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 What im seeking to establish is there are not acts in which they could be repealed.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 conditions within government as you see it where youre sitting . My job is to get the powers back to respect the judgment of the rudest people in the referendum which i think of in terms of borders, money, etc. To respect that is much as we candid negotiation as we will. But when we get it back as for the home office to make a decision on how theyre going to use that power. So i have some sympathy with your description of it is not actually me that makes a decision. It will be a cabinet decision on how we actually decide on the final vote. Final question. Whatever the criteria used about the principle of discrimination you effectively divorce immigration from the trade negotiation because explained that again. The uncertainty of the principle is not that any of it is right and that it will not discriminate one region against another. But that in pursuing the affairs you actually divorce in effect immigration from the labor and trade [inaudible] so yes and for obvious reasons im not going to draw. I want to press you on this. The Prime Minister has not made a great playing that cannot a lot to stand. As it now is. And she talked about control of the borders. So i do not think with the doubt [inaudible] for example. [inaudible] you mention it was unusual in recent years have such are the meetings, you previously said the next question he purposely said that workers should not lose their rights as a result of brexit. Is that your personal view is that the view of the government . Thats my personal view. So that there be no discussion within government yet about whether i have not, and what i have said to other members of the committee is that were not going to get drawn into the policy of elements. It has indeed, it has implications that would well if you laid out nonoaud what it would do is to have a red line and leave it in so i do not propose to elaborate on the common stack. But is that your position of the position of the government . We look at the subcommittee nest businesses to give you impacts of very scenarios on their sectors, how are you going to assess that danger and the validity of that danger . A could be one of two things. Think i was talking to and what is said as we would carry out and yes some of the information will come from that. But the thing about any data if you look how calculated. We will carry out some of our own. The example i cited from earlier people comparing the effect of tariff. You said the department doesnt yet have the capacity to assess that, when do you expect to have a capacity . Well we needed but the sequence of events is like this. We at the moment are doing the roundtables in the discussions. Well then be asking for submission and that will be getting the assessment so thats a little well. But if it doubled once in size and i suspect it will double again. Will that be before or after . Before. So you want to article 50 until actually have the capacity to carry out the notions that you believe. Carry out those functions, thats right. And we be drawing on the competencies in the process and documentation that was produced by ministers before the referendum and the whole process was going through mustard this is a new process. Most of this is a new process. Pretty much every department has stayed involved in it. They will do a fair amount of contributing themselves. And then it will be challenging. Given the clear reluctance that you have to states what your negotiation position is going to be a not give detailed answers to us today or yesterday , how long do you think you consisting this position . Is that the reality it will become politically impossible domestically, not just internationally and therefore might be better that the Prime Minister and her new actually have mandates to the british people before they trigger article 50 . And not only general election [inaudible] im sorry, my question of the kinds of questions that people want answers to. And your job is to answer them. My job is to make decisions on behalf of the people. We have. We have a mandate like no other. We have a mandate like no other. And it is our job to deliver on that mandate. It is our job to do the best we can which means carrying out the negotiation and an intelligent way. Means making the decision on the basis on the data lit which you collect, analyze and that you make a decision on the data. Not the other way around. It may be your approach to say oh, because were asking the question you have were asking the question you have to tells the answer before you worked it out. It seems to me and utterly dark idea. We have worked out some answers but none that you have asked. And frankly, we have got a major underway. Evers single sector, every Single Department of state has a workload underway. They all need to come to an intelligent conclusion thats what drives the outcome to this process. Not politically driven answers that allow you to Say Something else. I think we have established the conclusion of the committee about the level of negligence of not having this in place before the referendum continued. [inaudible] is not your responsibility to say that. Thank you. Its good to to see you back in government mr. Davis. Its very clear that the accentuation of the fact that there is a lack of work on the possibility of post brexit, private leaders administration and cannot clearly indicate that the ball is in our court for triggering this. Can i ask you, bear in mind that we have up to two years for those negotiation process, what are the delays in the article 50 . The primary delays doing analysis necessary. I dont want to get too far into what happened before i arrived but let me say this. The be quite difficult for the government to do the level of analysis that we are undertaking. It is enormous. And most people did not know what it was like in august. With that material. But the french government said they wanted to precipitate that. So the commission has said