13/03/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

In the last few minutes, Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has

confirmed she will seek approval from the Scottish Parliament for

Meanwhile, the Brexit Bill is back in the Commons and looks set to gain

Parliamentary assent by the end of the day.

The Prime Minister will then have the green light to begin

As we celebrate Commonwealth Day, we debate whether Brexit will mean

the rebirth of the Commonwealth and be a new era of trade

And should the crown skip a generation?

The journalist and writer Geoffrey Wheatcroft tells us why

he thinks the next king should be William.

God Save The Queen. God bless the Prince Of Wales. And long live King

William V. And with us for the whole programme

today, the former Secretary Of State For International

Development Andrew Mitchell. And the former Shadow Health

Secretary Heidi Alexander. First, today, some breaking news

in the last few minutes. Scotland's First Minister

Nicola Sturgeon says she will seek approval next week

from the Scottish Parliament for Ms Sturgeon said she wanted a vote

to be held between the autumn of 2018 and the spring

of the following year. I know that there are some who want

me to roll out a referendum completely, or delay the decision

until much, much further down the line.

I understand why some take that view and, of course, these views do weigh

heavily on me. But so does this. And this for me is

a key consideration. If I ruled out in referendum, I

would be deciding completely unilaterally that Scotland would

follow the UK to a hard Brexit come what may, no matter how damaging to

our economy and our society it turns out to be.

That should not be the decision of just one politician.

Not even the First Minister. By taking the steps I have set out

today, I am ensuring that the Scotland's future will be decided

not just by me, the Scottish Government or the SNP, it will be

decided by the people of Scotland. It will be Scotland's choice.

And I trust the people to make that choice.

The First Minister Niklas Ajo. What is your reaction?

She can't really not do that. I very much if Scotland votes again it all

vote to remain part of this union. It seems very much in Scotland's and

England's interest, and I think since the last referendum, opinion

has moved more strongly towards the union and I think some of the events

in the European Union has suggested to people in Scotland there is merit

in this ancient union with England. I hope it will survive. What

evidence is there for the fact more people have moved in favour of the

union as opposed to supporting independence on the basis more

people voted to Remain in the European referendum Bantu Leave?

The European referendum, that has led to a greater degree of

understanding about what leaving the union means. If you look at the

surveys which have taken place in Scotland in the last year, the merit

of this union with England is more strongly seen.

The Ipsos MORI poll published last week for STV found Scots are split

50-50. Can you be supported it will be in favour of the union?

It is the triggering of Article 50, and the stark realisation of what is

now going to happen which may have increased temporarily support for

splitting. But in the longer term if you look at the other surveys, it is

more likely than it was before Scotland will vote to remain.

Do you agree? I think the First Minister is wrong

to issue ultimatums at the Moto -- the moment. She is right to

highlight the problems of leaving the single market but in a period of

economic stability, I do not think another referendum in Scotland is

what the country needs. If you look at opinion polls out this morning,

there are more people who are against a Scottish referendum a

second time than for it. She would do well to get back to the day job

of looking after the things that she is responsible for in Scotland.

We will talk hopefully to someone from the SNP. Did you agree with

Jeremy Corbyn a second referendum on Scottish independence would be fine?

The Labour Party is clear we will vote against a second referendum in

the Scottish Parliament. And so there is a question about

what happens going forward, should legislation come forward in the

British Parliament? But I think in terms of the vote in Scotland, we

would be opposing the second referendum, a position we have made

clear. Should Westminster block an attempt

to hold a second independence referendum, Theresa May would have

two Sachin the idea in the face of the Scottish Ponte voting for it as

well Kopczak would have two sanctions the idea in the face of

the Scottish Parliament. I do not think Westminster should

stand in the way. We have to wait to see what happens. I do not think

Westminster can stand in the way if Scotland wants another referendum

and democratically decide that is what they want. It would be wrong

for Westminster not to agree. Which is what Jeremy Corbyn said.

His point is we do not want to be fuelling grievances.

Were there to be a vote in the Scottish Parliament, the British

Parliament Stott there is going to buy the sound of it.

There would need to be a range of items, the date, the franchise,

questions to which we do not have answers.

On the issue Brexit, timing is crucial, one thing Theresa May will

not want is for a second independence referendum to take

place in autumn of 2018 or at any point ahead of a deal having been

done if there is a deal over Brexit. I don't think there is a logic of

holding a Scottish referendum until they can see the nature of the deal

for Britain's exit. She wants to pre-empt a hard Brexit.

