►
Description
1. Article 50 withdrawal negotiations: The Committee will take evidence from-
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard.
2. Article 50 withdrawal negotiations (in private): The Committee will consider the evidence heard earlier in the meeting.
3. Work programme (in private): The Committee will consider its work programme.
Published by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
www.parliament.scot // We do not facilitate discussions on our YouTube page but encourage you to share and comment on our videos on your own channels. // If you would like to join in our conversations please follow @ScotParl on Twitter or like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/scottishparliament
A
You're
often
referred
to
as
the
man
who
wrote
article
50
and,
as
you
were
secretary
general
of
the
European
Convention
I,
wonder
if
you
could
explain
what
the
thinking
was
the
led
to
the
drafting
of
article
50
and
know
that
we're
seeing
enacted
if
for
the
first
time,
what
do
you
consider
do
you
consider
that
it
was
drafted
and
they
connect?
Where
does
it
leave
enough
time?
It's
a
negotiate,
the
withdrawal
agreement
within
two
years.
Is
there
anything
you
would
do
differently?
No,
that's
what
I'm,
asking
or.
B
Mine
was
the
pen
that
did
the
first
draft
and
in
that
sense,
I
wrote
it,
but
it
was
written
collectively
by
a
convention
of
212
people
who
approved
it
unanimously.
So
I,
don't
I
can't
claim
all
the
credits
on
the
discredit,
the
rationale
for
it
and
it
wasn't
particularly
controversial
in
the
convention.
B
This
is
a
2002
2003
assembly
in
Brussels,
of
which
I
was
Secretary
General,
whose
product
was
rejected
in
referenda
in
France
and
the
Netherlands,
but
bits
of
it
found
their
way
into
the
lisbon
treaty
and
so
into
the
operational
treaty
at
the
base
of
the
European
Union.
Now
article
50
was
one
of
these
bits,
the
in
the
convention.
It
wasn't
particularly
controversial.
B
B
The
time
limit.
The
time
limit
came
in
because
people
were
concerned
at
the
the
Euroskeptic
argument
and
the
hope
one
of
the
purposes
of
article
50
was
to
defeat
the
Euroskeptic
argument
that
the
member
states
were
tied
to
their
oars
galley
slaves
running
to
an
unknown
destination,
no
way
of
getting
out.
The
skeptics
argued
that
the
without
a
time
limit
you
would
be
forever
ensnared
the
web
of
negotiation.
So
you
might
say,
I
want
to
go,
but
it's
a
tell
California.
B
Our
future
relationship
with
the
Union
we
had
left
and
as
soon
as
we
had
far
the
gun,
we
went
off
and
had
an
election
and
so
spent
three
months,
not
negotiating,
while
our
friends
across
the
channel
within
one
month
had
prepared
their
position
with
the
the
European
Council
agreements
on
the
29th
of
April
I
I
find
that
I
mean
it
is.
It
is
true
that
on
the
29th
of
March
2019,
unless
something
else
happens,
we
will
leave
whoever
or
not
there
is
an
agreement.
B
So
in
that
sense
the
the
time
limit
acts
against
us,
but
whose
fault
is
that?
And
if
we
were
well-prepared?
If
we
had
done
some
preliminary
work
and
been
to
see
some
of
our
of
our
friends
and
partners
before
they
firing
the
gun,
if
we
had
an
agreed
government
position
or
best
of
all,
if
we
had
to
explain
that
agreed
government
position
to
the
country
and
had
an
agreed
national,
then
two
years
would
not
be
too
long.
Just
what
I
mean
thank.
A
B
The
tone
of
the
Florence
speech
was
a
certainly
an
improvement
on
last
year's
Party
conference
speech,
which
was
quite
a
surprise
and
a
shock
to
most
people
in
continental
Europe
and
the
Lancaster
House
speech
in
January.
I
think
this
is
the
of
her
European
speeches.
This
is
the
one
with
the
friendliest
tone.
B
I
think
that
the
the
move
on
money,
though
insufficient,
is
at
least
get
started,
and
the
problem
with
the
money
dossier
up
to
now
is
that,
while
the
other
side
have
aggregated
everybody's
bids
and
have
ended
up
with
what
is
clearly
an
over
bid,
we
have
put
no
counter
bid
on
the
table
at
all
and
put
in
no
papers
at
all.
Therefore,
the
process
of
finding
a
middle
ground
compromise
hasn't
started.
I
I
think
it's
good
that
we
have
hinted
at
something
in
the
region
of
20
billion.
B
It's
not
going
to
settle
at
that,
but
at
least
that
is
something
I
hope
that
next
week
that
will
be
underpinned
by
some
sort
of
paper,
some
sort
of
basis
to
start
in
negotiations.
I,
don't
know,
I
should
say
that
I
speak
only
person,
I
I
have
no
idea.
What
is
going
on
inside
government
so
on
the
tone
and
on
the
money,
definitely
an
advance.
