Rorschach
Ricky Villa
That's just trolling I suspect
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
One of those workshy layabouts that we can get off the dole and into work, picking fruit:
https://www.theguardian.com/society...e-for-telling-seriously-ill-man-to-find-a-job
https://www.theguardian.com/society...e-for-telling-seriously-ill-man-to-find-a-job
I'm guessing the DWP just assumes all of Liverpool is on the blag as they'll almost never be wrong that way.
It's basically how the DWP/Government/Right-Wing Press view the entire country. Cheered on by gammon faced qunts who are making this country worse and worse for anybody poor/disabled or generally in need of a bit of help.
The cost of looking into every single Scouse claim for benefits would ruin the country. We have to assume scousers are on the rob/blag or the system would collapse
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Under Blair or Camron I don't think we would be in quite the same mess with brexit. May is keeping the conversative party together over and above addressing Brexit. She's expert at reacting to what people don't like, but woeful at articulating a vision - even a difficult to sell one - and sticking to it. Instead there is endless compromise which, as Blair says, kicks the can down the road, and leaves the UK in limbo. We need strong leadership and vision. someone who can explain to people what needs to be done and our viable options. Instead we're being tied into ever diminishing comprmises that leave the UK on hold.
This is what our former Prime Minister believes:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/05/brexit-closure-theresa-may-deal-eu
Those campaigning against the madness of our current predicament should not lose heart. This battle can still be won. In the past weeks, the mood on Brexit has shifted. Much of the public, through a somewhat paradoxical mix of boredom and alarm, have had enough. They want parliament to “get on with it” – no more delay and debate. They demand a decision. For some, even the calamity of no deal or the prospect of jeopardising the Good Friday agreement holds no force.
Never mind the detail. Just get it done.
This is helping the prime minister to win over Tory MPs, stoking the numbers of Labour MPs who, through old left anti-EU ideology or “the will of the people”, will vote with her; and putting those supporting alternatives, including a fresh referendum, on the defensive.
Brexit? When the phrase “meaningful vote” was coined precisely so that parliament, when it took a final decision on the deal, would know not only the terms of withdrawal but the shape of the future trading framework? When people excoriated the notion that we would leave without knowing where we were going?
What once was a vice is now a virtue. The political declaration in the withdrawal agreement is vague to the point of comedy. It leaves completely open whether we go in the direction of Norway, and soft Brexit, or Canada, and hard Brexit.
But now this is apparently an advantage. Tories who passionately want soft Brexit, and those who, equally passionately, want hard, cheerfully collaborate in arguing for a Brexit “without prejudice to the future relationship” and for a longer transition period.
Labour MPs who want Brexit with a permanent customs union happily vote with the prime minister, who has expressly rejected one.
It’s almost as if the difference between soft and hard were a mere bagatelle, a slight nuance, easily resolvable in a civilised discussion between friends.
The reality is that the difference between soft and hard is vast and measured in consequence for jobs, living standards, investment, indeed our economic future as a country.
It is the root of the entire Brexit campaign.
If we stay in the single market and customs union, then the huge interconnection of commercial arrangements that have grown up around 45 years of European membership will remain; but under the European rules.
If by contrast we pull out of them, then the economic disruption as business adjusts to losing the privileged access to a market whose rules govern 60% of our trade, will be large.
It is why the disagreement over Brexit is so intense.
It is why the negotiation with Europe was never a conventional negotiation; at core it was a choice – hard or soft. “Cake and eat it” was never achievable. No choice; no closure. Postpone the choice; and you postpone the closure.
May is selling her deal based on what cannot be true – that if we agree it, the argument about Europe will end. It won’t. It will just take new form. She herself knows this. It is why she tried to bring clarity with the now defunct Chequers proposal. It was heavily disguised clarity but even then, it provoked resignation and crisis. So she retreated into full ambiguity.
She has an alliance in parliament of three factions: Brexiteers, who hate the deal but think they can win the subsequent fight; those for whom the June 2016 result has become a divine instruction; and the quiet-lifers.
None of them believes her deal is good. No one believes it is good. Its sole selling point is that it ends the agony. But, without clarity as to the future relationship, it doesn’t.
Against May’s alliance should come a different one: those MPs, whatever their Brexit opinion, who recognise we need to know the destination of the train before we get on it and depart the station; especially when in time we will come to a fork in the track leading in diametrically opposite directions, with a driver who doesn’t know which we should take, several would-be drivers in the cab trying to wrest the controls and no way back to the station.
No amount of time will change the choice. Either we choose soft or hard, or decide to go back to the people. Any extension of article 50 should be mandated with a clear plan to make the choice, before we take the irrevocable step of leaving. MPs should explain frankly to the country that leaving without deciding will not bring closure but more chaos.
As every day passes, we are doing damage to Britain. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: economic confidence inside and outside the country is corroding; and our reputation as the nation of “common sense” is being severely undermined. The country gets this. So rightly it wants closure. Imagine its anger when, this time next year, we’re having the same debates but this time without the possibility of thinking again about the journey.
I am opposed to Brexit. But we need to end the argument. Only decisiveness, before leaving, will do it. A responsible government would facilitate it. A responsible opposition would advocate it. But if they don’t, parliament should insist upon it.
This is what our former Prime Minister believes:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/05/brexit-closure-theresa-may-deal-eu
Those campaigning against the madness of our current predicament should not lose heart. This battle can still be won. In the past weeks, the mood on Brexit has shifted. Much of the public, through a somewhat paradoxical mix of boredom and alarm, have had enough. They want parliament to “get on with it” – no more delay and debate. They demand a decision. For some, even the calamity of no deal or the prospect of jeopardising the Good Friday agreement holds no force.
Never mind the detail. Just get it done.
This is helping the prime minister to win over Tory MPs, stoking the numbers of Labour MPs who, through old left anti-EU ideology or “the will of the people”, will vote with her; and putting those supporting alternatives, including a fresh referendum, on the defensive.
Brexit? When the phrase “meaningful vote” was coined precisely so that parliament, when it took a final decision on the deal, would know not only the terms of withdrawal but the shape of the future trading framework? When people excoriated the notion that we would leave without knowing where we were going?
What once was a vice is now a virtue. The political declaration in the withdrawal agreement is vague to the point of comedy. It leaves completely open whether we go in the direction of Norway, and soft Brexit, or Canada, and hard Brexit.
But now this is apparently an advantage. Tories who passionately want soft Brexit, and those who, equally passionately, want hard, cheerfully collaborate in arguing for a Brexit “without prejudice to the future relationship” and for a longer transition period.
Labour MPs who want Brexit with a permanent customs union happily vote with the prime minister, who has expressly rejected one.
It’s almost as if the difference between soft and hard were a mere bagatelle, a slight nuance, easily resolvable in a civilised discussion between friends.
The reality is that the difference between soft and hard is vast and measured in consequence for jobs, living standards, investment, indeed our economic future as a country.
It is the root of the entire Brexit campaign.
If we stay in the single market and customs union, then the huge interconnection of commercial arrangements that have grown up around 45 years of European membership will remain; but under the European rules.
If by contrast we pull out of them, then the economic disruption as business adjusts to losing the privileged access to a market whose rules govern 60% of our trade, will be large.
It is why the disagreement over Brexit is so intense.
It is why the negotiation with Europe was never a conventional negotiation; at core it was a choice – hard or soft. “Cake and eat it” was never achievable. No choice; no closure. Postpone the choice; and you postpone the closure.
May is selling her deal based on what cannot be true – that if we agree it, the argument about Europe will end. It won’t. It will just take new form. She herself knows this. It is why she tried to bring clarity with the now defunct Chequers proposal. It was heavily disguised clarity but even then, it provoked resignation and crisis. So she retreated into full ambiguity.
