12/03/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,

ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process

We'll talk to a Tory rebel and Ukip's Nigel Farage.

Phillip Hammond's first budget hit the rocks thanks to a tax rise

But how should we tax those who work for themselves?

And remember Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama had ordered

We'll talk to the former Tory MP who set the whole story rolling.

And in Northern Ireland - as Gerry Adams says a deal can

be done at Stormont, I'll be asking a

Plus a controversial budget at Westminster -

And joining me for all of that, three self-employed journalists

who definitely don't deserve a tax break.

It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme with all the carefree

abandon of Katie Hopkins before a libel trial.

BBC lawyers have suddenly got nervous!

So first today, the government is gearing up to trigger Article 50,

perhaps in the next 48 hours, and start negotiating Britain's

Much has been written about the prospect of the Commons

getting a "meaningful vote" on the deal Britain negotiates.

Brexit Secretary David Davis was on the Andrew Marr programme

earlier this morning and he was asked what happens

Well, that is what is called the most favoured nation status deal

There we go out, as it were, on WTO rules.

That is why of course we do the contingency planning, to make

The British people decided on June the 23rd last year

My job, and the job of the government, is to make

the terms on which that happens as beneficial as possible.

There we have it, clearly, either Parliament votes for the deal when

it is done or it out on World Trade Organisation rules. That's what the

government means by a meaningful vote.

I think we get over obsessed about whether there will be a legal right

for Parliament to have a vote. If there is no deal or a bad deal, I

think it would be politically impossible for the government to

reject Parliament's desire for a vote because the atmosphere of

politics will be completely different by then. I take David

Davies seriously. Within Whitehall he has acquired a reputation as

being the most conscientious and details sadly... And well briefed.

Absolutely and well travelled in terms of European capitals of the

three Brexit ministers. It is quite telling he said what he did and it

is quite telling that within cabinet, two weeks ago he was

floating the idea of no deal at all. Being if not the central estimate

than a completely plausible eventuality. It is interesting. I

would suggest the prospect of no deal is moving up the agenda. It is

still less likely than more likely to happen. But it's no longer a kind

of long tail way out there in the distance. Planning for no deal is

the same as having contents insurance or travel insurance, plan

for the worse case scenarios are prepared it happens. Even the worst

case scenario, it's not that bad. Think of the Jeep 20, apart from the

EU, four members of the G20 economies are successful members of

the EU. The rest aren't and don't have trade deals but somehow these

countries are prospering. They are growing at a higher rate. You are

not frightened? Not remotely. We are obsessed with what we get from the

EU and the key thing we get from leaving the EU is not the deal but

the other deals we can finally make with other trading partners. They

have higher growth than virtually every other EU country apart from

Germany. It is sensible as a negotiating position for the

government to say if there is no deal, we will accept there is no

deal. We're not frightened of no deal. It was clear from what David

Davies was saying that there will be a vote in parliament at the end of

the process but there won't be a third option to send the government

back to try to get a better deal. It is either the deal or we leave

without a deal. In reality, that third option will be there. We don't

know yet whether there will be a majority for the deal if they get

one. What we do know now is that there isn't a majority in the

Commons for no deal. Labour MPs are absolutely clear that no deal is

worth then a bad deal. I've heard enough Tory MPs say the same thing.

But they wouldn't get no deal through. When it comes to this vote,

if whatever deal is rejected, there will then be, one way or another,

the third option raised of go back again. But who gets to decide what

is a bad deal? The British people will have a different idea than the

two thirds of the Remain supporting MPs in the Commons. In terms of the

vote, the Commons. Surely, if the Commons, which is what matters here,

if the Commons were to vote against the deal as negotiated by the

government, surely that would trigger a general election? If the

government had recommended the deal, surely the government would then, if

it still felt strongly about the deal, if the other 27 had said,

we're not negotiating, extending it, it would in effect become a second

referendum on the deal. In effect it would be a no-confidence vote in the

government. You've got to assume that unless something massively

changes in the opposition before then, the government would feel

fairly confident about a general election on those terms. Unless the

deal is hideously bad and obviously basso every vote in the country...

The prior minister said if it is that bad she would have rather no

deal. So that eventuality arrives. -- the Prime Minister has said. Not

a second referendum general election in two years' time. Don't put any

holidays for! LAUGHTER -- don't look any.

So the Brexit bill looks likely to clear Parliament this week.

That depends on the number of Conservative MPs who are prepared

to vote against their government on two key issues.

Theresa May could be in negotiations with our European

partners within days, but there may be some

wheeler-dealings she has to do with her own MPs, too.

Cast your mind back to the beginning of month.

The bill to trigger Article 50 passed comfortably

But three Conservatives voted for Labour's amendments to ensure

the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.

Seven Tory MPs voted to force the government to give Parliament

a say on the deal struck with the EU before it's finalised.

But remember those numbers, they're important.

On the issue of a meaningful vote on a deal, I'm told there might have

been more rebels had it not been for this assurance from

I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion

on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses

And we expect, and intend, that this will happen before

the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

When the government was criticised for reeling back

from when and what it would offer a vote on.

The bill then moved into the Lords, where peers passed it

And the second, that Parliament be given a meaningful vote on the terms

of the deal or indeed a vote in the event of there

The so-called Brexit bill will return to Commons

Ministers insist that both amendments would weaken

the government's negotiating hand and are seeking to overturn them.

But, as ever, politics is a numbers game.

Theresa May has a working majority of 17.

On Brexit, though, it's probably higher.

At least six Labour MPs generally vote with

Plus, eight DUP MPs, two from the Ulster Unionist party

If all Conservatives vote with the government as well,

Therefore, 26 Conservative rebels are needed for the government to be

So, are there rough waters ahead for Theresa May?

What numbers are we looking at, in terms of a potential rebellion?

I think we're looking at a large number of people who are interested

This building is a really important building.

It's symbolic of a huge amount of history.

And for it not to be involved in this momentous time would,

But he says a clear verbal statement from the government on a meaningful

vote on any deal would be enough to get most Tory MPs onside.

