24/11/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Brexit will cost the UK economy almost ?60 billion,

according to figures unveiled by the Chancellor yesterday,

but have forecasters taken too gloomy a view of the UK's ability

Thomas Mair was given a whole life sentence by a judge

at the Old Bailey yesterday for the brutal murder of MP Jo Cox,

but is enough being done to combat far-right extremism?

Donald Trump says he'll scrap a Pacific Trade deal on the first

So will President Trump use hard - rather than soft -

power to restrain the growing power of China?

It was the Shadow Chancellor's big moment at the despatch box yesterday

and Labour MPs were transfixed - by their mobile phones.

Have they got something to learn about mobile phone etiquette?

And with us for the whole of the programme today is a purveyor

of what's been described as the "dismal science",

Now, the Government has been defending the economic forecasts

that were used in yesterday's Autumn Statement.

The forecasts were produced by the independent Office

for Budget Responsibility - and they think that the Government

will have to borrow billions more because of the Brexit vote.

But that view has been condemned as far too gloomy

by Brexit-supporting MPs and economists.

So let's remind ourselves what we learnt yesterday,

when the Chancellor Philip Hammond got to the despatch box.

Between now and 2021, the Government is forecast

to borrow ?122 billion more than was originally predicted back

Nearly half of that extra borrowing, ?58.7 billion, is due

That's because of economic factors like lower migration

and higher inflation which, the OBR says, are linked to Brexit.

All that extra borrowing is obviously going to mean more debt.

The public finances are forecast to be nearly ?2 trillion

The debt-to-GDP ratio is also heading upwards.

It's set to peak at 90.2% in the next financial year,

And Philip Hammond said that the Government will now get rid

of the deficit "as soon as practicable" in

Philip Hammond has been talking about those forecasts this morning.

There are lots of uncertainties in the world and economic

forecasters have to try and make forecasts, notwithstanding

Our job is to respond to the forecasts and,

as I tried to do yesterday, to set out a path that builds

on the strengths of our economy, that invests in the future,

but also puts a little bit aside, creates a little bit

of reserve firepower, just in case things do

So that the Government is there and able to step

We're joined now by Patrick Minford - of Economists for Brexit.

And shortly by the Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, and the Shadow Chief

Secretary to the Treasur, Rebecca Long Bailey, who is here.

You'll have to borrow around ?60 billion according to the OBR, you'd

think that number is wrong, what in your mind is the correct figure? It

is less because Brexit will cause higher and not lower growth because

of the policies of free-trade being pursued by the Government with

respect to the rest of the world and the EU. That is the big error in the

OBR's forecast, figure at the trade policy is wrong and have assumed

that trade policies and the effects of uncertainty, which has already

been disproved by the very strong reactions of GDP in the second and

third quarter of the year which came in strongly and well above the

Treasury's on forecasts. On the trade steals, you say in the

long-term, Deluxe set they could be right over the next five years

that's because of Brexit, there could be a case of borrowing ?60

billion to compensate while we leave the EU and in the long term, you are

right and the money will be made up? Not really, they have assumed the

long-term effects of ex-expectations in the short term through investment

cost of spending falling, and that outcomes. Of that, they have put

this uncertainty effect for which there is no basis and having assumed

the exchange rate to drop instead of stimulating the economy, dump is

great in the economy, which is against what we know from modelling

practice and evidence. Linda Yueh, Dupree, have the OBR got it wrong?

They did not have much to work with because they did not have that much

from the Government in the first place -- do you agree. OBR forecasts

have been wrong in the past so could Patrick be right or is the OBR

right? I think the OBR forecast is in line with other forecasts, the

Bank of England, the International monetary fund is, they see a

negative hit from Brexit because of uncertainty. The difficulty of

assessing it is this, I treat uncertainty different than you. So

if you supported, let's not use Brexit, let's use kittens versus

poppies. He would be much more enthusiastic if you got your way but

businesses are cutting back on investment and they are worried

about the economic uncertainty so in that respect, I think the OBR has

set out almost a worst-case scenario about a permanent hit the growth

taking growth to just over 2% over the next 3-5 years. As they say, a

lot of the forecasts are wrong because it is hard to forecast

period when you do not know the Government's plans. And the

Government agrees, they say you might have to take them forecasts

broadly and they did not use the expression a pinch of salt but they

did say it could be the worst case scenario. Are you just upset as many

supporting Brexit are because you think the Bank of England as the OBR

are part of the Pro-remain establishment? Yes, I do and they

fought against Brexit and they are fighting for a soft Brexit. The

Chancellor is fighting for a soft Brexit and that tells you the

uncertainty is spurious. If we go for a soft Brexit, we will have the

status quo which leaves growth exactly where it would have been,

and a hard Brexit leads to free trade which is a good long-term

boost to the economy. As every schoolboy and first-year economics

student knows. Uncertainty is all positive here. Let's ask this

economics student here, I do not know if you are! Is a soft Brexit

gloom and doom and a hard Brexit on leases the UK economy and the

free-trade deals? I am an engineer, not an economist! My view is that of

the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, let's be prudent here.

