free the maximum free access to all possible markets. but we'll do contingency planning for all the likely outcomes. >> that's very helpful. finally from me before i turn to colleagues, on membership of the customs union you told the house last week, you said, and i quote, this is not a binary option. there are about four different possibilities, possibly more and we are still assessing them. briefly set out for us what those are. i'm not asking you to say what the government's conclusion will be because you haven't reached one yet. but what are the possibilities? >> i'll give you both ways of looking at it. they're both informative. first look at what actually exists at the moment. you have countries inside the customs union. that's clearly one. have you countries like turkey which has a arrangement which puts it inside the customs union for some of its economy and outside for others. 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 have who are outside the ingle market but with bilateral, a large number, 20 something trade deals. and they're outside the customs union but they have customs arrangements. the four i had in mind and as i say, they're not comprehensive but sort of four staging if you like a spectrum or inside the customs union a partially inside turkish if you like, outside but with a free trade agreement and a customs arrangement as happened in some parts of the worlds and completely outside. that's the sort of spectrum, if you like. >> so that as i understand it, that list doesn't include trying to be in the customs union for certain sectors. >> that's what i said. there are others, as well. they're not on a spectrum.

i had in my mind a spectrum of four. >> and are you looking at all whether northern island might remain within the customs union in order to avoid a hard border? >> no, that's not one of the options we've been looking at so far anyway. what we are determined about i'm sure he'll raise it with me at some point, the -- we are determined to maintain that as an open border. but as an example, an example of how that might be done, one might, the committee might look at the norway/sweden border where they're both a single market but they straddle the customs union. it's a very open border with particular arrangements designed to make the border a free border. >> okay, thank you. maria. >> thank you, chairman. just really want to set the keen for the progress in the department itself because as the committee went to visit on the

8th of november and met the department there. and we were told at that time when we asked about how much resources were in place and staffing, that there were about 300, just over 300 people in the team. but that more was forthcoming. could you update us on the progress of the actual department itself and what resources we've got and what resources you're still lacking. > we have 300, the last time i looked 330 members of the team. bear in mind, this has grown from about 40 since july. i mean the bake department didn't exist in june. and it's grown from about 40 in july to 330 now. in addition to that, we have 120 who obviously do representational role in the european union. but there's there's also by definition experts. they come from all the different departments of whitehall and they provide expertise to us, as

well. as well as sight of what the our european interlock cue tors views are. so we have them. there will be more. i don't know what the final number is because frankly what, we do and i think you may be told this when you were there, is we also have a lot of the applications from outside. we have ten times as many applications as we could take. ten for every job virtually. we have very, very high quality staff. which i hope you sort of saw when you came. and we basically look at what task has to be done and see what needs to be put in place. the treasury accepted our budget in full. if we need to go above it, then we'll need to use contingency. but because the department will only exist for about 2 1/2 years, that's not the same sort of problem as it would be as if

you had aer. the department. so we don't foresee problems there. the other issue we've had is just geography. i think there was all still in the cabinet office when you visited, chairman? >> yes. >> say that again. >> all my team still in the cabinet office when you visited? >> yeah, i think they were about to move. >> that's right. so we've got a floor now for that which will make the thing easier to manage. that's it. we're not constrained except by time. we've got to get this done quickly and doing this sort of building a machine while we're actually doing the work. that, of course, is an issue for us. but the other thing to bear in mind is the department is a mixture of a coordination a linking and a policy department. and we decided right from the beginning that it was not the wise approach to try to replicate every policy section of whitehall inside my

department. so we have people who are very capable who normally come from the department whose policy they are dealing with and they're both coordinate and deal with the department. >> okay. do you the department's likely to exist around 212 years. are there any plans if suddenly transitional arrangements are needed and it could be three or four years down the line, are there any arrangements for monitoring progress after we've left and the deals are done because there will be on going work in say some of the trade negotiations. so it's 2 1/2 years is it long enough. >> we'll see when we get closer. one of the things i hope the committee'ses we have to focus and prioritize what we're doing. at the moment we're prioritizing work, what they call the engagement work. means getting up and talking to industries and the universities and all the other involved sectors of civil society. as well as our diplomatic

interlock cue tors. that's where folks are at the moment. and the patent of requirement over the 2 1/2 years, of course, will change. from now until shortly after march it, massively predominant lit policy driven. from march onwards, there will still be policy action because we may need to switch some approaches. but and then when we get towards the end of that period, we'll have a good idea well before then whether we need to extend anything but generally speaking, i don't think we're expecting a major demand for the department thereafter. but as i say, we'll make the decisions closer to the time. >> okay. obviously, we were very impressed when we went to visit the department. >> i'm having trouble hearing. >> you we were very impressed when we visited department. there's excellent and senior experienced people there, but there was some concern that a large number of the team are quite experienceded from whitehall's perspective in terms

of being process driven rather than looking at the individual areas of expertise such as with the devolved administration, such as with trade, with you know, things like some of the concerns that universities have. there wasn't that sort of experience coming through. how are you going to attack and deal with some of those gaps? >> two different ways. i mean, firstly, you're right. although they tend to come from departments that have that exposure. secondly, we have been, a vast quantity, the numbers here. vast quantity of engagement activities with various stakeholders who themselves i say to all of them, put in papers analyze your problem for us so we understand it, quantify it, give us what your solutions are, tell us what you're worried about with respect to our policy proposals. all of that. we also are taking on some

outsiders. you're quite right. the cleverest civil servant in the world may take time to get up to speed. i don't know on insurance passporting. or just in time manufacturing systems. or custom systems. those sort of things. and so we do look for a bit of -- we're doing that more gradual. we can take time over that component of it. with respect to the administrations, there is -- we are, we have put in place a committee called jmce florida. i apologize for the acronym. joint min material committee european negotiations is what it stands for. as a part of that, as a part of that, there's been a fairly sizable set of bilateral meetings between our civil servants in whitehall and the civil servants in each of the administrations. so we take very, very seriously indeed and the first place i went to visit on appointment

virtually in northern ireland and ireland after that, i've been to scotland to, wales to make those contacts. that's the other thing we're doing there. >> okay. >> and just because i was looking at the boards that have been established by the department. and about seven boards. three of which are predominantly looking at the process of leaving the eu. there was just one around marks, one around justice and security. one around trade. and one around eu funding. do you think the focus of the department is enough about sectors of the country that are going to be affected either positively or negatively by leaving the eu or do you think the focus of the department is still in the process of actual exiting? >> well, let me go back to that. the analysis i was talking about before. that we started the 57 industrial and service sectors. as i say, they cover 85% of the

economy. the bits that are not in the 85% are things like ip puted rent, public service sections. evaluating terms. the -- we will as we go through do two things. firstly at the first cut, what we're already doing is as i just said talking to scotland, northern ireland, wales about the specific areas of interest for them. so for example, the employment levels in agriculture in the country is something like 1, 1.5% something of that order. northern ireland is 9%. in wales, we've seen stuff on steel, for example. scotland has its own financial services sector of very significant size you know, and, of course, fisheries are important to some of the nation. that's the first cut. beyond that, we haven't gotten to this stage yet, we'll look at

the regional effect, as well. the idea is to get the best outcome for the country as a whole and make sure everybody gains from it. >> do you feel my final question, being so london-based is a disadvantage to the department? >> well, i mean, as i said, i mean, the first speech i gave to the cbi was in cardiff. the one of my first visits was to glasgow after i went to. >> the department itself. >> the department, the department, remember, is primarily coordinating. it's not doing all of the work itself. and that's one of the reasons why the jmc was set up to not just as a political exchange but also to cause an exchange to take place at the official level. it's very difficult if you've got a department doing a hard job and this is a hard job. i don't minimize the size of the job, department doing a hard job to plit it up around the place.