It would not be logical until she can see what the cards are on the

table. Until the gauche Asians are concluded with the EU, she can't do

that. The Government's new aircraft

carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth? At the end of the show,

Andrew Mitchell and Heidi Alexander Now, the Brexit Bill is back

in front of MPs today, for the first time since the Government

was defeated twice in the House The bill could pass its final

Parliamentary hurdles by the end of the day,

leaving the way clear for Prime Minister Theresa May

to trigger Article 50, and so start formal negotiations

for leaving the EU, later this week. Secretary Of State For Exiting

The EU David Davis is expected to stand up at around 3.30pm

in the Commons to kick off the debate on the EU

Notification Of Withdrawal Bill, or Brexit Bill as it is

more commonly known. Up for discussion is whether to keep

two amendments passed One to guarantee the rights of EU

nationals living in the UK. And one to give Parliament

a "meaningful" vote But the Government is expected

to have a majority to remove these amendments from the Brexit Bill

when MPs vote between six The bill then returns

to the House Of Lords again, with peers expected to start

their debate at around 8.30pm. Should MPs, as expected,

remove the Lords' amendments, peers could take this opportunity

to reinstate their amendments, although Labour Leader

of the Lords Baroness Smith has said Either way, we will know the result

of that debate at around 10.15pm. If the Lords vote to reinstate

the amendments, the bill will once again return to the Commons,

and could then "ping-pong" between both Houses

throughout the night But if the Lords decide

not to block the bill then it will go for Royal Assent,

paving the way for Theresa May to trigger Article 50,

the formal process for the UK Our correspondent Ben Wright

is outside Parliament, Let us assume it is passed, and

Theresa May decides to trigger Article 50 this week or next, what

happens after that? The Parliamentary process is

comparatively simple compared to how Article 50 then we'll proceed.

What will happen first is that Theresa May will write to the

president of the European Council Donald Tusk, the body that

represents EU heads of Government and state, informing her Britain

wants to leave the EU, a letter that has never been written before,

triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that has never been used

before. Then the European Commission which has already been thinking

about the sorts of things it will be prepared to negotiate, will write to

the European Council, the 27 Member states, saying these are the things

we want to negotiate, do you give approval to negotiate on your behalf

with the UK? There will be a discussion over

several days. And then a summit in Brussels of the remaining 27 EU

countries where they will agree what that negotiating mandate will be and

give the European Commission the green light to go ahead and set

round a table with the UK. That summit could happen as early as

April the 6th, or early May. We expect a lull after Article 50 is

first triggered, then talks finally beginning with in about six or seven

weeks. We know negotiations couldn't start

until the formal Article 50 bill was trickled, but we do have a sense

already of what Michel Barnier the chief negotiator is wanting in terms

of how these negotiations should progress -- Bill was triggered.

He wants to hammer out the divorce part of these talks before there is

proper discussion on the future relationship. The trade deal. What

is not helpful if the wording of Article 50, it isn't very extensive,

only 206 words, five short paragraphs, it says a withdrawal

agreement needs to be figured out taking into account the future shape

of the relationship between the EU and departing state. The UK will go

into these talks, and we have two discuss this in its totality, money

we still owe to the EU, the rights of EU and UK citizens, the shape of

future trade relations. The European Commission may want to do the

divorce first and talk about the future relationship. Once Article 50

has been triggered, that ball is in the EU's court, they set the

negotiating mandate. What about the European Parliament?

The meaningful vote amendment has been debated in the past in the

House Of Lords, and again in the House Of Commons. There is a

meaningful vote for the European Parliament.

You are right, this is a part of an overlooked. The European Parliament

will have a massive role, Article 50 gives a two year window for the

withdrawal agreement to be approved, it might happen before.

The European Parliament has a man who will liaise between the

Parliament, and commission and Council, who talked about the idea

of giving UK citizens some right to have some benefits of EU membership.

He is not in negotiator but will be on the periphery of discussions. At

the end of the process, once there is a draft deal, before the European

Council, EU leaders, have their final vote on whether to accept, the

European Parliament will have a vote also and they have a veto, they

could decide we don't want any of this, we want to throw it out. A

very important role at the end of all of this.

Andrew Mitchell, coming back to here in the Commons, do you expect David

Davies to offer assurances to rebel MPs and peers to head off any

discontent? I do but I expect him to stand firm

on rejecting these amendments from the House Of Lords and leaving the

bill as it is. I think that he has earned the right to do that he has

explained why on both issues what some of the rebels and supporters of

the amendments fear, is not an issue which should bother them further.

I expect Parliament to reject the Lords's amendments and with the

balance between both houses on what has been said about our unwritten

cost you should, I expect the House Of Lords to accept it.

Will you be reassured by words from David Davies you should not be

worried about the rights of EU nationals, it will be dealt with

quickly and that there will be a vote for Parliament to mark I will

vote to retain the amendments the House Of Lords have put in for the

rights of the 3 million EU nationals to remain in the UK, and for that to

be unilaterally decided before the negotiations start, and for this

meaningful vote at the end of the process.