Forecast. As the OBR right? No, they forecasts and you forecast a

worst-case scenario. They do not know what deal we will get and I

think the Prime Minister will negotiate a good deal and forecasts

will have to be adjusted. It is right for Phillip Hammond to be

prudent, which is why he is talking about a ?20 billion the structure

and productive fund. What about a 100 Dorien pound fund? We are being

prudent and running a deficit of 2% beyond 2020. I think that is what

business expects to hear, what boardrooms around the country expect

to hear, a chance for and Prime Minister that are realistic and will

do what is best for the country. -- Chancellor. The Autumn Statement was

to make sure we have a country that is fit for purpose, to deal with us

coming out of the EU and negotiate the best deal. We will see if the

country is that because one of the things that has been levelled

justifiably is what has happened is the prudent? There is nothing

prudent, you will borrow ?122 billion more, the deficit is still

there and will remain beyond 2020. There was a promise in the Tory

manifesto to deal the debt, which will now be ?2 trillion by 2020,

there is nothing prudent about what this Government is doing all the

Autumn Statement. The lending markets, Linda will talk about that,

will decide if he is being prudent, I think he is very prudent... What

is prudent about ?122 billion extra borrowing that George Osborne said

would not and should not happen? Maybe it is right to borrow this

amount, are you happy those are the figures and the debt will spiral to

nearly ?2 trillion? It is what you are borrowing to do the money...

Investing in infrastructure, assets for UK pillows -- assets for UK plc

is good and bringing down the deficit to 2% is the right thing to

do. I think the markets will look at that as a prudent decision by the

Chancellor and Prime Minister. The Labour to say we can borrow ?500

billion, they need to explain that not only to the Houses of Parliament

and to the markets. How can you bring down the deficit to 2%? You

say you want to balance the books, how? If the debt is ?2 trillion and

Labour wins the election and you will add another ?500 billion in

infrastructure spending, how do you balance the books? It is interesting

you should mention the borrowing, the figures you have just shown that

the Government is about to run a cumulative deficit of 122 billion by

2021 and they have links that directly to Brexit. The rest is

attributable to mismanagement of the economy and the mood has not

invested in infrastructure to the levels we need, and skills and

education, the building blocks required to increase productivity.

How to ?500 billion helped to bring down the deficit and the debt? That

is the figure put forward by the CBI, think tanks such as the Policy

Exchange, as the number required to put us on a level footing with other

countries across the world. How does that help to bring down the debt? It

creates high skilled, highly paid jobs to return higher tax receipts

so the Treasury in the long term provides businesses with the

opportunity to grow their operations and diversify so that they again

campaign more in terms of taxes. That leads to increased public

spending figures. So you are trying to aim, Labour, with smaller money,

because you have admitted you should spend more on infrastructure and

grow the economy and you are catching up after George Osborne,

having choked on consumer demand to a certain expense is not paid down

the deficit. Now you are spending on infrastructure and it is a drop in

the ocean. George Osborne brought down... He has not eliminated it. By

two thirds. It allows us to be in a place where the country is fit for

purpose to invest in the programme of 23 billion in productivity. I

spent a year as the previous premise to's adviser on apprenticeships to

talk about the skills agenda. We have pioneered that, 3 million

apprenticeships by the start of this Parliament. 2.3 billion in the last

Parliament invested in apprenticeships including degree

apprenticeships. So the high skilled, high investment is coming

from a Conservative Government being prudent and the markets will reward

us for this prudence. Should the Conservative Party apologised to the

British public for failing to get rid of the deficit and for the

spiralling debt? I don't agree with you, I think the Chancellor has to

do what is necessary for the country, things have changed. We

have had a Brexit vote. Do you blame Brexit for this extra ?60 billion

that the OBR says the country has the borrow? No, is we have to act in

a way like any steward of any plc, make sure that the country is bit to

take on the challenges of the future. The current forecasts from

the OBR gives you the numbers you have rehearsed with Patrick Minford

but that could be wrong because the premise is fighting for a good deal.

Let's go back to Patrick, you have said this morning the OBR is wrong

to assume a spending slowdown, due to lower migration. But during the

referendum campaign, that was one of the centrepieces, lower migration.

One of the main arguments for Brexit. I had a discussion with you

about it as I recall and I pointed out on skilled migration caused

negative effects for our growth because it cost so much in terms of

welfare. That is really the focus of the referendum campaign. It was not

on skilled migration but migration of unskilled workers. But lower

migration numbers. Yes, but the point about the OBR's forecasts, if

they talk about constraining on skilled migration, that would have

given them a plus and not a minus. So the whole point is that there is

nothing wrong with the prudence of the Chancellor, what is wrong is the

negative tone he has taken over Brexit, where he is in charge of

policy with the Government and are committed to giving the best

policies. Free trade and so forth including controlling on skilled

migration which creates a negative. The turn that into a positive. What

the problem is, the tone of this Autumn Statement is totally negative

in the most crucial area which is Brexit policy. That is a real crime

by the Chancellor. So not just the OBR, in your mind. He did not have

to accept the OBR. They are the independent OBR and the Government's

independent armour. He could have said I am not -1

Brexit, we will pursue the policies that will be good for this country.