B
The
talk
of
a
transition
I'd
like
to
come
back
to
if
I
may,
that
that
is
I
think
a
very
difficult
area
and
what
has
been
said
at
the
party
conference
this
week
about
transition,
I
think
leaves
are
still
in
considerable
difficulty.
The
difficult
the
main
defect
has
seen
by
our
foreign
friends
in
the
Florence
speech
is,
she
still
hasn't
said
what
she
envisages
as
the
long-term
permanent
steady-state
relationship
between
Britain
and
the
European
Union
she's
told
us
what
it
isn't.
B
It
isn't
the
Norwegian
relation
it
isn't
an
AEA
after
type
relationship,
because
of
that
she
said,
would
impose
too
much
of
a
constraint
on
our
sovereignty
and
it
isn't
the
Canadian
relationship.
So
she's
ruled
out
two
forms
of
relationship.
She
hasn't
addressed.
What
it
is
that
we
actually
do
want,
and
they
really
don't
know
it's
they.
B
They
are
left
worrying
that
she
may
still
be
where
she
was
a
party
conference
2016
and
in
Lancaster
House
January
2017,
wishing
to
cherry-pick
bits
of
the
single
market,
possibly
bits
of
customs
union
and
set
up
some
sort
of
hybrid.
That
is
not
a
popular
concept
in
among
the
27,
so
there's
still
uncertainty.
We
haven't
come
forward
with
the
framework
for
the
future
relationship,
nor
have
they,
but
they
think
we
are
demand
and
needs
up
to
us
to
propose
what
it
is.
We
want
of.
C
A
B
I
think
it's
a
mistake:
I
I
mean
the
the
problem
of
the
relationship
between
the
divorce
talks
and
planning
for
the
future
relationship
was
one
that
we
did
discussed
in
the
convention
15
years
ago.
You
clearly
cannot,
in
a
two-year
period,
work
out
the
detail
of
a
deep
and
comprehensive
future
relationship
and
I
hope
you
will
be
deep
and
comprehensive.
B
Canada
took
seven
years
and
I
hope
our
agreement
will
be
much
more
complex
and
detailed
than
the
comprehensive
than
the
Canadian
agreement.
So
it's
it's
going
to
take
a
considerable
time.
So
we
invented
this
concept
of
the
framework
that
you
would
that
the
divorce
lawyers
would
be
taking
account
of
who's
going
to
be
looking
after
the
kids
in
future.
What
is
the
relationship
between
these
two
parties
when
they
are
separate?
B
We
didn't
define
what
that
framework
was
it's
cards
are
in
French
we
negotiated
in
French,
we
didn't
say
what
it
was.
I
must
say.
My
own
view
was,
and
still
is,
that
it
is
an
architecture
for
cooperation
and
that
a
mistake
that
we
have
made
is
not
to
come
forward
with
institutional
proposals
for
the
annex
to
the
council,
in
which
the
British
representatives
will
explain
to
the
European
Union
before
they
decide
in
the
combined
Council
building.
B
What
is
the
policy
of
the
Union
in
not
just
in
trade
areas
and
economic
areas,
but
in
diplomatic
areas,
in
foreign
policy
and
anti-terrorism,
in
environmental,
anti
environments,
pollution,
global
warming
and
the
wide
range
of
errors?
I'm
sure
we
will
want
to
cooperate
with
them?
We
will
probably
be
their
closest
partner.
We
I
hope
will
want
to
go
on
consulting
them
before
we
vote
in
the
Security
Council,
as
we
do
now
and
well.
B
I
hope
want
to
go
on
sharing
intelligence
with
them
on
terrorism
whatever,
so,
it
seems
to
me
there
is
a
the
positive
proposal
which
we
haven't
made.
It
needs
a
an
architecture.
You
need
to
explain
how
we
see
that
working
and
put
a
proposal
to
them
what
they
could
have
done
that
too,
and
they
haven't
bet,
as
I
said,
they
think
we're
demand.
We've
created
the
problem,
we
need
to
come
up
with
solutions
and
they
don't
know.
C
B
Closely,
we
want
to
work
with
them
anymore,
the
so
we
need
to
say,
I,
think
the
sequencing
decision
that
they
took
was
a
mistake.
I
think
it
was
a
mistake
to
say
sufficient
progress
on
divorce
before
you
even
get
talking
about
the
framework
I
think
it's
legally
defective
because,
as
the
the
article
is
drafted,
as
you
know,
the
divorce
lawyers
have
to
take
account
of
the
framework.
Nobody
has
drafted
a
framework
they
will
have
to.
B
Otherwise
the
divorce
agreement
when
reached
will
be
legally
defective
because
there
will
be
no
frameworks
that
they've
taken
account
of
I.
Think
that
was
a
mistake
on
their
part.
I
think
it
was
also
a
mistake
of
of
Fame
Michel
Barnier
to
secure
the
impressive
unanimity
of
the
27.
Now
by
accepting
ad
interim
everybody's
bid
for
something
that
the
British
should
be
required
to
pay.