It was already said about David Jones.

It's slightly unravelled a little bit during

I think this is an opportunity to really get that clarity

through so that we can all vote for Article 50 and get

We've have spoken to several Tory MPs who say they are minded to vote

One said the situation was sad and depressing.

The other said that the whips must be worried because they don't

A minister told me Downing Street was looking again at the possibility

of offering a vote in the event of no deal being reached.

But that its position was unlikely to change.

And, anyway, government sources have told the Sunday Politics they're not

That those Tory MPs who didn't back either amendment the first time

round would look silly if they did, this time.

It would have to be a pretty hefty lot of people changing their minds

about things that have already been discussed in quite a lot of detail,

last time it was in the Commons, for things to be reversed this time.

There's no doubt that a number of Tory MPs are very concerned.

Labour are pessimistic about the chances of enough Tory

rebels backing either of the amendments in the Commons.

The important thing, I think, is to focus on the fact

that this is the last chance to have a say on this.

If they're going to vote with us, Monday is the time to do it.

Assuming the bill does pass the Commons unamended,

it will go back to the Lord's on Monday night where Labour peers

have already indicated they won't block it again.

It means that the Brexit bill would become law and Theresa May

would be free to trigger Article 50 within days.

Her own deadline was the end of this month.

But one minister told me there were advantages to doing it early.

We're joined now from Nottingham by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.

She's previously voted against the government on the question

of whether Parliament should have a final say over the EU deal.

Anna Soubry, I think it was clear this morning from David Davies that

what he means by meaningful vote is not what you mean by a meaningful

vote. He thinks the choice for Parliament would be to either vote

for the deal and if Parliament doesn't, we leave on World Trade

Organisation rules, on a bare-bones structure. In the end, will he

accept that in the Commons tomorrow? No, because my problem and I don't

think it is a problem, but my problem, the government's problem is

that what I want is then to answer this question. What happens in the

event of their not being any deal? David Davies made it very clear that

in the event of there being no deal, Parliament would have no say. It

means through your elected representatives, the people of this

country would have no say on what happens if the government doesn't

get a deal. I think the request that Parliament should have a say on

Parliamentary sovereignty, is perfectly reasonable. That is what I

want David to say. If he says that, I won't be rebelling. If he does...

They have refused to say that. Sorry. If he continues to say what

he said the BBC this morning, which means that the vote will be either

to accept the as negotiated or to leave on WTO rules, will you rebel

on that question but no, no, sorry, if there's a deal, Parliament will

have a say. So that's fine. And we will see what the deal is and we

will look at the options two years down the road. When who knows

what'll happen in our economy and world economy. That is one matter

which I am content on. The Prime Minister, a woman of her word has

said that in the event of a deal, Parliament will vote on any deal. I

don't difficulty. To clarify, I will come onto that. These are important

matters. I want to clarify, not argue with you. You are content that

if there is a deal, we will come under no deal in a second, but if

there is a deal, you are content with the choice of being able to

vote for that deal or leaving on WTO terms? No, you're speculating as to

what might happen in two years' time. What the options might be.

Personally I find it inconceivable that the government will come back

with a rubbish deal. They will either come back with a good deal,

which I won't have a problem with or they will come back with no deal. To

speculate about coming back with a deal, there is a variety of options.

I understand that that is what the Lord amendments are about. They are

about a vote at the end of the process. Do forgive me, the Lords

amendment is not the same that I've voted for in Parliament. What we

call the Chris Leslie amendment, which was talking about whatever the

agreement is, whatever happens at the end of the negotiations,

Parliament will have a vote. Parliament will have a say. The

Lords amendment is a bit more technical. It is the principle of no

deal that is agitating us. Let's clarify on this. They are

complicated matters. What do you want the government to say? What do

you want David Davis to say tomorrow on what should the Parliamentary

process should be if there is no deal? Quite. I want a commitment

from him that in the event of no deal, it will come into Parliament

and Parliament will determine what happens next. It could be that in

the event of no deal, the best thing is for us to jump off the cliff into

WTO tariff is. I find it unlikely but that might be the reality. There

might be other alternatives. Most importantly, including saying to the

government, go back, carry on. The question that everybody has to ask

is, why won't the government give My fear is what this is about is

asked deliberately, not the Prime Minister, but others deliberately

ensuring we have no deal and no deal pretty soon and in that event, we

jumped off the cliff onto WTO tariffs and nobody in this country

and the people of this country do not have a say. My constituents did

not vote for hard Brexit. You do not want the government to

have the ability if there is no deal to automatically fall back on the

WTO rules? Quite. It is as simple as that. We are now speculating about

what will happen in two years. I want to find out what happens

tomorrow. What will you do if you don't get that assurance? I will

either abstain, or I will vote to keep this amendment within the Bill.

I will either vote against my government, which I do not do

likely, I have never voted against my government until the Chris Leslie

clause when the Bill was going through, or I will abstain, which

has pretty much the same effect because it comes into the Commons

with both amendments so you have positively to vote to take the map.