I do not think Parliament should be left with a Hobbs and choice at the

end of the negotiating period, that you take the terms of the deal or

you fall out of the EU and have two rely on WTO trading terms because I

think that would do enormous damage to the British economy. It is vital

Parliament and not just Theresa May in Downing Street, has a genuine say

on this at the end of the period. What is the point of just having

about at the end that either is to come out with nothing or accept the

deal however bad or good it is? Verse double there is no chance deal

won't be cut between the EU and Britain about EU nationals here and

British nationals in the European Union. So why not do it now? You

don't concede a negotiation before negotiations have started but we all

know what the reality is, there is no threat to EU nationals in Britain

or British nationals in the European Union. On the second point, I'm a

former Government whip, there are numerous ways in which Parliament

can challenge the executive, whether or not... But not on those issues.

Whether or not on the face of the builder is a meaningful vote, there

will be several meaningful votes the Government needs to win in

Parliament so I have no fear about that amendment being revoked this

afternoon because Parliament have the power to put down motions, the

opposition have the power to put down motions, and they can do so at

any time and the Government will have to win them. Could we be in a

situation where EU nationals could be deported if the negotiations

don't quite go the way the Government would like? I don't know,

nobody knows. The EU citizen that come to my advice surgeries in tears

about the uncertainty that this has caused for them and their families,

it is all very well for Andrew to sit here and said there is no

conceivable way in which those people would be allowed to stay, but

I know that EU citizens are very fearful at the moment and I think

providing them with a guarantee at this stage is a reasonable and

humane thing to do. You set out the arguments for and against but in

reality the Government is going to win, it will be able to remove those

amendments because the numbers do not add up, unless you know of about

26 Conservative rebels that will join your side. Let's see what

happens, Conservative MPs can just sit on their hands. They could

abstain. Nobody knows what is going to happen. Are you worried about the

number of colleagues on your side that could decide to abstain, which

would mean, in effect, that those amendments remain in the bill? I am

pretty confident that those amendments will not stay in the

bill. I think David Davis has, in a very persuasive way, managed to

persuade virtually all of my colleagues have the merit of the

Government's case and I would expect the Government to win comfortably

this afternoon. One other important point about what happened in the

event of a deal not being reached, if you listen to Conservative MPs

such as Nicky Morgan, and a super, Dominic Grieve, who have pointed out

that it is imperative that Parliament, should a deal not be

reached, have a say about what happens then with respect to the

country going forward, and I find it inconceivable that Parliament

wouldn't be involved at that stage. Anna Sue Brie has said that will

stop let's say in six to 12 months negotiations are going badly and the

Government decides to cut its losses and come out of the EU without a

deal, World Trade Organisation rules, should there be a vote at

that point to decide what happens next or would there be a general

election? There would be a vote in Parliament because the opposition

would put down a motion. You know there are differences in the

thoughts of votes that take place in Parliament, there are binding vote

put forward by the Government and there are also votes that the

opposition can seek to have. If you are so sure Parliament will have a

say at the end of this process, and meaningful say, I don't understand

why it can't be on the face of the bill today. Because the bill has

been produced by the Government and the Bill is only there to Greg

Article 50, it is not getting into these subclauses. We all know

Parliament, when negotiations are done, faces down the executive and

says the deal, as it is set, is not acceptable, that would be a serious

moment. When Parliament have a vote on this it will be meaningful.

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, should day-to-day be making speeches

and debating on the merits of keeping those amendments within the

Bill or will they just go ahead and vote through Article 50? I think

Keir Starmer will be making the case for retaining the Lords amendments

today because I think the reassurance they would provide to EU

nationals and reassurance to the country in terms of elected

representatives being involved at the end of this process is

absolutely crucial. In the end, though, we already know from the

leaders in the Lords, from Angela Smith, the leader of Labour in the

Lords, that they are not going to vote on prolonged ping-pong so

Article 50 will pass, probably tonight, if not fairly soon after.

Should Article 50 be triggered immediately by the Prime Minister

then? I think there is no reason to delay, she has the bill at that

point and I would expect her to trigger it at some point in the next

few days after that. Or even tomorrow? It could be as soon as

tomorrow, she has a statement in the house tomorrow but I would expect

her to trigger it when she is armed with the legislation to proceed

fairly quickly. Do you agree the Lords will not go for prolonged

ping-pong? I think Angela Smith, Labour's leader in the House of

Lords, has said they will not drag out the process. I voted against the

Article 50 bill, even I don't think there is merit in just read running

the same argument to get the same outcome, so I don't think that we

will see protracted ping-pong, but that is not to say I

am happy with the Bill. There is speculation about whether the UK

will get a good enough deal and Theresa May will accept, how likely

do you think that is in terms of statistics, more likely we will get

a good deal or we will come out and rely on WTO rules? I think we will

get a good deal, and a good deal is one both sides are happy with. In

Theresa May and David Davis you have got the best possible team to

negotiate this for Britain and I'm very confident that once

negotiations are ongoing a sensible, mutually advantageous deal will be

done. Boris Johnson said no deal would be perfectly OK at the

weekend, do you agree? It would be the second of my options... It would

be, by dint of logic! I think there will be a deal, but the Government

would be ill-advised not to plan for there not being a deal because that

is part of the various scenarios that the Government must face. Are

you worried that has not been enough contingency? No, David Davis said

Whitehall is well abreast of the legalities. The Foreign Affairs

Committee did not seem to agree. Are you being overly pessimistic? It is

likely a reasonable deal will be struck between the two sides. I wish

I had Andrew's optimism about this, to be honest. If you look at what

Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and David Davis were saying yesterday on