She has an alliance in parliament of three factions: Brexiteers, who hate the deal but think they can win the subsequent fight; those for whom the June 2016 result has become a divine instruction; and the quiet-lifers.
None of them believes her deal is good. No one believes it is good. Its sole selling point is that it ends the agony. But, without clarity as to the future relationship, it doesn’t.
Against May’s alliance should come a different one: those MPs, whatever their Brexit opinion, who recognise we need to know the destination of the train before we get on it and depart the station; especially when in time we will come to a fork in the track leading in diametrically opposite directions, with a driver who doesn’t know which we should take, several would-be drivers in the cab trying to wrest the controls and no way back to the station.
No amount of time will change the choice. Either we choose soft or hard, or decide to go back to the people. Any extension of article 50 should be mandated with a clear plan to make the choice, before we take the irrevocable step of leaving. MPs should explain frankly to the country that leaving without deciding will not bring closure but more chaos.
As every day passes, we are doing damage to Britain. We shouldn’t kid ourselves: economic confidence inside and outside the country is corroding; and our reputation as the nation of “common sense” is being severely undermined. The country gets this. So rightly it wants closure. Imagine its anger when, this time next year, we’re having the same debates but this time without the possibility of thinking again about the journey.
I am opposed to Brexit. But we need to end the argument. Only decisiveness, before leaving, will do it. A responsible government would facilitate it. A responsible opposition would advocate it. But if they don’t, parliament should insist upon it.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
There's no vision in that - it's just knee jerk reactionary. Change is bad, where's my lobby money going to come from etc. Blair's mainly just bitter because he's always wanted Junker's job when he stood down, and that's been taken from him now.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
If a Europhile vision was going to gain any traction here, it would need Macron levels of 'Angela's reign is over, I'm going to take charge now (well, until I lose my job to the facists, because I'm that unpopular domestically)'
And the message would need to be, the EU has become decadent. I'm going to cut its budget by 2/3s, abolish the Commission and Parliament (retaining only the Council), and all elements relating to political and social integration. Basically launch a concerted push for a stripped-down 'FTA-only'/pre-Maastricht EU.
That vision might win over some of the 52%.
And the message would need to be, the EU has become decadent. I'm going to cut its budget by 2/3s, abolish the Commission and Parliament (retaining only the Council), and all elements relating to political and social integration. Basically launch a concerted push for a stripped-down 'FTA-only'/pre-Maastricht EU.
That vision might win over some of the 52%.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Interesting.....
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cuss-emergency-funds-to-offset-no-deal-brexit
Ireland and EU discuss emergency funds to offset no-deal Brexit
Sources say Ireland will be looking for ‘long-term fix’ to offset hit to food industry
Lisa O'Carroll Brexit correspondent
@lisaocarroll
Tue 5 Feb 2019 18.52 GMTLast modified on Tue 5 Feb 2019 21.00 GMT
Ireland taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, is to hold a round of meetings in Brussels on Wednesday. Photograph: RollingNews/Rex/Shutterstock
Ireland is in talks with the EU over a substantial Brexit emergency fund to offset the damage caused to the country’s €4.5bn (£3.96bn) food exports to Britain if the UK crashes out of the bloc with no deal next month.
As Theresa May prepares for a crunch meeting in Brussels on Thursday,officials at the European commission are already looking at continuous compensatory measures for Ireland as part of an ongoing arrangement that could last years.
Contingency funds to compensate farmers have already been discussed at the highest levels and are expected to arise in talks with the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, during a round of meetings in Brussels on Wednesday.
Sources say Ireland will be looking for a “long-term fix” in EU budget talks in April rather than a lump sum Brexitbailout.
Politicians have cited the ongoing assistance given to the Baltic states after Russia banned certain food exports from the EU as an example of financial solidarity it hopes to win in a no-deal Brexit.
Ireland exports €4.5bn worth of food and drink a year to the UK, ranging from beef to cheddar cheese. Calculations by the Department of Agriculture put the cost of tariffs under World Trade Organization rules at €1.7bn.
Michael Creed, Ireland’s minister for agriculture, food and the marine, has said this would be an “existential challenge” for the food and drink sector. He has previously said Ireland would seek “mega-money” from the EU.
The beef industry alone could face increased costs of up to €700m, which the head of the Irish Farmers Association has said has the potential to wipe out beef production in the country.
There are also concerns if Britain flips the other way and adopts a zero-tariffs policy, as this could result in cheaper chicken, beef and lamb from the US and South America displacing both British and Irish cuts from shop shelves.
Creed has already talked of the European commission’s “readiness to respond to that crisis should it develop in the context of a crash out”.
Informed sources say that ongoing assistance over many years will be the preferred option rather than a lump sum in a Brexit “bailout”.
“Flexibility on state aid rules may be one we look for, but any fix is likely to come in the European budget discussions, which start in April, because a no-deal Brexit will have an ongoing impact and will be unpredictable,” said a source referring to the negotiations for the next EU financial cycle of 2020 to 2027.
While Brexit is unprecedented, the assistance given to the Baltic states after Russia banned European food exports has been cited as a model for Ireland.
Exports from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to Russia dropped by €5.8bn since 2014 and are still being supported by the EU.
Creed has said Ireland’s ambition is to “ride out the difficulty” and “retain a foothold” in the UK with early engagement with the European commission in terms of “the need for aid, particularly exceptional aid on the beef side and also exchequer response”.
He added that he would also be looking for “flexibility” in state aid rules to allow the Irish government to intervene.
Sources in the European commission say they have not come to a view yet but “clearly there will be sympathy and understanding”.
A spokesman for the commissioner for agriculture and rural development confirmed they had “explored the ways in which the EU could help Ireland and Irish businesses”.
“There are possibilities under the Common Market Organisation which, for example, were used in response to the Russian ban and the subsequent dairy crisis. There are also possibilities under state aid rules, which have also been discussed.”
Those working on Brexit preparedness at InterTradeIreland, an organisation set up under the Good Friday Agreement to help build cross-border business, say an area of particular concern is the impact a hard Brexit may have on ”micro-businesses” with fewer than 10 people. In Northern Ireland 3,800 micro firms, employing 13,000 people, regularly trade across the border.
They have found 7,500 SMEs north of the border and “double that” south of the border that trade on both sides.
Eight in 10 of micro businesses north of the border export exclusively to Ireland and few have any experience of filling out customs declarations forms or understanding tariff regimes.
“They are the ones most likely to be affected by barriers to market access,” said Kerry Curran, policy research manager, as they are likely to be trading within supply chains and “also have less capacity to absorb the cost” of the extra administrative burden.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...cuss-emergency-funds-to-offset-no-deal-brexit
Ireland and EU discuss emergency funds to offset no-deal Brexit
Sources say Ireland will be looking for ‘long-term fix’ to offset hit to food industry
Lisa O'Carroll Brexit correspondent
@lisaocarroll
Tue 5 Feb 2019 18.52 GMTLast modified on Tue 5 Feb 2019 21.00 GMT
Ireland taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, is to hold a round of meetings in Brussels on Wednesday. Photograph: RollingNews/Rex/Shutterstock
Ireland is in talks with the EU over a substantial Brexit emergency fund to offset the damage caused to the country’s €4.5bn (£3.96bn) food exports to Britain if the UK crashes out of the bloc with no deal next month.
As Theresa May prepares for a crunch meeting in Brussels on Thursday,officials at the European commission are already looking at continuous compensatory measures for Ireland as part of an ongoing arrangement that could last years.
Contingency funds to compensate farmers have already been discussed at the highest levels and are expected to arise in talks with the taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, during a round of meetings in Brussels on Wednesday.
Sources say Ireland will be looking for a “long-term fix” in EU budget talks in April rather than a lump sum Brexitbailout.
Politicians have cited the ongoing assistance given to the Baltic states after Russia banned certain food exports from the EU as an example of financial solidarity it hopes to win in a no-deal Brexit.