He has confidence in that. Instead of which he said it is going to be

bad and I'm going to be prudent. Let's move on because there was

another area where many people feel it was negative, in terms of

people's prospects, and that is the JAMs, the term for people just about

managing. Theresa May said they would be a government for everyone

but let's have a look at some of the figures because the Resolution

foundation have looked at the effect of the Autumn Statement on a typical

family. Policies like free childcare are raising the tax threshold would

save those families ?190 a year, plus 190.

But they will lose ?1970 come as though a net loss of ?1780. There it

is, black and white. Those families will be worse off. They will be a

lot worse. Nothing about helping the people who are just managing. Well,

we have not looked at freezing fuel duties, many of those families will

save money. It is not going to make ?1780. But you can't select --

selectively choose something and say that is the number when you have not

taken the whole of the Autumn Statement, including the freeze on

fuel duties, relief on council tax, affordable housing, all of these

things will make a difference. The net effect on those types of

families, those are the figures. They will be losing ?1780. You want

to put in your frozen fuel Judeo can take it down a little bit more come

but they are not being helped. Whichever way you cut it, Nadhim

Zahawi, they are losing. Over the past six years of you look at who

has shouldered the large burden in terms of both wage increase, so

those people have seen their wages go up, because of the national

living wage, which is going up in April against a ?7 50, worth

reminding of that, if you take the last six years, the wealthiest

people in our country has shouldered the largest burden of the belt

tightening we have had to take since the crash of 2008-9. That is the

difference. You are looking at a single year and saying the numbers

look like they are not doing... But the Chancellor has tried to help

because of the move on universal benefits, universal credit, that is

actually helped. A little bit. The move on universal credit will soften

the blow, it is no way going to reverse the cuts. I must come to

Rebecca. People who have shouldered the greatest responsibility to get

the economy back on its feet are the wealthiest in our country, any

economist will tell you that. So now you are going to hit the one to

answer well. The figures speak for themselves. Rebecca, when with

Labour eradicated episode? We would have taken very different decisions

to this government. We certainly would not have made cuts to the most

wealthiest in society's taxes, in terms of inheritance tax, capital

gains tax. We would have invested in our economy. So when would you have

eradicated the deficit? We have a fiscal credibility rule that has

been put together by world leading economists, and over five years we

would separate topic spinning and capital spending. The rolling

deficit-reduction plans, so when would it be react -- eradicated?

Within a period of five years, by the end of the next parliament after

we had taken over, yes. So 2025? Guess, unless there were situations

through the world economically, extremely adverse conditions. Do you

agree on having an overall cap on welfare spending? I think the cap

that the government has so far is not productive at all. I don't think

the decisions the government have been made have been morally correct.

Would there be a cat, with Labour would you cap the overall spend on

welfare? We are against the welfare cap generally that we would have the

USS welfare spend because you wanted to be there for everybody, to make

sure everybody pays their fair share, but equally want to make sure

people have enough to live on. So sounds like you are not in favour of

having a cap. At the same time he would make sure you had a housing

system where rents went sky high and people could afford to live, where

people could afford to buy their own homes. Everyone would agree with

that, at some stage you might be asked to put a cap on spending full

stop Linda Yueh, back on the Brexit point, you think Patrick Minford,

his argument, the reason he is so annoyed, is based also the fact that

the pro-Remain camp -- pro Remain camp argued so this firstly that

there would be an immediate recession, and immediate crash in

terms of economic perspective it hasn't happened? Yes, and I think

that is probably when the Remain camp oversold how confident they

could be about economic forecasts and assessments. But I think it

doesn't change the longer term point, which is it is going to be

years before we know what our relationship with the rest of the

world is, and our growth depends a great deal on getting into other

markets. So we use the term free trade a lot but free trade is not

free full stop you cannot get into a market unless you have an agreement

open at market, and that is why most economists would say we have now

entered a period of economic uncertainty and it is going to be

harder to get us back to where we are. But that's not the same thing

as saying obviously that immediately we will lose half a million jobs,

which I always thought was, you can't be too confident in any of

these economic assessments. CHUCKLING

All right, Patrick Minford, I will have to say goodbye to you and

Nadhim Zahawi and Rebecca Long Bailey, thank you all of you.

What was Nigel Farage photographed with last night

Was it - a) Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka?

Or d) A recently acquired American passport?

At the end of the show, Linda will give us

Now the something altogether different and a lot more serious.

Yesterday, Thomas Mair was convicted of the brutal murder

He was given a whole life sentence for his crime.

Only a Home Secretary can agree to his release from prison,

because of the "exceptional seriousness" of the crime.

The judge said that he was inspired by admiration for Nazis

and similar anti-democratic white supremacist creeds.

The Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, was asked

about Thomas Mair's conviction this morning.

I think all of us - and it isn't just politicians,

it's the whole of society now - have to look at how

Yes, some of the violent nature of our politics at the moment.