television, one was saying it would be fine, as you said, Jo, to fall

out on WTO terms, Liam Fox was saying it would be a bad thing. I

think the Government are all over the place on this and I'm really

worried about what the outcome of these negotiations will be in terms

of the future prosperity of our country and the jobs and trade,

investment that people depend upon. I want to reassure Heidi that

negotiations are being done by Theresa May and David Davis, they

are in the lead and they... The other two are involved? They are a

superb team. The former Lords Speaker has

admitted she abandoned an investigation into peers

who enjoy House Of Lords perks without doing any work,

for fear of causing what she called Baroness D'Souza was investigating

which peers clocked in to claim their ?300 daily allowance

without making a contribution However, she then dropped the probe

for fear of having to name and shame She makes the claim in the final

episode of The Lords, What I wanted to find

out in the research that I did a few months

ago who was attending, And you know it is very

difficult to quantify. There are some who make no

contribution whatsoever and nevertheless claim

the full amount. This is not a daycare

centre or a club. It is actually a House,

a legislative House. And I do firmly believe

that the people who attend ought to be in a position to be

able to contribute. I abandoned this research because it

would have involved a degree of naming and shaming

which I certainly But also that would in turn have

provoked some kind of a press storm I mean, the reputation of the House

is not that great anyhow. Well, we did ask Baroness D'Souza if

she would like to do an interview, But we have our two guests here.

Heidi Alexander, what do you make of the fact she was carrying out her

own piece of research into Lords claiming the daily allowance and

whether they were doing the Brexit were? I don't know whether this

so-called investigation was actually a formal inquiry on the part of the

Lords, it seems to me it was more a personal research project. I think

that all representatives, whether in the House of Commons or the House of

Lords, should always think very, very carefully before claiming

expenses. I think we all have a responsibility to be getting value

for money for the taxpayer, I'd also say, though, I do think the vast

majority of people, perhaps not the vast majority, but the majority in

the House of Lords are doing is really important work. If you think

about the work on child refugees by Lord Dubs, they can make a great

contribution to the legislative... But what about those who are not

doing that, Andrew Mitchell? Would it have been useful and pertinent to

know who was not actually contributing the work but still

claiming allowances? I completely agree with what Heidi said, and I

would make two points on Baroness d'Souza's report. The first issue

will have had to look at voting records to see whether on the day

peers were there they were voting, but that is not the only word Lords

do, they do all sorts of things around the Lords on committees,

formal as well as informal committees, so her research may have

been flawed. The other point I would make it as the former Speaker if she

thought some peers were not behaving as they stood in respect of public

money then she should have used her good offices to go to them and stop

them from doing it. She said she did not want your name and send them and

cause a press conference by discussing it she has done that, in

essence? I think that if you are going to make these sorts of

allegations, it needs to be a formal inquiry, there needs to be proper,

comprehensive research done, I'm not an expert on Lords procedure but I

would have thought that if there was a genuine, real problem there the

laws themselves would want to investigated thoroughly and not a

partial piece of personal research, and I'm not clear how comprehensive

this work was. You admitted it has caused a press storm anyway to a

certain extent, will it hasten the call for reform again? I think there

will be more reform of the Lords, the Lords themselves are looking at

it, and I have great confidence in the new Lord Speaker, who I think is

an enormously experienced parliamentarian, and I think you can

be relied upon to be sensible about reform. But I think what you have

got here is a story without evidence, which of course the press

love but I'm not sure it advances the knowledge. Brexit might push the

issue down to the bottom of the agenda with regards House of Lords

reform. It is a problem for the day-to-day business of Government.

The point I would beg on the House of Lords, there is a case for making

the House of Lords smaller. David Cameron in the last parliament was

actually increasing the number of peers on those benches, so I would

be up for looking at reducing the number of peers in the Lords. It

certainly is fall in there if everybody turns up.

We're expecting a busy week here in Westminster,

and further afield, let's take a look at what's coming up.

As we discussed earlier, the EU Withdrawal Bill will be back

MPs will vote on two amendments that were put in by the Lords.

And the bill could then get final approval from

Tomorrow, Theresa May will make a statement telling

Parliament about the EU summit in Brussels last week.

Some of the papers have been speculating that she could trigger

Article 50 on Tuesday, but others think later

On Wednesday, Jeremy Corbyn will face Theresa May for PMQs.

