> what is your suggestion -- >> the public statement, the public statement is only the institutions, talk publicly about britain not being able to do better after this. that's what drives the it's not malice. it's not in any sense any -- it's the fear if we come everyone than other countries would attempt to emulate us. so i don't, and i don't blame them for that fear. i just think it's misplaced. i think they are wrong about it. some other countries to take a
similar view. probably, i mean, i haven't actually spoken to german minister yet but i think they may take that, possible, and maybe france does as well. i haven't spoken to french minister on it yet, but broadly speaking it's more predominant amongst institutions than amongst the nation-states. >> the practical outcome of this is that that's a factor in the negotiations as well. >> of course. >> could i probe just a little more. you made a reference earlier to win negotiations have reached further and we had the issue about how you can keep parliament up-to-date with negotiations as you get more detail, you mentioned something about closed session. do you want is a bit more about that? is it your intention to come back to members at different stages with some of the very --
>> i mention it's a possibility. what happens as you will remember in the negotiations, information is often since it for a few days or a week or two, but not for months or years. the other thing is that sometimes, and we will try not to sort of hold information too long which it is no longer sensitive. very occasionally it may be that one wants to say look, this is how looks, this is a position varies country so would want to be in public demand at all, but that's the sad circumstances under which we might have a close session. >> thank you. my last question is just as they do you find it helpful as you come to the point of detailed negotiations and discussions with colleagues in europe that a quite large group of mps
insist on tweaking the tale of the eu by writing letters and signed by lots of them with some challenge or other? is this helpful to you? is it harmful to you, or is this although annoying really with no consequence? >> you start off by calling me a pro. i've got much to sense to answer that question. [laughter] >> that is duly noted, cozzi. period i'm going to take you back to the start of the session. >> you were asked about your department when we visited, we're told 307 staff at the point had been appointed, and some of those were somewhat dismayed to find all that come from civil service. about two centuries worth of holding their skills.
we need good people, not to take anything into the long grass. so my question to you is, and it may be a bit of a topic that analogy. you want the best of the best. of the new 23 people, you said is now 330, at any of those people not been from the civil service? are any of them from outside, brought from the outside with outside expertise? because the you not agree that actually you probably got enough i spent and ice women and you probably need some mavericks? >> i'm going to resist the, you drag me into -- they have got enough mavericks already in the political wing. the simple answer to your question is if i were able instantly to snap up 100 people who were well qualified from outside, a perfect fit, i would
do it but we are in a real world and have to get on with the job. that's what we were doing at the moment. it's a hell of a pace, the job. a lot of the sort of the work comes from outside, from the businesses were talking to and so on. in terms of pace this department is a little different from the yes minister type. because they are all volunteers, every single one of the new group coming our volunteers. we have vast numbers of volunteers for a small number of jobs and they want to make it work. that's what we are going to see across the nation. >> i am very pleased or you have every confidence but i'm just point out they may all be volunteers but they are incumbent so there's no performance enhancement. if it all goes wrong they will be going back to their old jobs.
>> the reason they are volunteers is because this department is at the pivot of a historic change in the country. they want a part of that. i'll take civil servants as well as the next one. remember, i used to be a chairman. i'm fairly familiar with the syndrome but these people want the best for the country, as do i, as is everybody in this room i feel. and they will do their best for the country. >> thank you, secretary of state. state. can i ask you a little bit more about immigration, sector skate? net immigration to the uk run something over 300,000 a year. split roughly 50/50 between eu immigration -- slightly more from outside the eu. it's not too far from 50/50.
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? is it still to reduce net immigration to tens of thousands rather than the 300,000 plus? >> all i can do here, bear in mind, my task is to bring the decision home as it were were, d for us to exercise decision. i draw your attention to comment further by the prime minister and by the current home secretary who had said that aim is still there but they've also one is not going to be something, it's not going to happen overnight, and my own view of this as i said earlier is that there woul will be exerd in the national interest. which means it will not be
suddenly denying universities nobel laureates coming there or denying businesses the ability to transfer managers from tokyo or berlin or wherever. and doesn't involve a shutting down farms in the country. >> but is it a race will expectation on behalf of the public that the policy outcome of taking back control of immigration is for them to see it reduced to less than a third of its current levels? >> a third of what? >> a third of its current levels of net immigration of 300,000 a year. >> i think that's a reasonable expectation, but over time. >> thank you. >> what have you made of the aims of the eu 27, and what do you think the criteria will be
for the success of the negotiation? >> he is just, he's not quite concluded his tour of the 27th he's doing himself. when he gets to the end of that he will come back, he will have of you what you think we come he will make a presentation to the council and then they will lay down the negotiating guidelines. i think that's what he's going to have to take as his guidance, his aim. his criteria to success. i'll make this point as an aside to that. michel got heavily criticized when he was appointed. i think a bit unfair to be honest. when he was the commissioner for the city, effectively for financial services, he was very tough at the beginning, but the
judgment i come across industry was that he was pretty pragmatic in the conclusion. that is my memory of him in the past. you didn't actually ask that but that's that. they very calm and there's a point nobody has asked what which i think is important to make in this context context, at is from the beginning of this process they were 17 electoral events between the beginning and the probable conclusion. from now since we have had the italian referendum and the austrian election, there's still 15 to go, my estimate assuming we go the distance. so the way the water is changing is flowing past and altering, and so the aims a bit different. the second thing to say is that different parts of the union team to fall into different
categories. the grants, have placed migration and security higher on the batting order. the swedes were free trade. the spaniards similarly pro-free trade. quite a lot, some of it is driven by the strengths of the links with others. so when i was in madrid the ambassador -- businessmen, all who had strong links. it's not a single entity. i was giving examples. there's not a single entity, but at the end of the day i think we're going to have to harness to things. one is self-interest, economic self interest and maybe security self interest, and the other is persuasion of them that is actually in europe's best interest to have a friend with a strong trading partner. >> you stress the diversity of interest across the european union.
