29/01/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven

Should Wales follow Finland's lead and give

people a monthly income, no strings attached?

And what should Labour do about Brexit ahead of this

Should she have spoken out more strongly?

We'll ask former Ukip leader and Trump confidant Nigel Farage

what he makes of the travel ban and the Prime Minister's

In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze

and why it doesn't apply to everybody.

And with me, the best and brightest political

panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

It was soon after Theresa May left the White House on Friday that

Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven

President Trump's 90-day ban covers Iran, Iraq,

Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from

where refugees are banned from until further notice.

Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban

on all refugees coming to the US for the next 120 days.

Mr Trump said that the ban would keep radical Islamic terrorists out

But the ban has sparked protests across the US,

as people affected and already in the air were detained

US laws have begun legal action to challenge the ban, which many

At a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, Theresa May was asked

about the refugee ban three times before giving this response...

Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'

The United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy

on refugees, and our policy on refugees is to have a number

of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.

Downing Street later issued a statement saying:

This morning, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was asked why

Theresa May had refused to condemn the travel ban at yesterday's

The Prime Minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip

She wants to see the evidence, she wants

to understand precisely what the implications are.

She'd been in a series of very lengthy meetings with

President Erdogan, and she's someone who wants to see the briefing and

understand it, and then will respond to that.

I think there are times where, you know, there's always

pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.

The important thing is, we are saying we disagree with it

We're joined now from North London by the Conservative

Should the Government in general and Theresa May in particular be more

vocal in their criticism of Donald Trump's travel bans? Well, as David

just said, it is obviously right that Theresa has now said this is an

appropriate and not something we agree with in our Government, but I

wish she had said something at the time, not least because it affects

our own citizens. One of our own MPs, Nadhim, for example, because it

is also a global crisis. She had clearly built an excellent with

Donald Trump -- she had built an excellent relationship with him, but

she could have been firmer. Mrs May hasn't said any word of criticism

about the travel bans. She refused to say anything three times in

Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street

spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have

not heard from the Prime Minister at all on this matter in terms of

criticism. No, but the spokesperson will be speaking with her blessing,

so it is clearly something she has acknowledged. As I said before, I

wish she had said something at the time. The global climate at the

moment is delicate and we need our leaders to work together to address

things like the refugee crisis. Potentially, this plays into the

hands of Daesh. It is absolutely not the right message. What would you

like the Prime Minister to say? As with any new relationship, it is

about testing the boundaries. They had clearly got on well, so she

should have felt braver to say something there and then. I would

have preferred her to say, for example, I need to talk to Donald

Trump about this. It is not something I support and I want to

understand why because I believe there is a better way to deal with

the terrorist threat. I would have liked her to suggest that she would

engage with him to do that. The president has instituted a 90 day

temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority

population countries. The seven were on President Obama's list of the

biggest terrorist threats to the United States. Mr Trump wants this

temporary ban until he puts tougher vetting procedures in place. What is

wrong with that? Because it appeared to me that it wasn't thought through

and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.

It can't be right that a president in that position of power can

arbitrarily come up with executive powers like that. It has already

been challenged by his own courts. So it is not the considered approach

I want to see in a global leader. Who do you believe will be hurt by

this, given that there can be exceptions on a case-by-case basis?

I think potentially, our global reputation is going to be hurt by

this. I have been to the refugee camps in Europe myself. There are

desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by

this. We are trying to heal the wounds in this country not only

because of Brexit. This is a time of coming together, not about saying it

is located discriminatory against race and religion in this way. Do

you believe that Mr Trump's state visit should go ahead? Well, he is

the leader of America, so it does need to go ahead and we need to work

with him. I believe Theresa has started in a positive manner was

that she just needs to continue in that vein. If he comes to our

country, he needs to respect the way we feel about things. But yes, he is

the president, so he does need to come to the UK. There is some debate

within Westminster as to where it is appropriate for him to speak to MPs,

but it is right that he comes. But if he does come on a state visit,

should he be granted what this country has always thought of as a

great honour, which is a joint address to both Houses of

Parliament? I haven't been an MP long enough to understand the

protocol of where is the right location for him to do that, but I

believe in the past, it has been the greatest leaders, when they have

achieved great things globally, it is Westminster Hall. But there are a

number of MPs saying that is not the most appropriate place and I am

inclined to agree. You don't think he should be accorded the privilege

of speaking to a joint session of Parliament? I think there are places

where he can do that, but Westminster Hall is not yet the

right place. Thank you for joining us.