So
I
think
there
were
two
negotiating
errors
on
their
part.
B
If
we
had
come
forward
with
our
framework,
if
we
had
our
vision
and
its
architectural
underpinning-
and
we
haven't
done
that
at
all
and
we
still
after
they
Manchester
party
conference,
it
seems
to
me
we
are
still
not
answered
and
not
quite
clear
what
it
is
that
they
that
the
government
want
so
I
think
both
sides
have
made
mistakes.
The
mistakes
that
are
retrievable
but
I
am,
of
course,
I
speak
as
an
old
ex
diplomat
who
saw
their
nays.
Don't
talk
that
I
would
all
have
be
much
better.
In
my.
D
Can
we
follow
that
one
through,
because
I'm
very
understand
to
hear
you
formulate
the
problem
in
the
way
you
have
that
both
the
European
Council
and
the
UK
government
have
made
fundamental
strategic
errors
in
their
approach
to
these
negotiations,
and
you
say:
they're.
Both
retrievable
I'd
be
very
interested
in
your
view
on
on
the
European
side
of
that
equation,
whether
it
is
possible
for
Barney
or
his
team
to
achieve
a
different
approach.
D
Given
they've
made
that
decision
about
sequencing
and
given
that
they've
made
such
a
a
global
bed
for
compensation
so
to
speak
in
in
terms
of
the
financial
settlement.
I
wonder
what
the
European
Council
or
the
member
states
can
I
do
to
retrieve
the
position
and
create
a
realistic
basis
for
concluding
the
stage
of
the
negotiation.
Well,
they.
B
B
We
need
to
remember
that
we
are
not
the
big
show
in
town,
Merkel
and
Shultz
debated
for
90
minutes.
Britain
wasn't
mentioned,
prexy
wasn't
mentioned,
macron
went
over
to
this
all
bomb
and
spoke
for
90
minutes,
much
of
it
about
the
future
of
Europe
Britain
got
mentioned
in
one
sentence
when
he
was
describing
his
his
concept
of
a
future
Europe
of
inner
and
outer
circles.
B
He
said
Robin
touchingly
that
maybe
the
British
might
find
a
place
in
the
outer
circle
one
day.
If
they
change
their
lines,
they
the
things
that
they
want
to
talk
about
in
the
European
Council
are
Trump
poaching,
possibly
now
Catalonia
Poland,
which
is
a
very
big
issue,
with
the
possibility
of
article
7,
which
is
action
against
a
member
state
that
is
not
observing
the
values
of
of
the
European
Union.
B
The
banking
system
issues
the
possibility
of
the
Germans
accepting
some
of
macrons
ideas
for
further
integration
in
the
eurozone
and
eurozone
governance.
These
are
the
big
issues.
The
hired
gun
Barney
has
been
sent
away
to
deal
with
a
difficult
British.
They
are
not
expecting
most
of
I
say
they
I
would
guess.
Most
heads
of
government
are
not
expecting
that
the
October
European
Council
is
going
to
do
any
business
on
the
brexit
at
all,
because
their
ambassadors
have
reported
to
them
that
the
British
still
can't
make
up
their
minds.
B
B
B
B
Gdp
is
lower
than
that
of
any
other
member
state,
so
it
seems
to
me
that
the
Ukraine
is
unlikely
to
be
easily
applicable
to
the
United
Kingdom,
but
it
is
a
partial
membership
of
the
single
market.
He
does
give
them
things
like
the
banking
passport,
things
that
are
important
to
the
city.
So
it's
a
model
that
perhaps
we
ought
to
think
about.
There
is
the
Swiss
Maud
war,
which
some
in
the
City
of
London
think
might
be.
The
answer.
The
Swiss
model
is
a
hundred
thirty
one
separate
sectoral
agreements.
B
Until
we
can
say
what
it
is
we
want,
and
I
am
sorry
that
we
are
spending
so
much
time
now
talking
about
the
transition
and
I'm,
sorry
to
say,
cheering
and
the
idea
of
a
two-year
transition,
a
transition,
as
discussed
so
far
by
the
British,
isn't
a
transition
at
all.
We
don't
know
where
we're
going.
We
don't
know
where
the
other
pillar
of
the
bridge
is.
We
don't
know
where
we're
landing,
so
we
can't
build
a
bridge
to
it.
B
It
is
not
a
transition
or
is
it
an
implementation
period
because
there
will
be
nothing
to
implement
in
the
interim,
it
is
a
deferral
period.
A
stay
of
execution.
The
cliff
edge
is
still
there.
It
just
comes
two
years
later,
so
if
it's
a
that
eases,
if
it
is
a
transition,
a
la
Philip
Hammond,
if
he
has
won
his
battle
with
Johnson-
and
it
is
a
status
curtains
that
is
reasonably
easy
to
negotiate.
The
European
Union
I
can
see
that
being
done
perfectly
well
within
the
two-year
period.
B
What's
not
to
like
from
their
point
of
view
here
of
the
Brits
saying:
okay,
they
give
up
their
judge,
they
give
up
their
seat
in
the
council.