As ever, we'll broadcast the session live and in full

Also on Wednesday, there's a general election in the Netherlands.

All eyes will be on Geert Wilders - it's thought that his

Party For Freedom will significantly boost their number of seats.

Sticking with foreign affairs, we'll get an outline

of Donald Trump's budget plans on Thursday, although the full

details of his tax and spending plans aren't expected for another

And on Friday, Nicola Sturgeon will address the SNP

The First Minister will be able to tell the party

faithful why she now wants a second independence referendum.

We're joined by Kevin Schofield from Politics Home and Alison Little of

the Daily Express. Kevin, give us your reaction to what

Nicola Sturgeon said about seeking approval for the second independence

referendum? It is not much of a surprise, she has been threatening

it, talking about it being highly likely, very likely, ever since the

Brexit vote, so now has been the time for her to put her cards on the

table and to her credit she has done that this morning, the ball is

firmly in the Prime Minister's court. Has she been forced, if you

like, to announce the date, obviously it was in their manifesto,

something she has talked about doing if certain conditions were not met

by Theresa May, is it something she really wanted to announce today,

though? I think she said before that she wouldn't call another referendum

unless there had been a sustained poll lead for independence, clearly

that has not been the case, I think another poll out today shows a

slight advantage to the pro union side, so in a way she has been

backed into a corner, she has a lot of members who joined in the wake of

the last referendum who are desperate to have a second one so

she has to try to keep them on board and the Brexit vote has provided an

opportunity to give them what they want. Addison, she has done it of

course before Theresa May has the opportunity to trigger Article 50

but that will happen soon. Should she go ahead or block any second

independence referendum? Theresa May has made a very big

thing of respecting Scotland and devolved assemblies, Nicola Sturgeon

has made great play of the fact Scotland has been ignored by the

Government. If Theresa May ordered Westminster

to block another referendum if that was overwhelmingly backed by the

Scottish Parliament, I think that wouldn't help relations. It would

play into Nicola Sturgeon's hands. It is very dangerous as we know, a

very dangerous time for the UK. She has announced this today Nicola

Sturgeon. When do you think Theresa May will trigger Article 50 if it

gets Royal assent later? As Liam Fox said, it will be this

week, next week or the week after! Her self-imposed deadline and

Downing Street is sticking to this. It is a big moment. The invoking of

Article 50. It is the last really big, clear thing that will happen

with Brexit for a couple of years at least. If I were Theresa May I would

want to make sure that I completely chose the venue and the timing,

there is talk whether she might mention it in the House Of Commons

tomorrow. The problem that is, it is a bear pit full of people who hate

the idea of Brexit. She would have to take questions. She is very good

at giving preprepared statements which set the right tone. When she

answers questions, sometimes she can muddy the clarity of that message.

She may well do it tomorrow. What do you think if you were a betting man?

Or will she avoid the bearpit of the House Of Commons and do it somewhere

else? She can't avoid that bearpit, she is

making that statement. I would be surprised if it wasn't Wednesday by

the latest. She now wants it to happen. It is entirely in her gift.

It is significant the statement tomorrow is a little bit later than

we would otherwise have expected, at 3:30pm, Parliament sits tomorrow

morning. That would give her enough time to trigger Article 50, come

into Parliament and take as many questions as she can.

Let us talk about Labour spending, there has been a contradiction,

Jeremy Corbyn disputing to some extent his own Shadow Cabinet Member

Rebecca Long-Bailey who talked about reversing tax cuts by the Government

to raise ?70 billion but would then be put to public spending.

Tell us the significance? It is significant, if I had ?1 for

every story over Labour confusion, I would have ?14?

It happens quite a lot. There is definite confusion, Jeremy Corbyn on

the radio today saying he did not recognise this ?60 billion figure

despite the fact Rebecca Long-Bailey tipped by many to be the next Labour

leader saying those figures were broadly accurate.

The problem Labour has is people are not taking them seriously especially

over the economy. People look at the opinion polls and see they have a

mountain to climb and they are not well placed at the moment unless

there is a dramatic change in public opinion, to be a Government in

waiting. All these browsers seem to confirm

that idea the voters have, that Labour are in a real mess.

Thank you to both of you, enjoy the sunshine.

Back to that breaking News, the First Minister of Scotland Nicola

Sturgeon has announced she will seek approval for a second independence

referendum. Let us talk to the SNP Europe spokesman Stephen Gethin

welcome back to the Daily Politics. Why did she make the announcement

today? It is important people in Scotland

are given a choice McGivern Article 50 looks increasingly likely it is

going to be triggered, I think the people of Scotland need to know

their options and make a choice of their futures, isolationist future

with the UK, or is it securing a relationship with our partners in

Europe? She hasn't trickled Article 50, it

is still being debated in the Commons, we will go back to the

Lords later this evening. Isn't this rather presumptive? Wait

a minute. We have had several months, nine months on from the

European referendum, we are several months on from when the Scottish

Government came forward with a compromise document. In that time

the promised has rejected the single market which could cause the

loss of tens of thousands of Scottish jobs, rejected the customs

union, we are looking at an increasingly hard Tory Brexit. It is

right the First Minister has taken the opportunity to set out the

options the people of Scotland now have.