Steve, within 24 hours, we have seen the difficulty of becoming Donald

Trump's best friend. On the one hand, it could have huge advantages,

particularly for a Brexit Britain. On the other hand, if you are going

to be his best friend, you don't have to give a running commentary on

every major thing he does. Yeah. We have learned a bit about Theresa

May, that when she has to produce a set piece speech which she has time

to prepare, she can get it totally right and sometimes more than right.

When she is faced with a fast-moving story, she is leaden footed and

can't think quickly on her feet. We know, did she regret not saying

more? Evidently she did, because we got a statement from the Downing

Street spokesperson saying more. So she can't think quickly. She's going

to have to think very quickly in response to some of the things he's

going to be doing, because she will be asked about it all the time. It

does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special

relationship is always a safe and fertile place to be has been proven

wrong before and I think it will be proven wrong big-time in this case.

You're shaking your head. I don't see why we are responsible for

American domestic policy. I am as appalled as the next person by what

Donald Trump has done. He said he was going to do this, which was why

I did not want Americans to vote for him. In fact, what he has

implemented is much less than what he said he would do when he was

campaigning. I have always felt that the campaigning Trump was the real

Trump. But what he has done is actually constitutional. He has the

executive power to issue this order. It is within the rules in terms of a

class of aliens deemed to be a risk to the United States. It is a 90 day

limited ban. The last president who did this was a Democrat president,

President Carter. He did it in the aftermath of the Iranian crisis.

Well, given the spate of terror attacks on American territory in

recent years, you could argue that he meant well. I don't agree with

Donald Trump. But have people from these countries that he has banned

been involved in terrorist attacks? That is the absurdity. He has not

included Egypt or Pakistan. But I don't remove everyone getting in

such a state about President Carter. The reality is that it is a legal

thing for him to do. I don't like it. But it is not my territory. It

is illegal, because they have been given a right to remain by a judge

in Brooklyn and another judging Alexandra. That is a different issue

for people who have already gone through the vetting. I don't agree

with this. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Theresa

May, because she wants to do a deal with Donald Trump, I don't give is

reasonable to say she have to agree with each of his policies. It is

nonsense. But the issue, Janan, is not whether she needs to agree with

him. The question is that she will be questioned about him all the time

now. And although these are matters of domestic policy, the refugee

policy is international. They speak to issues that affect Britain as

well, and I would suggest that she will not get away with this

anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she

says something on the record. She would get away with it indefinitely.

These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does

something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her

administration from his. She will probably be in a better logistical

situation to do so. She has spent a big chunk of the past 72 hours in

the air. She flew from Washington to Ankara, than from Ankara to London.

We don't have Air Force One, we don't have those frictionless

communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for

large periods of time when this story was breaking. That doesn't

excuse the stiff response when she landed and issued a statement via

Downing Street. But during that delay, she did have a plausible

excuse. She has also got a much more tricky geopolitical situation than

many other world leaders. She has to strike a favourable trade deal with

the new US president. It is all very well people saying Justin Trudeau of

Canada was much more vociferous in his criticism of Donald Trump. He is

already in Nafta, he is not striking a new deal. For how long, we don't

know. Exactly, he's trying to stay in Nafta, but he is in a less tricky

situation than she is. Now, Theresa May's was the first

foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit

was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,

keen for a new trading relationship with the United States

in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated

the new US President for his "stunning election victory"

but might not have intended to be pictured walking

through the White House with him That picture of Donald Trump helping

Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade

will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President

told her he was "100% behind Nato". And for her part, the Prime Minister

said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries

increased their defence spending It's been announced

that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,

with high-level talks The hope is that this will lead

to a new trade deal between the two countries as soon as

Britain leaves the EU. Mr Trump said he believed "Brexit's

going to be a wonderful thing". On Russia, Theresa May made clear

to Donald Trump her continued

backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over

the President's support for torture, Mr Trump said he would defer

to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, who argues

that the practice doesn't work. And I'm joined now by the former

Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Do you agree with Mr Trump's

decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the

United States? I agree with the concept of democracy, a point which

appears to be missed by almost all commentators including the BBC. He

was elected to get tough and say he would do everything in his power to

protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven

countries on that list. He's entitled to do this. I didn't ask if

he was entitled, I asked if agree with it. I do, because if you just

look at what's happening in France and Germany, if you look at Angela

Merkel's policy which was to allow virtually anyone in from anywhere,

look what it led to. You said in 2013 there's a responsibility on all

of us in the free west to help some of those people fleeing Syria

literally in fear of their lives. That's the Christian community in

virtually all of those country, it is almost too late because many have

been wiped out but if you are looking for a genuine definition of

a refugee, going back to 1951, it is someone in direct fear of

persecution of their life because of their race, religion or beliefs. But

you didn't talk about only Christians, and in January 2014 you

said, I seem to recall it was Ukip who started the debate on allowing

Syrian refugees, you seem to be in favour of allowing proper refugees

into this country. If they can be defined. Mr Trump won't let any in.

He is running American policy, not British policy. Since I made those

comments, we have had the Angela Merkel madness and I think Trump's

policy in many ways has been shaped by what Angela Merkel did. He is

fully entitled to do this, and as far as we are concerned in this

country, I would like to see extreme vetting. Since 9/11 can you name any

terrorist event in the United States that has involved refugees that have

been allowed into the country? No, in fact the terrorist events have

been US citizens radicalised. When you have a problem already, why

would you wish to add to it? I would remind you that of the eight people

that committed those atrocities in Paris, five of them had got into

Europe posing as refugees so there is an issue here. But perhaps not

for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening

process in the world, especially for Syrians. You have to register with

the UN agency for refugees, which then recommend certain names to

America, they then go through biometric screening, database

screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence

agencies screening you. How more rigorous would you want it to be? It

is much more rigorous than we are or the rest of Europe. This is why we

have elections, so voters can make choices and they voted for Donald

Trump to become president and he said he would put bans in place and

then move towards extreme vetting. As far as the Syrians are concerned

he's made that decision but that's what he was voted in fourth. Since

you know him, you have met him, you are confident of his, I'm testing

you on the logic of it. Not that he's democratically elected, I'm not

asking about that, I'm trying to get the case, particularly since if you

take the seven countries of which the ban applies for 19 days, again,

of these seven countries, its citizens have not been involved in

terrorist attacks in the United States. It would be a mistake to say

it is just Muslim countries because the biggest Muslim countries in the

world have not been included in this. The point is they have made

this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about

the policy. This is exactly what Trump's voters would have wanted him

to do. You said the President's rhetoric on immigrants made even you

feel very uncomfortable. Because he started by saying there was a total

ban, then amended it to say there would be vetting. My guess is that

what he will do is try to genuinely help Syrian people and he will be

talking about the creation of some safe zones. Let's see. He hasn't. We

will see. I suspect something like that is coming down the trap. What

advice did you give to the president and his advisers ahead of Theresa

May's visit? That I wanted us to talk about trade and to give the

Prime Minister the impression that actually... When she has been

surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who

say that everything takes five years or seven years or ten years, to make

it clear to the Prime Minister that if there is will, these things can

be done quickly. Isn't there a danger of a British Prime Minister

who has to deal with the president of the United States, to Ally

herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial

president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building

a war with Mexico, threatening trade was with other countries, thinking

of ending sanctions against Russia? I missing something here, what is

controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke

in tough terms, George Bush built six miles of fence, and because it

is Donald Trump there is uproar. So you think there is no risk of the

British by Minister being the best friend of this type of president? I

think there is no risk in putting together a trade deal and no risk in

her being the bridge between America and the rest of Nato to say to Nato

members if you don't pay your 2% he is serious so on those things there

is no risk at all. It was clear from her Lancaster house speech that the

Brexiteers in the Government had won pretty much every argument in terms

of negotiations to come out. What you want from her? She was very good

as Home Secretary, Tory party conferences, the Tory press saying

this was the new Thatcher and she failed. She even failed to control

immigration from outside the European Union so yes, it was a good

speech and for many on the Eurosceptic side of the argument, I

could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying

things which I had been roundly abused and vilified for. But I have

a feeling we may be in for a very frustrating 2017. The mood as I can

see it in Brussels is that negotiating with Britain is not a

priority, they are far more worried about Dutch elections, French

elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I

worry that by the end of this year we may not have made much progress

and that's why the Trump visit suddenly things brings into focus.