They
give
up
their
seats
in
the
parliament,
they
give
up
their
commissioner,
but
they
agree
to
follow
all
in
European
Union
laws
and
accept
the
Court
of
Justice
rulings.
B
Fine,
we
don't
have
these
difficult
prints
with
their
ghastly
ambassadors
in
repair
finicky
in
the
detail.
We
we
just
tell
them
what
they
do
and
they
do
it.
Fine.
Why
not,
and
the
possibility
of
that
is
laid
down
in
the
29
April
European
Council
guidelines
text,
where
they
spell
out
very
clearly
that
an
extent,
an
extension
of
the
a
key
as
possible,
should
a
time-limited,
Paulo
Gatien
of
Union
a
key
be
considered
I'm
quoting.
This
would
require
existing
Union
regulatory,
budgetary,
Supervisory,
judiciary
and
enforcement
instruments
and
structures
to
apply.
B
If
we
accept
that,
then
a
two-year
transition
is
absolutely
not
a
problem
and
one
could
envisage
without
a
framework
without
knowing
where
we're
going,
that
we
could
still
agree
that
don't
call
it.
Transition,
though,
is
merely
deferring
the
cliff
heads.
It's.
The
prisoner
is
not
going
to
be
executed
next
week.
B
But
that
flies
in
the
face
of
a
position
which
the
you
will
stick
to
and
then
this
weekend
in
manchester
we've
had
the
immigration
minister
saying
that,
although
the
immigration
bill
is
delayed,
don't
worry,
we
will
have
put
an
end
to
free
movement
of
persons
on
the
29th
of
March
2019.
But
if
you're
in
a
status
quo
transition,
you
cannot
put
an
end
to
free
movement
of
persons.
I
have
to
continue.
B
Well,
I
think
it's
quite
likely
I
think
I
used
to
try
to
produce
spurious
percentages
which
some
people
take
seriously
I
think
it's!
It's
almost
50/50
I
think
that
the
government
has
raised
expectations
in
this
country
unrealistically
I
think
when
David
Davis
says-
and
he
goes
on
saying-
we
will
enjoy
the
exact
same
benefits
as
we
did
when
we
were
members
of
the
single
market
in
the
customs
union.
I
think
Barney
is
quite
right
to
say,
that's
impossible.
Mrs.
Merkel
is
quite
right
to
say
that
it's
not
it's
not
feasible.
At
some
stage.
B
The
penny
is
going
to
draw
you
some
safety.
Now
March
2019.
It
is
going
to
become
clear
that
Johnson
roaring,
like
a
lion,
isn't
actually
delivering
anything
in
Brussels
and
that
what
we
were
told
in
the
referendum
campaign
and
since
about
how
we
would
be
able
to
have
our
cake
and
eat
it
isn't
proving
to
be
the
case
and
I.
Think
the
longer
that
moment
is
of
the
penny.
Dropping
is
deferred.
B
The
bigger
the
disappointment
and
feeling
of
being
laid
down
in
this
country,
of
course,
will
be
blamed
on
the
evil
foreigners
who
have
not
given
us
what
we
want,
and
nobody
in
Britain,
except
this
committee
and
me
are
familiar
with
the
European
Union's
agreed
position
of
27.
I.
Think
also
that
on
the
money,
as
I
said,
the
EU
made
a
mistake
or
robinmichel
Bonnie
I
think
made
a
mistake.
B
There
he's
a
good
negotiator
in
aggregating
everybody's
bit
because
there
are
going
to
be
diminished
expectations
on
that
side
too,
and
for
some,
like
the
polls
that
will
be
painful,
I
mean
the
the
the
answer
is
not
going
to
be
our
twenty,
but
nor
is
it
going
to
be
their
hundred
million
billion
they
it's
it
comes
somewhere
in
between,
so
there
is
going
to
be
disappointments
over
among
them.
The
member
states
as
well
I
I
think
that
the
I
think
that
a
hard
brexit
deferred
by
two
years
is
now
quite
a
high
possibility.
B
B
B
It
seems
to
me
that,
but
though
I
as
you
may
have
guessed,
I
was
a
fairly
keen
remainer.
It
seems
to
me
that
public
opinion
in
this
country
might
actually
move
as
it,
even
though
most
of
the
economic
effects
of
brexit
will
not
be
felt
till
after
Brixton.
It
will
be
clear
that
something
has
gone
wrong.
That
isn't.
This
isn't
quite
what
mr.
Johnson,
the
Mr
Gove
and
mr.
Fox
told
us
was
going
to
be
what.
E
Would
happen,
we
not
care
that
you
think
the
50-50
calculation
would
be
retrievable
to
usual
and
word
from
earlier
on
is
if
the
UK
government
sets
out
its
positioned
as
to
what
at
what
kind
of
model
it
wants
for
a
future
relationship
between
a
UK,
that's
left
and
the
EU,
and
are
still
in
pretty
short
order.
Well,
I.
