And we're off. Contain your joy. May thanks "everyone in our country going the extra mile" to help people in the snow.
She says she has "listened carefully to all" the views on how to do Brexit. Must have missed the meeting.
She is now reading out seemingly all of the speech she made outside Downing Street when she became PM.
She hasn't coughed yet, so that's good. Now listing her five tests.
1) respecting the vote 2) a deal that endures 3) protecting jobs and security 4) maintaining UK openness/tolerance 5) strengthening the Union.
God I wish I'd brought a drink.
"We are now approaching a crucial moment. There is no escaping the complexity of the task ahead of us." Amazing. Sorry you're late Theresa, glad you've made it.
She insists transition won't become permanent. Every time she says this I become more convinced that is exactly what will happen.
She says she set out in Florence why existing models - Norway and Canada - did not work for this moment.
She's going to talk about Ireland. Peace was a historic achievement. Upholding agreement is at heart of UK approach. Brexit causes "very particular challenges".
She admits anxiety and need for concrete solutions. She repeats that there will be no infrastructure. Not good enough to say we'll do our bit. "We chose to leave and it;s our responsibility to find a solution."
That was good from May. Firm.
She now attacks EU for demanding border on the Irish Sea. This is a nonsense - she made that decision by leaving customs union and single market. But still, previous section commendable.
Although obvs meaningless without realism on CU and SM.
"In certain ways access to each others markets" will be more limited than now. Much more realistic from May. Not so many unicorns.
She is now giving ground on ECJ jurisdiction. Another dead unicorn.
She;s mucking the water, but if UK courts are having to take account of ECJ, rather than choosing to, that's a broken red line.
She holds firm - rightly, I think - on ultimate arbiter being independent, not the ECJ.
Says we can;t beat each other by unfairly subsiding our industries. This is code for sticking to EU state aid rules. Corbyn won't be happy.
She reaffirms that we'll do our own trade deals, but then says we want frictionless trade and open border in Ireland. The unicorns live.
May kicking back - again rightly I think - at EU demanding Norway style regulatory requirements for a Canada style deal.
Now a bit of fluff. "Broadest and deepest possible partnership". Makes little sense, given what she's ruled out.
Stale old arguments being brought up about existing alignment.
"Reciprocal binding agreements" will form part of trade agreement. Obvs true, but still a level of realism we haven't quite seen before.
Will incl commitments on how entwined the economies are. Again obvs.
Wants independent arbitration. Wants ongoing dialogue. None of these five trade tests are particularly interesting so far. Who wouldn't have open dialogue?
Fourth, protections for data protection. Fifth, retaining "links between our people". Ok so nothing really of interest in the trade tests.
Rhetoric much improved here, but we're still lacking any details. Hopefully this is a preamble, rather than the main body.
May now listing bespoke agreements -Ukraine, South Korea. Says these deals have some bits they don;t have with Canada.
"The fact is every FTA has varying market access... if this is cherry picking then all FTAs are cherry picking."
It;s concerning that she doesn't understand why this argument is a cul-de-sac.
She describing goods now. UK principle is that trade at border is as frictionless as possible. So no tariffs or quotas. Only one approval in one country. Ie: lots of mutual recognition in form of conformity assessments.
That means "regulatory standards remain substantially similar in the future".
Interesting but lots of wriggle room there. She cites international standards. That won't be enough of a guarantee.
Independent process for overseeing how far UK has abided by EU rules. That seems to be her plan. Then in some areas - aviation, chemicals etc - we;d be in the agency through associate membership.
So this is baskets one and two. This is more detailed, but on the basis of an idea which EU has already ruled out.
She cites Swiss relationship with agencies. This is not an example that is useful to her case.This is on system wide alignment with mirrored institutions, excluding just agriculture and fisheries.
She wants it for just some agencies, handpicked.
The use of independent arbiter on UK keeping to EU standards is also of limited use. Will get you some access, but not much.
Oh no.
She's now repeating plan for customs partnership with EU. FFS this can't still be happening.
Oh and now a highly streamlined customs arrangements. The unicorn slaughter is over. She's set the remaining ones free.
"Maximising use of automation". Sigh.
"Further specific measures" to prevent Ireland border. Basically, she would just not check anything for small traders.