What if by the middle of June, for argument 's sake, the Americans say

OK we reached this position with the British, compromised on the tough

stuff, food standards and things like that, we are ready to sign a

deal now, and Theresa May is to say actually Mr Juncker says I cannot

sign this until we leave. What will they do? They cannot throw us out,

we are living anyway. But everybody agrees you can talk about the deal,

maybe even do the heads of agreement but you cannot sign a treaty until

we have left the EU. Let me predict that at the end of this year we will

find a European Union who frankly don't want to talk to us and

countries around the world that want to get on and do things and that

will be the big tension for Mrs May over the course of this year. If the

Prime Minister is giving you everything you want on Brexit, you

agree that she's trying to get from your point of view the right things.

If she delivers on that and get Brexit on the terms of which you

approve, what's the point of Ukip? You could argue that about any

political party. If we have achieved the goal that we set out to achieve,

there are right now out there 4 million people who are Ukip

loyalists. They are delighted that by voting Ukip we got a referendum,

they will be even happier if they seek us leave the European Union and

I think there is still a gap in British politics for a party that

says it as it sees it, is not afraid by political correctness and is seen

to be on the side of the little people, and that's why, with the

Labour Party is fundamentally split, and it really is totally split over

this European question, I think Ukip is in good shape. That proposition

will be put to test at the Stoke Central by-election, one of Ukip's

best prospects in the country. Some people call it the capital of

Brexit. Labour is in chaos over Article 50, is picked a candidate to

fight Stoke Central who has described Brexit is a pile of notes.

If your successor, Paul Nuttall, cannot win the Stoke by-election,

there's not much hope for you, is there? I think he will. I've always

been told don't make predictions but I think he will win. If you doesn't

it will be tough, we will still have our 4 million loyalists, but if it

does we can actually see Labour are beatable in their heartlands and

Ukip will be off to the second big stage. Nigel Farage, thank you for

being with us. It's just gone 11.25,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 15 minutes, I'll

be talking to our political panel. Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. He's not a politician,

not officially at least, but in his last interview

as Archbishop, Barry Morgan tells us why the Church needs

to speak out on politics. And after Jo Stevens'