B
Think
you
should
do,
but
of
course
whoever
it
doesn't
need.
Good
depends
what
it
says
if
it
goes
back
to
the
Party
conference
speech
and
her
consistent
line
ever
since
that
the
ECJ
must
have
no
sway
in
the
United
Kingdom
after
March
2019,
then
it's
not
going
to
do
much
good.
They
I
mean
that
has
led
to
all
sorts
of
very
strange
contortions.
The
only
reason
we
have
to
leave
your
atom
is
because
the
ECJ
has
a
supervisory
role
of
atomism
they're.
All
in
my
view
very
odd.
B
E
Which
time
the
enforce
has
to
resign?
You
know
a
final
question.
If
I
may
convene
on
money,
we've
gathered
as
a
committee
that
the
real
issue
and
money
is
member
states
either
having
to
pay
more
into
the
overall
EU
budget,
all
or
conversely,
some
who
will
lose
even
even
more
if
that
bit
were
solved
by
David
Davis
coming
up
with
an
offer
that
we
all
started
to
understand
next
week
and
therefore
the
money
issue.
At
least
there
was
a
direction
of
travel
on
money.
B
Yes,
I
mean
I
I.
I
imagine
that
mr.
Davis
will
spell
out
and
I
hope
on
paper
with
numbers
what
she
meant
influence
by
saying
that
nobody
was
going
to
be
out
of
pocket
for
them
for
two
years.
I
I
don't
think
that
cracks.
It
I
think
it
starts
a
process,
but
the
the
the
r-la
is
a
big
bill,
it's
much
bigger
than
than
20
billion,
and
it
runs
some
of
it
projects
in
member
states
building
of
roads,
whatever
railway
lines.
B
B
What
worries
me
is
if,
if
the
solving
of
the
money
dossier
and
paying
quite
a
lot,
coincides
with
the
realization
that
we
can't
get
our
have
our
take
in
Egypt,
we
can't
cherry
pick
the
a
key
there
could
be
in
this
inside
the
Conservative
Party.
That
could
be
the
short
fuse
territory
and
anything
could
happen.
F
Madame,
thank
you,
I'm.
Quite
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
hide
you've
all
answered
already.
It
was
just
so
pretty
we're
doing
the
transitional
arrangements
which
you've
discussed,
and
you
said
a
little
bit
about
this-
of
the
political
decision-making
within
the
EU.
Over
that
transitional
period.
I
saw
just
to
clarify
the
UK,
wouldn't
have
amiable
in
the
any
political
decision-making
with
the
EU
during
that
transition
time,
but.
B
The
transition
as
on
everybody's
definition
follows
departure:
it's
not
a
transition
to
departure,
so
we
would
leave
the
European
Union
in
March
2019
and
we
would
elect
no
any
piece
to
the
European
Parliament
in
May
2019
and
from
the
1st
of
April
2019.
We
would
have
no
representatives
in
the
council
and
our
Commissioner
mister.
B
B
We
get
please
all
the
various
privileges
that
you
have
seen
you
did
secure
in
the
past
when
you
were
a
member
should
be
recreated
for
you
up
to
March
2019.
We
are
full
members
of
the
European,
Union
and
I
think
we
should
behave
as
full
members
and
I'm
I.
Think
we
made
a
mistake
in
self
isolating
I.
We
should
have
gone
to
the
big
anniversary
summit
in
March
in
Rome
I.
Think
mr.
B
Johnson
is
wrong
to
stay
away
from
the
European
Council,
what
he
thinks
from
the
Foreign
Affairs
Council
when
he
thinks
it's
going
to
be
critical
of
the
Americans
I
think
these
are
mistakes.
I
think
we
should
be
in
there
playing
on
every
dossier
instead
of
which
we
are
concentrating
on
there,
the
brexit
dossier
and
standing
away
from
our
parlors,
which
is
as
a
minimum,
bad
diplomacy
and
I,
think
up
to
March
2019.
We
should
behave
as
full
members.
B
F
At
us
on,
you
spoke
earlier
about
the
movement
and
certain
areas
in
terms
of
some
of
the
negotiations
and
in
terms
of
EU
citizens,
rights,
I,
think
they're.
Still,
one
of
the
the
main
stumbling
blocks
seems
to
be
well.
Will
that
be
answerable
to
the
European
Court
of
Justice
and
and
what
that
all
will
be
there?
How
likely
do
you
think
that
that
is
that
there
will
be
some
movement
on
that
and
what
other
alternatives
would
you
see
as
being
really
feasible
and
that
could
satisfy
both
parties
in
terms
of
the
negotiations?
I'm.
B
Not
a
lawyer,
so
this
is
not
an
area
I'm
particularly
good
at
I
thought
that
they
they
offer
we
made
on
citizens.
Rights
was
much
the
most
the
much
the
best
of
the
papers
that
we
have
put
forward
either.