the with that negotiation but the counter to this note but to give you the of parallel. And with the 25 people. And they need to work out for themselves with those negotiating the request are. And maybe we should have made an offer in this area. So we are better off. It is not a shortage of interest. But indeed for Many Companies in the city or in business in britain, and then there are there are still interest. When they can. And then to do the in their own analysis. And i will tell the committee if i run into the mind of happy to do so. But not at the moment to my concern about that. And how long it takes with an organization. But that will be where it needs to be. Good afternoon secretary of state. But they suspect us and that it takes time to get these things right. So can you reassure that public or take action to indicate the government is absolutely serious . That is in the beginning of summer. With august 14. So with the spending of the structural funds. Of the signal to say we are definitely e doing this, that is not a very cheap decision. And the second thing is time and again that this governments job is delivery. But whether or not there should be a second referendum. The Prime Minister said time and time again that we are leaving the European Union. So is there a possibility that we can look as a way of these arrangements with those trade relations. I dont think so. But there are people that argument may be. But what i think is a strategy of the government up until then, the government will obey the European Union rule. That is the approach we are taking. Also with the investigative approach. So that we cannot walk away from our responsibilities. With a series of other things. But one of the things that we can do legally that is okay to do for one example is the issue from now on to go back to the traditional british passport rather than the pink thing. [laughter] even that gesture such as that to show the british people. We are not in the business with the delivery. And with those discussions of the united kingdoms future. So what assurances can you get you take those interest but to have huge amount of concerns the. But we are and i see that almost immediately. Thank you very much. But for your spectacular french. Fred to incorporate that with the power. So to speculate you clearly dont want to do be transparent now. Because it is certainty. And transparent. And to clarify for britain. With that arrangement. And with of business community. And also to be in the market. But with that description is simply is not true. That they are syndicated and with a previous government. But that is whenever we try to find anyone to blame. They were not there. But let me finish. But your description of the economy is simply teenine the case. With those big Business Decisions and then with a certain period of time and with that long term assessment and with that investment after words to have that referendum. To put money into a country in a big way. That previously were concerned about this. So frankly i dont accept that premise that the use of the uncertainty on the basis of the fax to represent the National Interest that is what this government is doing i would be panicked but the government that rushes to do something. But the way that the negotiations are going with that predictability for those companies are round of world because we wont have access. But use said yourself that they were struck down. Did i say that . So let me say. But then by a japanese company. That isnt just manufacturing so lets not mix that. You raised those numbers actually. But that is why it has not been effective. What is the uh question . On that Japanese Point the simple way is to go back to the two day program with the japanese about sitters how attractive it is and will continue to me. But might issue here is what they are exploring. And redo have this balance to manage with of confidentiality so how do you propose to manage that . And they should trust us. So there are at an number of things. And those mobile companies. And we do not decide the outcome. That is where they are. And for what priority to maintain the best possible manufacturers associates. The ones you get beyond that because that is a good outcome if you achieve that. But that israel exercised in those bilateral discussions in then to take their interests very seriously as well as we can. And to create that strategy so to belittle the of fact. Such to have Business Decisions. So with then that answer to a the memorandum. And to reply to the japanese memorandum in the united kingdom. With the it European Union but somebody has to hold headquarters accountable with that answer. But at the end of the day that they make the case with the establishment. But then to drive up at the end of the day with the taxation is much less, etc. , etc. But the aisle memorandums for Japanese Companies and as it comes from the commercial sector that Different Companies have different interest with the Large Manufacturing corporations so some of those so that took the accounting risk added of balance sheet. From their own point of view. But with the Economic System as a whole. But the impact elsewhere. But that is one of the things if we look at the evidence that comes into a. So that is the first thing and wanting the britain to join in the euro. And to promise them relative to the European Parliament. So to make sure we know what is given to the European Parliament. To understand the implications to provide confidential information is an institutional agreement with the European Parliament and the annexes of that agreement to the European Parliament amongst others for confidential information and then information of the strategy. I am grateful for. And in the field the 60s defense matters how deeply and on and doing that . In terms of standing unsecured terms, with the defense methods that would be very public. We talked about it publicly. We also have been discussions and to explain of the European Security and from time to time to provide and assistance. There will be some with an eye mechanisms of the joint defense and Foreign