Negotiations have even started, we don't know whether there will be a

hard Tory Brexit as you call it, a deal has not been put either to

other parts of Parliament. Having already in website running by

the SNP, it all smacks like you have had this long prepared and this is

the moment you have been waiting for, the excuse to launch the

process for a referendum, otherwise why you -- Why do you have a website

ready to go. We have had nine months from the

23rd of June referendum. During those months, we are seeing a huge

amount of uncertainty the business, for universities, we have seen the

only substantial piece of work from the Government is the Scottish

Government zest compromise undermined by the UK government. It

is right the First Minister sets out the options for the people of

Scotland. What evidence do you have a majority

in Scotland would vote for independence?

We have seen the most recent opinion polls showing 50-50.

One poll has said that. You have had the average of three

polls over the past weeks. We also in a situation, bear in

mind, the independence referendum previously when it started off at

27%. If you put polls to one side, the people of Scotland voted

overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU. They are being taken out against

their will. That could cost tens of thousands of jobs. The Scottish

Government has a responsibility to do everything in its power to

protect those jobs, protect our economy and protect our relationship

with Europe. In the manifesto, I remember it was

done on the promise of a second independence referendum if there

were times not in the interests of Scotland and if there was

overwhelmingly support for that second referendum. There was that

support at the moment. The manifesto says there could be

another independence referendum in the circumstances Scotland was taken

out of the EU against its will. The SNP was re-elected with an

increased vote on that manifesto. They have the mandate, something

recognised by other parties as well. On that basis they take it forward.

You are right, it is for us to go in and make these arguments but we are

in a situation whereby we have a choice and the people of Scotland

have a choice between a hard Tory Brexit or protecting jobs by

maintaining our relationship with our European partners.

We have a Government response, I won't read the whole thing, it says

over, only a little over two years ago people in Scotland decisively

voted to remain part of the UK which the Scottish Government defined as a

once in a generation vote. Evidence shows the majority in Scotland do

not want a second independence referendum, another would be

divisive and caused huge economic uncertainty at the worst time.

Presumably indicating you want it to happen in autumn 2018 when

negotiations will be going on for Brexit.

Do you accept you did say it would be a once in a generation vote last

time? That is why you stand on a

manifesto. The Chancellor is in difficulty for failing to live up to

the Tory party commitments. You put something in a manifesto and people

vote on it. The SNP was voted on its 20 16th manifesto commitment which

was very explicit. Government rise and fall in terms of their

commitments, something we are finding out after another

catastrophic budget here at Westminster. They were very clear

about the manifesto, the people of Scotland had a choice and the SNP

were re-elected on that basis. When would you like the second

independence referendum to be? The First Minister set at a temple

-- Set up a timetable. That makes a lot of sense. By that stage we will

have a lot more information about what Brexit means. Others are not

hopeful about what it means. It gives the people the opportunity to

make a more informed choice. Thank you very much.

Now, it may not be in your calendar, but today is Commonwealth Day.

Marked around the world, the idea is to promote

the Commonwealth's "shared values" and to celebrate the diversity

of the organisation which has 52 members across six continents.

But while the pomp and pageantry is the focus of today,

since last year's vote to leave the EU many have been

talking about a new era for the Commonwealth club.

The Government has talked optimistically about the possibility

of striking new trade deals with the likes of Australia

and Canada, while last week Commonwealth trade ministers meeting

in London agreed to strengthen economic ties between members.

So, could these potential trade deals be new economic

Or has their importance been exaggerated?

We're joined now by the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell,

who has come to the studio direct from a Commonwealth flag-raising

And by Tom Brake, Lib Dem spokesman on foreign affairs.

I think we know which side both of you are on this argument.

Britain has a free trading agreement with the EU where we export 228th

Battalion pounds of goods and services. Our export trade with the

Commonwealth is worth around ?47 billion. Less than one fifth of

that. In a way, new trade deals with the Commonwealth is a side deal

compared with getting a trade deal with the EU?

The reality is we have so many opportunities to trade with the

Commonwealth it is an expanding market for Britain.

It would have to expand an awful lot.

We have been in the EU for over 40 years, in a straitjacket. By having

Brexit, we can do our own trade deals, negotiate independently based

on our common heritage, rule of law, common legal system, and the fact we

speak the same language. So many opportunities. It's not about not

trading with Europe but doing both. We can do both, a trade deal with

the EU and deals with India, Australia, which we have been

prohibited from because of our membership of the customs you.

The EU has just struck a deal with Canada. The issue is, as you stated,

the size of what we do with the EU versus the Commonwealth is an issue.