Can you give us an idea of how many like-minded conservative colleagues

there are. I genuinely do not know. You must talk to each other. I do

not talk to every member of my party. You know people who are

like-minded. I do. I am not doing numbers games. I know you want that

but I genuinely do not know the figure. I think this is an

uncomfortable truth. People have to understand what has happened in our

country, two particular newspapers, creating an atmosphere and setting

an agenda and I think many people are rather concerned, some

frightened, to put their head over the parapet. There are many millions

of people who feel totally excluded from this process. Many of them

voted to remain. And they have lost their voice. We have covered the

ground I wanted to. We're joined now by the Ukip MEP

and former leader Nigel Farage. Article 50 triggered, we are leaving

the EU, the single market and the customs union. What is left you to

complain about? All of that will happen and hopefully we will get the

triggered this week which is good news. What worries me a little I'm

not sure the government recognises how strong their handers. At the

summit in Brussels, the word in the corridors is that we are prepared to

give away fishing waters as a bargaining chip and the worry is

what deal we get. Are we leaving, yes I am pleased about that. You are

under relevant voice in the deal because the deal will be voted on in

Parliament and you have one MP. You are missing the point, the real vote

in parliament is not in London but Strasbourg. This is perhaps the

biggest obstacle the British Government faces. Not what happens

in the Commons that the end of the two years, the European Parliament

could veto the deal. What that means is people need to adopt a different

approach. We do not need to be lobbying in the corridors of

Brussels to get a good deal, we need is a country to be out there talking

to the German car workers and Belgian chocolate makers, putting as

much pressure as we can on politicians from across Europe to

come to a sensible arrangement. It is in their interests more than

ours. In what way is the vision of Brexit set out by David Davis any

different from your own? I am delighted there are people now

adopting the position I argued for many years. Good. But now... Like

Douglas Carswell, he said he found David Davis' performers this morning

reassuring. It is. And just as when Theresa May was Home Secretary every

performance she gave was hugely reassuring. She was seen to be a

heroine after her conference speeches and then did not deliver. I

am concerned that even before we start we are making concessions. You

described in the EU's divorce bill demands, 60 billion euros is floated

around. You said it is laughable and I understand that. Do you maintain

that we will not have to pay a penny to leave? It is nine months since we

voted exit and assuming the trigger of Article 50, we would have paid 30

billion in since we had a vote. We are still members. But honestly, I

do not think there is an appetite for us to pay a massive divorce

Bill. There are assets also. Not a penny? There will be some ongoing

commitments, but the numbers talked about our 50, ?60 billion, they are

frankly laughable. I am trying to find out if you are prepared to

accept some kind of exit cost, it may be nowhere near 60 billion. We

have to do a net agreement, the government briefed about our share

of the European Union investment bank. Would you accept a

transitional arrangement, deal, five, ten billion, as part of the

divorce settlement? We are painted net ?30 million every single day at

the moment, ?10 billion plus every year. That is just our contribution.

We are going to make a massive saving on this. What do you make of

what Anna Soubry said, that if there is no deal, and it is being talked

about more. Maybe the government managing expectations. There is an

expectation we will have a deal, but if there is no deal, that the

government cannot just go to WTO rules, but it has to have a vote in

parliament? By the time we get to that there will be a general

election coming down the tracks and I suspect that if at the end of the

two-year process there is no deal and by the way, no deal is a lot

better for the nation than where we currently are, because we freed of

regulations and able to make our own deals in the world. I think what

would happen, and if Parliament said it did not back, at the end of the

negotiation a general election would happen quickly. According to reports

this morning, one of your most senior aides has passed a dossier to

police claiming Tories committed electoral fraud in Thanet South, the

seat contested in the election. What evidence to you have? I read that in

the newspapers as you have. I am not going to comment on it. Will you not

aware of the contents of the dossier? I am not aware of the

dossier. He was your election strategists. I am dubious as to

whether this dossier exists at all. Perhaps the newspapers have got this

wrong. Concerns about the downloading of data the took place

in that constituency, there are. Allegedly, he has refuted it, was it

done by your MP to give information to the Tories, do you have evidence

about? We have evidence Mr Carswell downloaded information, we have no

evidence what he did with it. It is not just your aide who has been

making allegations against the Conservatives in Thanet South and

other seats, if the evidence was to be substantial, and if it was to

result in another by-election being called an Thanet South had to be

fought again, would you be the Ukip candidate? I probably would. You

probably would? Yes. Just probably? Just probably. It would be your

eighth attempt. Winning seats in parliament under first past the post

is not the only way to change politics in Britain and I would like

to think I proved that. Let's go back to Anna Soubry. The implication

of what we were saying on the panel at the start of the show and what

Nigel Farage was saying there would be that if at the end of the process

whatever the vote, if the government were to lose it, it would provoke a

general election properly. I think that would be right. Let's get real.

The government is not going to come to Parliament with anything other

than something it believes is a good deal and if it rejected it, would be

unlikely, there would be a de facto vote of no confidence and it would

be within the fixed term Parliaments act and that be it. The problem is,

more likely, because of the story put up about the 50 billion, 60

billion and you look at the way things are flagged up that both the

Prime Minister and Boris Johnson saying, we should be asking them for

money back, I think the big fear and the fear I have is we will be

crashing out in six months. You think we could leave as quickly as

six months. Explain that. I think they will stoke up the demand from

the EU for 50, 60 billion back and my real concern is that within six

months, where we're not making much progress, maybe nine months, and

people are getting increasingly fed up with the EU because they are told

it wants unreasonable demands, and then the crash. I think what is

happening is the government is putting in place scaffolding at the

bottom of the cliff to break our fall when we come to fall off that

cliff and I think many in government are preparing not for a two-year

process, but six, to nine months, off the cliff, out we go. That is my

fear. That is interesting. I have not heard that express before by

someone in your position. I suspect you have made Nigel Farage's date.