Ireland exports €4.5bn worth of food and drink a year to the UK, ranging from beef to cheddar cheese. Calculations by the Department of Agriculture put the cost of tariffs under World Trade Organization rules at €1.7bn.
Michael Creed, Ireland’s minister for agriculture, food and the marine, has said this would be an “existential challenge” for the food and drink sector. He has previously said Ireland would seek “mega-money” from the EU.
The beef industry alone could face increased costs of up to €700m, which the head of the Irish Farmers Association has said has the potential to wipe out beef production in the country.
There are also concerns if Britain flips the other way and adopts a zero-tariffs policy, as this could result in cheaper chicken, beef and lamb from the US and South America displacing both British and Irish cuts from shop shelves.
Creed has already talked of the European commission’s “readiness to respond to that crisis should it develop in the context of a crash out”.
Informed sources say that ongoing assistance over many years will be the preferred option rather than a lump sum in a Brexit “bailout”.
“Flexibility on state aid rules may be one we look for, but any fix is likely to come in the European budget discussions, which start in April, because a no-deal Brexit will have an ongoing impact and will be unpredictable,” said a source referring to the negotiations for the next EU financial cycle of 2020 to 2027.
While Brexit is unprecedented, the assistance given to the Baltic states after Russia banned European food exports has been cited as a model for Ireland.
Exports from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to Russia dropped by €5.8bn since 2014 and are still being supported by the EU.
Creed has said Ireland’s ambition is to “ride out the difficulty” and “retain a foothold” in the UK with early engagement with the European commission in terms of “the need for aid, particularly exceptional aid on the beef side and also exchequer response”.
He added that he would also be looking for “flexibility” in state aid rules to allow the Irish government to intervene.
Sources in the European commission say they have not come to a view yet but “clearly there will be sympathy and understanding”.
A spokesman for the commissioner for agriculture and rural development confirmed they had “explored the ways in which the EU could help Ireland and Irish businesses”.
“There are possibilities under the Common Market Organisation which, for example, were used in response to the Russian ban and the subsequent dairy crisis. There are also possibilities under state aid rules, which have also been discussed.”
Those working on Brexit preparedness at InterTradeIreland, an organisation set up under the Good Friday Agreement to help build cross-border business, say an area of particular concern is the impact a hard Brexit may have on ”micro-businesses” with fewer than 10 people. In Northern Ireland 3,800 micro firms, employing 13,000 people, regularly trade across the border.
They have found 7,500 SMEs north of the border and “double that” south of the border that trade on both sides.
Eight in 10 of micro businesses north of the border export exclusively to Ireland and few have any experience of filling out customs declarations forms or understanding tariff regimes.
“They are the ones most likely to be affected by barriers to market access,” said Kerry Curran, policy research manager, as they are likely to be trading within supply chains and “also have less capacity to absorb the cost” of the extra administrative burden.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
A few weeks ago after May'd deal was rejected in Parliament The Telegraph reported that Philip Hammond amongst other MPs had a teleconference with quite a few CEO/business leaders of bug multinatonals basically telling them that they would make sure that the no-deal Brexit scenario does NOT happen.
It seems only the Telegraph reported this and had a full transcript of the teleconference (which must have been leaked by an attendee).
I haven't got access to a Telegraph account to get behind the paywall, but if anyone has it'd be great (and cheeky i know
) if the full details of the article could be placed here for all to read.
Here are the links:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...business-chiefs-mps-will-stop-no-deal-brexit/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...all-full-transcript-conversation-11-business/
It seems only the Telegraph reported this and had a full transcript of the teleconference (which must have been leaked by an attendee).
I haven't got access to a Telegraph account to get behind the paywall, but if anyone has it'd be great (and cheeky i know
) if the full details of the article could be placed here for all to read.Here are the links:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...business-chiefs-mps-will-stop-no-deal-brexit/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...all-full-transcript-conversation-11-business/
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Exclusive: The Government’s conference call to reassure big business - the full transcript
The Telegraph has obtained a leaked audio recording of a briefing that Philip Hammond gave 330 business leaders during a conference call in the aftermath of Theresa May's historic Brexit defeat on Tuesday.
Log-in or subscribe to read the full transcript, including Mr Hammond's account of how Article 50 could be extended and no deal could be taken "off the table":
Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer
I won't conceal the fact that the scale of the defeat this evening was a disappointment but not entirely a surprise.
I think the important thing is that the Prime Minister has responded to the vote this evening with a clear strategy to move to reach out to opinion across the House of Commons and to commit the Government to listening to the views of others in an attempt to establish what is needed to build a consensus in Parliament that allows us to deliver a negotiated deal.
We have made clear this evening that we will facilitate a confidence vote in the Government. Jeremy Corbyn has duly tabled a vote of no confidence which will be taken tomorrow. We are confident we will win the no-confidence vote. We need to do that in order to establish the Government's credentials as it were to take this forward.
Once the no-confidence vote has been completed the Prime Minister will call senior MPs from across the House and indeed other party leaders and talk to them about their aspirations for a realistic way forward.
We are short of time and we have to be clear that pursuing what we call unicorns - ideas that would involve fundamental renegotiation of the deal we have done with the EU - is not going to work.
The withdrawal agreement will need to remain in place but there is flexibility to look at the terms of the political declaration on the future relationship.
The Government has already indicated that it is willing to accept amendments tabled by Labour members on workers' rights and environmental protections.
The Government is absolutely clear that a negotiated deal is the right way forward to deliver Brexit, honour the referendum result and avoid the very significant political damage and disruption to trust in the political system that would be done if we did not honour the referendum decision.
But to do so in a way that protects our economy, protects jobs and allows us to continue a very close partnership in both security and trade with our European neighbours.
I am going to try to preempt two obvious questions.
Could we extend the Article 50 deadline to give us more time?
The simple answer is that the EU would not consider the request for the extension of the Article 50 deadline unless or until we have a clear plan to go forward.
The sequence has to be first to reach out to opinion across the Commons to establish the terms on which we can build a majority for a way forward in the Commons.
If necessary go back to the EU to agree changes that are necessary to deliver that consensus. And at that time, if more time is going to be required, to negotiate that with the EU.
The second question is whether we can somehow take the option of no deal off the table.
Everyone on the call will be aware that a bill has been tabled today and amendments will be tabled on Monday by backbenchers from across the House which would have the effect of removing the threat of no deal.
I can simply as a parliamentarian say it is clear to me there is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no deal in any circumstances.
Stephen Barclay, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
I very much agree with the analysis that Philip has set out. In terms of the confidence vote both the DUP and ERG have said that they will be supporting the Government in that confidence vote.
There will be a very active programme now of reaching out to parliamentarians and EU leaders in the coming days.
What we saw tonight is what Parliament is against.
But that was very much a coalition of people that do not agree. One of the issues we will need to test in coming days is what Parliamentarians are for as opposed to what they oppose.
In terms of no deal, clearly there is a lot of uncertainty at present. Whatever deal is agreed by Parliament will still need to have a withdrawal agreement and a backstop and will also need to be ratified.
That is why Cabinet took the decision in terms of the no deal preparations that as a responsible Government we need to prepare, even though that is not where anyone wants to be.
We are working in coming days to get a clearer sense from leaders across the House, and also in terms of how that will inform the next phase and what reassurance we could give to Parliament in terms of how we would work with them as we flesh out the political declaration.
Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Perhaps I can start by saying to everyone on the line thank you for all the evidence and work you have done, especially contacting local MPs over the last few weeks as to what the reality you face is.
I am sure it is frustrating that not everyone has changed their minds accordingly, but I don't think that is wasted. I think in the days ahead your needs and the way you have communicated them will continue to be influential.
The second thing is that all of us completely understand the seriousness and urgency of the situations that you face.