Jo's was a terrible extreme example, but if you look at the abuse that

some people have suffered - in the past, we've had it,

Not just against migrants, but we've had hate crime rise

And so I think what we have to be careful about in all walks

of life now is to see how we can unite people.

And even on this Brexit vote, you know, it's divided society,

We're joined now by the Labour MP and chair of the Home

Affairs Select Committee, Yvette Cooper.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Would you describe the murder of Jo Cox as

a terrorist incident? Guess, I think so. It was a political assassination

and as much a terrorist act as other kinds of either far right extremism

or Islamist extremism, and we should face that is what it was. Jo Cox was

murdered because of her views, because of what she believed in and

it was a deliberate attempt to pursue a political agenda. Now

actually I think, as Jo's husband Brendan Cox said yesterday, it is

also an attack that failed in its terrorist objectives, because what

it led to was the huge outpouring across West Yorkshire and across the

country of support not just for Jo and her family but for a lot of the

ideas that she stood for as well. Right, so you dismiss the idea that

he was in some way a lone wolf? I mean he was a loan move, that

inspired by the ideology you have outlined -- he was a lone wolf. Do

you think at the time some politicians and campaigners were

accused of trying to politicise Jo's murder? We were right in the middle

of that frenetic campaign. Do you think somehow there was hate whipped

up by the EU referendum campaign? I think you have two separate out the

referendum itself, and the way in which people behave around it,

because it has to be legitimate to have referenda, to have proper

public debates and arguments about things in a democracy. That is what

the Moxey is all about. What I think Thomas Mair added, though, was an

assault on democracy, an attack on obviously a democratically elected

member of Parliament but it was an assault on democracy, not an

expression of democracy, which is what the referendum was all about.

We have been looking at issues around hate crime in Taiwan, and

some of the escalation of hate crime, and reports of hate crime in

the run-up to and immediately after the referendum and concerns people

have raised about the way in which some people were whipping up hatred

is part of the campaign. That is separate, I think, from the fact of

having a referendum itself. OK, because you talked about the day

afterwards on the today programme, the day after Jo Cox was murdered

about the vitriol in the campaign and the nasty this, but do you think

that is the sort of thing that led someone like Thomas Mair to carry

out something they had perhaps been thinking about for a long time? It

was clear with Thomas Mair that he had been investigating far right

extremist websites, white supremacists, neo-Nazi, really vile

ideology for a very long time. One of the groups that gave evidence to

our select committee said, hope not hate, they said it was not that

these sorts of political events increased the number of people who

expressed hatred, but that those who were already may be extreme racists

all advocates of violence somehow became involved in, and there is a

difference between those two, but it shows we have to be vigilant and

stand up for that. Do you think politicians have not been vigilant

enough, because there has been a lot of talk and coverage about the risks

of Islamic terrorism and ideology poisoning the minds of young

Muslims, but has the threat been completely underestimated?

Interestingly, this is the third violent attack in recent years,

because there was the attack in North Wales, an attempt to behead

someone by a far right extremist, and also the murder of Mohammed

Salim, who was murdered simply for being Muslim, again by a far right

extremist. So I think we have to take these attacks extremely

seriously, and it is right that the police should do so as part of

preventing extremism as well. Of course, these are crimes, which

would be tried and prosecuted anyway, but in terms of the spread

of an ideology driving those sorts of crimes, has that been

underestimated? Some of the figures from Prevent, the government's

counter radicalisation strategy, are saying that in certain parts of the

country that actually the rise, there has been a significant

increase in far right extremist either attacks were protests, and

they are growing. Nationwide they still say Islamic terrorism is the

bigger problem but perhaps this has been overlooked. And it is in

particular areas as well. Small, very nasty groups of neo-Nazi

organisations as well. And small organisations in different parts of

the country that I'd have different focuses. I think the police need to

take it very seriously. But there is also a wider responsibility on all

of us not to take democracy for granted and to promote the sort of

values that I suppose actually Jo Cox stood for, the more in common

campaign that Jo's family have setup is to tackle that kind of hatred at

its source before it can escalate and spread. Is there a danger of

linking populist right-wing ideologies with far right extremist?

So you could look at the alt right in the strip -- in the States. They

seem to be feeling more comfortable with Donald Trump was not associated

with them in anyway. Do you have to be careful not to link the two? I

think all politicians, and that includes the President elect of the

United States, have to be really careful not to give licence to these

far right extremists, white supremacists, bile organisations.

And I think that is the risk. You are right, we should not just merge

things were mediocre about it, but equally that means in every

organisation for Donald Trump right now, but similarly for politicians

right here, they have to be very careful not to whip up hatred and

give licence to it. Does that include the accusations of just

dismissing or ignoring the claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? I

have always said we should do much more to deal with anti-Semitism in

the Labour Party and across the country. So when John McDonald talks

about unity and trying to bring people together, does he and do

Jeremy Corbyn have to do more? -- John McDonnell. Ulverston. That is

why I have said whether it is in the Labour Party or other political

parties across the country, we also have to do more -- wall of us do. We

also have to do more to challenge online hatred because that can go

into something much worse as well. Thank you.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump confirmed that he will be abandoning

something called TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

It's a trade deal with other countries in the Pacific region,

but while TTP's about trade, it was also about challenging

So what does abandoning it mean for the balance of power in

If Donald Trump's victory was an anti-globalisation vote,

then his pledge to scrap big trade deals was the rallying call.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster,

done and pushed by special interests, who want

Just a continuing rape of our country.