It is a lovely thought. I would say to Anna Soubry she is out of date

with this. 40 years ago there was a good argument for joining the common

market because tariffs around the world was so high. That has changed

with the World Trade Organisation. We are leaving the EU and rejoining

a great big world and it is exciting. She was giving an

interesting perspective on what could happen in nine months rather

than two years. I thank you both. It was Philip Hammond's first

budget on Wednesday - billed as a steady-as-she-goes

affair, but turned out to cause uproar after the Chancellor appeared

to contradict a Tory manifesto commitment with an increase

in national insurance contributions. The aim was to address what some see

as an imbalance in the tax system, where employees pay

more National Insurance The controversy centres

on increasing the so-called class 4 rate for the self-employed who make

a profit of more than ?8,060 a year. It will go up in stages

from 9% to 11% in 2019. The changes mean that over one

and a half million will pay on average ?240 a year

more in contributions. Some Conservative MPs were unhappy,

with even the Wales Minister saying: "I will apologise to every

voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto

in the 2015 election." The Sun labelled Philip

Hammond "spite van man". The Daily Mail called the budget

"no laughing matter". By Thursday, Theresa May

said the government One of the first things I did

as Prime Minister was to commission Matthew Taylor to review the rights

and protections that were available to self-employed workers

and whether they should be enhanced. People will be able to look

at the government paper when we produce it, showing

all our changes, and take And, of course, the Chancellor will

be speaking, as will his ministers, to MPs, businesspeople and others

to listen to the concerns. Well, the man you heard mentioned

there, Matthew Taylor, has the job of producing

a report into the future Welcome. The Chancellor has decided

the self-employed should pay almost the same in National Insurance, not

the same but almost, as the employed will stop what is left of your

commission? The commission has a broader frame of reference and we

are interested in the quality of work in the economy at the heart of

what I hope will be proposing is a set of shifts that will improve the

quality of that work so we have an economy where all work is fair and

decent and all jobs give people scope for development and

fulfilment. The issue of taxes a small part. You will cover that? We

will, because the tax system and employment regulation system drive

particular behaviours in our labour market. You approve I think of the

general direction of this policy of raising National Insurance on the

self-employed. Taxing them in return perhaps for more state benefits. Why

are so many others on the left against it from Tim Farron to John

McDonnell? Tax rises are unpopular and it is the role of the opposition

parties to make capital from unpopular tax rises. I think as tax

rises go this is broadly progressive. There are self-employed

people on low incomes and they will be better off. It is economic league

rational because the reason for the difference in National Insurance --

economically. It was to do with state entitlements. The government

is consulting about paid parental leave. A series of governments have

not been good about thinking about medium sustainability of the tax

base. Self-employment is growing. But it is eroding the tax base. It

is important to address those issues. A number of think tanks have

said this is a progressive move. Yet, a number of left-wing

politicians have been against it. And a number of Tories have said

this is a progressive move and not a Tory government move, the balance of

you will pay more tax, but you will get more state benefits is not a

Tory approach to things. That a Tory approach will be you will pay less

tax but entitled to fewer benefits as well.

I preferred in and policies to politics -- I prefer policies. When

people look at the policy and when they look the fact that there is no

real historical basis for that big national insurance differential,

they see it is a sensible policy. I don't have to deal with the

politics. There has been a huge growth in self-employment from the

turn of the millennium. It's been strongest amongst older workers,

women part-timers. Do you have any idea, do you have

the data in your commission that could tell us how many are taking

self-employment because they like the flexibility and they like the

tax advantages that come with it, too, or they are being forced into

it by employers who don't want the extra costs of employment? Do we

know the difference? We do, broadly. Most surveys on self-employment and

flexible forms of employment suggest about two thirds to three quarters

enjoy it, they like the flexibility, they like the autonomy and about a

third to one quarter are less happy. That tends to be because they would

like to have a full-time permanent job. It is not necessary that they

don't enjoy what they are doing, they would like to do other things.

And some of the protections that come with it? Yes. There are some

people who are forced into southern employees by high-risk but also some

people feel like they can't get a proper job as it were. --

self-employment by people who hire them. It is on the narrow matter of

tax revenues but if you are employed on ?32,000 the state will take over

?6,000 in national insurance contributions, that is quite chunky.

If you are self-employed it is ?2300. But the big difference

between those figures isn't what the employee is paying, it's the

employer's contributions up to almost 14%, and cupped for as much

as you are paid. What do you do about employers' contributions for

the self employed? -- it is uncapped for as much. What I recommend is

that we should probably move from taxing employment to taxing labour.

We should probably have a more level playing field so it doesn't really

matter... Explained that I thought it was the same thing. If you are a

self-employed gardener, you are a different tax regime to a gardener

who works for a gardening firm. On the individual side and on the firm

side. As we see new business models, so-called gig working, partly with

technology, we need a more level playing field saying that we're

taxing people's work, not the form in which they deliver that. That is

part of the reason we have seen the growth of particular business

models. They are innovative and creative and partly driven by the

fact that if you can describe yourself as self-employed there are

tax advantages. Coming out in June? Will you come back and talk to us?

Yes. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,

we'll be talking to the former Tory MP who was the root

of Donald Trump's allegation that he had been put

under surveillance by Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland. After a week of talks at Stormont