you've got to do something coordinating in one place. so we're conscious of the need to -- frair in the uk. ministers in particular have been round anywhere from black bird to bristol to belfast and on. and we'll continue doing that. as i say, we haven't done enough yet on the regional engagement to use a phrase but that will come. >> thank you. jeremy la froi. >> thank you very much. secretary of state, you've said you want to be quite rightly prepared on all fronts to the negotiations. what importance is being given to the relationships and good relationships that will be needed not just with the negotiators themselves but with each of our 27 member states with whom we hope to have good and expanding relations in the future? >> well, we give a great deal of importance to it.

we are slightly constrained by the commission's sensitivities on no negotiation before notification, right? and the member states wants to obey that constraint. but nevertheless, i've been able to talk to ireland, spain, poland, hungary, bulgaria, finland, ministers that is and then ambassadors beyond that and there will be others. off the top of my head i can't remember them all. the prime minister sees most of the leaders of the various 27 states. and it is an important part of the negotiation. blunt got into trouble late last week for quoting malker about no plan survives contact with, he use the word the enemy. very cross about that quite rightly. the simple truths is the plan will be the plan when we start. it will be modified by the

interests of the various other countries. and what -- and our building interest and alliances. remember, our approach to negotiation is on the premise, on two or three premises. number one, what somebody's called a the economic premise that other people have common interests with us, trade is a good an thing. we have an -- well, net $67 billion trade deficit with the european union. so they have an interest in all of that. it's not just that. also beyond that, we have every intention of continuing to be a good european citizen. so the fact we're leaving the european union doesn't mean we'll stop taking an interest in european security, european military defense and so on. we have four battalions in estonia and poland if not now the very shortly. we make huge contributions to

counter-terrorism in europe. we are on that process, and i rather suspect that in the six months since the first six months of next year, i'm going to get, well, actually not an awful lot of travel miles but a lot of miles under my belt getting around to them all. >> is there a coordinated plan within the government and cabinet for insuring all these relationships are being built up at the moment? >> yes. that's going on as we stand, yeah. >> thank you. could i turn to the question of nontariff barriers which seem to be of greater concern than tariffs. how important a part of your negotiating objectatives is it to ensure that nontariff barriers do not reappear in the way that we saw that we have seen in the past? >> yeah, i mean, you're quite right. i mean, the one of the reasons we've left the aim, the strategic aim at the level of generality it is in economic

terms is because we recognize the nontariff barriers are probably a bigger issue than tariff barriers. in the long run. and partly because the, we do have a surplus in services and services is where they hit most. so we're putting a lot of effort into understanding and grounding things like the nontariff barriers in financial services but also professional services. and i say a lot of effort into grounding because you've got a very, very wide range of views for how important this is. it's quite easy to work out the impact of a 10% or 70% tariff, whatever it might be. it's much harder to work out the impact of the removal let's say of a passport scheme or something like that because of course -- but we're doing all of that and taking -- that's probably taking a disproportionate if there was such a thing effort of the department a larger than average

is a better way of putting it. >> one thing uk citizens have grown used to in the past few years is very easily available and relatively cheap air transport. i was on the way to berlin on sunday and it is hebbing with both british and european citizens wanting to travel. one thing the british certainly did not vote for was a reduction in the ability to do that in a convenient way. i wonder whether the open skies agreement and negotiations on that are at the top of negotiating objectives. >> they're up in the first division. the top might it be putting it -- there's a whole series of which are sort of equal first. and the transport sector is very seized of this. i've had meetings with him and had a roundtable with the industry myself as well as the ones he had with the industry and my junior min thesteres the. we think we're in a good position, to be honest. i mean, britain is a very, very

major destination. british airlines are important as are others, of course, who operate out of here. so we have a fair degree of i would say negotiated leverage is the wrong word. but it's in other people's interest to maintain this as well as us. so we're very keen on that. it's not just at a national level. if you are the mayor of a town in one of the mediterranean states that benefits from easy jet or one of the other low cost airlines, you've got an interest, too. there's all sorts of leverage. the answer is. >> finally, last week, there was the welcome and common sense decision about the european patent office which be of benefit to british business. has the department given thought

to such an important institutions as the european agency given that the uk has a very large pharmaceutical industry which is vital to our economy? >> the answer is two points, however. let me separate it. on the payment office, one of the things, of course, the falls in my department is the continuing relationship with european union and so on. and we have taken the very firm view that we continue to be good european citizens to support these measures for the last couple years as well as seeking to maintain relations afterward. on the european agency we had a lot -- i had astrazeneca in just last week. i was in cambridge last week as well. and we are still getting clear from the industry what their preferred outcome is.

there are are some differences in terms of outcome and it's one of the high priority areas. >> thank you, chairman. >> thank you very much. alstair car michael. >> it seems to be about the arrangement. you asked last week in the cham chamb chamber, will the government instead of making any contribution on the single market, and you said here, we get the best to the european market. i assumed that that was a transition. i assume that that was a transitional that we were talking about there. am i correct in that assumption or it is something -- >> well, firstly, the saying at this stage, three months short

of the staff negotiation, i have every option open that i can. i'm not going to shut something off unnecessarily so to not count it out is also not to count it in. it was slightly overinterpreted. but what i'm trying to do is keep open as many negotiating tools as i can. >> so you would be telling us that you would invisage that relationship of the single market or something -- >> i'm not ruling it in either. i'm not envisioning it. when we get closer to the -- when we get closer to the negotiations, i'm able to come back and talk to you about that. i may need to do that in close session. >> is that an engagement you're thinking about right here?

>> i'm not ruling something out. i'm not ruling it in either. >> what were you talking about last week then? >> what he said was we will make every efferto keep this market open, and i said yes. that's all. no more than that. >> and the consequences of not getting that, if it comes to that. of not getting that, if that were to happen? >> we don't know yet. one of the issues here, which is not the first time that i have faced it in this house, is that we have a negotiation coming up. and i have done as much as i can at this point to make plain what our negotiating aims are. we're going to get control of immigration, get control of our laws. get the best possible deals from companies in manufacturing and services across the board. corporation al law enforcement. the reason we haven specified it

in more detail is there are many ways of achieving those outcomes. it's like this is much more complicated than a chess game. what i'll be able to tell you is what the opening is. i won't be able to tell you the end game or the outcome, not a game, but the outcome. until we're well into negotiation because it will depend on some extent to the point that you raised, the attitudes and approaches of other members, 27 other members as well as the commission itself. so to try to say, we can do this or that, we just shut off options which would limit our ability and comes right to the point i was making earlier. i will not do things which will undermine our ability to negotiate. >> last week you were talking about something that might be a transitional and might involve or might not involve the access. to the single market in the future? >> many years ago -- your father

gave you strong advice. don't let anybody else put words in your mouth. >> well. it would be a question of your arrangement involving the development of negotiations. you described the committee has been set up. >> yes. >> you have been touring the country. you are competing, what seems to be the involvement of the administrations when it comes to the actual negotiation? >> the purpose is to get them on import from all of the

administrations onto what they view the policy should be. for example, at the mixed jmc in january, i think they are presenting to us the scottish government's views on whether it should be. and the aim is to absorb that into the joint negotiating brief. make a decision that will help inform the decision on what the aim should be. that was the primary goal. >> what's the difference then with the involvement of the administrations? >> maybe. we need to make a decision. that's exactly what will happen. of course, there may well be conflicting aims. because i was answering this in the debate this week, i was unable to chair the jmc, which i would normally do, but the

