On gaining information into the brexit exit. So youre very welcome, i know this is your second gig in two days and that you have told the house of the European Union yesterday on it was a particular pleasure. Which i hope to repeat today. Is that the reason you chose to sit at that end of the building . I did not even do the scheduling. Between your clocks in my office. I dont imagine it was with our clocks. You made some pen a decision to go there first. But that is the general hook that i want to take into my next question which is to examine your assessment of the legal and parliamentary implications of the brexit. Can we confirm that there is going to have to be an actual act in order to leave the European Union . There there has to be some legislation, no doubt about that. There are various stages, firstly with dealing with the European Community in 1972 and all the consequential legislation after that. There mayor may well have to be parliamentary under the relevant 2010 legislation. And thats the absolute minimum i can see. So we cannot leave the European Union if that legislation is not in place. What we can leave, but what the legislation does is put in place directives. While the conversation puts in place directives and various pieces of law which would still have an effect if we didnt. But its taking a change to remove ourselves in that circumstance there is still be read porting back. What im seeking to establish is there are not acts in which they could be repealed. Thats correct. So at the other end of the building rather than starting here is that my assessment is that a majority to support the Prime Minister and despite the fact that a number were campaign to remain in the European Union as they have accepted this decision to hold the electric and will now support the government in the process of leaving. However its my assessment that you could not that that position at the other end of the building . Would you agree with that. Will first thing is youre wrong about the calculation. There is no calculation. It secondly i have not made an assessment of what the balance of power or balance of voting would be in each house. For a start on the legislative change what i think be debated at least in part where the negotiation got to. Whether or not where as individual members of each house prove what we have done. So i dont know where we will be. My hope and my intention is that will have the majority in both how. Look i gently suggest to you that the government could be reasonably competent at this into the building in order to carry out the referendum. And then there is a question about the attitude of where the government is a minority and there is a number of those amongst them. You are very determined to try and obstruct the countries route to brexit. If you are in that place, then obstructing the acts of parliament to enable brexit, is something that is going to have to be overcome by the house of commons using the parliament sacked. So what i am suggesting to you and your degree is actually quite a sensible idea for the legislative protest to commence insufficient time to be on the statue having overcome opposition in the house by these of the parliament so that we can leave the European Union in the early part of 2019. Again, i will challenge your debate. What the government is doing is carrying out the biggest mandate that has ever been given to a government by the british people. The largest number nearly 17 a halfmillion people. The majority over one and a quarter million i think. If it if it hadnt been the general election between two parties leave and remain. The majority of the remain would have the bigger than blair had an is a very clear mandate. I think the house of lords would be quite unwise not to take that mandate seriously. They have a perfectly reasonable position in challenging some of the elements of whatever negotiations turn out. But i would be very surprised if well its already in the view of this committee that the government it would be guilty of great negligence and not preparing for the possibility that the country might actually leave for brexit. It also would be the view of the community that it might be gross negligence if you proceeded under the assumption that all is going to be fine at the under other end of the building. Because and will get, when it be more prudent to make sure that your legislation was in place insufficient times and actually allowed it to be with the European Union. On the date of the governments choosing or the conclusion that the negotiation two years after. Youre jumping to conclusions of the Committee Report rather a decision i have yet to take. I suspect, i clearly intending to get us to the position of leaving union within the normal article 50 timetable. I will make the arrangements that are necessary to get there. That is the simple case of the matter. I will not, im afraid. With this committee or any other about the way either house will vote. That is for others to be. And i will make decisions based on their advice. I certainly will not be airing such decisions in public anymore than i will same problem,. Turning to that matter and grateful for your reply to the attorney general on legal issues regarding the united kingdoms exit of the eu. I wrote to Jeremy Wright on the 29th of june and invited him to reply by wednesday the 30th of july. Am delighted he replied on the 13th of september. What thats not satisfied buys the terms of your answers. You want to explore while youre unable to give answers to rather basic questions. The first question i posed was the regulations that currently apply to the u. K. [inaudible] that that struck me as a rather straightforward question. In your reply said you would appreciate the questions raised in your letteron issues that are of legal proceeding to which they are in party. There would not be to leave comments on. Please explain how sick boat technical question as to whether its possible for single act impinges on action being taken by the government from article 50. I can talk to you about the issues of the act of parliament. Let me do that