it isn't, as i say, approach this. it isn't, as i say, about trying to replicate bits of membership. it's about saying, what is our new relationship? and i'm ambitious for what that new relationship can be. and during entirely satisfied —— and you are entirely satisfied —— and you are entirely satisfied —— and you are entirely satisfied that when we repeal this legislation, in addition to nap so much that, it will be clear that all legislation will be within the jurisdiction of westminster and not the eu? we will have appealed the european communities act, that is part of what the great repeal bill will be about. from the point at which we have left the european union, it will be the british parliament that decides and british courts that decides and british courts that decide our legislation. finally, as you will appreciate, the many people who want us move quickly in relation to all of these matters. i appreciate there is a timing issue. but do you not want to get on with

this as quickly as possible? because it's the certainty that comes from that which is what a great deal of the business community and other people in our civil society want, to reflect the outcome of the referendum as soon as possible. well, i think it's right that people wa nt to well, i think it's right that people want to reflect the outcome of the referendum as soon as possible. it's also write the government needs to be sure that we take the time to prepare properly for the negotiations. that's why i said at a very early stage actually before i said that i thought we shouldn't trigger article 50 until the end of this year. i then looked at the timetable, obviously in... we looked at the timetable, and the triggering was a balance between giving us sufficient time to make those preparations, giving the 27th time to prepare for the side of the negotiations, and also recognising that the british public want us to get on with it. thank you very much. good afternoon, prime minister. i'm

sure you have been paying attention to this morning to the scottish government's paper in europe and the view about scotland's relationship with europe. you said you'd listen very carefully to any differential arrangement for scotland, and i think there is the encouragement of just how warmly responded to this. do you believe that scotland as a nation, a nation that floated overwhelmingly to remain in the eu, should have its views respected? first of all, i had the opportunity, the first minister called me yesterday to courteously tell me about the paper that was coming out. and obviously i've not had an opportunity to look at the paper in detail yet. but i welcome the contribution to the debate. we've been encouraging devolved administrations to identify the particular concerns and their priorities, so that we can take that forward as part of the discussions that we are having to ensure that we have a full uk view as we go into the negotiations. and i would expect, obviously, the welsh

government, the northern ireland assembly to come forward with the particular concerns that they have and will be able to discuss these within the gmc structures that we have. do you believe that a differential arrangement is probably going to be necessary across, there is the talk about the deal with nissan in businesses, we are seeing differential agent with northern ireland with the border. do you think that will be a feature for a total uk brexit approach? will bear by differential approaches across britain as sectors? -- across business sectors. we have been negotiating a united kingdom relationship with the european union. i think you've assumed an a cce pta nce union. i think you've assumed an acceptance of differential relationships, which i don't think it is right to accept. i said when i first met, when i became prime minister and nadiya hussain the first moves, that we will look very seriously at any proposals that came forward —— and first met the first minister. there may be proposals

that aren't practical. in terms of northern ireland, one of the key issues obviously is the question of the border, because it will be one pa rt the border, because it will be one part of the uk with a land border with a country remaining in the european union, and a lot of work is being done as to how we can ensure that the movement of goods and people across the border is not a return to the hard borders of the past stock all. is it your view that there will be further devolution of powers — i think the ones that have emerged our agriculture and fisheries. does it require a real look at the devolution settlement. and —— for scotland? look at the devolution settlement. and -- for scotland? we will have discussions on this within the gmc environment about how the arrangements will work, we will have to ta ke arrangements will work, we will have to take what a framework is currently set out in brussels into the united kingdom and recognise the different interests of the devolved

administrations and the devolution deals that are currently in place. do you think scotland would be entitled to hold another independence referendum if the government refuses to accommodate the differential arrangement for scotland, which seems to be in scotland's eu interests? first of all i would say that i don't think there is a need or reason for the scottish government to hold another independence referendum. i think the scottish people gave their view in the referendum of 2014. but i would go further than that and make this point, that of scotland, and i understand this is one of the point in the paper that the scottish government has produced an brexit, if scotla nd government has produced an brexit, if scotland were to become independent, then not only would it no longer be a member of the european union, it would no longer bea european union, it would no longer be a member of the single market of the european union, and it would no longer be a member of the single market of the united kingdom, and the single market of the united kingdom is worth four times as much to scotland as the single market of the european union. is the whole idea, the thing that is most