and a threat of another election, I'll be asking the Fianna Fail

TD, Brendan Smith, how This week saw a controversial

Westminster budget but with still no sign of any kind of

budget at Stormont - And with their thoughts

throughout, I'm joined by the Irish News Editor,

Noel Doran, and the News Letter's One week of negotiations done

and two more to go before the Secretary of State finds himself

calling a second snap Direct rule is another

possibility or thirdly, The Sinn Fein President,

Gerry Adams, who's been at Stormont most of the week,

said this morning he thinks that The Government in London on the back

of Brexit and on the back of its own policy wants to dismantle

lots of the human rights aspects What we need, this is what our focus

is, and implementation process we are involved in,

those agreements, the different elements of a deal, the human

rights elements of it, the bill of rights, these different

commitments which have been made but not kept need to be delivered

on and if that happens then the institutions will go back

in place and we will continue to do our best to

work for the people. And with me now is the Fianna

Fail TD Brendan Smith who's been keeping a close eye

on developments here. You sit on a Dail committee

on the implementation of the 1998 Agreement -

Mr Adams was talking there about the need for delivery

on outstanding commitments. Do you share his view that those

issues need to be resolved before I think all of those issues are

outstanding from the good credit agreement and success of agreements

and they should be implemented and I think Mr Adams referred to Brexit

and the issues confronting us and the knock-on effect of the good

credit agreement and that is why it is absolutely essential that it was

a agency is attached to having the Executive back in place and a

working assembly and I think the substantial increase in the time-out

showed the electorate of Northern Ireland want an assembly that works,

wants an Executive that works and with the issues facing every family

in Northern Ireland. Mr Adams says it's perfectly

possible that the politicians can do Do you think that's what Sinn Fein

wants at this stage? I would think so and I sincerely

hope the DUP and the other parties work to the mandate that has been

given to all of us, the mandate from the endorsement of the Good Friday

Agreement and referendum north and south in May 19 98. It is beholden

to all of us and parliamentary politics to put those institutions

in place, working for the betterment of the people of society in Northern

Ireland and that all of our island. There's been a lot of speculation

that Sinn Fein might be keen to play the long game in the Stormont talks

to see how things pan out and to enable the party

to consolidate its position in the Republic with the possibility

of another election very soon. They have had success in the recent

system elections as have the SDLP as well but we have another poll next

weekend could have different results. During the course of the

previous, every second Sunday Sinn Fein were ahead of Fina Phil Fianna

Fail and the polls and that is the only poll that I give any credence

to. That is top of Mr Adams being potentially in a position, would

Fianna Fail watch with Sinn Fein if that was the way to produce a stable

Government and the south? The parties initiated by Sinn Fein are

not compatible with the parties of Fianna Fail. We will go to the next

election with our manifesto programme and 60 endorsement to grow

our party. We went from 20 seats to 44 in the last election and we hope

to increase that substantially again. There is no election on the

horizon and the south. Do you really think not? There will be a new

leader of Fine Gaelz sooner rather than later and then the Montez or

her own mandate. The other is elected as the new leader or what to

stay in the office as long as possible. Fianna Fail have given a

commitment and that brings us up to 2019 and that'll be honoured unless

Fine Gael mess up and honour the agreement.

Charlie Flanagan says some of the issues still to be resolved

go right back to 1998 - so how would Fianna Fail handle

For Charlie Flanagan has been doing this week is emphasising the need to

deal with the legacy issues. James Brokenshire's comments this week and

he would release funding to speed up the increase, to deal with the hard

ship and the grief that families have suffered for far too long,

legacy issues have to be dealt with and be have to have an implement it

in time to deal with all of these outstanding issues. I think that is

a necessary incremental step forward to ensure that we get in place the

Executive before that three-week period is out. Would you and Fianna

Fail support Sinn Fein's veto on Arlene Foster vitamin? What I would

say is to deal with the legacy issues and other outstanding issues

from the good Freddie agreement and the last thing in any country would

you have more than one party and Government as the personnel and the

positions, that should be the last eight to be dealt with by both

parties. I think both the DUP and Sinn Fein and other parties should

be putting a proper programme for Government. Let us remember in the

middle of November and the Irish News, Arlene Foster and Martin

McGuinness had an article read this book about both other parties going

for the long haul, no grandstanding or gimmicks. We have moved on since

then? We have but if we could achieve in 1998 the Good Friday

Agreement after more than 30 years of mayhem, surely after a few weeks

of difficulties those parties should reach an agreement and the issues of

all the people in Ireland are very difficult, we have the Brexit issue

hitting us already and we don't have to be two years for the negative

impact of Brexit to hurt us. It is set as in the broader economy

already, the area I know best and we have here a non-functioning

Executive, that is not what the people of Northern Ireland want.

Cross of some sort of resolution cannot be reached, would you support

joint authority? The only thing on the agenda is to put in place the

institutions that are all mandated by the people north and south and

the referendum of 1998, I don't countenance anything else and I

would be optimistic that that can be achieved. There is a budget to be

put in place, there are health and education issues confronting rural

communities farmers and I emphasise again, I cheer the all-party

committee and participated in the Good Friday Agreement and we are in

crossed in dealing with the Brexit issues as we work on a daily basis,

that's what the assembly should be doing to stop Cross Arlene Foster

said in an interview it is a great opportunity, Brexit as a great

opportunity for the UK Government and Northern Ireland. The farmers I

talk two in Fermanagh are worried the boulders their payments and let

us remember that almost 90% of farming from Northern Ireland is

dependent on a funding transfer from Europe. No Tory or Labour Government

in Westminster will substitute that payment. Thank you.

Gerry Adams isn't the only local politician making the most

Arlene Foster has given an interview to Sky News in which she says

she has not considered resigning as DUP leader following

Mrs Foster has declined to be interviewed by the BBC,

but speaking to Sky she insisted the result has not been disastrous

for the party but is, in fact, a wake-up call for unionism.

As well as that, the national turnout increased, a lot of people

have been talking to me since last Friday since the results

were becoming known and a great sense of shock and how could this

happen and I think it has been a bit of a wake-up call in terms

Have to continue with the negotiations and the spirit in which

they have begun and I hope that will happen and I hope we get to a

situation where we can bring about the return of the devolved

administration as quickly as possible.

Arlene Foster speaking there to Sky News -

and with me now to reflect on what both she and Gerry Adams

have had to say, I'm joined by the Editor of the Irish News,

Noel Doran, and the News Letter's political editor, Sam McBride.