debates on justice members are there and also immigration. i have not yet read the trance scripts of the debate that took place but i would be surprised if there weren't different views on some of them, immigration, for example, and all the others. we'll have to resolve them the best we can in the overall interest. >> you mentioned a number of services. how do you accommodate the issues with the administrations as you have in scotland. >> we haven't got to that point yet but we are as far as we can. all of them, i say, if they're not in conflict with each other. that's the main issue here. you can't get one part of the country a veto over the outcome but you can do everything possible to make sure that they get the best outcome. if i may sort of switch from

scotland for a second, one of the very high priorities was the issue in northern ireland of the border and maintaining that. i have made very plain that that's not my priority. nobody on jmc has argued against that at all. some areas, i can't determine how the debate will turn out. >> on a similar topic there's the question of the government. what obligations do you have to the government? >> the achievement some time ago and my duty ministers have been in touch on several occasions. the issue, not the primary issue, but the main issue was sovereignty, and we have made it very plain we will always respect the wishes of the people of gibraltar.

it's written into my blood. >> thank you very much. joanna cherry. >> thank you, chair. thank you for coming before us this afternoon. in response to a question there you reeled off a list of outcomes you're looking for. i was going to ask you what are the key strategic objectives you set for yourself in the article 15 negotiations? >> they were there really. respecting the request of the referendum, requested the instructions which means bringing back control, which means laws and borders. money. and beyond that, seeking the best national interest outcome for in terms of trade, and the best security outcome, a security outcome. in the latter case, as close as we can get to the current

operational results, not necessarily the current organization. >> you have given us a spectrum of options on the customs union in relation to the single market and i learn to that in particular, you think we should stay in the single mark. i heard what you said earlier, but can you tell us now have you reached a view as to whether we should stay in the single mark or not? >> no, this is one of the things where we have to work ow what's compatible. and our view at the moment is to keep that general purpose option open. not come to conclusion until we have done more work on it. >> are you looking at a range of options on the single market? the prime minister said it's not a binary choice. others may not agree with that. >> she said that about customs union, not single market. although, this is one of though things where we have to see what

develops on the continent as well. one of the difficulties, ms. cherry, as you'll appreciate probably as much as me, is that we are in the early stages of the negotiation where the stance is a very firm one. a very strong one. it's really quite hard to read how it will develop beyond here, but broadly speaking, we're speaking to the overarching aim, maximum possible access, services, goods, networks. >> you'll be away from the jmc that the developed nations have also want access to the single market. how do you intend to preserve that. >> i think the thing here is to distinguish -- i remember, i think last week in the chamber, you were flattering about me at the time.

the thing to bear in mind is people often conplate access and membership. what matters is the ability to sell out of the services in the continent of europe and for european manufacturers and providers to be able to sell their goods and services here. i'm a big believer in free trade and that's what we're after. >> mr. carmichael asked you about the issue of paying into the eu budget ipexchange for access to the single market. can i ask you, have you put any limit that you would be prepared to consider? >> as i said to him, leaving something open is not saying you're going to do it. i always have to say this by way i have been asking the chamber on a number of occasions, would you pay whatever it was, $47 billion, would you pay this, would you pay that. i can think of more useful sides of the negotiation than for me

to answer questions like that. as i said, i said we're keeping something open. it doesn't mean we're doing it. >> now just turning to the subject of the border between the north and the south of ireland. and in september, it wasn't the only deterrent to a hard border. is that still your view? >> very much so. >> can you say what you mean by a hard border? >> one with a fence. one with checkpoints. the very important part of the peacegreement was the removal of any visible border and so on. it doesn't mean there can't be different tax regimes north and south. doesn't mean there can't be checked in things in other ways. it's a very important symbol of this peace agreement. just as an aside on this, i'm optimistic that the european union will be helpful in this.

an old sparring partner of mine is also very seasoned in this. when i saw him, we didn't talk about the negotiations, but he did raise out of nowhere, his involvement in it, and his commitment to it. so it gave me a degree of comfort, shall we say, that we should be able to do this in some way. >> you said there is a hard border involved. no fence and no checkpoints. can you exclude common traveling in the area would continue to work in these islands if the republic of islands and european union and they wouldn't? >> well, firstly, in terms of legalistic issues in the amsterdam treaty i negotiated, it's a clause of that treaty. now, 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 what we recognized. secondly, the -- the island, wouldn't it be uprooted to britain? really, there are 15 million people land at british airports every year. it's a very long-winded way to get into the united kingdom, to come by dublin. if you come, you come as a tourist and stay. that's what happens, if people are trying to come in illegally in some way. i also don't foresee a circumstance where we're going to stop tourists at all. we want to have lots of people coming in and out of britain. i don't see it as being an issue as big as that question. the other thing i would say is this. i also went to dublin. they were equally keen to maintain this. we may well have discussions with them at some point about

their own incoming security so that we know -- so we have a watch list type thing there. that's for them to decide, not me. >> immigration control do you invisage for the united kingdom after the things that happened. >> the first thing to say is my decision to bring it back to the uk, so home office for the migration is really a question you should put to the home secretary. the main point i would put here because people sort of jump to conclusions about the borders. is that i would expect any future government to run our control our borders in the national interest, which means that i think the chancellor has already said, allowing the movement of people, running things so the economy works well. so in those terms -- >> thank you very much.

last week, the committee was with politicians and business people there and trade units. and i asked them, and not one of them was aware of the terms of the deal that that been reached. nor do the european commission. you're the only person the committee has seen so far in a position to tell us what sort of a deal they got. will you take the opportunity this afternoon? >> well, actually, some would do better than me as doing it in front of this committee right now. he knows this inside out. i know the outlines. what i can tell you is it's time to match paris. that's illegal. not under the wta rules, but beyond that, i take it up with him. >> you can't tell us what is talked about? >> that's exactly what i know. >> you're saying that --

>> which is more details than what you have been able to tell us. >> i'm assuming so. >> is it possible, secretary of state, to conceive of a settlement for gibraltar or the islands that does not differentiate in its terms in some way to the rest of the deal with the uk? >> can you restate the question? i'm not sure i understand. >> we talked about red lines. not to have a hard border, and mr. carmichael has raised some of the concerns of the government of gibraltar. my question to you is, is it possible to conceive of a sacrament that doesn't differentiate in some way to gibraltar and northern ireland, for them to have a different deal because of their particular

circumstances? >> i would be loathe to go down that route. i think it's very important for the people of northern ireland to see themselves as part of the united kingdom until they choose otherwise. and similarly, the gibraltarians see themselves in that force. i expressed it forcefully on the one on sovereignty some years ago, and 90-something percent, it was a positive result. i don't think they want to go down that route. look, we're looking at other options that we can conceive of that won't have any practical opicatio applications. i'm not ruling anything out. we're looking at all options, and the more difficult problem, the more we look at. but at the momen, i don't see one that meets what you describe. >> thank you. >> just on that last point, can you just confirm that gibraltar already has a differentiating

state? because it's not part of the customs unit. >> as does -- yes, as in other ways, there are distinctions. >> that's very helpful indeed. thank you. john whittingdale. >> thank you. can i return to the, first of all, to the question. we understand opposite to the department that staff in brussels are now reporting to you. are they also continuing to conduct eu business? and for that, the foreign offices -- >> for that? >> the foreign office is the lead department? is that correct and is that working? >> that's not quite the right distinction. the distinction is where they're maintaining bilateral relationships with other countries around europe, then the foreign office is the lead department. where it's dealing with the

general affairs council, continuing day-to-day basis with the european union, that's our lead. david jones represents the government on the general affairs council. >> okay, to what extent are you taking advantage of our embassy? are you deg to use those resources to undertake bilateral discussions? and are the staff at the embassies reporting to you or the foreign office? >> the foreign office direct, but on these issues, it's not an issue that there's a problem in any way, whethmr. whittingdale. for example, on friday and saturday, i was in madrid and u sevil seville, seeing the deputy prime minister, who has responsibility for brexit. and i saw the very new foreign

secretary. and the ambassador accompanied me to those meetings, provided the briefing. incredibly high-quality prior briefing, and also gave me his read-out of the way he thought we were going, so that service as it were, that is one for which the british foreign service 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 discussions with states, is it your impression that generally they see this as the uk should have stayed, or is the rest continue to proceed at the same speed and in the same direction?