On Tuesday, President-elect Trump made good on that promise,

in a YouTube video setting out his plans for his first

I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw

from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster

Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring

jobs and industry back onto American shores.

The partnership was supposed to unite 12 countries and 40%

of the world economy, in a giant single market,

Known as TPP for short, to its fans, it spelled prosperity

and an increase in living standards across the globe.

To critics, it could cost jobs and was too helpful to corporations.

China is now pushing its own rival partnership programme,

This week, the Chinese Premier was selling the idea in South America.

There's no better illustration of China's expansionary instincts

than the artificial islands it's building in the Pacific,

potentially for use as military bases.

President Obama was already committed to expanding the US

presence in the Pacific, with plans for 60% of the American Navy to be

The Trans-Pacific Partnership was partly designed as a way

of countering their economic and military might.

With that trade deal dead in the water, how

will Trump's America stand up to them now?

We're joined now by Leslie Vinajamuri, from Foreign Affairs

think tank Chatham House, and the economist Linda Yueh

Leslie, how important was the Trans-Pacific Partnership to Obama's

China strategy? It was absolutely central, a central piece of the US

pivot to Asia and it was seen as a way of containing the rise of China

and securing America's role in the region and integrating the Asian

economies through trade. It was central, so this is a big lose for

the Obama administration. A big ruse for the Obama administration, is it

a big clues for America? I think it is, in many ways, America's standing

in the world is not just about trade but influence in all parts of the

world and that is what the Obama administration was trying to cement

and move away from the Middle East and towards Asia which is faster

growing. So the fact that President-elect Trump is going to

turn them inward, he will concede ground to China in terms of global

influence. And President Obama knows how hard it is to save TPP, there

were three things he wanted to save with Donald Trump in the first

meeting, the Iran deal, climate change and Obamacare, trade did not

make it onto the list, which shows you how much of his legacy is at

risk. He was facing towards the Pacific and many felt he had

abandoned the Middle East and the conflicts that because he was going

to face it differently in his administration. Can it survive

without the US, the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is there any point to

it? No, and it is interesting, it is very unlikely and China has put its

own deal on the table for a regional and comprehensive and economic

strategy. There will now be an opening for China to act as a leader

in the region and to unite trade and economic claims more generally. What

about militarily, will there be an opportunity, will the Chinese take

the opportunity in terms of trying to at least flex their muscles

militarily now they see there is an opening? Yes, China has been more

assertive in the South China Seas and the big unknown is that Trump is

unknown and his people still. It is whether they tried to pursue a more

aggressive and assertive policy strategy of containment through

military build-up in the region, or whether there is a complete

withdrawal, which seems unlikely. But the rhetoric has been all over

the map and it is difficult to predict, very uncertain. What does

Donald Trump do if he wants to constrain growing Chinese power? Is

he just going to use soft power to do that? I think the fear is he

might go harder. And what you don't want is a renewal of military

tensions above all else. So one of the worrying thing is about Trump is

we know he is closer to regimes such as Russia than his predecessors and

that raises the prospect is that you have a very different view of how

you integrate the world. Is it about positioning yourself for influence

or about integrating and linking and we don't know enough about

President-elect Trump to know which way he will go? Looking inward, I am

sure it will not be helpful for the accommodate in America which he

wants to double the growth rate of, America needs to be part of the girl

-- global system. If China sets the terms of trade, that does not help

America. Thinking in the UK, one of the things Trump is worried about is

the negative impact on American wages of dealing with American --

developing countries and that is less of a case with developed

countries. He has already said Britain will not be at the back of

the queue. We would be comparable. Is this the end of the multilateral

trade deals? If Trump on pics or at least ratifies these multilateral

trade deals, it will be about bilateral trade deals? It was

already moving that way in terms of bilateral, multilateral is the World

Trade Organisation doing another massive round. People would argue

they don't always achieve that much. No, and probably the difficult of

multilateral ones now is that trade is so much more complicated and is

about investment and services. Even though economists would like to see

a big multilateral trade deal, it takes two long and so now they will

be more specific about what is negotiated like services. And China

is interesting because they initiated the Asia infrastructure

investment bank which the United States did not join, the UK did. It

is another effort to think regionally and collaboratively and

to displace the US leadership and power and standards and norms, which

is a grave threat to the US leadership role in the world. As

Linda said, if the soft power is going to be put to one side on the

trade deal, one will look at some of the military signs and Trump has

said he wants to expand the US Navy, and build up the number of ships,

what is the significance of that? I think the concern is that if you

pursue a strategy that focuses on hard power without integrating trade

and soft power and diplomacy to the centre, it sets you up to have a

more contentious relationship with the region. And as we know in the

campaign, the commitment to the US commitment to Japan and Korea was

not on the table firmly so even with the military build-up, there is a

lot of uncertainty about what that means for America's one standing

allies. Some of these countries already jumping at the chance of a

bilateral, Chile for example, they see it as an opportunity as well?