informing the uk is brexit decisions and strategy, immigration is that the very heart of all of this. does immigration take precedence over all other approaches, or example the single market and the customs union? where does immigration fit in the hierarchy of the things that the government considered to be important about leaving the eu? as i indicated in response to sir william's question, i don't see these things as trade—offs between these things as trade—offs between these issues. there was a very clear message in the vote of the 23rd of june that people wanted us to take control of old borders and immigration from the eu, as well as from countries outside the european union. but what we also want to ensure is that we get the best possible trading deal operating within and trading with the single european market. we also want to ensure that we are able to continue to operate on matters that are releva nt to to operate on matters that are relevant to our security and on crime issues. so all of these issues

will be part of the negotiation that will be part of the negotiation that will take place. prime minister, you very briefly touched on northern ireland. it is obviously a very special relationship between the united kingdom and the republic of ireland, particularly between northern ireland and the republic. is it the goverment's position that but special relationship should continue? we don't want to see a return to the borders of the past. the common travel area, which as you know, is the movement of people, has beenin know, is the movement of people, has been in place since 1923. it continues to be in place. we are working very hard with the government of the republic of ireland to ensure that we can find a solution moving forward. but as i say doesn't involve a return to the borders of the past. her majesties government takes that view. it seems that the irish government does. it seems unusually in northern ireland, pretty much every politician that

takes the view that that should be the case. the problem is there is another sort of negotiating body involved here call the european union. have you any indication so far of what attitude they will take towards that aspiration? the indications so far have been that actually other member states are very well aware of the sensitivity of the issue in relation to the border between northern ireland and the republic of ireland, and want to see a solution that works for both sides of that border. so they will probably be prepared to vary the sort of rules they set about a hard border at the edge of the european union, with the? in the same way that they vary the rules in regards to the schengen agreement? not all countries are in the schengen agreement, do you expect that will continue on that degree of flexibility? there is a question of the extent to which then is to be a differential arrangement in relation to the border between northern ireland and republic of island, or whether it is actually possible to

come to an arrangement which is not a return to the borders of the past but reflect a wider relationship that the uk will have. i think obviously there are number of discussions taking place in the eu at the moment the external border. and what arrangements they will have on that external border, which will involve countries in various formations, depending primarily on whether they are in schengen or not. with regards to the rights of irish citizens in the united kingdom, obviously the rights have changed over the years, but do you envisage after brexit that the citizens of the republic of ireland that will, if they want to come to the united kingdom, remain in the united kingdom, remain in the united kingdom, at the moment as you know they have the same opportunities as members of the commonwealth. do you think that arrangement will continue? well, the issue of the rights obviously of citizens from the republic of ireland, as you say, this is a different, it is on a

different bases and long—standing historical basis from other members of the european union. and obviously i have been clear that i want to, at an early stage, look at how we deal with these issues of people from other countries within the european union who are living within the uk in order to be able to give people reassurance. it should be up to us, shouldn't it, once we've left the european union, how we treat citizens of the irish republic? well, it is a matter, i have been clear in relation to eu citizens as a whole that i want to ensure that we also see uk citizens living elsewhere are being treated on a reciprocal basis. 0k, and as we move forward you've indicated that it is a deal for the united kingdom. that presumably means that you would not acce pt presumably means that you would not accept any sort of customs or passport checks between northern ireland and great britain, as some have suggested would be necessary? no, we want to make sure that we've got the right arrangement between the border of northern ireland and

the border of northern ireland and the republic of ireland, that's where the focus needs to be. as we go forward, how do you see the relationship between the united kingdom and ireland developing after brexit? do you think because of geography, trade, french, that the republic of ireland might gravitate more towards the uk than the —— friendship? that's for me to say, thatis friendship? that's for me to say, that is for the government of the republic of ireland to say. what i will say and what i hope everybody would accept and agree with is that i think it has been very welcoming to see the growing relationship between the uk and the republic of ireland in recent years. and i want to see that continuing. , asked about the devolved administrations? they have the ability to make laws themselves. how would the great reform bill or act affect them in that respect? would they be required to adopt any eu legislation themselves, or would it all be done ona uk themselves, or would it all be done on a uk bases? these are matters of detail that would need to be looked into. it would be affected by the