Sam, we haven't heard a great deal from the DUP leader

since the election - so were there any surprises

Note. She is very much in the same tone she has had a new last very

faint and from and is DUP supporters would see it in some cases, very

strong. It is from opposition she is being asked questions such as is

this a disastrous election for unionism and she is trying to see it

is not and it is difficult to spend it in that way when you look at how

many seats they lost here, and she is in a position where she can see

it's been a disaster but most people within the DUP looking at saying

that is exactly what it is. She clearly sees herself

as the leader of unionism with a big job to do in terms of the continuing

negotiations and in shaping relationships within the broader

unionist family at what is clearly There is no doubt about that but I

suspect the people most released few Arlene Foster is intending to stay

in her post will be Sinn Fein because she has become their

greatest asset. Not so long ago Sinn Fein were quite a difficult position

with a crisp confused response to RHI contradicting each other in

public. Everything has changed utterly, they have the wind behind

their sales no and in a really strong position and I take Brendan

's point about polls but they have been given a big left and the south

surviving Arlene position with all that she represents give them a

considerable advantage. Do you think our readership is secure? She seems

to have faced that down at a meeting last Tuesday and I think we may see

still significant changes in the backroom team with the DUP there but

at this point it is very much business as usual. And very much no

chance of her taking humble pie that Ian Paisley Junior was suggesting

she should take. Meantime Gerry Adams has also taken

to the airwaves today. What do you make of how

he's playing his hand? He is in a very strong position. It

has been suggested in the past that he is never a person to beastie

opportunity provided by a good crisis and he is certainly playing

his cards very well at the moment but it almost suits him to sit tight

and let the institutions go on hold for a prolonged period, that seems

to be very much playing to the wishes of the Sinn Fein electorate

and the widest nationalists electorate as well because the

administration at Stormont and become very unpopular and seemed to

be acting in the interests of one side of the committee rather than

the entire community sort of Gerry Adams does what he is doing no evil

be in a very strong position for quite some time. Gerry Adams and

Sinn Fein major players on both side of the border? That's right and for

the first time Sinn Fein are ahead of Fine Gael as the second party in

the south, that may not be accurate at may just be an aberration but to

be up for Mac points after what has happened certainly suggest that what

has happened here is perhaps having an impact south of the border. Thank

you. As the Chancellor, Philip Hammond,

deals with the backlash against Wednesday's budget -

the lack of a budget With no Executive and no budget,

are public services starting I'm joined by Professor Neil Gibson,

director of Ulster University's What are the imprecations of the

national insurance changes in Northern Ireland? It was actually

quite a quiet budget and the whole focus has been on this change to

national insurance contributions for the self-employed. It is a big and

important sector in Northern Ireland particularly in construction and

farming and will have an effect on those who make reasonable amounts of

profit but actually changes to class to mean that people making small at

a profitable actually be a little bit better off. That's the

Westminster budget which did happen, which is it problem between number

ten and number 11, the fact that we do not have a budget and we are

about to have a budget and the near future obviously as a cause of major

concern here. How worried are you at that prospect? Extremely worried.

Normally I would see the short-term effects are fairly modest, there

isn't a watt of legislation about to be passed but right now we have some

very important matters, devolution and corporation tax and of course

the budget negotiations, who is when to fight Northern Ireland's, without

an Executive there to do so. In the long run all our competitors and the

rest of the UK are making progress and investing in roads and funding

their education systems and B are all slipping slowly behind and it is

about like putting on weight, you might not protest the immediate

effect but eventually end if you used a Rubel finally fallen further

behind in the competitive race. The deadline to get a budget

on the books is 29th March - How do Government compare

departments continue to deliver services and over the next few

months? That would be quite as alarming as it seems. They will have

most of the money to operate with any shot run from July but we don't

they suspend all the money in the short run and I don't think anyone

should panic that our public services will fall into crisis. If

you get to July and it is 95%, that is a 5% cut. That is only an interim

measure and if we get that far and still haven't agreed enviable mix

different arrangements but what prevents is as reallocating money

across different priorities and direct revenue look at the health

and is education, we need to have those strategic conversations about

where to spend our money. Health consumes such a huge amount of

budget and education as a potential problem and we would have the

capacity and obligations for local Government. The fact that we saw

Theresa May spending a lot of the time of the budget excluding how

expense of public services are getting and we are looking at a

warrant in which tax rises will have to come and the Executive is not you

to decide exactly who shall pay those tax increases so if we fall

behind, we would have anyone else to blame for ourselves for not being

there to make those decisions. They do you think this situation makes us

look to the outside world? I think is very damaging but the press

coverage isn't huge nationally because of their own problems,

worried about their own ability to deliver health care so we are not as

high up the power to list globally as you might think we are.

Are you depressed at what we have just heard? Clearly there is going

to be an enormous difficulty over the budget and honestly there is a

vacancy for the head of the civil service which is unresolved doesn't

exactly help but I'm sure we can stumble on because we have always

stumbled on in the past. It's clearly not good Government but we

have to focus on the budgets and we are looking very closely at RHI, EU

crisis is Brexit and its implications across the board

because it is completely transformed attitudes which has had a big impact

on the last election, forced nationalists to look again at the

Good Friday Agreement and the border issue and Unionists were able to see

the border remains in place and naturalists the leg nationalists

said it had no effect on day-to-day basis above the Brexit result has

thrown it back on peoples faces and force people to confront the whole

issue of partition and the constitutional question and the way

that almost a generation had slipped away from and that has been a real

game changer and that is going to change events for quite some time to

come. Unless you see Brexit as a tremendous opportunity which many in

the Unionist family do? I think unionism as split on this. Unionism

was very firmly in favour of Brexit in terms of people who came out to

vote but there is a significant minority within unionism and the DUP

who were actually very uneasy about this, he felt that something which

appears to be settled constitutionally and also economic

league were suddenly going to be thrown up in the area at a point

where Scotland was already agitating for change and a separate part of

the UK. So fill the dominant position within unionism is to say

we want to take back some country, or the rhetoric during the campaign,

there is another section of business union unionism is very concerned

about what is happening here. Let's pause for a moment and take

a look back at the political week say and do political landscape has

shifted enormously. I think this is the biggest vote ever cast for any

party in an assembly election and that we be perverse to see as a

result of that someone should step aside. In the longer term it may

well be that bit about this relationship evolves is to a point

where you have a broader Unionist movement. What chance ideal? I think

there is a sense of urgency at what is at hand here, the significance of

the issues we are dealing with. I detect a willingness on the part of

all parties involved to sit down and engage constructively. OCD may? Who

is she. He is called Gerry Adams. MLAs are at Stormont

tomorrow to sign in - but a new Speaker won't be elected

and we're not expecting There's no doubt about that and

expectations are low and we have always managed to cobble something

together in the past but there is a sense that institutions will be on

hold for quite some time and that may be something the DUP regret that

we are in different circumstances and I think Arlene Foster will have

to come to terms with that. And the short term and thus potentially does

suit Sinn Fein and the think there is a long term risk for an onerous,

we saw how quickly add dominant position for Arlene Foster can

quickly fall apart and there is a danger that Sinn Fein in this

calculates the risks from not having a budget from returning to direct

rule which they have always said was Tory direct rule and I think that

was to happen and they are seen as responsible for it and hospitals are

in crisis, I think there is a real risk for Republicans in that

scenario. The new MLAs Hussein and tomorrow will be mindful of being a

sideshow and the real focus seems to be installed? One possible solution

is yet another selection which would be the third, I don't think many

people are taking it seriously at this stage. The emphasis has to be

on talks and consensus but not too many people think it would to be

arrived at in the short-term. An election or not? I think from the

very start of this process James Brokenshire has held that over their

heads as a threat and maybe he will follow through on it.