It
was
a
perfectly
reasonable
offer
and
it
contained
real
content
where
some
of
them
I
I,
think
the
the
27
are
over
bidding
when
they
say
that
the
rights
of
non
UK,
EU
citizens
resident
in
Britain
after
we've
left,
must
forever
be
protected
by
the
European
Court
of
Justice.
B
That
seems
to
me
to
be
odd
that
the
ECJ
should
have
sway
in
a
non-member
state
in
disputes
between
people
who
live
in
that
country
at
their
government
argument.
So
I
think
that's
an
over
bid.
I
think
some
kind
of
hybrid
is
a
more
likely
solution.
Some
hybrid
judicial
structure
or
possibly
the
solution
being
talked
about
now
of
embedding
the
rights
of
EU
citizens
in
this
country
in
the
withdrawal
treaty
and
thus
writing
it
into
British
law.
I.
Don't
know
whether
that
but
I
think
these
these
gaps
are
bridgeable.
I.
B
B
I
think
that
either
he
has
rights
derived
from
the
treaty,
in
which
case
they
apply
wherever
he's
resident
or
the
or
he
doesn't,
but
to
say
he
has
rights
derive
from
the
treaty,
but
only
apply
in
the
country
in
which
he
happened
to
be
resident.
At
the
moment,
the
British
left
seems
to
be
a
bit
on
so
I
I
think
that's
that
one's
doable
I
worry
much
more
about
the
the
Irish
dossier
and
the
lack
of
progress
on
that
one,
which
seems
to
me
to
be
a
complete
lack
of
progress.
D
You
very
much
Kerry,
you
said
very
clearly
in
response
to
montego's
Jones.
First
question
that
will
be
a
straightforward
matter
to
withdraw
the
article
50
letter.
Article
50
doesn't
contain
any
reference
to
how
it
might
be
withdrawn.
Could
you
explain
briefly
what
the
basis
is
for
your
certainty
or
not
matter?
The.
B
Legal
advice
I
got
while
drafting
the
article.
There
would
have
been
a
six
sub
clause
if
I
hadn't
been
assured
that
there
was
no
deed
to
do
it.
If,
if
he
doesn't
say
that
you
can't
withdraw
your
letter,
then
you
can
withdraw
your
letter.
That
was
a
legal
advice.
I
had
and
and
I'm
sure
it's
right
and
it
has
been
confirmed
by
tiss-you
Merkel
macro.
You
know
it
is
the
case
that
if
the
United
Kingdom
turned
up
at
a
European,
Council
and
said,
listen
is
all
very
embarrassing.
B
We
wasted
your
time,
but
actually
we've
changed
our
mind.
People
might
under
their
breath
say:
oh,
my
god,
these
British,
but
actually
they
would
be
rather
welcoming.
They
don't
particularly
want
us
to
go
they.
They
don't
think
they
can
interfere
in
our
internal
affairs
and
therefore
they
are
not
going
to
campaign
for
us
not
to
go.
But
if
we
were
to
decide
that
we
were
what
that
would
be
welcome.
There
is
legal
dispute
you're
quite
right.
There
are
some
who
say
that
it's
an
irrevocable
act,
sending
in
an
article
50
letter.
B
They
are
I
assure
you
wrong,
but
one
of
them
could
take
a
case
in
the
ECJ
could
say:
hey
hang
on,
they
can't
do
that.
Can
they
I
think
we
know
the
outcome.
Supposing
there
has
been
a
European
Council
on
the
British
have
said
we'd
like
to
stay
the
European
Council
has,
as
it
would
unanimously
said,
thank
God
for
that.
The
case
is
then
brought
couple
of
months
later
in
two
years
later,
it
actually
gets
to
the
court
of
justice
about
whether
the
British
within
their
legal
rights
are
doing
their.
It's
got.
A
B
B
And
I
I
would
speculate
that
Juarez
Parliament
will
spend
the
next
six
months
debating
the
withdrawal
bill
and
amending
the
withdrawal
bill
and
it
will
be
amended,
but
in
the
end
it
will
carry.
It
will
be
amended,
I
believe
in
a
number
of
respects,
including
the
the
area
most
important
to
this
Parliament
I
think
I
think
there
will
have
to
be
changes
made
and
they
will
be
made.
Some
of
the
amendments
that
are
down
in
the
order
paper
in
the
House
of
Commons
have
12
conservative
names
on
them.
B
B
These
amendments
were
struck
out
in
the
House
of
Commons
last
time
they
would
not
be
struck
her
allowance
of
Collins
that
was
elected
in
this
year's
election.
So
there
are,
there
will
be
changes
to
the
withdraw,
but
that's
what
we'll
be
doing
and
the
country
will
not
pay
much
attention
to.
They
have
the
Daily
Mail
will
say
we're
trying
to
obstruct
brexit.
B
It
seems
to
me
that
they
there
are
sufficient
hardline
brexit
ears
to
make
it
very
difficult
for
the
Minister
to
compromise
sufficiently
to
get
a
deal
in
Brussels,
and
if
she
does,
these
people
may
vote
down
her
deal.