devolution arrangements that pertain in each of the devolved penetrations. so there are aspects of eu law which, as i say, will brought into domestic law in the uk, whether that is specifically in a devolved government or simply as an overall in the uk will be a matter of detailfor the overall in the uk will be a matter of detail for the legislation. and presumably when we passed the great reform bill or act it would take into uk law regulation directives, but not treaty commitments such as free movement, presumably? that body of law, to give people the confidence and the clarity of knowing where they stand in relation to eu legislation, we would bring it into uk law. it would be that back then be an opportunity for parliament to determine which of those pieces of slot they wish to continue. 0f those pieces of slot they wish to continue. of course it would be coming out of the treaties —— pieces

of law. can i ask the prime minister, will you intend to publish proposals on immigration control as pa rt of proposals on immigration control as part of your plan in february or whenever it is? we are working on our proposals for immigration. there area number of our proposals for immigration. there are a number of ways in which we can address the issue, when we feel it is appropriate to give any indications of those details, then we will do so. does that mean they might not be part of the february plan? asi might not be part of the february plan? as i say, when we feel it is appropriate to give indications, we will do so by. i assume they will not be part of the fabric live. is meeting the net migration target going to be one of the objectives? the net migration target is therefore a very good reason, because of the impact that migration has on people in this country. we retain that net migration target. the objective of our brexit negotiations is to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the uk and ourfuture relationship get the best possible deal for the uk and our future relationship with the eu. you have said this many

times. if there is a tension between what you conclude is in the best interests of britain, as part of looking at immigration controls and trade and so on, makes it impossible to meet the net migration target, will you then ditch the net migration target? well, you're making an assumption that you can automatically extrapolates from any discussions that take place in relation to brexit through to the net migration figures at some point in the future. as you all know from your time as shadow home secretary and now chairman as the home affairs select committee, looking at immigration numbers is not an exact science in that sense, in that there area number of science in that sense, in that there are a number of factors that can come into play that sometimes not under the control of the government. sol under the control of the government. so i would say, you can't look at it in the way you are suggesting we look at it. what we will be very clear about is two things that might

as i've said, we want the best possible deal in terms of the relationship that the uk has with the eu for trading and operating within the single european market. we also want to ensure that it will be the british government who will be the british government who will be making decisions about the immigration arrangements for people coming from the eu. there is a link between the controls and the numbers. you have yourself said on many occasions that the reason you we re many occasions that the reason you were not able to meet the net migration target was because of the free movement arrangements of the eu. you currently have net migration from the eu is 180 9000. clearly if you are to stand any chance of meeting your net migration target, you would have to get eu net migration down to, what, 50,000? we will be putting into place the immigration arrangements for people coming within the european union that we believe are in the interests of the united kingdom. does that mean that if you conclude it is not in the interests of the united kingdom to get net migration from

the eu down to 50,000, you will ditch the net migration target, or will you give the net migration target priority over what is in britain's best interests in the ago she asians? this government will retain its intentions of bringing net migration target —— in these negotiations. we have set out very clearly. time now that we believe sustainable levels are in the tens of thousands —— that for some time now. we do that for very good reasons, because of the impact that we believe immigration does have an research has shown us have on people, particularly those on the lower end of the income is scale. people, particularly those on the lower end of the income is scalelj understand the reasons behind that. the question is, what is your objective going forward. you've got a net migration target to get below the tens of thousands. i am asking you whether you are planning to meet that net migration target through the brexit negotiations, and if so, what are you aiming for an net eu

migration? if you've got to get it down from 189,000 to at least below 100,000, who do you want not to come? you have asked me about the brexit negotiations, and i've been clear about the brexit negotiations. the vote on the 23rd ofjune from people was that they wanted us to have control of immigration, to put in place controls on immigration for people coming from the european union. we also want to ensure that we get the best possible deal for trading with an operating within the european union. that is what we'll looking for in relation to the brexit negotiations. government does have its target, it does have its ambition, it does have its intention of bringing net migration down. it is absolutely right that one part of migration that we haven't been able to put controls on so far is migration from the european union. we will be doing that in future. but i'm not setting a figure in the way that you suggest. precisely because, asi that you suggest. precisely because, as i have said, the many factors to come into the whole question of