The 29th March is a few weeks away. I know by talking to many of you who have already had to make decisions at the expense of more productive uses of the funds you have.
Our purpose in the next few days is essentially to reflect all the things you have told us. First that we can't have no deal, for all the reasons you set out completely consistently.
Secondly we need to achieve a deal that allows us at least as close a trading relationship with the rest of the EU as in the agreement that has been negotiated. That is vital.
The third is that we need to come to a conclusion quickly. This can't go on much longer. As Philip said it is evident that whatever the numbers tonight that was the first vote.
A lot of people had made prior commitments. But there is a very clear majority in the house not to have no deal, to have a relationship with the EU that will allow you to trade and prosper in future, and to bring this to a conclusion quickly.
The exercise and the commitment the Prime Minister made is to establish that, go beyond the Government and the Conservative Party and to put that group together and come back with a deal does work.
Jurgen Maier, chief executive of Siemens UK
Thank you very much for taking the time to give us this briefing. It is really, really important because I'm sure I'll be speaking for quite a few of us our international boards are expecting an update from us this evening who are obviously watching these events closer than they have ever been.
We obviously share your disappointment in the scale of the defeat this evening.
As you know we at Siemens are very much behind the withdrawal agreement, [and] can't for the life of us understand why [this] got such a heavy defeat. But we are where we are.
The two questions I have to try and give some confidence to my board is Philip, you said that bills have gone in today that in effect will start to make it impossible or certainly block the changes for a no deal.
How strong a confidence can I really give that we aren't going to go by default into a no deal.
My second question is can you say anything else about what you believe can be negotiated that would be substantially different and would allow cross-party consensus?
The Telegraph has obtained a leaked audio recording of a briefing that Philip Hammond gave 330 business leaders during a conference call in the aftermath of Theresa May's historic Brexit defeat on Tuesday.
Log-in or subscribe to read the full transcript, including Mr Hammond's account of how Article 50 could be extended and no deal could be taken "off the table":
Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer
I won't conceal the fact that the scale of the defeat this evening was a disappointment but not entirely a surprise.
I think the important thing is that the Prime Minister has responded to the vote this evening with a clear strategy to move to reach out to opinion across the House of Commons and to commit the Government to listening to the views of others in an attempt to establish what is needed to build a consensus in Parliament that allows us to deliver a negotiated deal.
We have made clear this evening that we will facilitate a confidence vote in the Government. Jeremy Corbyn has duly tabled a vote of no confidence which will be taken tomorrow. We are confident we will win the no-confidence vote. We need to do that in order to establish the Government's credentials as it were to take this forward.
Once the no-confidence vote has been completed the Prime Minister will call senior MPs from across the House and indeed other party leaders and talk to them about their aspirations for a realistic way forward.
We are short of time and we have to be clear that pursuing what we call unicorns - ideas that would involve fundamental renegotiation of the deal we have done with the EU - is not going to work.
The withdrawal agreement will need to remain in place but there is flexibility to look at the terms of the political declaration on the future relationship.
The Government has already indicated that it is willing to accept amendments tabled by Labour members on workers' rights and environmental protections.
The Government is absolutely clear that a negotiated deal is the right way forward to deliver Brexit, honour the referendum result and avoid the very significant political damage and disruption to trust in the political system that would be done if we did not honour the referendum decision.
But to do so in a way that protects our economy, protects jobs and allows us to continue a very close partnership in both security and trade with our European neighbours.
I am going to try to preempt two obvious questions.
Could we extend the Article 50 deadline to give us more time?
The simple answer is that the EU would not consider the request for the extension of the Article 50 deadline unless or until we have a clear plan to go forward.
The sequence has to be first to reach out to opinion across the Commons to establish the terms on which we can build a majority for a way forward in the Commons.
If necessary go back to the EU to agree changes that are necessary to deliver that consensus. And at that time, if more time is going to be required, to negotiate that with the EU.
The second question is whether we can somehow take the option of no deal off the table.
Everyone on the call will be aware that a bill has been tabled today and amendments will be tabled on Monday by backbenchers from across the House which would have the effect of removing the threat of no deal.
I can simply as a parliamentarian say it is clear to me there is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no deal in any circumstances.
Stephen Barclay, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
I very much agree with the analysis that Philip has set out. In terms of the confidence vote both the DUP and ERG have said that they will be supporting the Government in that confidence vote.
There will be a very active programme now of reaching out to parliamentarians and EU leaders in the coming days.
What we saw tonight is what Parliament is against.
But that was very much a coalition of people that do not agree. One of the issues we will need to test in coming days is what Parliamentarians are for as opposed to what they oppose.
In terms of no deal, clearly there is a lot of uncertainty at present. Whatever deal is agreed by Parliament will still need to have a withdrawal agreement and a backstop and will also need to be ratified.
That is why Cabinet took the decision in terms of the no deal preparations that as a responsible Government we need to prepare, even though that is not where anyone wants to be.
We are working in coming days to get a clearer sense from leaders across the House, and also in terms of how that will inform the next phase and what reassurance we could give to Parliament in terms of how we would work with them as we flesh out the political declaration.
Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Perhaps I can start by saying to everyone on the line thank you for all the evidence and work you have done, especially contacting local MPs over the last few weeks as to what the reality you face is.
I am sure it is frustrating that not everyone has changed their minds accordingly, but I don't think that is wasted. I think in the days ahead your needs and the way you have communicated them will continue to be influential.
The second thing is that all of us completely understand the seriousness and urgency of the situations that you face.
The 29th March is a few weeks away. I know by talking to many of you who have already had to make decisions at the expense of more productive uses of the funds you have.
Our purpose in the next few days is essentially to reflect all the things you have told us. First that we can't have no deal, for all the reasons you set out completely consistently.
Secondly we need to achieve a deal that allows us at least as close a trading relationship with the rest of the EU as in the agreement that has been negotiated. That is vital.
The third is that we need to come to a conclusion quickly. This can't go on much longer. As Philip said it is evident that whatever the numbers tonight that was the first vote.
A lot of people had made prior commitments. But there is a very clear majority in the house not to have no deal, to have a relationship with the EU that will allow you to trade and prosper in future, and to bring this to a conclusion quickly.
The exercise and the commitment the Prime Minister made is to establish that, go beyond the Government and the Conservative Party and to put that group together and come back with a deal does work.
Jurgen Maier, chief executive of Siemens UK
Thank you very much for taking the time to give us this briefing. It is really, really important because I'm sure I'll be speaking for quite a few of us our international boards are expecting an update from us this evening who are obviously watching these events closer than they have ever been.
We obviously share your disappointment in the scale of the defeat this evening.
As you know we at Siemens are very much behind the withdrawal agreement, [and] can't for the life of us understand why [this] got such a heavy defeat. But we are where we are.
The two questions I have to try and give some confidence to my board is Philip, you said that bills have gone in today that in effect will start to make it impossible or certainly block the changes for a no deal.
How strong a confidence can I really give that we aren't going to go by default into a no deal.
My second question is can you say anything else about what you believe can be negotiated that would be substantially different and would allow cross-party consensus?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Hammond
Jurgen, on the first part of the question what has been tabled today is a backbench proposal backed from across the House.
We know it has been put together with active engagement from the clerks of the House.
It is properly drafted.
What it proposes to do is to create a parliamentary power to withdraw the Article 50 notice and to lay that on the table as a sort of ultimate backstop if the work the Government is doing in seeking to find a way forward fails to deliver.
My understanding is that amendments will be tabled to the Government motion will be tabled on Monday.
Those amendments will be voted on in the course of next week. If that initiative by backbenchers is successful that would be clear to you within the space of the next two weeks certainly.
As to the question what changes might be required to build a consensus in Parliament and what can be negotiated, very clearly removing the Irish backstop arrangements cannot be negotiated.