>> oh. look, it varies. it differs between countries. most of the ones i have seen so far have volunteered to see me or 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. the reason they wish we were staying is because we have been a spokesman for a certain mindset inside the european union. not decentralized, very tree trading. responsible in budgeting and finance. and so on. so they're sorry to see us go. so how they see the grantship of the european state, if that's the right phrase for it, to continue, i don't know. that's a debate they're going to

have amongst themselves. it's as much influence, i think, by the perspective of the way global politics is going as it is by us. i mean, by the -- sorry, the trump resolve. the renzi refenedm and issue there. that worries them a bit, i think. mostly, it's sort of frenzied egr regret, is the emotion i see. >> i understand they would like us to still be at the table pressing for reform. we're not going to be any longer. >> they understand that. >> but do they see the precipice of these negotiations simply as reaching a deal for the uk with the european union or would some perhaps see this as an opportunity to raise the discussion and more generally the whole european union? >> i wouldn't be -- i

wouldn't -- i haven't seen that. all i can say is i haven't seen that. that hasn't come up and i haven't seen that. what i will observe is that the union has a number of issues to deal with, whether it's migration issues, terrorism issues. and obviously, the financial stability issue. and frankly, i think that dominated the thought process, as well as the at-home domestic economic issues. that is the thought process. that's my improvisiaegz, but it only an impression. i can't say i tried to analyze that. >> have you detected any resignation that the uk voted to leave, but we are the only country that has really given its people that opportunity so far. are there indications of other countries in the european union might --

>> well, 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 the nation states, quite properly, put the interests of their own people high up on their priority list, and that's helpful to us because free trade is one of the things that has been mutually beneficial. the commission is worried about the risk of someone else following suit and so on. and that has manifested itself in a slightly -- not aggressive, the wrong word. in a view that maybe we can't be allowed to do too well after this. that's producing a bit, frankly. but it's still there. but it's more functioning of the institutions than of the member states. >> okay. thank you very much.

peter lilley. >> thank you. what is the minimum scope of issues which have to be covered in the withdrawal of negotiations if i wanted to keep it to a bare minimum? >> i think i pretty much defined that. in a way, if you ask for the simplest scope rather than the minimum scope, it will be free access, free trade. free access to goods and services. from that point of view, and hopefully, hopefully the security issue. but that's pretty much what our ask is, in a way. >> or will be. >> yes. >> all right. i saw the minimum scope as the settlement. >> this is the minimum deal that they will strike. >> sure.

if you're asking the negotiate short and sweet, what the minimum that has to be covered by it. >> well, this brings you to the interpretation of article 50 itself, which in essence is the arrangement for a deparcher, but also having regard to the ongoing relationship. so i take the view that it's the whole thing, really. we're going to have to discuss this. this is something where there's issues stated and i have to talk to them about this at some point. >> i want to come back to that in the future.

once they're triggered, how are negotiations likely to be sequenced? >> that's something we haven't yet organized. that is something which -- we're going to need, from very early on, to discuss how we organize the whole -- the whole negotiation process, beginning to end. including whether we leave time for ratification and the things raised last week. but we haven't gotten to that point yet. when we do, we'll need to think about the practicalities. how do you get through the things you get through? >> something in the sequencing is the bit of article 50 which you mentions which is the union shall negotiate an agreement, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the union. now, have you or will you seek

legal advice on this? it seems to me that it means you cannot negotiate unless you know in outline at least, what the future for its future relationship with the union would be. wouldn't that be helpful for us if we could say, let's decide what the framework will be? what it will be broadly free trade and then barriers, what do you want to get in trading organization terms? i assume we know which of those two frameworks it is, we can't really get to anything else. >> i mean, i take your encouragement to take legal advice. it's not been successful so far. but let me -- i'm teasing you. i'm teasing you. the simple approach to this will be, i think, to talk about this.

you're making a good point, mr. lilley. but i think it's something that'samicably talked about. i have every belief he wants to get a practical outcome as much as i do. i have known him for 20 years. he'll be a tough negotiator, but he will want the best outcome. the aim of this for all of us is the best outcome for the united kingdom and the best outcome for the european union. and i am entirely persuaded if we maintain that, we negotiate in good faith, we're clear about what we're trying to do, we will get a good outcome. i don't think that we'll have a serious problem with that, but it does require us to talk to the person. >> i believe my colleague wanted to share a bit of my time, if that's permitted. >> not at this stage, but i will bring up when i have gone

through, that's really helpful, peter. stephen timms. >> you couldn't confirm that the brexit negotiation plan would be a white paper. it might be a white paper. i mean, that's one possible -- >> i just don't know. the decision -- i mean, in my sort of mind, the decision is work out what content i can put into it and then decide on it. i don't want to mislead you on that. it's very important to me. i mean, you all know my history in parliament. it's very important to me that i deal properly with you and i don't mislead you. it's content first. >> i understand that. so it's possible for it to be a white paper. if it wasn't, if it turned out not to be a white paper, what status would you envision it would have? >> i don't know yet.

i haven't worried about this, spent time worrying about this, frankly, because i think the public at large care about the content, not the format. they care about what we say, where we're going. not how it's formatted, not whether it's a command paper or whatever. i haven't thought about it yet. >> all right. would you envisage that once it's been published, it will be consulted upon over six weeks, 12 weeks, whatever? in what context? would there be a public consultation? >> the would be a debate about it, i shall think. bear in mind we're aiming to trigger by march 31st, earlier if we can. so bear in mind that we have to amass the content, and some of the research is not complete yet. and the policy decisions, a number of policy decisions are not complete yet. because -- you get a lot of decisions coming quite late on.