There
is
certainly
a
majority
against
no
deal
every
day.
No
well,
not
every,
but
a
large
majority
in
both
houses
now
agree
that.
B
No
deal
is
better
than
a
bad
deal
was
a
was
wrong,
but
actually
the
chaos
of
no
deal
would
be
very
bad.
So
I
can
see
a
situation
in
November
December
when
the
outlines
of
the
deal
or
no
deal
are
becoming
clear,
November
December
next
year,
and
there
will
be
a
requirement
for
a
a
parliamentary
vote.
Either's
it's
no
deal
because
that
amendment
will
have
carried
to
the
withdrawal
bill
they
sought
at
that
stage.
I
think
we
could
be
quite
close
to
an
election.
A
G
Kerr
got
a
number
of
questions
for
you
and
Barney
was
very
positive
about
the
Prime
Minister's
Florence
speech,
and
he
also
stated
that
the
talks
were
useful
and,
after
the
fourth
round
of
talks
on
Ireland,
for
example,
he
said
that
they'd
had
a
constructive
discussion
and
made
progress.
What
makes
you
disagree
with
Michel
Barnier
I,
never.
B
Disagreed
Michel
Barney.
He
was
in
my
conventional
and
he's
a
very
good
diplomat,
better
diplomat
than
me
and
probably
be
more
polite
than
and
I
am
the
remarks
you
quoted
on
Ireland
I
I
think
he
was
talking
about
the
discussions
of
ways
of
making
sure
that
the
Good
Friday
Agreement
is
not
damaged
by
brexit
and
I.
Believe
there
has
been
progress
made
on
that,
but
the
big
issue
of
Ireland
is
the
is
the
frontier
and
there
are
two
kinds
of
frontier
the
frontier
and
persons.
B
C
B
The
converse
applies
to
goods
and
services,
the
customs
frontier.
We
can
say
as
much
as
we
like
that
we
don't
mind
what
comes
in
from
Ireland.
We
don't
want
to
check
it.
The
frontier
across
our
land
will
be
the
external
frontier
of
the
European
Union,
and
it
is
not
down
to
the
Irish
to
say
what
is
there.
B
They
don't
have
necessary
to
be
stopped
at
the
frontier.
They
might
be
stopped
couple
of
miles
down
the
road
and
the
cameras
on
the
functional,
but
there
is
no
technological
fix
to
the
need
for
the
external
frontier
to
be
a
frontier
where
the
declarations
that
have
been
made
are
checked
against
the
goods
in
the
truck.
B
If
you
go
to
Niagara
and
look
at
the
Canadian
US
frontier
or
you
go
to
the
Swedish
Finnish
frontier
Swedish,
Norwegian
frontier,
you
find
yes,
the
lorries
are
stopped,
not
all
the
lorries
but
sufficient
of
the
lorries
to
satisfy
that
committee
in
Brussels
and
for
the
Polish
member
or
the
Hungarian
member
of
a
French
member
of
that
committee.
There
is
no
particular
incentive
to
be
nice
to
the
Irish.
This
isn't
what
mr.
varactor
wants,
but
what
he
wants
is
his
he's
he's
only
one
voice
in
27
who
will
decide
this.
B
We
can't
decide
this
when
the
prime
minister
says,
as
mrs.
Villiers
said
during
the
referendum
campaign
as
mr.
brach
and
Cha
goes
on,
saying
there
will
not
be
a
hard
frontier
and
nothing
will
change
at
the
frontier
there.
That
could
only
be
true
if
we
remain
in
the
customs
union.
If
we
leave
the
customs
union,
it
can't
be
true.
G
Very,
very
quick,
okay,
I
just
as
well.
Okay
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
a
comment
that
you
made
earlier.
You
mentioned
about
Barney
A's,
negotiating
error
and
by
pressing
the
views
of
the
eu-27,
I
just
wondered
when
we
went
out
to
Brussels
and
we
met
deadly
Isis,
he
seemed
to
be
encouraging
a
unified
position
from
the
eu-27.
Well
and
I
was
just
wondering.
First
of
all,
can
you
clarify
that
position
about
the
oppressing
impression?
B
Banya
is
the
agent
of
the
of
the
27
he's
bound
by
his
mandate.
He
can't
move
unless
his
mandate
changes.
He
could
ask
for
his
mandate
to
change.
My
view
is
he's
unlikely
to
ask
for
his
mandate
change
at
this
European
Council
permit
because
they
have
told
him
they
don't
want
him
to
do
that.
Anthony
can
report
sufficient
progress
and
I
doubt.
B
That's
a
mini
version
of
what
I
think
we're
doing.
Well,
we
have
told
the
country
this
country,
nothing
is
going
to
change.
Don't
worry,
we'll
get
you
a
deal
with
the
European
Union,
which
means
we
get
the
best
of
all
all
worlds
and
we
are
going
to
discover
that
that
is
not
the
case,
and
that
is
godly
difficult.