There is no point in wasting a lot of time on that theme. But we have to approach this discussion with senior parliamentarians in other parties with an open mind.
It is for them to bring their ideas to us. Many of them, even within individual parties, will have significantly different ideas.
There is going to be a shake out process over the next couple of days when they try to work out among themselves how they can come together around credible proposals to put to the Government.
But it is very important we are in listening mode and open to receive ideas that will deliver a good negotiated and negotiable Brexit.
Doug Gurr, head of Amazon UK
You said Chancellor that you thought there was a clear majority against no deal. We have already incurred quite significant costs. Is there anything you can do that would enable us to give any comfort to our global board that no deal can be ruled out.
Hammond
I can only emphasise what I have already said. This is a backbench initiative but it's backed by some very senior parliamentarians. It will as I understand it run its parliamentary course over the next 10 days or so. By the end of next week we will have a clearer view.
Barclay
The best mitigation to the no deal risk remains the current deal. As Philip set out a number of colleagues opined on the agreement extremely quickly. Literally within minutes we had colleagues in Parliament giving their view on the 585 minutes.
To some extent people had committed very early on to a position in terms of the vote tonight. One of the issues will be to understand with those colleagues what further reassurance they are looking for, and to do so within the framework that is set by both our manifesto and also the Labour manifesto.
Both manifestos made commitments in this area. That is pertinent to issues such as the debate on customs union and international trade. The manifesto will be a framework but clearly we need to listen to colleagues.
The concern is given the level of uncertainty it is right we retain our level of preparation on no deal, but clearly getting a deal is the way to mitigate that risk.
Keith Anderson, chief executive of ScottishPower
Thanks again for taking questions.
My understanding is that in order to allow us to extend or ask for an extension of article 50 we would need to put legislation to Parliament.
I am wondering when the process is going to start to put that legislation through that would allow the UK Government to ask for an extension to Article 50 just in case we need it. Again that's the kind of thing that would give businesses an awful lot of comfort, if the Government is seen to be taking an action to try and prevent no deal.
Barclay
Within the House where there is a consensus people can move quickly. But one of the issues with no deal is that taking that off the table does weaken the negotiation hand from the UK perspective.
There is a balance to be struck. I am very conscious of the concerns that people on the call will have in terms of that. It is about preparing for that until we have a deal that allows us to take no deal off the table.
John Allan, chairman of Tesco and President of the CBI
The message from the Chancellor was that there would be a backbench amendment. Can we have an undertaking that the Government would do nothing to frustrate the progress of that if that is what the majority of the Commons wants.
Then I heard the Brexit Secretary saying that we have to keep the threat of no deal saying that actually we have to keep the threat of no deal because it's important to our negotiating position. I struggle to see how those two things can be reconciled. Perhaps someone on the call could reconcile them for me.
Hammond
Let me have a go. There is going to be a vote in the House of Commons. I am afraid what the Government thinks is not going to be the determining factor in the outcome of that vote.
My judgement is that there is a significant majority in the House of Commons against no deal. What this group of backbenchers has been doing is seeking to find a mechanism by which the House of Commons can express that view in a way which is binding and effective.
John Allan
Will the Government do nothing to frustrate the progress of that if that's what the majority want.
How do you reconcile that with wanting to keep no deal as a negotiating weapon at the same time? I just think there's an inconsistency between those two positions.
Hammond
Steve has pointed out what is an undeniable fact in negotiation. If you remove an option from the table that has consequences.
But in a sense that is not a decision for us to take. Backbenchers have tabled a draft bill and are taking this forward.
It will be the parliamentary arithmetic that determines what happens, not a decision by the Government.
The Government hasn't yet looked at this in detail and decided on a formal position.
The point here is not dependent on the Government's acquiescence in any way. This will be something that the House of Commons determines
Peter Mather, head of BP in the UK
We have talked about some of the options. It doesn't sound like the confidence vote will go the Labour Party's way.
Jurgen, on the first part of the question what has been tabled today is a backbench proposal backed from across the House.
We know it has been put together with active engagement from the clerks of the House.
It is properly drafted.
What it proposes to do is to create a parliamentary power to withdraw the Article 50 notice and to lay that on the table as a sort of ultimate backstop if the work the Government is doing in seeking to find a way forward fails to deliver.
My understanding is that amendments will be tabled to the Government motion will be tabled on Monday.
Those amendments will be voted on in the course of next week. If that initiative by backbenchers is successful that would be clear to you within the space of the next two weeks certainly.
As to the question what changes might be required to build a consensus in Parliament and what can be negotiated, very clearly removing the Irish backstop arrangements cannot be negotiated.
There is no point in wasting a lot of time on that theme. But we have to approach this discussion with senior parliamentarians in other parties with an open mind.
It is for them to bring their ideas to us. Many of them, even within individual parties, will have significantly different ideas.
There is going to be a shake out process over the next couple of days when they try to work out among themselves how they can come together around credible proposals to put to the Government.
But it is very important we are in listening mode and open to receive ideas that will deliver a good negotiated and negotiable Brexit.
Doug Gurr, head of Amazon UK
You said Chancellor that you thought there was a clear majority against no deal. We have already incurred quite significant costs. Is there anything you can do that would enable us to give any comfort to our global board that no deal can be ruled out.
Hammond
I can only emphasise what I have already said. This is a backbench initiative but it's backed by some very senior parliamentarians. It will as I understand it run its parliamentary course over the next 10 days or so. By the end of next week we will have a clearer view.
Barclay
The best mitigation to the no deal risk remains the current deal. As Philip set out a number of colleagues opined on the agreement extremely quickly. Literally within minutes we had colleagues in Parliament giving their view on the 585 minutes.
To some extent people had committed very early on to a position in terms of the vote tonight. One of the issues will be to understand with those colleagues what further reassurance they are looking for, and to do so within the framework that is set by both our manifesto and also the Labour manifesto.
Both manifestos made commitments in this area. That is pertinent to issues such as the debate on customs union and international trade. The manifesto will be a framework but clearly we need to listen to colleagues.
The concern is given the level of uncertainty it is right we retain our level of preparation on no deal, but clearly getting a deal is the way to mitigate that risk.
Keith Anderson, chief executive of ScottishPower
Thanks again for taking questions.
My understanding is that in order to allow us to extend or ask for an extension of article 50 we would need to put legislation to Parliament.
I am wondering when the process is going to start to put that legislation through that would allow the UK Government to ask for an extension to Article 50 just in case we need it. Again that's the kind of thing that would give businesses an awful lot of comfort, if the Government is seen to be taking an action to try and prevent no deal.
Barclay
Within the House where there is a consensus people can move quickly. But one of the issues with no deal is that taking that off the table does weaken the negotiation hand from the UK perspective.
There is a balance to be struck. I am very conscious of the concerns that people on the call will have in terms of that. It is about preparing for that until we have a deal that allows us to take no deal off the table.
John Allan, chairman of Tesco and President of the CBI
The message from the Chancellor was that there would be a backbench amendment. Can we have an undertaking that the Government would do nothing to frustrate the progress of that if that is what the majority of the Commons wants.
Then I heard the Brexit Secretary saying that we have to keep the threat of no deal saying that actually we have to keep the threat of no deal because it's important to our negotiating position. I struggle to see how those two things can be reconciled. Perhaps someone on the call could reconcile them for me.
Hammond
Let me have a go. There is going to be a vote in the House of Commons. I am afraid what the Government thinks is not going to be the determining factor in the outcome of that vote.
My judgement is that there is a significant majority in the House of Commons against no deal. What this group of backbenchers has been doing is seeking to find a mechanism by which the House of Commons can express that view in a way which is binding and effective.
John Allan
Will the Government do nothing to frustrate the progress of that if that's what the majority want.
How do you reconcile that with wanting to keep no deal as a negotiating weapon at the same time? I just think there's an inconsistency between those two positions.