Yes, and the route which hosted the summit were China, they immediately

asked to sign up to a Chinese lead free trade area -- and the roof.

Thank you very much. Now, in less than a fortnight,

the Supreme Court will be hearing the most important case

in a generation. At stake, whether the Government

alone can decide to trigger the process of our exit

from the European Union, or whether Parliament needs

to approve the process first. Earlier this month, three High Court

judges sided with campaigners, telling the Government that it

would have to get the approval of Parliament before

triggering Article 50. Theresa May wants to trigger Article

50, starting the UK's divorce negotiations

with the European Union, Talks are supposed to last two

years, so that would mean the UK So the Government has appealed

to the Supreme Court and, next month, 11 judges

there will have to decide whether to uphold or overturn

the High Court Ruling. Last week, the Court also decided

that the senior law officers from Scotland and Wales will be

allowed to address the Court At stake is whether triggering

Article 50 leads inevitably to the repeal of the 1972

European Communities Act. Normally, only MPs and peers

have the power to repeal The Government is planning

to introduce what they are calling "The Great Repeal Bill"

in the spring, but that faces the prospect of months of debates,

amendments and votes in the Commons and the Lords,

so approval for that could be We're joined now from Cambridge

by Professor Christopher Forsyth, who is a professor of Public Law

at Cambridge University, and the SNP MP Joanna Cherry,

who is on the Brexit Select Welcome to both of you. Christopher,

does the triggering of Article 50 ultimately leads to the repeal of

the 1972 act? No, it does not. It may read irrevocably to our

departure from the EU but it does not do anything about repealing the

EU act. Can you look into the camera? Perfect. Why do you say

that? That was the position of the Government lawyers, as well as the

person who brought the case, Gina Malone. We may be talking about a

technical difference here. We could cease to be members of the EU and

the treaties would no longer apply, but unless Parliament legislated to

remove the 1972 act from the statute book, it would remain on the statute

book. That is the sense in which it is not being repealed and we would

cease to be members of the EU. The point being made is that we would

lose rights, we would lose rights that would be lost for ever and that

cannot happen unless Parliament, both the Commons and the Lords, have

a say in those rights being repealed or lost. That is absolutely right.

But it is from a slightly different principle. The prerogative should

not be used to frustrate Parliamentary legislation. And that

is what would be happening, so the argument for the claimants goes, in

the current case. That is what would be happening if we cease to be

members of the EU, it would effectively amounts to the repeal of

the act. In your view, once Article 50 is triggered, it is it

reversible? Well, the High Court found it was irrevocable and the

Government lawyers conceded that in the High Court. As a matter of law,

it is open to the Government lawyers to withdraw their concession to the

Supreme Court and it may be difficult for them to do so. It

would involve political difficulties for the Government because of

Article 50 triggering which is not remarkable and Brexiter does not

mean Brexit. And Parliament does not have to give its approval?

Ultimately, the question of whether Article 50 is irrevocable is a

matter for the European Court of Justice and it would be rather

embarrassing for the British Government giving it stands and

reluctance to exist -- to accept the justice and Luxembourg, to refer the

question of Article 50 to Luxembourg. You have tried to

compare it to the Brexit vote. The Brexit vote was a referendum, it was

one... I have not compared to the vote, this is illegal and is not

political matter. You have tried to say Brexit would not mean Brexit.

Let me just explained. So that people understand. One is a

political answer to a question. That can be interpreted in whatever way,

but everyone is broadly agreed. Actually, people said they wanted to

leave the EU. Even if they say... It was a UK referendum. Indeed, but I

am here as a Scottish MP and I want to talk about the fact that 62% of

Scots voted to remain. It was not a devolved issue. 72% in my

constituency. The EU is written into the Scotland Act which founded the

Scotland Parliament and European law affects citizens in Scotland and

indeed businesses. And so there is a very strong argument that triggering

Article 50 will affect the rights of individuals in Scotland, this is

where Scotland comes in. Let's put that to Christopher, do you agree on

that? I agree that the question of whether the Article 50 notice can be

revoked is an important question. And there is a respectable case for

suggesting that it could be revoked, based upon a technical argument to

do with the Vienna Law of treaties. But if the UK could revoke the

notice once it is given, it would completely transform the position

because it would mean if we did not like the deal we got at the end of

the process, we could walk away from it by revoking our notice. And of

course, it would completely undermine the argument that the

triggering of the notice removes rights. Of course, as Joanna has

just remarked, that would cause difficulties for the Government

because it is ultimately a question of EU law and would require

reference to the EU Court, meaning delays of up to two years and you

could imagine the political consequences of a EU court denying

us Brexit! On that basis, do you think the Government lawyers have

employed the wrong arguments by making their case here?