together. and some from each other. so it will take us a little time to get that to point. >> so the point you're making is that would constrain -- >> we'll allow as much time as we can, but it will be dictated by the outcomes. i won't have much choice. >> so 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 clear in its negotiating objective. do you accept the view that having a clear and full statement of uk objectives endorsed by parliament will strengthen the minister's hands in negotiations that follow? >> i mean, to be honest, it's not a major component of the discussion. what i think will take over, as

i have said to a couple of our colleagues, your colleagues, really, is that at the end of the day, it will be the collective interest of the european union and united kingdom that will be the predominant driver of the negotiation. this issue is not going to be a sort of single dimensional haggling match. it won't be like that. which is why i have tried to characterize it in terms of the mutual interests and mutual benefit to both. >> wouldn't it strengthen the minister's hands to have a document setting out objectives which parliament has endorsed? >> i can see where you're going. you're not going to withdraw me. >> on the content you envisage for the plan, we've had a discussion already this afternoon about how many options there are for our future

relationship with the customs union. will you envisage that the plan will set out the option which the government wishes -- >> my expectation is yes. we'll tell you as clearly as we can where we want to go. in the event that there's more than one option, we might put more than one up, but i expect this to characterize all -- >> what about something like whether the european minister's agency should stay in the uk or not? would you envisage that? >> that's quite a lot of detail, quite a long ways down the detail. again, as i say, it depends on, you're asking me to make judgments about outcomes we haven't arrived at. so i don't know. >> all right. presumably, the plan will set out the uk government's objectives. recognizing that they may not all be achieved, but a cheer

statement of objectives will be included there. just how long a document do you think this is going to be? >> that is determined by the content. my text will be what can i put in front without jeopardizing the negotiating brief. that's it. and as much as i can i'll put in under that criteria. at this stage, i don't know what that will be. >> all right. envisaging a document that could be a couple sides or 30 or 40 pages. are you able to indicate -- >> i can't what i don't know. no big pictures, that's right. >> more detailed thing about the

agreement. are you able to tell us any other points of content that you will expect to be in the plan? >> not at this stage. as i said, it's content first. that decision requires to know what the policy aims are in detail. in broad outline now, but in detail, and then to say we're releasing that information be hazardous or not. if it's not hazardous, we'll release it. >> thank you. >> john thnathan edwards. good thank you, chairman. can we speak to the legislation you'll be bringing forward? this committee will be given time to scrutinize it? >> no, i can't. what i'm of the mind of on that, is to try to give parliament an

o outline of what we're going to do, but we have a timetable issue here. in the queen's speech in for the next session, we will need to get that out, but we'll get it done. the reason i say they, is because to the point, what it's going to do. it's pretty straightforward. it will take and put them pretty much untouched into british law. but then after that, there will be kaunconsequential legislatio. we will need time to go through before the ratification of the negotiation. and that will take some time. there's also there will be secondary legislation that goes through. that i will expect quite

technical, not contentious at all, but it will still require time, and there's a fair amount of it. look, we have been in the union for 40-something years. we have a lot of law. many, many thousands of pages of statute, which depend on it. and much of it is coined in ways which relate to european institutions or european guidances, which will no longer be there. so we'll have to do that as well. so it will take time. we have to make sure we have the time to do that. i don't think, and actually, chairman, i have to come back and speak 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, without doubt. >> do you think there's sufficient time to bring forward the bill and the legislation before day one? >> yes, i think so. i think so.

>>. >> i think it's going to be a simple bill. but then with the major parts of change. i don't know. it's a reasonable assumption that we'll have to do something about other issues raised earlier. one of those may well need a bill and other elements too, maybe on migration, i don't know. but i'm guessing at this point. but that's really -- we have time for that. >> kaunconsequential informatioy be more interesting. >> it might well be. >> would that be done by the administration then or would

you -- >> it's material. it would be primary. if it's material, it would be primary. as i say, if it's technical to you no longer can put something in the european journal. you have to put it on the british government website, that's what i expect. a major policy decision would beige primary legislation. >> what -- >> say again? >> you don't envisage using -- >> the s.i., i spoke by definition, let me tell you. i don't foresee major changes on s.i. >> i'm sure you followed the discussion in the supreme court, in particular, the terms of the connection. and there was a very interesting debate on the terms and of all

competencies. can you define what they would be doing in the next couple years? >> there are sort of two elements here, which i think are being argued. one is whether or not the administration should veto the whole sort of outcome. we have argued very, very high levels of contemplation, involvement, but no veto. but the other side of the coin is what happens? and i expect that to be a major debate to get the right outcome. i'm, as some of you know, we're going to make it work. we'll make it work with the uk, single market, make it work for wales and so on. >> potentially over time, we get to the debate, all of the devolved governments -- based on

that technically, if major policies were returned from brussels. >> it would be a matter of some debate. i mean, my preference is for if it were possible, but you have to do things -- you may have to given -- you have to maintain the ability to do that. given you have the uk single market, maintaining the uk single market. very important . and you have to get it, so it's not quite universal. >> there are disputes, however you want to be resolved, is that

the process? >> finding out if the british government will decide, but it will be the jmc process. >> you recently described these negotiations before the lord's committee back in september as maybe the most complicated negotiation of all times. can iake from that that you believe that a so-called quickie divorce, which would take six months, would be unfeasible? >> well, i always get into trouble when i use metaphors. you may remember saying that line which got me in trouble with misinterpretation. let me be specific. i take the view that the best outcome is a negotiated free access to markets outcome. and with it, a negotiated outcome on justice, homeland affairs, and security. where don't think it could be

done in six months. >> okay, thank you. and you appeared very confident in the information you gave the chair that we can wrap that all up in the two years on article 50, but isn't it the case that the council will be giving guideli guidelines on the basis of article 50 and in the free trade agreements with third countries up until now have been based on article 218 of the treaty, and it may not be the case that the council can seek parallel negotiations that they won't be done in the manner you suggested? >> a good question. we haven't resolved with the council how they're going to do that. gho you're right that our expectation is there will be guidance given, both at the beginning and ongoing, but that decision as far as i'm aware has not yet been taken. maybe taken tomorrow, actually.

or in the future. so that's the first thing. the legal basis is one of the things actually where we're looking at ourselves at the moment. the legal basis of the outcome, it has become a very important issu issue. and so one of my discussions must be about how we get -- what the timetable of the end game or the end outcome, i hate the word end game, the end outcome will be. and that's one of my early discussions with him. >> although there has been a free trade agreement, it's one we would not want to emulate because it doesn't cover financial services and some of the other areas we would be interested in. it did take seven years and it was deemed via mixed agreement and therefore subject to ratification of 38-member state parliaments. >> that's a problem.

there is one very big difference to bear in mind with this. it sort of plays back into the repeal 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 price 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 service standards and so on to the european union. we have perfect mutual recognition for most areas. so that bit is sort of an instant result. the second component -- >> sir, can i interject? these speculations and standards will be developed in the future and first have an arrangement

whereby we have to have -- they have to have an arbitration of developing standards in the future. >> that's right. and you're quite right. indeed, the treaty has exactly such an arbitration arrangement in place. now, just to finish my original point. that's all right. very important debate. the other element is the entry period is a harmonization period where things come into effect. and where we test where we have the problems. that's why i think this can be done in two years, because you're taking out those elements. that's one reason the design of the strategy is what is called a great continuity bill. >> great incorporation bill. >> if you like.

that doesn't have quite the same appeal. >> with our range of witnesses representing different parts of industry, we have asked a number of questions about wta rules and tariffs. every witness we have had that represents different businesses has said that they wouldn't want to fall back on wta rules and tariffs in march 2019 once we leave. and you have said repeatedly that you want maximum access to the single market. can i take it from that that the plan you present parliament and the letter that will trigger article 50, that you will explicitly set out that your objective is to reward that scenario, to avoid that scenario with -- >> i wouldn't say it in those

terms. i'll state it in terms -- well, firstly, in terms of the letter. there has never been one of these letters before, so how it's phrased may be important in terms of the relationship between the council and the commissi commission. there are various aspects of that which i'm still thinking about in terms of whether we make the long or short letter. the second thing to say about this is we're still in terms of objectives, not things to avoid. we're not going to this negotiation as supplicants. we're going as equal partners. that's how we're going to conduct ourselves. this is going to be done in a way which we hopefully everybody will treat each other with a best of intentions and the best of aims. >> but it's the government's objective to have better access

to the rest of the european market than simply wgo access? >> as close to the level of access as we currently have as we can achieve. >> in terms of the letter, do you feel like you have a good understanding of what the other side expects. like you say, this hasn't been done before. we could get in a situation where the other side exprotects a lot of detail and the government presents something with no detail, that could set things back. >> i have an idea what they expect. forgive me if i don't detail any more. >> my last question is, the prime minister recently visited india to talk about a future trade agreement with the indian government. and it was interesting that the indian government didn't just want to talk about trade. they wanted to talk about visas for business people and international students.

you said in the comments that maybe you keep the option open. we have that exchange with mr. carmichael. of possibly paying in. is it also the case that given that we want as close as possible maximum access to the eu single market, that although it will take back control of immigration, that we could still end up with a preferential system for eu migrants verses non-eu migrants. >> i think take back control is an important issue here. the example i'll point you to is the swiss example. who thought they had control over migration via their situation which they tried to exercise and weren't able to because 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 the referendum. dlfr, it's got to be clear control by this parliament.