immigration, there are many factors that determine the movement of people across the world and movement of people to try to come to the united kingdom. i've been very clear with my european colleagues, and they are now also clear that one of they are now also clear that one of the things we all collectively need to do is actually the work in countries like those in africa where people are coming from, to try to ensure that there is great ability, greater economic opportunities there, so that fewer people are trying to come to the uk. none of this is answering my question. this is not to do with the brexit negotiations. you are trying to focus what we do on immigration on one area of activity, namely the brexit negotiations. what i'm saying to you is how we deal with immigration is a much wider issue. indeed. prime minister, you are refusing to once my questions and have a certain component of contempt towards having a figure as a target. however, you have chosen to have a figure, a net migration target, for

the whole of immigration and you have chosen to stick with it, rather than to change it when you became prime minister. so, let the ask you again, just in terms of meeting that migration target, given that non—eu net migration is currently, what, 196,000, it is actually at the same level as it was when you became home secretary in 2010. that hasn't changed after six years. howl secretary in 2010. that hasn't changed after six years. how i do expect to meet your net migration target if you have no way to reduce the non—eu net migration andy warriner using to say what your plans are for eu migration —— you are refusing to say? we will in due course have set out and made decisions about the arrangements that we wish to have in place for the immigration controls for people coming from the european union. but it is not possible to say that only one aspect of looking at the issue of migration is the one, the only one that you need to focus on, the

only one that you need to think about, in order to look at the broader aspect of the net migration figures. that's the whole point. this is a very wide issue that cannot be encapsulated simply in terms of what the brexit negotiations are. just one final question. lord chancellor, your foreign secretary, and your home secretary, and the previous chancellor — — secretary, and the previous chancellor —— your secretary, and the previous chancellor — — your chance secretary, and the previous chancellor —— your chance love. they have all said that they have actually refused to endorse your target. they have referred to it as your target and net migration and refused to endorse having that net migration target with students in it. do you think it is now time to re move it. do you think it is now time to remove students from your net migration target? students are in our migration figures because we have adopted a target. you choose the target, the figures are different from the target. with due respect, the target figures are calculated from the overall migration figures. students or in the overall migration figures because it is an international definition of migration which is

used by countries around the world. having students in that overall migration figure actually showed us when we first came into government that what we had seen in the previous 13 years of labour government was significant abuse of the student is a system in the united kingdom. that's why something like over 900 colleges are no longer able to bring students in, because they were not offering an education to individuals coming to this country, what they were doing was effectively a back door route into working in the uk. we have been able to reduce abuse of the student visas system by looking at those figures and focusing on those figures. and we retain an international definition. it's a bit of a mess on immigration, you don't have a way to meet the target. that abuse has largely been sorted out, to be clear. most people agree that students are a huge success story for the uk. they are a major british export. quite unlike the concerns expressed during the debate, during

the referendum, about migration generally. don't you think it might bea generally. don't you think it might be a good idea to reconsider that decision? we use, chairman, the international definition of migration. it's perfectly simple. it's used by countries around the world when they are looking at the immigration systems, and we use it, as the united states does and as other countries do. was that a no? we do use the international definition, students are in the international definition. we choose who to target. what contingency planning has your government done in case the uk and the eu fail to agree an article 50 deal at the end of the two year negotiation period? we are obviously looking at all of the scenarios that might pertain in relation to this. 0bviously scenarios that might pertain in relation to this. obviously as we get into the negotiations we are going to be able to have a much better understanding of where the european union is coming from in terms of their expectations. michel

barnier has set out their expectations that they can do this within the 18 month period.|j expectations that they can do this within the 18 month period. i take that as a guest, there is contingency planning going on. who is responsible for it —— as a yes. what expertise are you relying on? is at the cabinet office, ruc can be advice of outside experts in law and trade implications and the rest —— are you seeking advice? we are looking at a variety of scenarios that could pertain in relation to two you accept that one of the scenarios... we are looking at if a righty of scenarios. the department has lead responsibility for this —— a variety of scenarios. the brexit department bring in experts on this. they have within the department experts from other government departments, but they work with other government departments so there is no duplication between the two. and where it is necessary to bring in particular expertise they will do that. when you publish this

analysis, will it be published alongside the statement that is going to be made in february, march, before notification? what we will, you will see what we publish when we publish it, if i may put it like that. but you would expect government to be thinking around what various scenarios are that could pertain. you accept that one of the scenarios is that it gets vetoed by the european parliament, and there is no agreement? it does seem of years to meet. you asking me to a cce pt seem of years to meet. you asking me to accept that we're going to fail -- it to accept that we're going to fail —— it does seem obvious to me. i do not accept that. i believe we should go into this, what i've seen from everybody else sitting around the table is a real intention to ensure that we do this in a smooth and orderly process as possible, and that we do meet the timetable that is set, that is what the commission has indicated. i had a very good meeting with martin schultz and eva