Policy matters. I presume those will be part of the pure discussion . What do you have in mind . Certainly i personally am very concerned making an announcement together to move forward with the European Army i see that as a huge challenge and a threat to nato as part of your renegotiations of the other countries and so will you venture to work with them . Even though they come out of the European Union. It will be far more general than that. But the European Army. But you will remember that primary concern was the preemption. So to be sure that problem does not arise. So those other countries in europe will want to follow as part of the European Army so given the size and strength of our protection and of europe as an entity that we will want to play a party in that. Liking guess you are talking about but the simple truth is that is our strategy. I made that pledge. Times saree im meant that i made enough such pledge. [inaudible] some did and if that is the case he should have them here but through no speech of mine. Naudib] i dont want to be de to you that all. But this is the simple approach that i am taking to try to deliver this outcome in the National Interest. Not on the basis of somebody elses speech of the hard data that we are gathering right now. But that policy bill never change. And with the health and social services so with that certainty, how will you protect greg. But let me deal with it. That we would seek to have a generous treatment as possible i have heard people but this isnt because it is making sure nobody does. But one of the things i would have said that it is important people understand. That people are about to be deported. With the majority or what they have already will have the note new water what they have done and that i believe in that i find it very hard to believe that they are misbehaving. Yen to the secretary of state and 500,000 strong. To make a huge contribution to our country. So i have concern house certain sections of the media trying to play is there any assurance . So i think every member of this house would condemn unreserve debate those hate crimes and what it is frankly. To make use of an excuse. And it would have been hate crimes. Going to the department issues. But from what we often hear is between Uh Commission and the politicians that want to play a hard nosed game with the elections and mori of the implications that in relative terms and with that approach and with that situation with the opposite numbers. And in particular to take the view point of this and in a way to approach that. Of some 04 them for them leaving the union. The countries of course, that they take in interest of their own citizens and you are quite right. The balance and trade and threatened to punish. And as a threat to their own industry. But literally in the chamber and the statement and for the Mutual Benefit to trade with them and is an exchange for that. And to be calm explicit to their own industries and organizations. So i expect the german car maker and the french and many others. But i would be using that argument. And to expect to expect those concerns. Did with those net exporters. And to have those elected politicians love with those approaches adopted by the commission. It actually not to bring back for word. I dont think it can very easily. But those that argue but i dont agree with that. In fact, it puts back on everybody. And to have some of advantages. But they know that they dont have time. And of the wto so it is not necessarily wise. There are bigger problems with your timetable than that. From our point of view. And to support those negotiations. But can you tell us do you think to recruit the expertise that you require . If you have progress from that point of view. And the budget, the second. And almost by definition. Because we have the involvement of every department and very little of problematic response. But frankly that strategy is one of a of having a small unit for whenever policy there in is with a home office. And the coz of the way it is the engagement of the policy designed i dont think we will have a problem. But this is incredibly attractive. Ad would ever way our country goes whatever the outcome is. Also profession up one chance of a lifetime. So that is a problem of retracting people but to go any faster as the numbers and it shows that the quality is good. But then that makes great copy perhaps. In fact, i am not quite sure what. But i had of misfortune to work through that. But there are a variety of things. But with that central analysis, with one of those problems of those industrial groups and so on. And they are setting up especially have not talked about that liaison that has been an important part also. And how the of liaison is official and that was going on. That the issues that they started with. With those questions because there are a lot of stories of the did buteo but we are a member. There are things going on. And similarly the reviews of the public trade agreement, it is a whole series of both legal legal, political and economic operations. We of taken over the operation of General Affairs baja and but they are not really a hunting and yet. Not very much consulting. But anything that helps solve those problems and it is quite likely and at that point thank you very much. Spee9 spee9. So far but that is the concern. Is that sufficient . We talk to each other as well and it comes up in that cabinet. There are other internal committees. But that is the primary driver. Either two or three. And then nationalsecurity council. That is above my pay grade. And that you have taken the responsibility plaques . It is a bilateral matter. Why is it my responsibility. But it would be helpful but that is a place with your budget and your resources because of that relationship. And that is very helpful. So it goes to a central challenge with of presentation of the united kingdom. It is the opinion of this committee that the budget will lead to double or triple of the challenges. We have to get serious of the position to was stablish of the bilateral relationships that we are required to replace that. By