The
government
at
that
point
and
I
think
it
would
have
been
better
and
would
still
be
better
to
start
making
clear
that
there
are
things
that
we
can't
deliver.
B
I
think
that
that
was
my
criticism
of
the
EU,
but
the
impressive
Solidarity
of
the
EU
and
the
way
that
British
attempts
to
get
round
behind
and
negotiate
bilaterally,
particularly
with
Berlin,
have
completely
failed.
That
is
it's
a
lesson
for
us.
I
mean
we
are.
We
have
puzzle,
people
we've
insulted
people
have
been,
and
they
are
a
bit
bored
of
us
and
a
bit
baffled
by
us
and
they
think
they
have
other
things
to.
A
A
H
You
Keith,
you
know
what
care
a
few
months
ago.
You
spoke
about
the
EU
after,
although
there
aren't
potential
amendments-
and
you
indicated
four
amendments
with
that
effect
upon
that,
we
as
a
parliament
that
person
of
interest-
and
can
you
expand
father
on
on
that?
What,
when
your
deal,
that
Cove
ensign
and
and
why
it's
so
important
for
this
Parliament?
Yes,.
B
Legislate
on
the
environmental
protection
once
withdrawal
bill,
this
law
will
be
affected
by
how
many
of
the
powers
in
relation
to
the
environment
that
are
taken
back
by
the
center
are
subsequently
amended
by
the
center
declared
to
be
defective
in
the
language
of
the
bill.
These
deficiencies
require
them
to
change
them
and
by
statutory
instrument,
and
how
many
of
given
back
to
you
and
at
what
stage
they
give
them
back
to
you
what
stage
in
what
is
a
two-year
process
according
to
the
bill.
B
Now
that
seems
to
me
as
an
amateur
to
fly
in
the
face
of
the
devolution
settlement
and
the
division
by
topics
reserved
subjects
have
everything
else
devolved
to
you
if
they
are
now
saying
if
the
UK
government
is
saying
that
an
area
is
like
fish
and
agriculture,
whatever
it
needs
to
retain
powers
for
a
period
and
might
need
to
change
paths
for
a
period,
then
I
think
the
idea
that
devolve
blocks
of
subjects
like
agriculture
or
Environment
Protection.
That
concept
has
for
the
first
time
been
program.
In
my
view.
I
And
Lord
care
you
mentioned
the
potential
disappointment
of
some
of
the
youto
is
seven
because
of
the
way
their
possessions
been
constructed,
which
takes
us
to
the
issue
of
ratification.
A
lot
of
the
discussion
around
any
potential
drama
at
ratification
point
has
focused
on
the
role
of
the
European
Parliament.
Do
you
think
it's
more
likely
that
it
would
be
with
seven
to
twenty
seven?
And
you
mentioned
the
Ukraine
deal
previously-
that
was
almost
derailed
by
referendum
in
the
Netherlands?
I
B
I
think
that
if
there
is
a
deal
between
the
European
Council
and
the
British
do
continue
in
the
British
circuit,
European,
Council
level,
I
believe
the
Parliament
would
be
likely
to
approve
it.
I
think
it
might
drum
below
beige.
It
might
have
a
bit
of
a
tantrum,
but
I
think
it
will
approve
it,
because
every
day
is
aware
of
the
cliff
edge.
If
there's
no
legal
agreement
at
all
is
dreadful.
B
Yes,
I
agree
with
you
that
the
long
term
relationship
would
be
I
hope
would
be
subject
to
national
ratification.
The
divorce
agreement
under
article
50
is
not
subject
to
national
ratification.
It's
qualified
majority
in
the
Council,
but
you
can't
do
a
long-term
arrangement
on
the
legal
basis
of
article
15.
You
need
to
go
to
treaty
basis
where
unanimity
is
required
at
national
ratification
is
required
if
you
are
going
with
even
as
wide
as
the
Canadian
agreement,
which
ran
into
trouble
in
the
Wallonia
in
Parliament
or
I
hope
we
would
be
a
lot
wider
than
that.
B
B
Poland
is
unhappy
about
the
way
we
propose
to
treat
Polish
citizens
living
in
this
country,
and
there
are
a
lot
of
living
in
this
country.
Poland
is
unhappy
that
the
country
that
it
thought
was
EBEs
for
closest
friend
and
patron
in
the
your
opinion.
That
was
at
the
time
when
I
was
on
the
red
cent
of
the
strongest
advocate
of
Polish
admission
to
the
European.
B
Union
has
turned
out
to
resent
paying
structural
fund
money
to
Poland
and
turned
out
to
resent
having
Polish
people
in
offices
how
they,
the
policy,
so
I
would
expect
bitterness
in
Poland
to
be
the
to
some
extent
elsewhere
in
Eastern
Europe,
but
that's
particularly
in
Poland
to
be
the
trade,
the
greatest
risk
that
gratification
time,
but
a
lot
may
have
changed
by
then.
If
they,
the
permanent
deal,
requires
many
years
of
negotiation,
so
ratification
probably
doesn't
come
around
2030.