>> i understand that, but no differ ingsation between low-skilled immigration and high-skilled immigration? >> again, my job is to bring the decision back here, not to exercise a decision thereafter. >> you don't think that would be part of the negotiation? >> no, i don't. i think that the operation of that decision after we have left the european union will be in the international interests and that will affect all levels of the skill. the judgment the government comes to as to what's necessary for universities, what's necessary for business, and what's necessary for fruit picking. >> can i pull out one point on arbitration relations because a number of the possibilities that you have outlined, once thereafter, to sort out where there are differences of interpretation.

the government would be prepared to accept such arbitrational arrangements as part of a deal? >> almost any free trade arrangement, which i guess is one option, almost any free trade arrangement has an arbitration arrangement of some sort. >> that would involve the uk having to abide by the outcome of the arbitration? >> depends on how it's written. well, for example, if the arbitration says that the one party has not met this, not met this standard or some of that, it may mean that they can no longer export a certain good. that's hardly onerous. >> but that would mean us subjecting ourselves to the decision of -- >> it might. >> a higher body. >> it may. we do, anyway. >> i agree. and the question -- >> we subject us. >> i'm just trying to understand, what is the difference in principle between

accepting those higher authorities in those examples you have just given and accepting the higher authority of the european -- >> because one relates just to trade. and the other relates to intrusions in laws that operate within this country. >> and that is what you think the distinction is in. >> yes. >> if it prevented us from an arbitration decision impacted us from exported goods -- >> when you export goods, if you did, say to the united states, you would be subject to the operation of the courts of the united states to their standards. nothing unusual about that. the idea that you deal with somebody on a commercial basis means that you accept their standards for selling them goods. or services. and that's fair enough. >> thank you. secretary of state, it's been a pleasure this afternoon. thank you very much. >> should i take that as a

compliment? >> you certainly should. a sticky wicket you're on and it's definitely a compliment. can i ask you a question about the tone of the negotiations? something you said will be helpful. you made the point that at the end of the day, whatever it is that we would like to set out 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 which seems to suggest it's all about us at the end of the day. we're a big trading nation. when push comes to shove in negotiations, the trade issues will dominate everything else. and actually, that isn't the reality as i understood you say that. >> of course, it is. for many of the nations of europe, europe represents something much bigger than trade. it represents democracy. itrupts -- look at all the countries that came out of the soviet empire. for them, this is not just about

trade. trade is important, but it's not just about trade. i was a minister when you were back in school. >> i'm as old as you. >> and you would have attended some of those councils, too. we were different in some ways. his this is not a claim of benefit or greatness. just that they had a view of this institution they're a part of, which we're more than that. this isn't why i say that what we want to have is a successful eu and a successful uk. it isn't why i define that in terms greater than economic, in terms of security, mutual values and so on. i say this because i believe them. but it is an important part of the argument. it is an important part of the argument. >> i agree with that.

i think it's very helpful the secretary of state states it in such a way. in that case, in relation to something you said in answer to john, could i just probe slightly, when you said you thought it was more the eu that was worried about issues of contagious and cohesion necessarily not the union states. in my conversations with colleagues over the past few months, politicians representing national states in different parties, they have expressed that their countries are as concerned about cohesion as probably the european commission was. >> cohesion is a word with two very different meanings. >> what was your evidence suggesting it's the eu worried about it? >> a public statement. the public statement is only really institutions that have talked publicly about britain not being able to do better after this. it's not malice. it's not any emnity. it's because they fear if we come out very well, then other

countries will be tempted to emulate us. so i don't -- you know, i don't blame them for that fear. i just think it's just think i. the some other countries do take a similar view. i haven't spoken to germany, but they may take a view like that and maybe france as well. and i haven't spoke on to a french minister on it yet. but broadly speaking, it's more predominant amongst institutions. it's probably a better way of saying it. >> the practical outcome of this is that's a factor in the negotiations as well. just a couple other things. you made a reference earlier to when negotiations have reached further and we have the issue

about how you can keep parliament up to date with negotiations as you get more detail. you mention something about closed session. do you understand more about that? is it your sbngs to come back to colleagues in a closed session at different stages? >> i don't know at this state. it's a possibility. what happens, as you'll remember, is information is sensitive for a few days. or a week or two. but not for months or years. the other thing is that sometimes and we'll try not to sort of hold information too long after the point at which it's no longer sensitive. it may be that one wants to say this is how it looks.

but that's the circumstances under which we might have a closed session. >> do you find it helpful with discussions in europe that a quite large group of mps persisting tweaking the eu by writing letters by lots of them and with some challenge or other. is this helpful to you? harmful to you or this annoying really of no consequence. >> i'm not that impressive. >> that's dually noted. >> buzz that's the way we were. >> here we go. short and sweet. in your department when we

visited, we were told that 307 staff had been appointed and some of those were dismayed. of earning their procrastination skills. we needs good people not to take anything into the long grass. so my question to you is and it's maybe a bit of a top gun analogy. you're one of the best of the best. so of the new 23 people, there's 330, have any of those people not been from the civil service or any of them -- just let me finish. brought from the outside expertise because do you not agree that you have probably got enough ice men and women and probably need some mavericks. >> i'm going to resist.

they have enough mavericks already in the political wing. but we're in the real world. it's a hell of a job. a lot of the source comes from outside. from the businesses we're talking to and so on. in terms of pace, this is a little different. because they are all volunteer. every single one of the new groups going are volunteers. and they want to make it work. and that's why the

procrastination. >> i pould just point out they are so there's no performance enhancement. if it goes wrong, they will be going back to their old jobs. do you think you don't need outside expertise. >>. >> the reason is because this suspect is at the pivot of historical change. i'll tease civil servants as well as the next member. but these people want the best for their country. and they will do their best for their country. >> can i ask you a little more about immigration.

net immigration currently runs something over o 300,000 a year. split roughly 50/50 between eu immigration and slightly more. it's not too far from 50/50. the immigration policy going to change as a result of us leaving the european union. what is the policy is objective of the change that e we will make. is it still to reduce net immigration to tens of thousands rather than the $300,000 plus that it is? >> all i can do is my task is to bring the decision home, as it were. i think both by the prime minister and by the current home secretary, who have said that

aim is still there, they also warned it's not going to happen overnight. it's not going to be closing doors. my own view of this, as i u said earlier, is it will get national interest, which does not mean denying universities nobel coming there or denying businesses the ability to transfer managers from tokyo or berlin or wherever. and it doesn't involve shutting down farms in the country either. >> but is it a a reasonable expectation that a policy outcome of taking back control of immigration is for thunderstorm 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 plus a year. >> i think the reasonable

expectation, but over time. >> what have you made of the eu 27 and what do you think will be for success in the negotiations? >> he's not quite concluded his tour of he will have a view laid down to the council. then they u will lay down the guidelines. that's what he's going to have to take as his guidance. and his criteria for success. and i'll make this point as an aside to that.