That's the same old bullshit. Asking the EU to maintain an open flank on a land border in which goods which don;t pass regulatory standards or undermine their tariff arrangements can sneak through. No solutions.
No movement on customs at all. Just a repeat of two mutually incompatible aspirations. Dimwitted and irresponsible.
Fuckiong outrageous really.
Wants flexibility in agriculture and fisheries. No surprises there. This is the divergence area I guess. Is that all she wants to diverge?
Cos if that's it, there's this thing called the EEA agreement someone should tell her about.
Services now. A "Labour mobility framework" - heh - would help keep things moving. We had one of those Theresa, worked rather well. We called it free movement.
Focus on broadcasting now. Uses two dangerous terms - "Mutual recognition" (means lots of different things) and "creative solutions" (usually means you;re fucked)
Refuses to implement new EU legislation on financial services automatically (rightly).
Uh oh. "Only looking at precedent" would hurt us both. That;s another phrase for "creative solutions". Asks for mechanism of consequence allocation where standards not maintained. Collaborative framework.
She wants protections for single electricity market and Uk participation in EU internal energy market. Wants "close association" with Euratom.
In other words: We;re sorry we probably shouldn't have left that, please let us stay.
You;d never have known she left it would you,and only then put some thought into what the consequences of that are.
Science and innovation pact, She;s basically doing a tour of the baskets.
It;s actually four baskets - harmonisation, alignment, divergence, and creative solutions.
SO this is detail, but the kind of detail we should have expected over a year ago. And it is detail on a plan which has already been ruled out.
She's wrapping up now. We're in the same place we were this morning.
"An optimistic and confident future which can unite us all". Sigh.
"I am in no doubt that whatever agreement we reach with the EU our future is bright." Fucking sterile bollocks now being emitted with real gusto.
"It;s only by working together that we can find solutions that work for all our peoples... We will not be buffeted by demands to threaten a walk out." She said it with a straight face.
Speech now pissing itself away in a corner
"We have a shared interest in getting this right, so let's get on with it." Urgh. So desperate.
Questions now. Kunsberg: What you describe as hard facts are compromises people told you you'd have to make ages ago. Also, this is pick and mix.
Brilliant Qs from the BBC political editor. May fires off some meaningless babble. "I believe we will achieve the right Brexit deal for Britain".
Q1: Is the customs partnership option now Number 1 option? Because head of customs said it'd take five years to out it in place. Q2: How has she brought country together by saying people want to betray the vote.
V.good Q from Islam. May dodges the first - usual vacuous platitudes, exploring options with partners etc - and completely ignores the second.
Q - is no deal better than a bad deal? Wil you repeat that? She says that she;s said it several times - not quite the same thing as repeating it. She;s confident of "reaching the right deal">
Whatever ppl ask, she says the same thing.
Q - is this a bottom line or an opening position
Trying to get answers from her is like asking a puppy for its views on Pythagoras.
"Unlike some politicians I'm actually being straight with people." Incredible. I wonder if she actually believes it, and is therefore insane, or if she doesn't, and is merely cynical.
Q: Isn;t it time you told the truth, that there will be a border in Ireland? "We've been clear there will be no border in Ireland."
She's very clear. Very clear. She's been very clear. It's funny how often she has to insist that she is being clear. It's almost like, oh, I dunno.
It's almost like she's not fucking clear at all.
Losing the will to live now.
There's no point asking her questions. It's like trying to shoot air.
She has single-handedly made the entire function of combative journalism pointless. Maybe she's a genius.
She's gone. It;s over. Thank God.
I'm actually giddy with delight. Not only is that speech over, but this interminable procession of political speeches - Johnson, Corbyn, Fox, Major, Blair, her.
God it;s been horrible. Major was the best, Johnson the worst, Corbyn's the most important.
Anyway, there was major rhetorical improvement here. She is no longer an adherent to cakeism. After 18 months, she now admits we'll lose market access.
But the plan is still the same one already rejected by the negotiating partner. So I'm sorry to say that we are still staring at Canada as the final destination, with maybe one plus so she can sell it at home.
Basically we're all going to get quite badly twatted.
Tara for now. If you want to understand more about Brexit and all the various nonsense she's spouting, buy my bastard book amazon.co.uk/Brexit-What-He…