Hammond
Steve has pointed out what is an undeniable fact in negotiation. If you remove an option from the table that has consequences.
But in a sense that is not a decision for us to take. Backbenchers have tabled a draft bill and are taking this forward.
It will be the parliamentary arithmetic that determines what happens, not a decision by the Government.
The Government hasn't yet looked at this in detail and decided on a formal position.
The point here is not dependent on the Government's acquiescence in any way. This will be something that the House of Commons determines
Peter Mather, head of BP in the UK
We have talked about some of the options. It doesn't sound like the confidence vote will go the Labour Party's way.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
That's great stuff @nayimfromthehalfwayline thanks very much
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
We have talked about reducing the possibility of no deal. We have also talked about the possibility of achieving a breakthrough in the deal.
I just wonder whether all of this added together has in any way increased the sympathy or the lack of antipathy towards the idea of a second referendum.
Barclay
I think the issue with a second referendum is it's presented as a way of ending the uncertainty.
But the risk with it is that it will actually prolong the uncertainty.
If you look at the first referendum the process took 13 months from start to finish.
It is difficult in the current climate to think that the House will view the legislation for a second referendum with goodwill and expedite it.
There will obviously [be] material questions in terms of what the actual question in the referendum would be.
Would it be two questions or three? What the spending limits would be, particularly following some of the litigation and revelations following the last referendum.
There would also be a practical issue in terms of the interaction with the European Parliament elections, which are at the end of May.
As Philip touched on earlier the issue in terms of extension isn't a unilateral decision for the UK.
That requires the consent of the other 27 member states. Revocation as the European courts made clear requires the cancelling. It must be unconditional.
It is often mooted that a second referendum is a way of ending the uncertainty. It would actually lead to a significant period of further uncertainty.
Of course one cannot guarantee the result of that referendum either. One could have a prolonged period of uncertainty followed by a result not dissimilar to the first result.
For those reasons that is not the way forward. The key issue in the coming days will be to look where the consensus can be.
What we have seen up to this vote is a myriad of plans - Norway, Canada, various plans with a plus affixed - people thinking that WTO is a land of milk and honey and a perfectly benign landing position.
The vote crystallises the conversations that need to take place across the House.
Leo Quinn, chief executive of Balfour Beatty
Will we anticipate getting back to a normal, functioning Government? What we are seeing from industry is decisions are being delayed, we are seeing strategies not being confirmed.
Within the construction industry for example the future of HS2 is unclear, Heathrow confirmation that expansion plans will move forward - none of these are under our control.
And I know you will have heard this before, but the enemy of business is delay and procrastination.
The challenge I see facing construction across the UK over the next 12 months is that as decisions don't get made and projects get pushed out, the industry is going to face what I would regard as a large scale restructuring whereby the industry cannot carry the capability and resources that are going to be so desperately needed.
Despite Brexit we need to make some decisions to keep things moving forward. It is vitally important we get back to some form of normal Government.
Clark
Leo everyone here is absolutely conscious of the need to bring this to a resolution.
I know from talking to those involved in this call just how much of a blight the uncertainty is for investment decisions. What you are now going to see over the next few days is a rapid acceleration.
Some of the resolutions of the House of Commons passed required a response from the Government within three days rather than three weeks. You go straight from today's defeat to a confidence vote tomorrow. It is all now going to move at a much more rapid pace.
To be frank with you it is a matter of great regret to me that we are in January in this situation rather than having resolved it long before.
I know this has caused real difficulties and imposed costs to you. All I can say is that from my part and my colleagues we will do everything we can to bring this to a resolution.
Within the next few days and weeks Parliament needs to do that so we can move on and you can get on with not having to think about these decisions.
Leo Quinn
The biggest strategic issue is that it's very difficult if not impossible to take a capability holiday.
Once resources have been lost from the industry or people retire from it it's very difficult to persuade them to come back. We are at a very critical point.
Hammond
The key issue here is resource in Government. The Government has decided rightly that our number one operational priority at the moment has to be preparing for the contingency of a no deal Brexit, something which all of us are seeking to avoid.
We can't afford to be flat-footed in preparing for that contingency.
As soon as we know that we are not going there, and we can stop doing that preparation, those resources can be released back to their business as usual functions. That will allow the resumption of normal service that you are seeking.
But it has to be right that while there is any risk of a no deal outcome on the 29th March the Government should be taking all the necessary steps to put contingency plans in place.
Richard Pennycook, chairman of the British Retail Consortium
It goes without saying that as you go into these conversations in Parliament with various groups over the next week or two if any of us collectively or individually can help in terms of the perspective of business you've only got to ask us.
Two questions. The first one, back to no deal. I'm sorry we can't get away from it but as others have said we are guiding stock-markets and boards on decisions around our contingency planning.
What I think I heard is whilst we should place some reassurance on the backbench motion which is coming forward, that is tempered by the fact that were we to withdraw Article 50 we can't do it with our fingers tied behind our backs in order to buy time.
I just wonder how concerned are you that the press will therefore immediately leap to that being a no exit scenario, and therefore a difficult one for us to rely on as a business in our no deal planning.
Second in relation to the clock ticking, for most of us in business whilst of course while we are very sympathetic to the Irish border question for us no deal is actually not having an end state deal at the end of 2020. So many long term decisions are on hold until we have got that clarity.
Presumably there is no dialogue that can take place with the EU until such time as the withdrawal agreement has been signed, even if that takes another few weeks or months.
Hammond
Again I have to repeat this is a backbench initiative. The Government is not in control of this. I am only telling you what information I have been able to glean.
My understanding is that because the bill being brought forward will simply and solely rescind the Article 50 notice, the legal opinion that they have is that that will meet the test that the European Court of Justice has laid down for unilateral recision of an article 50 notice.
It is not within their power to mandate any future course of action, that would be for a Government to do. Their process simply and their bill simply withdraws the Article 50 notice.
I just wonder whether all of this added together has in any way increased the sympathy or the lack of antipathy towards the idea of a second referendum.
Barclay
I think the issue with a second referendum is it's presented as a way of ending the uncertainty.
But the risk with it is that it will actually prolong the uncertainty.
If you look at the first referendum the process took 13 months from start to finish.
It is difficult in the current climate to think that the House will view the legislation for a second referendum with goodwill and expedite it.
There will obviously [be] material questions in terms of what the actual question in the referendum would be.
Would it be two questions or three? What the spending limits would be, particularly following some of the litigation and revelations following the last referendum.
There would also be a practical issue in terms of the interaction with the European Parliament elections, which are at the end of May.
As Philip touched on earlier the issue in terms of extension isn't a unilateral decision for the UK.
That requires the consent of the other 27 member states. Revocation as the European courts made clear requires the cancelling. It must be unconditional.
It is often mooted that a second referendum is a way of ending the uncertainty. It would actually lead to a significant period of further uncertainty.
Of course one cannot guarantee the result of that referendum either. One could have a prolonged period of uncertainty followed by a result not dissimilar to the first result.
For those reasons that is not the way forward. The key issue in the coming days will be to look where the consensus can be.
What we have seen up to this vote is a myriad of plans - Norway, Canada, various plans with a plus affixed - people thinking that WTO is a land of milk and honey and a perfectly benign landing position.
The vote crystallises the conversations that need to take place across the House.
Leo Quinn, chief executive of Balfour Beatty
Will we anticipate getting back to a normal, functioning Government? What we are seeing from industry is decisions are being delayed, we are seeing strategies not being confirmed.
Within the construction industry for example the future of HS2 is unclear, Heathrow confirmation that expansion plans will move forward - none of these are under our control.
And I know you will have heard this before, but the enemy of business is delay and procrastination.
The challenge I see facing construction across the UK over the next 12 months is that as decisions don't get made and projects get pushed out, the industry is going to face what I would regard as a large scale restructuring whereby the industry cannot carry the capability and resources that are going to be so desperately needed.