when he was the commissioner for the city effectively for financial services, he was very tough. but with the judgment i come across in the city is he was pretty pragmatic in the conclusion. that's his memory of it. so just you didn't ask that, but that's that. they vary. and there's a point nobody has asked but i think is important. and that is from the gibeginnin of this process, there were 17 events from the beginning and the probable conclusion. from now since we have had the aye tall yn referendum and the austrian election, there are still 15 to go. so the way the water is changing

is flow iing past. so the age is very different. so the second thing to say is the different parts of the union tend to fall. they have placed security and higher up the batting order. the swooeds very pro free trade. the spaniards similarly pro free trade. some of it is driven by the strength of the lindts with us. so when i was in madrid, the ambassador with people all of whom had strong links. so it's not a single entity.

and a strong trading partner. >> you stressed the diversity of interests across the union. i'm thinking that the people projecting significant force abroad and protecting the eastern border. it can protect baltic states and would be in their interest to written remainders. >> having stressed the diversity of interests across the european union. do you think it conceivable that it spain faced with pressure from kat lands for vat arrange ms that a country like spain would want to see different treatment for different parts of

the united kingdom. >> probably not. given the diversity u across the european union, the case is being made the chigs will want to punish britain in order to show that leaving the european union has consequences and speaking there will be no cake on the table. only salt and vinegar. what's the worst they could do if they decided they wanted to go forward? >> you're looking for answers and sometimes i don't want to give them. firstly, much of this is at this stage, even your comment about spain. it's a at this stage that it may change their minds. but there is a viewpoint, which

is only really just fading among some europeans that we can't really mean. that we can be persuade d to change our minds. maybe that's what they are trying to do. i can't read his mind. but as recently as october at least one hidden government was how you going to reverse this. and many of the others have caught. that's partly the mind set that's still the end now. may not be revocable. so that's the route we're going now. i expect at least at that point

people's calculation would change from how can we make them change their minds to how do we invest in this? >> i'm anxious because i'm proceeding to go forward and vo vote. >> is it within the british government to think about reducing corporation tax and changing the regulation tools that are within its controls to make it a more attractive destination for investment if the european commission and the council seem sbnt on to trying to punish us? >> can you explain that in more detail. >> i'm not sure i do want to explain. >> we're invited to believe they put the screws on us. the truth is if they do so, they are harming themselves more than they harm us and we have many tools to make our country a far more attractive investment than

they can make for investment. the assumption which underlies much commentary around this, which is what we are weak and they are strong is a misreading the situation. >> you make a good point. >> an interesting formulation about remaining in the european. . and when we talk about it the dry, gray e details and also what we don't want because we don't want to show our hand, there's a risk within government that we sound wisely. i wonder whether you shared my ambition that it's perfectly possible subject to the negotiation, which is a two-way process that britain can be an even better neighbor ally trading partner. outside of the eu. i just wonder whether at the

highest level that is and ought to be the government's ambition. >> that is my idea. that is the aim. we have lots of opportunities to give britain a better future in my view and with a stronger economic future, we can be a better economic security cultural diplomatic neighbor. so yes, it's more than just my view. it is part of the aim. >> thank you. >> we had an interesting discussion earlier about facts and opinions in the debate. >> i wanted to ask a couple quick questions.

you talked about the best outcome for britain. my interpretation is that would largely be around what's best for the british economy and our security. those are two high level aims, which are material to every citizen. they all want jobs and they all want to have a secure life. there was a a good point about the position we hold in the world, if you like, is also quite popular. >> i was also having some meetings with businesses. i was struck by the feedback that from a range of organizations who felt there hadn't been a structure with businesses in different sectors. i'm not sure if you would feel you would agree with that. i would be interested how u you

have been communicating the findings from any of your discussions and whether or not the findings will be reflected in the white paper or what document might be when that's published. and just as part of this conversation, i was very interested. the feedback i had had was they didn't feel that you and your department had fully understood the implications of losing the financial services part and didn't understand jr. position at the moment l. >> say that last sentence again. >> your position on the financial services passport and whether they felt that you had understood from their point of view the implications of losing that. indeed the concerns around e equivalence rules with the instability that would bring

that there could be subject for political reasons. >> right. okay. firstly, it's a complex subject. and there are about nine different categories. they affect more than half a dozen areas of finance. but they are not in an area where necessarily we are in disadvantage. something like 5.5 companies so there's a playback. in terms of our conversations, this is a whole of government operation. it's not simply that we have seen.

every other department virtually of government has been seeing their own client group. there are vast numbers around tables. i can second you a list if you like of those. what we are doing is understanding this detailed approach or problem in each area. my approach to that is fairly straight forward. i say to them first give me the problem is. quantify it. employment costs, capital. let me just finish. and also what your policy answers are and what our policy answers to be. some of it gets complex. you're talking about mutual equivalence.

there are a whole series of areas where we are working on solutions for them. >> the feedback was it hasn't been structured and they haven't felt that there's been much m communication. so i'll leave it there. >> i'd be happy to hear from you in areas where you think that's happened. we'll go back to it. but i can tell you in terms, it's been a a vast effort in terms of my experience in government. one of the biggest efforts ever. done very quickly. had to be done quickly because they had to get orphn with this. the conclusion hasn't come out yet. that's the point. we're half way through the

process. >> you mentioned that you wanted to see no hard border between northern ireland. that's something we share. but can you rule out that that will not be delivered by u having the border controls between the oi land of ireland and great britain? >> i don't know at the moment. my view here is i don't see that will be the solution, to be honest. what i don't want to do -- the primary concern for me, the reason i'm hesitating is the concern for me is to make sure we don't have that hard border. there are various technical ways of resolving that. we haven't finished that process. we're doing it in consultation with the irish government or making progress with the irish

government. we may not have a solution to it in the nx few months. what i will have to take is write you on that matter once we have had had a further thinking on the matter. i can can see the issue. absolutely see the issue. i can see why that's a second best solution. i u think we can find a better one. i won't make a progress promise today. i will make a point of writing to you when we got further down the road of the solution. >> just two very quick final questions from me. will the great repeal bill be published to allow for scrutiny. >> i said earlier to edwards i don't think we are going to hit that timetable. i will write you if i may. >> i invited you in the debate last week on the question of whether parliament will have a vote on the final deal when it's been negotiated to move from the words you have been using to

look parliament and event opportunity to look the committee e in the eye. >> what i'll say to you is is there's a constitutional reform that cover this is. we will obey u the law to the letter. >> so can i take that to be a yes then? >> don't let anybody else put words in your mouth. >> thank you very much for coming to give evidence this afternoon. order, order. president-elect donald trump holds more victory rally this is week visiting states that he won back in november. today the president-elect heads to hershey, pennsylvania, and you'll be able to watch that speech live on c-span starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow the victory tour will continue with a visit to the central florida fairgrounds in orlando and saturday president-elect trump holds a

rally in mobile, alabama. all three live on c-span. and then monday, presidential electors will have live u dprorchlg four states as they cast their ballots for president and vice president. beginning at 11:00 a.m. live coverage from springfield, illinois, harrisburg, pennsylvania, lansing,my, and richmond, virginia. follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress we'll take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on e demand at c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio app. this weekend on "american history tv" on c-span 3, saturday evening just before 7:00 eastern, providence college history professor patrick breen

examines the life of gnat turner, the slave rebellion he led in 1831 and the uncertainty u in the revolt's aftermath. >> the clash between the slave and free black artist embodied the dramatic differences that existed in the black community as some including artists decided to support the revolt while others elected to support the whites. >> then at 8:00, the university of maryland's on the evolution of advertising and marketing as a profession in the early 20th century. >> instead of selling an automobile as a means of transition, you can sell a car as prestige. >> and just before.