I think that is perhaps so, I think it was for political reasons they

conceded the point about revocable at it, but the other grounds they

conceded that they shouldn't have. The one that strikes you most

obviously is the status of the 2015 referendum act, the act under which

the referendum took place was that that is the act which forms the

foundation of the proposition that the outcome of the referendum is

only advisory. Now I'm not sure that that's absolutely right, because it

seems to me that you can argue that by the 2015 act, Parliament

delegated to the people the right to decide this question, and the people

have decided it. Right, then if following on from that, do you think

this is an example, Christopher Forsyth, of a broader trend of

judicial activism? Now, I certainly don't think that. The judgment of

the court below is commendably orthodox, it upholds the supremacy

and constitutional law in an understandable way. It is arguable

that some of those principles have been randomly applied, and this is

by the government may be successful on appeal, but it is a commendably

orthodox judgment and there is nothing wrong with... I'd deprecate

the attacks on the judges made as a result. Let me come back to you on

the idea of Scotland getting a separate deal, Joanna Cherry, do you

think that is paid in the water now, there is no indication from the EU

that could happen? Scotland getting a separate deal is ultimately a

matter to discuss between the Scottish and the British government

in the first instance, and then the UK Government would go to the EU to

say this is the deal we want, and I don't think it is dead in the water

and the Scottish Government will shortly be coming forward with their

detailed proposals. But it is all about the right of Scottish voters

through the Scottish Parliament to be consulted, and this is why the

Lord Advocate James Weir off QC has sought to intervene on behalf of the

Scottish Government and the Supreme Court have allowed him to make

submissions about points arising from Scottish constitutional law,

which may be relevant to the case. Of course in the high case, -- in

the High Court was no proper argument, and the High Court made

the assumption that the constitutional them in Wales and

Scotland is the same, which we would argue is not the case. Thank you

very much, Joanna Cherry. The government has been heavily

criticised for its lack of planning for a vote to leave

the European Union, and Bernard Jenkin, the Chair

of Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs

Committee, has laid the blame on civil servants, who he says

"are not emotionally Here he is speaking

in a Westminster Hall A lot of the civil service

is struggling to catch up with the absence of preparation

for the outcome of the referendum, which I think is one of the lessons

we must take from this referendum. It is unforgivable for a government

to call a referendum and remain completely unprepared for one

of the possible eventualities. And therefore, there are a lot

of officials who are rapidly trying to get their brains around -

perhaps in a scenario that they're not emotionally attracted to anyway

- some very, very difficult and complicated questions,

and it's taking some time. And I'm joined now by Bernard

Jenkin, and the Liberal Democrat MP So you're blaming the civil service

for everything and they are not emotionally attracted to Brexit, why

do you have to be? Of course civil servants are impartial and are not

blaming civil servants. You are. You're putting words in my mouth. I

thought I was being rather tactful. Even by your standards. The problem

was it was the Prime Minister of the day that forbade civil servants to

make any preparations for a leave vote, and I am not admiring of the

Cabinet Secretary who in fact kind of illicitly good and awayday with

the permanent secretaries during the final weeks of the referendum

campaign when nobody was looking in order to say if there is a leave

vote what should we actually do? I am very pleased we have an impartial

civil service that does not do what ministers and others want them to do

if they think it is in the interest of the nation. You can't have it

both ways, but you still haven't been what does it mean not

emotionally attracted? I should imagine quite a lot more civil

servants voted remain as opposed to leave, the thing that is a surprise.

Listening to Bernard, I'm afraid my mind goes back to the fantastic yes

Minister sketch where he says he had served 11 government in 30 years

that if he had believed everything all his political masters had ever

believed, he would have been in favour of going in and coming out of

the common market. He would have been in favour of Keynesian economic

is, they destroy and a preserve of grammar schools. He says Bob Wells,

Bernard, not you obviously, above all else Bernard, he says, I would

have been stark, staring, raving mad. That maybe so, but that is the

impartiality of the civil servants. Do you think they should have had a

nice big file that said Brexit plan? Vote to leave committee is the plan

that will follow on 24th of June if they win? I will tell you exactly

what I thought should have happened. Before a general election, months

before, the main opposition party will go and see the civil servants

in private and say this is our manifesto, this is what we would

expect you to be able to implement if we were elected. And I think

there is a very strong case for, even though a Leave campaign is not

a prospective government, for there to have been formal engagement. Did

you try? Now, it was absolutely off-limits! Did you have anything

even to share them if you had got in contact? Yes, there was a very large

volume produced by business for Britain could change or go, and you

would have heard of it, and that went into a great deal of the detail

that civil servants are having to now grapple with. There was a great

deal of legal discussion amongst members of Parliament about what

Article 50 meant and what would have to be negotiated, and how a free

trade agreement might be constructed. And a great deal of

work was done. But you did not have the opportunity. We always made it

clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. Lots of

people said lots of different things. Now, we were very clear.

Alistair Carmichael, if Bernard Jenkin is blaming the government of

the day. His own government. Then should there have been preparation?