Despite Brexit we need to make some decisions to keep things moving forward. It is vitally important we get back to some form of normal Government.
Clark
Leo everyone here is absolutely conscious of the need to bring this to a resolution.
I know from talking to those involved in this call just how much of a blight the uncertainty is for investment decisions. What you are now going to see over the next few days is a rapid acceleration.
Some of the resolutions of the House of Commons passed required a response from the Government within three days rather than three weeks. You go straight from today's defeat to a confidence vote tomorrow. It is all now going to move at a much more rapid pace.
To be frank with you it is a matter of great regret to me that we are in January in this situation rather than having resolved it long before.
I know this has caused real difficulties and imposed costs to you. All I can say is that from my part and my colleagues we will do everything we can to bring this to a resolution.
Within the next few days and weeks Parliament needs to do that so we can move on and you can get on with not having to think about these decisions.
Leo Quinn
The biggest strategic issue is that it's very difficult if not impossible to take a capability holiday.
Once resources have been lost from the industry or people retire from it it's very difficult to persuade them to come back. We are at a very critical point.
Hammond
The key issue here is resource in Government. The Government has decided rightly that our number one operational priority at the moment has to be preparing for the contingency of a no deal Brexit, something which all of us are seeking to avoid.
We can't afford to be flat-footed in preparing for that contingency.
As soon as we know that we are not going there, and we can stop doing that preparation, those resources can be released back to their business as usual functions. That will allow the resumption of normal service that you are seeking.
But it has to be right that while there is any risk of a no deal outcome on the 29th March the Government should be taking all the necessary steps to put contingency plans in place.
Richard Pennycook, chairman of the British Retail Consortium
It goes without saying that as you go into these conversations in Parliament with various groups over the next week or two if any of us collectively or individually can help in terms of the perspective of business you've only got to ask us.
Two questions. The first one, back to no deal. I'm sorry we can't get away from it but as others have said we are guiding stock-markets and boards on decisions around our contingency planning.
What I think I heard is whilst we should place some reassurance on the backbench motion which is coming forward, that is tempered by the fact that were we to withdraw Article 50 we can't do it with our fingers tied behind our backs in order to buy time.
I just wonder how concerned are you that the press will therefore immediately leap to that being a no exit scenario, and therefore a difficult one for us to rely on as a business in our no deal planning.
Second in relation to the clock ticking, for most of us in business whilst of course while we are very sympathetic to the Irish border question for us no deal is actually not having an end state deal at the end of 2020. So many long term decisions are on hold until we have got that clarity.
Presumably there is no dialogue that can take place with the EU until such time as the withdrawal agreement has been signed, even if that takes another few weeks or months.
Hammond
Again I have to repeat this is a backbench initiative. The Government is not in control of this. I am only telling you what information I have been able to glean.
My understanding is that because the bill being brought forward will simply and solely rescind the Article 50 notice, the legal opinion that they have is that that will meet the test that the European Court of Justice has laid down for unilateral recision of an article 50 notice.
It is not within their power to mandate any future course of action, that would be for a Government to do. Their process simply and their bill simply withdraws the Article 50 notice.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Barclay
On the second point of the timing to end 2020 you will have seen in the language of the December Council and also in the recent exchange of letters from President Tusk and Juncker a number of commitments particularly around starting the next phase of discussion as soon as Parliament has agreed a meaningful vote and in terms of expediting the ratification process, both at the start and end of the timeline there is scope to speed things up.
There is a clear commitment in terms of injecting pace into those negotiations.
The political declaration itself provides a framework.
What we get against that, and for example in the letter from Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie, was on the one hand people saying the political declaration has no legal force.
You get other people saying that the political declaration has such legal force that it is going to compromise national security.
In the media there is often a dialogue saying that the political declaration to some critics isn't worth the paper it's on. Those same critics say it will restrict what the UK can do to a severe degree.
What's clear from the EU side is the backstop is uncomfortable for the EU themselves.
It is uncomfortable in terms of breaking the four freedoms, in terms of the fact access to fishing waters is stopped on day one.
There is a commitment to inject some pace. We stand ready to do that. Then of course there is the option to extend the implementation period by one or two years should we wish.
Paula Vennells, chief executive Post Office and non-exec director at Morrisons
I was wanting to turn to other stakeholders - colleagues, employees, customers.
I picked up two messages. One was that the Government is listening hard.
The other was that because of the clear opposition to a second referendum it is very keen to respect democracy.
Are there any other particular messages for colleagues, employees, customers? What will play out in the media will not be the balance of what we have heard tonight, that is for sure.
Clark
Obviously in terms of your colleagues some of them will be people who come from other European countries.
It is of particular importance to provide a reassurance there. Deal or no deal commitments have been given that they are needed, they are welcome, there is no reason why they should be concerned by their position.
The second [thing] is that although the numbers look like we are a long way from achieving a deal to a certain extent they are misleading.
They might suggest there is not an appetite for a deal. The truth is that quite a lot of those who voted against the deal did so because they have taken an initial view and we now are intending to be more pragmatic.
The other thing to say is that quite a lot of the people that voted against it didn't want to see no deal, didn't want to take away any of the aspects of the agreement that have been reached, they want it to go further.
It might be tempting to think this shows the Commons doesn't want to do a deal. Actually in my view it shows the opposite. For quite a large number of people they want it to go further.
That I completely understand is something that is hard to translate and persuade people of. But it is the reality.
This reaching out is being able to understand what further additions, concessions - we talked about reassurances about workers' rights, about environmental standards- these are people that had concerns that the deal wasn't rigorous enough.
I do think there is not only a deal to be done there but that... at least it allows us to have the close relationship that has been proposed.
I think it's pretty obvious that there is a big majority to avoid no deal.
They need to come together and crystallise into an agreement but the right ingredients are there.
You have played a really important role in shaping the deal that has been proposed.
Don't be disheartened in thinking your advice has been rebuffed. Some members of parliament want to go even further in terms of a closer relationship. Our job is to crystalise that and make that happen.
Barclay
There is absolutely no desire from a Government point of view to run down the clock. Quite the opposite.
We recognise the importance of time from a business point of view. But there is also a legislative pressure in terms of parliament and impact of time.
We are very conscious that the sooner we can get to a consensus the better.
I am very conscious that a lot of you have already been speaking to members of parliament.
One of the challenges we have had is that there has been a narrative of dismissing some of the practical issues around Project Fear rather than the real term consequences that people on the call will be very aware of.
We need to continue with those practical examples of the impact on your businesses to members of parliament. Emphasising that message to them is extremely helpful.
Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the CBI
I will just reinforce the message that is coming from businesses across the country about taking that [no deal] off the table. Just to reiterate how very important that will be.
I want to turn quickly to the consensus-building process, it's very welcome. Two questions. How broadly across Parliament will you be reaching? Will that be all opposition parties, all leaders of the parties. Secondly how much flexibility can the Government show on this. Particularly some of the areas which have been very challenging like the customs union issue.
How much flexibility do you anticipate the Government will be able to show around the red lines you have.
Hammond
You have to let the PM do this in her way. Over the next couple of days it will become clear. It will be a comprehensive reaching out across Parliament to hear views and build that consensus across Parliament. It won't take very long.
Secondly on the question of red lines we go into this discussion with Parliamentarians having just suffered a very large defeat for the deal we have put forward. There are many tactical reasons for that defeat. There are a lot of people who in the course of the debate have made clear they want to see a negotiated deal, just not the terms of this deal.
We now have to bring those people to a realistic understanding of what can be done, and what cannot be done. It wouldn't be helpful to go into this discussion waving flags with red lines on them. The appropriate way to go in would be without commitment but open-minded and listening to what people have proposed to see where the weight of opinion in Parliament lies.