here now. There are number of ways you could put into effect such an act. One of them is to put everything into place at once. It would be huge and to come back to your position earlier about timing on this, it would have to wait until very late on in the process because we would need to know what were doing with each components of the exit from the union. Even where it simple with almost no amendments to it where we say to do the changes later on. Its going to get complicated. When local government does decisions on the european law they have to put a bit into the european journal. Clearly that would be simple. So so you have all of those things, either directly or under henry viii causes thats one aspect of it. The other way we can do it is simply but it still leads you exposed to those problems. And and then you could do it rather morally and then so theres a problem. Thats my question, out of the question you posed my letter to the attorney, the reason you gave for not answering the question wasnt impinged i dont understand. The question posed can the regulation directly apply to the u. K. Should Parliament Parliament we should take it. Your answer is that it is illegal. And that. In that case thousand air because i thought it was a different reference. Im wondering if you could have another go at the letter. We can of course. But we can also deal with the expensive issue right here. Which is, the nature of the legislation which you are likely to carry through. You can can either have very simple legislation which meets your requirement early which he raced earlier. Whats the simplest . My sumption is that you have all this directly applicable regulation which is not been put through and not in british lot the moment. Were going to need the European Union and to try to make a judgment other these 6987 regulations that directly apply and we go through them one by one which were going to keep and which were going to leave when we leave. Or are we going to keep all of them into law on the ticker time to go through and decide which ones we dont want. In the decision will have to take his specifically with legislation with the cast dating set of ties. The race issue of the house of lords. Dislike the henry the eighth causes. And its not like things that. [inaudible] or you could do it with a small piece of upfront legislation we can do because you would need to know what the changes were before he started. The legislature. I think what you have said an answer the question is yes. And there are options. Let me be clear, dont dont you to take a misguidance from me. Now you can auger you i answer the question one, yes. Yes. Was question one. It was can all the directly applicable regulations apply the u. K. Im grateful for that. For that clarity. Thats been a bit of of a go on the second question. I posted a letter to you. And i wonder whether we might be possible for you to get a copy of the exchange in front of the secretary to ease it. But let me, for the benefit of the record the second question on the nasty and what time should the u. K. In the e. U. Trade at the end of the twoyear negotiating mandate mandated by article 50 of the treaty, if no deal has been agreed between the u. K. In the e. U. On the terms of the uks exit of the e. U. And no deal has been agreed on the terms of the future relationship between the uk and the e. U. So it is the wrapper obvious possibility that there is either a blocking minority amongst the 27th who declined to come to agreement or the European Parliament has a majority against whatever is negotiated between the e. U. And the 27. Do. Do not strike me as a rather obvious possibility. The answer you gave to me and the committee was turning to trade were about to be good these associations, as the Prime Minister said, the u. K. Will strike agreement that kids the best deal for people at home and the right deal for britain abroad. While that is not in the gift of the Prime Minister, it it is going to have to be an agreement between us and our 27 partners endorsed by the majority of the European Parliament. To the the Prime Minister can make that statement. But the fact is she cannot guarantee it. Nobody can guarantee that. So therefore the bottom line in the process youre about to embark is that there is no route. Thats one possible outcome. But if you look at the attorney general and was kind enough to send me a letter i think it is rather simple question and for a very important reason should answer it as soon as you are in a position to do so. What happens if there is no agreement . Because that then addresses uncertainty that is out there. For example in the memorandum from the japanese for example. People looking for certainty as to what happens. If it is clear if there is no agreement to the negotiations with the position then you address the uncertainty inside that individual company and make that commercial adjustment according with whatever guidance theyre going to get. But then you would at least know how bad it can get from that position. Or how good it can get. It might be an opportunity if theres no deal. But simply simply explaining the technical position is going to be in terms of trade into the Single Market it strikes me as necessary. It depends on what youre after. If you are after a factor statement of what the outcome could be it is i guess what is normally known as a wto. That is what i guess you can conclude outside the union would say no deal. But i would not want anyone to think that the likely outcome. Im. Im not asking if its a likely outcome. Im inviting us to get to an agreed understanding that it is a wto that would govern the sales of the u. K. So it would be a u. K. Good into the Single Market. But that is a matter of commonly held fact i think. That is all i was seeking to get the confirmation of because it has been suggested that their complications with the wto in position and if youre telling the committee that its a commonly held fact then that gives everybody a bottom line from which all the interest from the very large number can begin to go. Accept, and this is a problem here because