hoff stadt, who has been allocated, asked to take the negotiation role for the european parliament when i was in brussels last week, and the european parliament is also keen to ensure that this is a process that is smooth and orderly. but he has been reported as actually complaining to the european commission and the council about the inadequacy of arrangements for involving european parliament in the process, and pointing out that parliament has the improve this. —— approve this. it is entirely possible that the european parliament beto the agreement at the end of this two—year process, and i'm assuming that you are contingency planning, and it takes account of that possibility. although of course you are not aiming for it. we are working to make sure that we get that agreement, as i understand it, the 27 members of the european union, the remaining 27 members of the european council, have agreed a

different arrangement in relation to the european parliament, they did that at the meeting, i understand, last week. there will be some involvement of the european parliament in the process. involvement of the european parliament in the processlj involvement of the european parliament in the process. ijust really wa nt parliament in the process. ijust really want your assurance we are not going down the route of the last government, which my committee found was actually grossly negligent in just instructing whitehall to do no planning at all about the possibility that the country might have the temerity to vote to leave the european union. there is presumably the possibility that the european parliament would veto any agreement, all even despite your best efforts that no agreement has been reached between yourself and the council —— or despite your best efforts, no agreement is reached. we are looking at a variety of scenarios that could come forward in relation to the negotiation, the deal, the timing, and what other opportunities would be the. i'm hoping that's a yes. we are looking

ata hoping that's a yes. we are looking at a variety of scenarios. which one? all of the scenarios? all the options. that's fine, all of the options. that's fine, all of the options is fine. crucially, what we're doing is making sure that we are working with others to set up the relationships so that i have every expectation that if we can get that process right then it will be possible to see that positive outcome that i'm ambitious port. have you determined what issues will fall under the remit article 50 —— that i am ambitious for? when you say what issues, . .. that i am ambitious for? when you say what issues,... ? it is possible that our partners could find themselves in the same trap that the government has found itself in, with action being taken, that the ability to conclude an agreement and article 50 terms by a qualified majority, is

actually an agreement which would require domestic ratification, unanimity in the council. in other words, the extent of the article 50 agreement could be so expensive it would outwit the scope of article 50 within domestic law in other countries, and we could then find ourselves with the 27 and the council in the same position the government is in now. has there been any examination of that possibility? ifi any examination of that possibility? if i understand the question correctly, you are saying there may be at the end of this process, there may be some matters that need to be ratified by individual national parliaments as well as by the rest of the process. that's something that we are well aware of, and that's something that those will be negotiating with well aware of. are you confident you know what those issues are, or have you got a date by when you expect to have completed that analysis? well, i think that work is still ongoing in terms of the great detail on this. but i

think that one of the questions that isa think that one of the questions that is a matter of legal discussion is the question of any trade arrangement that is negotiated with the european union, and the extent to which that is a matter for the european union or the national parliaments. there is an example of an issue. would your analysis be published as part of the formal notification letter to the european council as to what might be seen as mixed competence ? council as to what might be seen as mixed competence? i don't think that is appropriate for the triggering of article 50. you know, this is a matter that will be, i hesitate to say this, but the very fact that i've just suggested that there will be legal discussions on this, this will be a matter on which the lawyers will be discussing at that point. i don't think it would be for us to assert. but the lawyers have already had a disagreeable habit, along with the judges, of upsetting the timetable of your own government

in the move to notification in the supreme court. what judgments in the move to notification in the supreme court. whatjudgments will you be making about what is achievable under the article 50 negotiations, and will you be reviewing that as you go through the process? first of all, i would point out that the timetable i set out was by the end of march next year. yes, the supreme court has the come forward with its judgment on the case that was taken before it on the government's appeal. but i expect to be able to trigger to go 50 by the end of march next year. so it hasn't in any sense blown the timetable of course. but it will be confirmed that it is your intention to cover as many aspects of our future relationship with the eu as possible within the article 50 negotiations? within the negotiations we will be having with the eu, my intention to cover not just the process of withdrawal but also the