Would it not have been a lot easier if there had been a proper look and

investigation? Actually, now I don't. When I was in government and

we were going through the Scottish referendum preparation we said we

are not going to plan for something that we do not want to happen. This

is not government policy, we will of course respect the outcome as indeed

we did but we're not going to plan the something we do not want to

happen. Bernard does have a point, though, in that since the 23rd of

June there should have been planning, there should have been

political dimension given to the civil service, and as a member of

the select committee, meeting the senior management team a couple of

weeks ago, it is painfully obvious that even now, five months down the

line, none of that is happening. Do you think as an observer, Linda

Yueh, that there was a plan? Do you think the government has an idea

that it wants to do at this stage you not? I think there is probably

different tools within government about what Brexit is when they say

Brexit means Brexit, but I think the capacity timber and what they want

is probably something that needs to Bielik that much more -- different

views. We have not had trade negotiations for 40 years in

government because that is done by the European Union. We don't have

specialist lawyers, those who can advise us on how you get out for

instance of current trade deals. Like the Canadians, they have

negotiated a free-trade deal with the EU, they said they expect the UK

to be in this trade deal but when we leave the EU they would want to

discuss us keeping that trade deal on similar terms and I think that is

the kind of expertise you cannot build up very quickly. Right, so

there is a frantic chase to get new stuff and people on board and lots

of money is being spent? Buried in the OBE are documents those a few

bob in their meant for just the cost of admin of Brexit. So it will be

costly. The sort of sea change that has been spoken about would not have

been any more achievable if it had started in March rather than June.

The alarming thing is that in November it still has not started

yet. And in that sense if all of that money is going to be spent on

some of your Brexit colleagues say it won't cost any more in terms of

admin, it will cost a little bit more, do you think now there will be

needed some serious investment in the rights of the people to deliver

free-trade deals but Munster do? We will need to acquire, I'm in Canada

has some hundreds of trade negotiators, and we will need to

manage their trading relationships with the rest of the world and the

United Kingdom will need a similar department, which is why the

government has established a department for international trade,

and it is taking time to build up that apartment -- department. But

the civil service will have to adapt to, people tend to Allied order this

into some great big messy plot. There are some things which the

government needs to decide now, in preparation for negotiations and

some things that actually need to be decided in the agreement. Most of

what people are discussing is what to do after we have left. And still

the question about whether it was clear on leaving or not? That is the

next time. Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr programme made it

absolutely clip. Stephen Phillips had to leave Parliament, it was that

clear. There's just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: what was

Nigel Farage photographed with last Was it a) Donald Trump's

daughter, Ivanka? or d) a recently acquired

American passport? So, Linda, what's

the correct answer? And actually why haven't we got a

nice big pile of fellow La Rochelle here? There we go, we have. He looks

very pleased with himself, doesn't it? Well done, you got the right

answer to stop hang on a second. I had better take this call.

When is it OK to stop concentrating on what's happening around you,

and start enjoying the world vicariously through your

Well, yesterday, when Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell

was delivering his very important response to Philip Hammond's Autumn

Statement, it wasn't holding the full attention of Labour

No fewer than 21 MPs sitting behind John McDonnell in the chamber can be

seen fiddling with their mobile phones, instead of concentrating

fully on what their esteemed colleague was saying.

So was this a gross discourtesy to the Shadow Chancellor, or is it

Who better to ask than etiquette coach, Jean Broke Smith?

What you make of this image, they are all intensely looking at their

messages. Horrified. I counted about 20. There was the Shadow Chancellor

responding, and I don't know what they were doing, perhaps they

were... Online shopping? Sorry be a little bit day-to-day. -- bit late.

And they were spreading the Labour leadership is Mac message, which

would have been a very important one on the day of the Autumn Statement,

I suppose isn't that the waves of things are these days? We hope so.

Mobile phones, as much as we need them, it has taken over our lives

completely. You go to a restaurant and you never see to people having

a, session. They are either under the table or they are actually

speaking loudly. I mean something happened to me two days ago, I was

walking down my road, just minding my end business, somebody was loudly

speaking on the phone, waving the arms around, walked straight into me

like that and look to me as if I should not have been on the

pavement. Yes, do you think now we have lost sight of General courtesy,

day-to-day manners when it comes to mobile phones? I think there was a

lot of truth to that. In Parliament I think it is completely egregious.

I know John McDonnell said they were treating up -- treating up messages

but he also said public perception matters. I suppose it is not quite

as bad as the Norwegian Prime Minister who was caught playing

Pokemon Go on her mobile phone during a session of Parliament. I

could not believe that at first. It was so extraordinary. I was just

thinking this morning, about when Cameron was in five or six years

ago, the band mobile phones from Cabinet meetings. I was asked what I

thought and I said well done. But the Norwegian situation, I read it

and thought this can't be. Pokemon Go and food ninja. Anyway, I am

pleased to say we don't allow phones only for the particular purpose of

that item. Thank you to all of our guests for coming in.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

Andrew will be here on BBC One tonight with Michael Portillo,

Liz Kendall, Dan Hodges, Tim Shipman, John Nicolson

and Stewart Lee joining on This Week from 11.45pm.

And the Daily Politics will be back at noon tomorrow with all the big