we are dealing with is extremely complicated. The wto essentially provide tariffs, thats one of the primary issues. Its a simple answer to but it doesnt encompass everything. Understands, of course. About how the nontariff areas are operated and the rest. But i think there is a very great need for much clarification of what can be reasonably clarified in terms of the obvious band of what could take place. And one is no agreement. For that to be clearly put out there you have to, you did a great deal further and answers to me the letter that you signed off on they eroded hayes when it was outstanding. It wasnt outstanding to me. I appreciate that. And im grateful. No good deed goes unpunished. Im very grateful for the detail that you have narrated. Just one thing. Who are you going to be negotiating with . It will vary by state. To give you an example, will first off, the commission has appointed mr. The counselor, the parliament appointed mr. And of course on the National Level were talking to many people. So for example last week i went to dublin and i spoke with the secretary, spoke to the justice secretary. I understand the discussions have to go around. Who are you formally negotiating with . Well formally with the council, that is what the article says. And by the commission. And its not for me to result, if you will forgive me. We may come back to the involvement of the European Parliament later in questions. Thank you. I just wanted more clarity on question on the letter when he say to have legislation where we adopt i thought you then went on to say that would be problematic when you the example of the local authority having to publish all of that. Will have to deal with that on the series of oneonone legislations. Something like that i think goes inside. Now i would not be confined to just that. It would not be confined to a minor problem. There would be substantial changes. Changes in immigration law. Changes in a series of some of which and so you have the problem there is generating with primaries because many saw the issue in ways that the chairman was earlier if you have a problem and dont have time to get it through, and of course you can see that i can understand cant give any committee negotiations on positions of the government would take. But could you at least say he said the government had to agree to appear with objectives. That is one area. The Prime Minister said were not going to on 50 until the new year at the end of this year. Because we are going through that process and he talked if you want to hear it there negotiating tactics and legalities in the very things were talking about, all of those things really have to be very clear before you start. So we will arrive at that sometime in the new year. So youll have all your objectives in place sometime in the new year im not going to get it a guess on when. As i have said before i would rather go a month late and get it right then go a month early and get it wrong area its like you said but it care the Prime Minister has something very implicit. She said she knows the british people expects us to be expeditious about it. After reaching that negotiated position. [inaudible] i the level of detail here will be set up very clearly. You have parliament having an interest in as i said we will meet that to get the best possible solution. So that would be a negotiating strategy. But also we have to write, when we write under article 50 we write a letter and i assume that a letter would include a statement of what were trying to achieve so. Again when i can go early. And then you talked about Key Stakeholders which you mentioned yesterday, can you explain in more detail how the process will actually work. Will you publish for evidence or evidence for stakeholders . Or will you select those that you wish. I mean some will be selfselecting because frankly anybody can with concern about their industry would be wanting to have that. So this last week a group from the city chaired by the chancellor, i have one this week which is so when you set in the house so theres a whole series about where we think there is an issue and people who are concerned to move forward. And that is all very representative of this organization. We put aside for a second but also every Single Department of state is also be an, it was taft at the beginning of coming back with a whole series, with their primary concerns so thats happening too. So i cant think of any other way and every department is actually submitting resources to the . Yes. More resources, my department as i said yesterday is quite small. It has grown rapidly in the last month really. Overdoing, the strategy that were taking is having a small number of very high caliber is more effective and its a better way of doing things. The stuff between now and then is negotiation and it would involve a degree of assessment, so let me give you an example. Somebody has said that nonoaud so before we get to start with negotiation will have an idea what is what matters and what doesnt. We will know it is all could be complex negotiations but many believe that this access to the Single Market cannot begin on the terms of the reasonable sides. Certainly for those you should not be afraid to go back on the rules. I went to commit to any particular strategy at this point for obvious reasons. But first let me offer a philosophical approach to the negotiation. I think it would be a bad idea to go to the negotiation because it weakens you in one aspect or another. In speaking to about the calculations that should go on and we will assess not just what we are given but also the policies that go with it. So people might say is going to cost this or that. They havent necessarily looking at what we might do to mitigate costs. So i see nothing in that. Let me talk about immigration. With trade negotiation. Many of those you think are out, one of the key reasons was you have an immigration system that is actually discriminatory and discriminates against the rest of world outside the e. U. The criteria that was given in the policy going forward, is that the sense in the condition