>> while overseas, mauldin avoided outbursts and never allowed partisan politics into his cartoons. back home, however, he jumped into the political fray with both feet. >> and sunday at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts. >> one of my favorite documents in the gallery is a draft version of what became the bill of rights. the senate took the 17 amendments passed by the house and changed them to 12 amendments that after a conference committee it was 12 that was sent to the states for ratification. and ten of those 12 were ratified by the states. >> for a complete schedule, go

to c-span.org. the brookings institution hosted a discussion on the future of cities. . we'll hear from chicago mayor rahm emanuel to discuss the urban policies of the incoming trump administration and britain's exit from the european union. >> good morning, everyone. thanks for joining us today to talk about cities in the age of brexit and trump. we're joined by two remarkable people who are well positioned to both interpret what has happened and really to give us

some guidance going forward. rahm emanuel is the mayor of chicago. our nation's third largest city. as everyone in this room know,s he was formerly chief of staff to president obama. . he occupied high ranking position in congress, so a national leader in other words, who has gone local. and a labor member of parliament from stoke on trent. he's a also a preeminent historian whose books on cities are must reads. so he's a a localist who has gone national. so there's a lot to talk about with these two leaders. for those in the audience, there are index cards. when you want to ask a question, write u your name and the question on the index card. for those watching via web cast, please use the hash tag #metrorev and send your

questions in via twitter. so let me give some context for this discussion. i will be very short. the uk decision to leave the european union and the election of donald trump exposed a deep geographic duh provide in our countries. . in the uk, london, the uk's economic enjoin -- while cities areas voted to leave. in the united states as my colleague mark has showed, hillary clinton carried less than 500 counties, but those counties represent 64% of the economic output of this country. there are 3,000 counties if anyone wants to take a test tomorrow. there are clear conclusions to draw here. globalization has not just fuelled income inequality but

spatial inequality. our two countries and throughout the world, major cities have become the engines of national economy, but the benefits of growth have not been shared widely both within these winning places and then across their nations. so this economic balance and the free movement of labor and capital represented by globalization has up ended our national politics. we're going to talk about three things today. first, how deep, how real is the spatial divide and how do we begin to overcome it. second, what are the consequences of brexit and trump for our major cities. given the fact that national government, this is hard for me to say, do play an important role on issues as diverse as safety net, health care, infrastructure, trade, so forth and so on. and finally, how can cities

begin to take greater ownership and responsibility for their future. because cities have e enormous public wealth. basically drimpb by their economic position in the world. so you are our guest. you have come from across the pond. >> he also has a better accent. >> a much better accent. to use the terminology, what the hell happened with the brexit vote? >> thank you very much for having me here today. i do think we can extrapolate some interesting correlations between what happened with the brexit vote and what happened with the trump vote when it comes to this divide between e metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. for those of us on the center left, this is particularly challenging issue because i think what the brexit vote did was really calcify some of these tensions within the progressive coalition between those areas which are feeling left behind by

globalization and those areas which are prosperocessing from globalization. we're seeing a political split, which is moving from traditional left right axis to koz me poll tan plit. they represent both of these areas and seeing real tensions into how it manages that coalition. so let me just draw out a few things when it comes to the nature of the vote in terms of the geography of this divide. what we know is that those areas with lower incomes, with lower levels of educational attainment, with traditionally higher levels of manufacturing, but today higher levels of manual occupation, which are particularly at risk of automation and job losses, but those areas voted to leave the european union. if we had to draw out one area

to focus on, which really brings together this question of income and culture, it would be education. and levels of educational qualification were the real divide in terms of where the vote tell. so what we did see was this great divide between bristol, london, voting to stay in europe and rural areas voting to leave. it comes more complication in a uk complex because scotland voted to stay in europe. northern ireland voted to stay in europe but england voted to leave. so it seems to me the outcome of this is to think about cultur culturally how we bring these areas together more, to think about how we challenge inequality and how the nature of inequality has been distributed. but also as a historian, i never

lose sight of the fact that going right back to rome, the contempt for urban elites and sort of rural virtue versus urban has been there. >> are the two of us immoral? >> right back to rome. >> this might be italian. >> give us your take on our election and whether it begins to -- what applies to our complicated system. >> obviously, similar data. i think the biggest place to both bring people together because it's a place where the divide occurs is on education. and educational opportunities. so if you want to create not just for similarity purposes, but u unification purposes, so

people don't get into comfort zones, education is the cultural point. that's one i u would say that talks more about the future. there's a couple things i would say about the election. let me take the first cut a as a drat. in '92, bill clinton ran on middle class first. we win. in '96 against dole the president ran on building a bridge to the 21st century. the economy was in a certain condition that was more optim t optimistic and people were going to stay with what they got because it was working. in 2008 president obama ran on hope and a harsh criticism of the shortcomings of bush economics at home and bush foreign policy. and it was a better alternative to john mccain. these are personality driven alternatives. by '12 he ran against the those that let et auto industry fail and i saved it it.

we lose in 2016. so what is it about what we won and when we won and what is it that we didn't do when we lost. and i'm all for -- and i u think it's not not only right politics but right policy is, i'm all for a a socially inclusive message. when we won versus lost, the take away is clearly about something that's more robust and inclusive economic message versus one just socially. it you look at the campaign, the criticism of trump coming out of the democrats and hillary in particular was one on character and on socially inclusive. the kids commercial was not an economic message. it was one on character, temperament, et cetera. we should go to back to what has worked. and that to me is a very strong and now will th will get into

this discussion what are the policies and politics around those policies a very strong economic with a strong socially inclusive message. but not one at the expense of another. and then at the end of the day, both candidates had certain personal negatives that people saw. so that negates that. then you have a change versus a status quo candidate in a change election. it's not more complicated than that. he's a historian. that's not polly sci. it came down to change candidate versus one seen as a continuity. every election, if you look at clinton was a response to bush. bush was a response to clinton. obama was a response to bush and trump is a response to obama. that's the history. so at a certain point, it's more fundamental and not obscure. there are other factors that drive this, but in the sense of

when you look at developed worlds today and the politics which is following, i probably could say one other thing. a lot of this is focused on economics. we were talking about this a a little before. do not underestimate that this is actually a rejection of failed politics. that the political system in england wasn't addressing people's insecurities. in the same way they are saying in other elections and here in the united states it was a a reaction to a political system that was not dealing with fundamental economics. outside of the first two years when president obama had any credibly brilliant chief of staff. and outside of president bush's first term when he had a republican majority. the political system hz not responded. so they took a hammer to the political system because it wasn't working. where you have broken politics

not addressing concerns, the concerns are driving this. but it's also the inability of what drove their reaction was the inability of the government to be reactive to their concerns. that's what's happened. they don't think england was standing up to the eu and driving part of this. you go through the elections and look what's happening. it's as much a reaction to the failure of the plit u call system to dras core economic issues. so the foundation is economic, but the hammer was very focused on breaking up and moving the political system into a place that would address these core insecurities. >> it didn't sound as good. >> these are frankly two excellent observations for some reason don't seem to have made it into mainstream discourse. i want to focus on geography for one second and then move into policy u and