And we could do both. Another issue is actually in terms of specialists

within the Department for its national trade, there are very few

that can deal with these. There are many Commonwealth countries who

threw the ACP countries already have a relationship with the EU,

countries like Belize, Members of the Commonwealth who are worried the

arrangement they have currently with the EU, if that were to be damaged,

and they weren't able to draw up a similar arrangement with the UK in

future, if the UK was doing a deal with Ecuador, that would wipe out

their industry. We have the potential but the Commonwealth is

much smaller, and I know from having lived in Australia that Australia is

much more focused on the far east in terms of its markets than the UK.

There is a point about priorities, surely the UK was very attractive as

an open door to the EU that those Commonwealth countries which we will

no longer be once we have left. First, the Commonwealth is an

expanding market, the EU is a decreasing market.

My point is their view of us, they may not view us as appealing if we

don't have an open door to the EU. We are going to leave but we will

still trade with Europe. But we wouldn't be that open door as

part of the EU to other countries. I think we will be, we are a low tax

economy, we have a flexible Labour market, we are a chat live for

countries to invest. Europe will want to trade with us. It is about

doing both. We have neglected the well, we haven't done our own trade

deals. Canada, we could have had a deal decades ago but because of the

EU we have been prevented. And of course it is these

multilateral agreements that are so hard to strike, bilateral may be

easier? But of course we may get less than when we get deals from the

European Union. With countries like India, for instance, India may want

to achieve a bilateral deal with a much greater degree of penetration

of the UK market of Indian nationals, for instance, so from an

immigration point of view those deals may require the UK to concede

more in allowing Indians to come to the EU. But the EU countries demand

whatever they want, so instead of doing a British deal with our best

friends, we are stuck worrying about what France wants or what Romania

wants, or Greece. So we are going to be free and able to do our own

thing, trading globally, as we have done throughout our history, a

seafaring, free trading nation with our best friends once again. Let's

pick up on India, we covered the visit not long ago and it was very

clear that any deal from the Indian side would be far more visas, would

you accept that? That is the great thing about Brexit, we can make our

own immigration policy again. If it is immigration the country needs, I

welcome that, but it should be controlled by the British

Government, not anybody from Europe and nobody from the Commonwealth,

which is what we have at the moment. Clearly the UK needs to attract

people with the skills that we need but I think Andrew has just revealed

something I suspect not many people who voted for Leave are aware of,

which is one of the prices to pay for Brexit might actually be more

immigration from India. I can't remember that being a big campaign

slogan. I didn't say that at all, we should control who comes in and if

there is a skilled person in India why should they not have the same

opportunities as a skilled person from Italy? I don't understand why

we have a system where the Commonwealth are second best but we

only really give total access to Europe. That will change with

Brexit, we need to reboot our relationship with the Commonwealth,

have a stronger relationship, because historically they are our

best friends so why not work more closely with them. What I keep

saying is fanciful, I have a large Jamaican population in my

constituency, we export more to Lithuania than to Jamaica. I looked

on the Department for trade's website this morning about expanding

trade with Jamaica, do you know what came upon the website? It said the

country guide for Jamaica is currently not available. The

Government talk the talk when it comes to expanding trade

opportunities but they clearly do not have the capacity to deliver

and, as Tom says, we already have trading arrangements with a number

of Commonwealth countries so we are just reinventing something we

already have. Do you agree, are we prepared to take up the

opportunities if they exist with, most countries or is this symbolic?