am i right in thinking britain is one of only two european union countries capable of protecting -- when it comes to protecting the eastern border, only britain and france can protect the baltic states and poland so it would be in the best interest. >> yes. that's right. >> having stress the diversity of interest across the european union, do you think it conceivable a country like spain face with pressure from the cap lance and the far country for arrangements within spain, but a country like spain would want to see differential treatment for different parts of the united kingdom? >> probably not. >> given the diversity of opinion that there is across the european union, the case is sometimes been made the commission will want to punish britain in order to show that leaving the european union has
confidence and, indeed, speak on behalf of the council, there will be no cake on the table, on the salt and vinegar. what's the worst they could if they decided they wanted to go forward? >> i'm not going to put ideas into anybody's head. let me just say to you, you are looking for one word answers sometimes, and i don't want to get in. firstly, much of this is at this stage. i mean, even your comment about spain, it's at this stage. they may change their mind, i don't know. there is a viewpoint i think which is only really just fading among some europeans that we can't really meet. that we could be persuaded to change our minds. maybe that's what he was trying to do, i don't know. i can read his mind.
but as recently as october at least one head of government was saying how are you going to reverse this? how are you going to reverse this? so that's partly the mindset that's still the end that is there no. as we get further into this once we serve the article 50 letter, one of the virtues of the article 50 process is it's very difficult to see it revoked or we don't intend to revoke it. it may not be revocable, i don't know. so that's the road we are going 10. and i expect at least at the point people schedule actual change from how can we make them change their mind to how can they help us? >> i'm anxious because -- >> one last question.
>> very, very quickly and so think. >> is it within the realm of the british government for reducing corporate tax, changing the regular tools within its control and know to make britain and more attractive investing -- attractive destination for investment? >> can you explain that in more detail? >> i'm not sure i do want to explain because -- >> the simple point is, we are invited to play the european union could put the screws on us. of course the truth is if they do so their huntington's is more than the harm us and we many tools which can make our country far more attractive destination for investors than they can make the country for investment. so the assumption underlies much, to around it which is we are weak and they are strong is, in fact, a misreading of the situation. >> you make a good point but i'm not a natural mechanics spirit tax policy is probably about
your pay grade. >> i'll take your advice. >> used a formulation or the aunt britain remaining a european citizen outside the eu, and we talk about the dry details and also by what we don't want it as we don't want to show our hands, there is a risk, a deception risk with incumbent in parliament that we sound rather mildly. mightily. i wonder if you share my ambition that it is possible subject to the negotiations for the two-way process that britain can be an even better neighbor, li, trading partner outside of the eu? i just wonder whether at the highest level that is and ought to be the governments ambition? >> yes, that is my view. that is the aim. at the end of the day this is a turning point in our history in which we are going to have lots
of opportunities to seize, which will give britain a better future in my view, and with a stronger economic future we can be a better economic, security, cultural, diplomatic neighbor. and so yes, it is more than just my view. it is part of the aim. >> thank you. >> thank you, chair. we had had a very interesting discussion earlier about facts and opinions in the debate around -- >> i'm tempted to quote at past governor bank of england who said if i'm interesting it was a mistake. >> i just want to ask a couple of very quick questions. you talked about the best outcome for britain. my interpretation of what you said is that would largely be around what's best for the british economy and our security. would that be fair? >> those are two high level
aims, which are material to the interest of every citizen. they all want to have jobs, they all want to be better off and they all want to have a secure life. they are not the only aims. he made a rather good point about the position we hold in the world, if you like is also quite -- >> i was having some meetings with businesses and i was struck by the feedback from a range of organizations who felt there not been a structured confrontation with businesses in different sectors. i'm not sure if you would feel that you would agree with that. i would be interested to know how you have been communicating the finding from any of your discussions, and, indeed, whether or not the findings will be reflected in the white paper on whatever color document might be, when that's published.