going into your departments, but with our capabilities that belongs to the of foreign office. And also into were three years time the department will then go within the far office still make your na resource rich environment. Environment, with that priority to establish of the capability. Were to face that restores constraint. Bet that stock right away. But after how many years . And then to have the capacity for those matters that are related for those resources to cope. The reason that i say that is from the other departments and i have had no indication that is an issue. And in terms of the policy development, and in terms of the diplomatic information. That doesnt have any concerns. What about those individual hopes of those countries . Do we have enough people to provide a relationship . With those bilateral discussions . But to have the very effective network, i see nothing to indicate there is a problem. And with that secretary directly. Cad they talk to each other . But to answer your question. What are the pitfalls what of the questions we should have vast . What do the americans say [laughter] so that is on the upside all those fall and the natural trade relation so i will not list them again. But in terms of risks the of that analogies but some of the things that we are looking at. So landers stand so that will take some time. And illegally. So there are issues like that. Obviously they are negotiating risks. That the commission has highlighted. But my concern but that is one of the things i have highlighted. With that wto with those issues in london. And with those mechanisms and how they work. So do you understand . One of the things is that it does represent symbolically. Because we have 180 degrees both in terms of how importuned important. Whether it is a big pothole a bank or on a global basis. Those relate to whether or not that mutual recognition will work to protect them. But also whether it is safe. I will not go any further with some of those main players and how we deal with each of those issues. But for very briefly with those american banks and it is more divided but put that to one side. What reassurance can you give . If there is anything more to say than what you just said. Most of this would be known any way. Asking about how we design. But partly because they are incomplete. For the operational terms and 70s things we want to go much more closely. While we are sitting here i have had suggestions from people so to give the demands that he described as no microtek control to have access to. July have looked at what the act actually said that the position is clear if the u. K. Wants to remain part of the market will have to assess the Free Movement of our citizens. But his use of banc language i appreciate the difference between access and to be in. Laugh laugh because with language that position where you cannot begin to the same time if they are not willing to concede those four freedoms that underpin it. But. But but the comment is not new. And walleye will mike get drawn into that position they like to calculate. For v. If you are expected and still use the language as this and build markets. So what we want to see is the best trading capacity for the manufacturing services. But isnt it clear that the wind is leading the European Union . Because it is impossible to concerns have that false freedom and lesbian negotiated with access to the Single Market wouldnt that be better to have that clearly made a that is what we are talking about and to think otherwise of and then to go down when it is necessary. So lets look forward to that. But to put it into those terms would give you the opportunity. But going further . But bill whole argument is the governments position is of coverup. That is the theory and when uh crown broke and had to be resolved over. You dont have to set a referendum last week in nobody talked about the referendum. Eudora needed election. With that mandate directly and you down need a photo of parliament so that the event to be in favor of that is done manifestation of the referendum. And not just parliament of the people. But the awards constitutional commitment. Did disagrees what weve jess said. That is wrong. Is the something simple as this. Kovach to the debate the foreign secretary said it doesnt matter for this issue by the british people. The government. The familys been received received their individual attention. But if we go into march or may shooting rehashes and with those conditions of fresher than i to you but if they put that groundwork with everybody talking about but my spirits with the european negotiations or the europeans that. But then lets assume its class days and fell last month. But that is not what i want to see laugh laugh. I will not. But they are set to for the Prime Minister. That may have been in bad believe that was the issue. Belts melia know that he shed look at his expression. But that this point we obviously want to say thankyou for your evidence between my reply to the traneight and one dash attorney general . Weve put a bug bomb on new tests. Bayou can start as low as you want to because it is the oversight that should be in an. But we will finish by saying thanks very much. And. [inaudible] but then also sitting in the corner. The exit from the u e. U. Hamilton, its 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] pdf ompeting against ticket bots, and, scoop up as many and resell them on a secondary market at a significant markup. , whats a ticket bot . Here is my quick example. Ce flight gave garth brooks concert in wichita you know people who want to be there there are only so many tickets available. People who use them to overwhelm the website to cut in line ahead of regular fans and while they are taken at a circulation the use human operators to enter a distinctive names credit card dash and other measures he dont even have to be a Technology Genius to use a a metal want to retract the anyone to a website that will lead you to different type of market place to purchase of software it is a specific application such as ticketmaster and even offered to make custom products