We want to trade with everyone, Andrew was right in what he said,

this is an opportunity to greatly expand trade with the Commonwealth

but where there are lots of nations growing at the highest rate anywhere

in the world, but also to continue to trade, I hope, in a very open

way, with the European Union, so it should be a win-win. Thank you both

very much. Commonwealth Day seems a good day to

talk about the royal succession. Elizabeth II is of course our

longest-serving monarch, and attention is inevitably

beginning to focus There is a growing number of people

who question whether the throne should skip Prince Charles and go

straight to his son William. The journalist and monarchist

Geoffrey Wheatcroft says Charles has too many controversial views,

and the throne needs Beyond most people's

retiring age already. His mother, the Queen,

is 90, and already our If she lives anything

like as long as her own mother, the Prince will be approaching

the age of 80 by the time Plenty of people have begun

to wonder whether he should or whether the monarchy

could survive the reign Criticisms of the Prince

of Wales tend to come So, let me just say that the House

of Hanover has no more loyal No stronger adherent

of the principles of the glorious revolution, the Protestant

succession, and the But one essential feature of that

constitutional monarchy as it has evolved is that the monarch has

what the great Victorian writer Walter Bagehot called

the right to be consulted, the right to encourage,

and the right to warn. But the monarch does not

have the right to express The Queen has famously never

said anything in public That is, she never says anything

which is the opinion of Her Majesty, as opposed to Her Majesty's

Government. Her son the Prince Of Wales just

as famously never tires of writing letters to Cabinet ministers giving

them advice, and letting the rest of us know what he thinks

about every known subject, from genetically modified crops,

to grammar schools, It is said that he now

hopes to become king, that he very much wants his wife

the Duchess of Cornwall And that he intends to go

on expanding his own But if that is true,

then he has simply failed after all this time to grasp

the essential nature The Prince Of Wales

is a fundamentally decent and serious man with a strong

sense of duty. Mightn't he express his duty best

by relinquishing his right It could then pass directly

to his son Prince William, the Duke Of Cambridge,

who is an engaging young man The Prince, or rather the Duke

of Highgrove, or whatever he'd be called by then,

could continue to express his personal views on any subject

he liked quite harmlessly. He must be the best hope for his

dynasty and indeed for all of us. And Geoffrey Wheatcroft

joins me now from Bristol. You are saying that we should skip a

generation, leave out Prince Charles and go straight to Prince William.

Is that possible, though? What is the historical precedent? I can't

immediately think of one but anything is possible under the

constitutional system, that is another of the aspects of its

genius, it would take an act of Parliament and it could pass as

quickly as the abdication was in 1936. The prince would simply

relinquish his right to succeed his mother and would pass their 40s

eldest son. You said you are unhappy with the fact that the monarch

shouldn't express public or personal -- shouldn't express personal

opinions in public and Prince Charles has done that, but why are

they not allowed to have a point of view? Because if it was completely

harmless or uncontroversial, there would be no problem. But he doesn't,

he has chosen a large number of subjects, it is not that he even has

a particular political standpoint, the funny thing is on subjects like

his dislike of contemporary architecture and his love of the

book of Common prayer he is what you could call Daily Telegraph, then on

his criticism of genetically modified crops and his respect for

Islam he is more Guardian. He's not that political, as you say. Have all

previous monarchs are obeyed the rules? Oh, yes. Gradually the power

of the monarch, 200 years ago, 250, the reign of King George III, the

monarch was very much his own chief executive, like the American

president today, he didn't even require a parliamentary majority,

the genius of our system as it has evolved as you have on the one hand

Parliamentary Government with the Prime Minister at any given moment

with a Commons majority and the monarchy does not have a political

personality. Stay with us because we have two lawmakers here in the

studio. What would you do, Heidi Alexander, would you support a bill

that said, let's skip a generation and go to Prince William? That is

probably for Prince Charles and Prince William to decide amongst

themselves. I personally have not spent a lot of time thinking about

this issue, I can't get too excited about Prince Charles expressing

views. Where I would be concerned is if decision-makers were unduly or

inappropriately influenced by things that Prince Charles had said, but my

motto in life, really, is everything in moderation, and so I think I

don't really have an issue with it and at the end of the day we have

had a situation where the Queen has been the monarch for an incredibly

long period of time and Prince Charles is a human being and will

have views like other people. Why shouldn't he express them, does that

exclude him from becoming the next monarch? Geoffrey Wheatcroft is

probably one of our greatest living journalists but on this issue I

think he is mistaken. We are not entitled as subjects to a Paul King

or short king or literate Queen or illiterate queen, we get the eldest

child of the sovereign and I don't think there is any chance of

Geoffrey 's eloquent proposal gaining traction. I fear it will

deprive him in future of the Sir Geoffrey Wheatcroft! You have been

warned, Geoffrey Wheatcroft! The original justification for the

Monaco was the divine right of kings and to take on a point from Andrew

Mitchell, if Prince Charles has been chosen by God then we should not let

his views on GM crops, for example, getting the way. King Edward VIII

chosen by God, would have been if he had been crowned, which he wasn't.

But that was his personal choice. The abdication was a very brave

constitutional crisis in deed, and I foresee some such crisis arising if

the prince inherit the throne and is publicly at odds with His Majesty's

Government on some highly contentious issues. That is what he

has threatened himself. I just don't think you will be. Everything about

Prince Charles suggests he accepts the conventions which have governed

the British monarchy for the last 100 years and I think he will make a

very fine king. And also, Geoffrey Wheatcroft, the Queen has

scrupulously avoided expressing personal opinions in public but they

have slipped out or others have said it on her behalf on things like

Brexit and Scottish independence and it has not harmed her, it is not a

constitutional problem, is it? It is different because she has not said

it in public, people beat what she says sometimes as they leek anything

else but I don't think, that does not compare with the ceaseless

expression of controversial opinions by the Prince. I will have to leave

it there but thank you for talking to us. Just time before we go to

find out the answer to the quiz. The Government's new aircraft

carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. So, Andrew and Heidi,

what's the correct answer? We have conferred and we believe

that it is Boaty McBoatface. Well, you are both right, well done, there

it is. That is Boaty McBoatface, but the vessel from which it will be

launched in the future is Sir David Attenborough. Well done both be.

The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big