Now the government plans for new grammar schools.

The Education Secretary Justine Greening was

speaking to a conference of headteachers on Friday.

They're normally a pretty polite bunch, but they didn't

Broadcasters weren't allowed into the speech,

but this was captured on a camera phone.

And we have to recognise actually for grammars, in terms of

disadvantaged children, that they have, they really

do help them close the attainment gap.

And at the same time we should recognise that

..That parents also want choice for their children and that

those schools are often very oversubscribed.

I suppose it is a rite of passage for and education secretaries to

have this at a head teachers conference book the head are usually

more polite. Isn't part of the problem, whether one is for or

against the expansion of grammar schools, the government plans are

complicated, you cannot sum them up in a sentence. The proof of that is

they can still get away with denying they are expanding grammar schools.

They will find an alternative formulation because it is not as

simple as a brute creation of what we used to know is grammar schools

with the absolute cut-off of the 11 plus. I am surprised how easy they

found it politically. We saw the clip of Justine Greening being

jeered a little bit but in the grand scheme, compared to another

government trying this idea a decade ago they have got away with it

easily and I think what is happening is a perverse consequence of Brexit

and the media attention on Brexit, the government of the day can just

about get away with slightly more contentious domestic policies on the

correct assumption we will be too busy investing our attention in

Article 50 and two years of negotiations, WTO terms at

everything we have been discussing. I wonder if after grammar schools

there will be examples of contentious domestic policies

Theresa May can slide in stock because Brexit sucks the life out,

takes the attention away. You are a supporter. Broadly. Are you happy

with the government approach? They need to have more gumption and stop

being apologetic. It is a bazaar area of public policy where we judge

the policy on grammar schools based on what it does for children whose

parents are unemployed, living on sink estates in Liverpool. It is

absurd, we don't judge any other policy like that. It is simple, not

contentious, people who are not sure, ask them if they would apply

to send their child there, six out of ten said they would. Parents want

good schools for their children, we should have appropriate education

and they should be straightforward, this is about the future of the

economy and we need bright children to get education at the highest

level, education for academically bright children. It is supposed to

be a signature policy of the Theresa May administration that marks a

government different from David Cameron's government who did not go

down this road. The signature is pretty blurred, it is hard to read.

It is. She is trying to address concerns about those who fail to get

into these selective schools and tried to targeted in poorer areas

and the rest of it. She will probably come across so many

obstacles. It is not clear what form it will take in the end. It is

really an example of a signature policy not fully thought through. I

think it was one of her first announcements. It was. It surprised

everybody. Surprised at the speed and pace at which they were planning

to go. Ever since, there have been qualifications and hesitations en

route with good cause, in my view. I disagree with Juliet that this is...

We all want good schools but if you don't get in there and you end up in

a less good school. They already do that. We have selection based on the

income of parents getting into a good catchment area, based on the

faith of the parents. That becomes very attainable! I might been too

shot run christenings for these. -- I have been.

Now, you may remember this time last week we were talking

about the extraordinary claims by US President Donald Trump,

on Twitter of course, that Barack Obama had ordered

And there was me thinking that wiretaps went out

Is it legal for a sitting President to do so, he asked,

concluding it was a "new low", and later comparing it to Watergate.

Since then, the White House has been pressed to provide evidence for this

It hasn't, but it seems it may have initially come from a report on a US

website by the former Conservative MP Louise Mensch.

She wrote that the FBI had been granted a warrant to intercept

communications between Trump's campaign and Russia.

Well, Louise Mensch joins us now from New York.

Louise, you claimed in early November that the FBI had secured a

court warrants to monitor communications between trump Tower

in New York at two Russian banks. It's now four months later. Isn't it

the case that nobody has proved the existence of this warrant?

First of all, forgive me Andrew, one takes 1's life in one's hand when it

is you but I have to correct your characterisation of my reporting. It

is very important. I did not report that the FBI had a warrant to

intercept anything or that Trump tower was any part of it. What I

reported was that the FBI obtained a warrant is targeted on all

communications between two Russian banks and were, therefore, allowed

to examine US persons in the context of their investigation. What the

Americans call legally incidental collection. I certainly didn't

report that the warrant was able to intercept or that it had location

basis, for example Trump tower. I just didn't report that. The reason

that matters so much is that I now believe based on the President's

reaction, there may well be a wiretap act Trump Tower. If so,

Donald Trump has just tweeted out evidence in an ongoing criminal case

that neither I nor anybody else reported. He is right about

Watergate because he will have committed obstruction of justice

directly from his Twitter account. Let me come back as thank you for

clarifying. Let me come back to the question. -- and thank you. We have

not yet got proof that this warrant exists, do we? No and we are most

unlikely to get it because it would be a heinous crime for Donald Trump

to reveal its existence. In America they call it a Glomar response. I

can neither confirm nor deny. That is what all American officials will

have to say legally. If you are looking for proof, you won't get it

until and unless a court cases brought. But that doesn't mean it

doesn't exist. The BBC validated this two months after me in their

reporting by the journalist Paul Wood. The Guardian, they also

separately from their own sources validated the existence of the

warrant. If you are in America, you would know that CNN and others are

reporting that the investigation in ongoing. Let me come onto the wider

point. You believe the Trump campaign including the president

were complicit with the Russians during the 2016 election campaign to

such an extent that Mr Trump should be impeached. What evidence did you

have? That is an enormous amount of

evidence. You could start with him saying, hey, Russia, if you are

listening, please release all the Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That's

not evidence. I think it rather is, actually. Especially if you look at

some of the evidence that exists on Twitter and elsewhere of people

talking directly to his social media manager, Dan should be no and

telling him to do that before it happened. There is a bit out there.