just as part of this conversation i was very interested, the feedback i had was they didn't feel that you and your department had fully understood the implications of leaving the financials of this part, didn't understand your position on that to the moment. >> say that last sentence again. >> were not aware of your position on the financial services passport and whether they felt you had understood from their point of view the implications of leaving that and, indeed, their concerns about equivalence rules with the stability that would bring in that they could be subject much more for regulatory change recent or political reasons. >> right, okay. firstly, in terms of the passports, passports is a complex subject.
there are about nine different categories, and in aggregate, they affect more than half a dozen areas of finance. but they are not an area where necessary where disadvantage. for example, something like five and a half thousand british companies seek passports, 8000 unique companies seek passport company super there's a quid pro quo, a playback. in terms of conversations with somebody, of course this is a whole of government operation. it's not simply -- we have seen, every sector in the economy since july. every department virtue of government has been saying their own client group, if that's the right phrase. with that vast numbers of roundtables. i can send you a list if you would like, of those. of course we can't get around
and see every company. what we are doing is understanding the detailed approach is a detailed problem in each area. and my approach to that is fairly straightforward. i say to them, first give me the answer to what the problem is. first give us the inside of what the problem is, quantify it, give us an indication of how much we're talking about in terms of employment, cost, capital -- let me just finish. and also what your answers are and what you want our policy answers to be. some of it is complex. you are talking a equivalence. there are a whole series of scenarios where we are working on solutions for them. we understand only to clearly some of those mutual equivalence being in their view unstable.
>> i will just reiterate the feedback, the conversations haven't been structured and they haven't felt that there's been much communication. so i will just leave it there, but it's the feedback. >> i'll be very happy to hear from you in terms of areas where you think that's happened. we will go back again, what i can tell you in terms it's been a vast effort in terms of my experience in government, one of the biggest efforts ever. had to be done quickly because we had to get on with this. and, of course, the conclusion hasn't come out yet. that's the point. what are halfway through the process. >> for obvious reasons you've quite often today used phrase that you're not ruling anything out. there's one issue i would like to hear you rule out, and you mention you wanted to see new heart border between northern
ireland and -- that we share, can you rule out that will not be left, be delivered by assembling the border controlled between the island and great britain? >> let me, my view here is, i don't see that would be the solution to be honest. what i don't want to do, the primary concern, the reason unhesitating as the primary concern for me is to make sure we don't have that hard border. there are various technical ways to resolving debt. we haven't finished that process. we are doing in consultation with the irish government, or making progress with the irish government. we may not have a solution to it in the next few months. what i will undertake to do is to write to you on that matter once we've had a further think of that. i can see the issue, and i can
see where that's a second-best solution. i will not make a promise today but i will make a point of writing to you when we gone further down the road of the solution. >> just to very quick final question for me. first of all, with a great repeal at all be published in draft to a law for scrutiny? i said earlier to mr. edwards i don't think we may be able to hit that timetable but again i will write to you on that if i may. >> second, i invited invited you in the debate last week on the question of whether parliament will have a vote on the final deal when it is been negotiated to move from the words you've been using to look parliament and the committee in the eye today and at a certain yes. would you like to take the opportunity? >> what i will say to you, there's a constitutional reform in the bill which covers of this and we will obey the law to the letter. >> so can i take that to be a
yes and then? >> i'm going to return to you, mr. chairman, with your words. don't let anyone else put words in your mouth. >> thank you to much for coming to give evidence this afternoon. order, order. >> today united nations secretary-general ban ki-moon called a human news conference live coverage from new york at 11:30 a.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org and on the c-span radio app. >> next week is authors week on "washington journal" featuring live one-hour segments with a new author each day beginning at 8:30 a.m. eastern.
>> be sure to watch authors week on "washington journal" beginning sunday december 18 at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend, c-span cities tour along with our communications cable partners will explore the literary life and history of scottsdale, arizona. nicknamed the west most western town. on booktv on c-span2, hear about life on route 66 known as america's mother road, route 66 was one of the original u.s. highways between illinois and southern california. in his book, he recalls his wife in kingman, arizona, which is located on route 66 and the many things he observed while helping his father run a gas station. >> about 10 years ago i got a call from a writer and he said i read about your article about your fathers gas station and
like to interview. i said sure. he says, his first question, the very first thing he asked me is, what was it like growing up in such a historic place? >> visit guidance books which specialize in civil war history spent my father was a great tester collector. my mother love the civil war but also was there in amber with the women in the west. so i'm sure they came up with guide on books. >> then on american history tv on c-span3 hear about the founding of scottsdale, arizona, state historian marshall trimble. he shares the story of winfield scott, a civil war hero who saw potential and arizona salt river valley. >> he just graduated from seminary school and been assigned to a church when the civil war broke out and lincoln called for volunteers. he really wanted to get into it so he went back to his hometown