So far the process has delivered us some very clear understandings of what Parliament is against, but no clear understanding of what Parliament is for.
Barclay
The Prime Minister made clear in her response to the vote that reaching our will be with senior parliamentarians across the house. The essence of that will be how one builds the trust. There is a log in the withdrawal agreement with which they agree - protection of citizens rights, the respecting of legal obligations, the avoiding of a hard border through the backstop are all issues that many on the opposition benches agree with.
But the issue of trust tends to crystallise around things such as 'well we hear the Government when it says it doesn't want a regulatory race to the bottom, but how do we have confidence aroud that in terms of some of the assurances on employment rights and environmental standards'
On the second point of the timing to end 2020 you will have seen in the language of the December Council and also in the recent exchange of letters from President Tusk and Juncker a number of commitments particularly around starting the next phase of discussion as soon as Parliament has agreed a meaningful vote and in terms of expediting the ratification process, both at the start and end of the timeline there is scope to speed things up.
There is a clear commitment in terms of injecting pace into those negotiations.
The political declaration itself provides a framework.
What we get against that, and for example in the letter from Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie, was on the one hand people saying the political declaration has no legal force.
You get other people saying that the political declaration has such legal force that it is going to compromise national security.
In the media there is often a dialogue saying that the political declaration to some critics isn't worth the paper it's on. Those same critics say it will restrict what the UK can do to a severe degree.
What's clear from the EU side is the backstop is uncomfortable for the EU themselves.
It is uncomfortable in terms of breaking the four freedoms, in terms of the fact access to fishing waters is stopped on day one.
There is a commitment to inject some pace. We stand ready to do that. Then of course there is the option to extend the implementation period by one or two years should we wish.
Paula Vennells, chief executive Post Office and non-exec director at Morrisons
I was wanting to turn to other stakeholders - colleagues, employees, customers.
I picked up two messages. One was that the Government is listening hard.
The other was that because of the clear opposition to a second referendum it is very keen to respect democracy.
Are there any other particular messages for colleagues, employees, customers? What will play out in the media will not be the balance of what we have heard tonight, that is for sure.
Clark
Obviously in terms of your colleagues some of them will be people who come from other European countries.
It is of particular importance to provide a reassurance there. Deal or no deal commitments have been given that they are needed, they are welcome, there is no reason why they should be concerned by their position.
The second [thing] is that although the numbers look like we are a long way from achieving a deal to a certain extent they are misleading.
They might suggest there is not an appetite for a deal. The truth is that quite a lot of those who voted against the deal did so because they have taken an initial view and we now are intending to be more pragmatic.
The other thing to say is that quite a lot of the people that voted against it didn't want to see no deal, didn't want to take away any of the aspects of the agreement that have been reached, they want it to go further.
It might be tempting to think this shows the Commons doesn't want to do a deal. Actually in my view it shows the opposite. For quite a large number of people they want it to go further.
That I completely understand is something that is hard to translate and persuade people of. But it is the reality.
This reaching out is being able to understand what further additions, concessions - we talked about reassurances about workers' rights, about environmental standards- these are people that had concerns that the deal wasn't rigorous enough.
I do think there is not only a deal to be done there but that... at least it allows us to have the close relationship that has been proposed.
I think it's pretty obvious that there is a big majority to avoid no deal.
They need to come together and crystallise into an agreement but the right ingredients are there.
You have played a really important role in shaping the deal that has been proposed.
Don't be disheartened in thinking your advice has been rebuffed. Some members of parliament want to go even further in terms of a closer relationship. Our job is to crystalise that and make that happen.
Barclay
There is absolutely no desire from a Government point of view to run down the clock. Quite the opposite.
We recognise the importance of time from a business point of view. But there is also a legislative pressure in terms of parliament and impact of time.
We are very conscious that the sooner we can get to a consensus the better.
I am very conscious that a lot of you have already been speaking to members of parliament.
One of the challenges we have had is that there has been a narrative of dismissing some of the practical issues around Project Fear rather than the real term consequences that people on the call will be very aware of.
We need to continue with those practical examples of the impact on your businesses to members of parliament. Emphasising that message to them is extremely helpful.
Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the CBI
I will just reinforce the message that is coming from businesses across the country about taking that [no deal] off the table. Just to reiterate how very important that will be.
I want to turn quickly to the consensus-building process, it's very welcome. Two questions. How broadly across Parliament will you be reaching? Will that be all opposition parties, all leaders of the parties. Secondly how much flexibility can the Government show on this. Particularly some of the areas which have been very challenging like the customs union issue.
How much flexibility do you anticipate the Government will be able to show around the red lines you have.
Hammond
You have to let the PM do this in her way. Over the next couple of days it will become clear. It will be a comprehensive reaching out across Parliament to hear views and build that consensus across Parliament. It won't take very long.
Secondly on the question of red lines we go into this discussion with Parliamentarians having just suffered a very large defeat for the deal we have put forward. There are many tactical reasons for that defeat. There are a lot of people who in the course of the debate have made clear they want to see a negotiated deal, just not the terms of this deal.
We now have to bring those people to a realistic understanding of what can be done, and what cannot be done. It wouldn't be helpful to go into this discussion waving flags with red lines on them. The appropriate way to go in would be without commitment but open-minded and listening to what people have proposed to see where the weight of opinion in Parliament lies.
So far the process has delivered us some very clear understandings of what Parliament is against, but no clear understanding of what Parliament is for.
Barclay
The Prime Minister made clear in her response to the vote that reaching our will be with senior parliamentarians across the house. The essence of that will be how one builds the trust. There is a log in the withdrawal agreement with which they agree - protection of citizens rights, the respecting of legal obligations, the avoiding of a hard border through the backstop are all issues that many on the opposition benches agree with.
But the issue of trust tends to crystallise around things such as 'well we hear the Government when it says it doesn't want a regulatory race to the bottom, but how do we have confidence aroud that in terms of some of the assurances on employment rights and environmental standards'
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Vivienne Hunt, managing partner at McKinsey & Company
My question relates to the clarity of messages, and to what extent we can get some of these messages clear from the Prime Minister in a more of a balanced way. That would be very reassuring.
Barclay
In terms of the timeframe what was set out is that we have got the confidence vote tomorrow, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to come back to the House on Monday. There will be discussions over the weekend as part of the engagement we have touched on. The next milestone in the process will be on Monday.
Simon Blagden, Fujitsu
We all have a lot of stakeholders and will all be very happy to support the Government in reaching out to those. This has been very very helpful.
My question relates to the clarity of messages, and to what extent we can get some of these messages clear from the Prime Minister in a more of a balanced way. That would be very reassuring.
Barclay
In terms of the timeframe what was set out is that we have got the confidence vote tomorrow, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to come back to the House on Monday. There will be discussions over the weekend as part of the engagement we have touched on. The next milestone in the process will be on Monday.
Simon Blagden, Fujitsu
We all have a lot of stakeholders and will all be very happy to support the Government in reaching out to those. This has been very very helpful.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
While I dont claim to be a business expert at all, that long winded call IMO amounts to basically nothing.
Business wants certainty to plan around, and ideally would like nothing to change. Big surprise.
The Government have all the plates spinning but nothing we didnt really know.
Taking no deal of the table weakens our already weak position.
Business wants certainty to plan around, and ideally would like nothing to change. Big surprise.
The Government have all the plates spinning but nothing we didnt really know.
Taking no deal of the table weakens our already weak position.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Taking no deal off the table is akin to cancelling Brexit. The spirit of Brexit is walking away, having a deal is what is preferred, but no-deal is the fall-back position.
The interesting thing about the teleconference call is it blows away the idea that big corporate lobby interest groups are not equally involved in trying to keep Britain in the EU and try to exert as much power on what really goes on politically as any 'Russian clickbot'/Aaron Banks/Murdoch whoever is accused of 'causing Brexit'