The BBC itself reported that in April of last year, a six agency

task force, not just the FBI, but the Treasury Department, was looking

at this. I believe there is an enormous amount of evidence. And

then there is the steel dossier which was included in an official

report of the US intelligence committee. You've also ... Just to

be clear, we don't have hard evidence yet whether this warrant

exists. It may or may not. There is doubt about... There are claims

about whether there is evidence about Mr Trump and the Russians.

That is another matter. You claimed that President Putin had Andrew

Breitbart murdered to pave the way for Steve Bannon to play a key role

in the Trump administration. I haven't. You said that Steve Bannon

is behind bomb threats to Jewish community centres. Aren't you in

danger of just peddling wild conspiracy theories? No. Festival, I

haven't. No matter how many times people say this, it's not going to

be true -- first of all. I said in twitter I believe that to be the

case about the murder of Andrew Breitbart. You believe President

Putin murdered him. I didn't! You said I reported it, but I believed

it. You put it on twitter that you believed it but you don't have a

shred of evidence. I do. Indeed, I know made assertions. What is the

evidence that Mr Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart? I said I believe

it. You may believe there are fairies at the bottom of your

garden, it doesn't make it true. I may indeed. And if I say so, that's

my belief. If I say I am reporting, as I did with the Fisa warrant

exists, I have a basis in fact. They believe is just a belief. I know you

are relatively new to journalism. Let me get the rules right. Andrew,

jealousy is not your colour... If it is twitter, we don't believe it but

if it is on your website, we should believe it? If I report something

and I say this happened, then I am making an assertion. If I describe a

belief, I am describing a belief. Subtlety may be a little difficult

for you... No, no. If you want to be a journalist, beliefs have to be

backed up with evidence. Really? Do you have a faith? It's not a matter

of faith, maybe in your case, that President Putin murdered Andrew

Breitbart. A belief and a report at two different things and no matter

how often you say that they are the same, they will never be the same.

You've said in today's Sunday Times here in London that you've turned

into" a temporary superpower" where you "See things really clearly".

Have you become delusional? No. I am describing a biological basis for

ADHD, which I have. As any of your viewers who are doctors will know.

It provides people with unfortunately a lot of scattered

focus, they are very messy and absent-minded but when they are

interested in things and they have ADHD they can have a condition which

is hyper focus. You concentrate very hard on a given subject and you can

see patterns and connections. That is biological. Thank you for

explaining that. And for getting up early in New York. The first time

ever I have interviewed a temporary superpower. Thank you. You are so

lucky! You are so lucky! I don't think it's going to happen again.

Please don't ask us to comment on that interview! I will not ask you,

viewers will make up their own minds. Let's come back to be more

mundane world of Article 50. Stop the killing!

Will it get through at the government wanted it? Without the

Lords amendment falling by the way that? I am sure the Lord will not

try to ping-pong this back and forth. So we are at the end of this

particular legislative phase. The fact that all three Brexit Cabinet

ministers, number ten often don't like one of them going out on a

broadcast interview on a Sunday, they've all been out and about. That

suggests to me they are working on the assumption it will be triggered

this week. This week. The negotiations will begin or at least

the process begins. The negotiation process may be difficult, given all

of the European elections. The Dutch this week. And then the French and

maybe the Italians and certainly the Germans by the end of September,

which is less predictable than it was. Given all that, what did you

make of Anna Soubry's claim, Viacom on her part, that we may just end up

crashing out in six months question -- fear on her part. It was not just

that that we made that deliberately organising. I want us to get on with

the deals. Everyone knows a good deal is the

best option. Who knows what is going to be on the table when we finally

go out? Fascinatingly, the demand for some money back, given the

amount of money... Net gains and net costs in terms of us leaving for the

EU. It is all to play for. That will be a possible early grounds for a

confrontation between the UK and the EU. My understanding is that they

expect to do a deal on reciprocal rights of EU nationals, EU nationals

here, UK citizens there, quite quickly. They want to clear that up

and that will be done. Then they will hit this problem that the EU

will be saying you've got to agree the divorce Bill first

will be saying you've got to agree the divorce Bill first before we

talk about the free trade bill. David Davis saying quite clearly,

no, they go together because of the size of the bill. It will be

determined, in our part, by how good the access will be. The mutual

recognition of EU residents' rights is no trouble. A huge amount of fuss

is attracted to that subject but it is the easiest thing to deal with,

as is free movement for tourists. Money is what will make it

incredibly acrimonious. Incredibly quickly. I imagine the dominant

story in the summer will be all about that. This was Anna Soubry's

implication, members of the governors could strongly argue,

things are so poisonous and so unpleasant at the moment, the

dealers are advancing -- members of the government. Why not call it a

day and go out on WTO terms while public opinion is still in that

direction in that Eurosceptic direction? No buyers' remorse about

last year's referendum. The longer they leave it, view more opportunity

there is for some kind of public resistance and change of mind to

take place. The longer believe it, the more people who voted for Brexit

and people who voted Remain and think we didn't get world War three

will start being quite angry with the EU for not agreeing a deal. In

terms of the rights of EU nationals he and Brits abroad, by all

accounts, 26 of the 27 have agreed individually. Angela Merkel is the

only person who has held that up. That will be dealt with in a matter

of days. The chances of a deal being done is likely but in ten seconds...

It would not be a bad bet to protect your on something not happening, you

might get pretty good odds? The odds are going up that a deal doesn't

happen. But, as I said earlier, the House of Commons will not endorse no

deal. We are either in an early election or she has to go back

again. Either way, you will need us! We will be back at noon tomorrow on

BBC Two ahead of what looks like being a big week in politics. We

will be back here same time, same place.

Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.