resignation, what should Labour A senior Labour frontbencher

will be here to tell us. But first how would you feel

about getting a wad of money every Ministers in Wales say giving

everyone a guaranteed minimum income could help tackle

poverty and inequality. Others say it would be

far too expensive. Should every citizen receive

an automatic basic income to spend however they want,

no strings attached? It isn't a new question

and philosophers have debated it The policy does have fresh support

from the left and the right and here in Wales,

the Finance Secretary recently It is an idea with

considerable roots in our Always struggled to manage

to find a practical way of taking it forward but it is

an opportunity for us in Wales, to watch what is being attempted

elsewhere and to see whether we can do anything practical

with the idea ourselves. It isn't clear if or how

the Welsh Government could introduce a universal basic income

but Mark Drakeford says he will keep an eye on developments in Scotland

where there are efforts to launch The initiative has

cross-party support and the backing of

the RSA think tank. It explains a basic income

would be paid to everyone, regardless of whether they work

or not and so there is an extra incentive for unemployed people

to find a job as they wouldn't have to worry about losing benefits,

as happens under the current system. With a basic income,

moving from a system where you weren't working into one

you were, you will You retain your consistent payment

throughout that period. You are given the security to be

able to choose to work and also actually to be able to choose

work or training and set up your own In a way that is more beneficial

to you, rather than one Universal basic income has

already been trialled in a number of countries including

Brazil, India and the Netherlands and on the 1st of January this year,

Finland launched its own 2,000 unemployed people have been

picked at random to take part and they will each receive 560 euros

a month for the next two years, replacing money they

already get in benefits. And to put that figure into some

kind of context, the average private sector salary

in Finland is 3,500 euros a month. The scheme is managed by the agency

responsible for administering social The biggest response

from the big group of The biggest question has

been, is this for real? I can keep this 560 euros and then

take on a job and keep the earnings So this does not reduce my social

security and it is basically income. That is one response,

a very positive one. Critics say handing out

regular, unconditional payments to everyone could encourage

laziness and boost immigration. This is not a workable

scheme because it is It creates a tremendous tax

and disincentive for the average person further up

the income scale who is paying taxes Mark Drakeford has said he thinks

this is an attractive idea. It is quite worrying for Wales

because it is very expensive and if Wales did it on its own it is going

to be very expensive. Now, we are used to

the communist state north of Hadrian's Wall but I'm hoping Wales

won't go the same way towards this sort of extremely expensive

socialist experiment. The UK Government

rejected the idea last year, describing universal basic

income as unaffordable. Mark Drakeford meanwhile

accepts securing public support for the scheme

would be a challenge in light of negative tabloid

headlines in Scotland. This afternoon a special service

will be held for the retiring Barry Morgan is the longest serving

Archbishop in the Anglican Church, and he's never been afraid

to intervene in politics, He's busy today, of course,

so Felicity Evans spoke to him a few days ago,

when she asked whether having the Church interfere

in politics was appropriate. Some people, of course,

Christians among them, think that the Christian faith only

has to do with going to church, saying your prayers

and reading your Bible. They haven't looked very

carefully at the Bible because it has a great deal to say

about justice, a great deal to say about poverty and both the prophets

and Jesus said, it's no good just offering me worship unless you live

justly, if you don't take care of the poor,

if you don't look after refugees. Have you ever come out on a side

at some point and in retrospect thought, actually, I got that wrong

and I shouldn't have said that? I was on the wrong

side of the argument? There were some people who thought

I was wrong to come out over the deemed consent about organ

donation and the Welsh Government. I still believe that it was right

for the Church to speak as it did and I spoke on behalf

of the Church in Wales and on behalf of the bishops

because the clue was in the Some people misunderstood

that and thought that I was against organ donation

and of course, I'm certainly not. I was urging people to give organs

but to do so voluntarily. What about the Syria bombing

debate, when you urged MPs to vote against British military

involvement in bombing in Syria? In retrospect, having seen

the suffering inflicted upon civilian populations

across Syria by government and Russian bombing campaigns,

do you regret that Well, I'm not sure that

people listen to any advice that comes from

the episcopal bench anyway. You must have assumed

you had influence or you wouldn't have

said it, surely? Well, I'm speaking to my own

constituency and getting people to think about some

of the moral issues. I mean, our record in Iraq

and Afghanistan is not a happy one And when you look at the walls

of Llandaff Cathedral you see that we have been

involved in Afghanistan for a couple of hundred years and it has

always ended in tears. There is no kind of

right answer, is there? I just wish the situation

in Syria is not as it is but perhaps if we had gone in,

it might even be worse. What was your biggest

challenge, do you think, on taking up the position

of Archbishop of Wales? I don't know if I've thought of it

in terms of challenges like that. You know, you deal with

things from day-to-day So certainly I think it didn't make

any sense at all for women to be ordained to the diaconate

and to the priesthood and not to be ordained to the episcopate

because there are three orders I think that was pretty important

as a matter of justice, as a matter of equality and as a matter

of doing what was right, really. We have a resurgent Russia,

we have the crisis in Syria and the wider Middle East,

we have President Trump, What is your assessment

of the direction that we are heading in and

Wales's place in it? I think all the Church can do is be

with people as they wrestle with these issues and give

some kind of moral lead. I'm leaving, as you say,

and it is no longer my job to I will have my private

views but I think I shall It's been another week of high drama

on the Brexit front, but much of the focus has

been on Labour. The Shadow Welsh Secretary Jo

Stevens resigned on Friday over being forced to support triggering

Article 50. The Shadow Solicitor General and MP

for Torfaen, Nick Thomas-Simmonds, Good morning and thanks for coming

in. First of all, on the point about Jo Stevens and whether you think

more of your fellow Labour MPs will follow, is that what you expect?

Not necessarily. In respect of Jo Stevens, I think she was if a

drastic shadow were said and she has a great future in the party. Our

position is to respect the result of the referendum. It was the highest

national turnout since 1992. My constituency, Wales and the UK all

voted to leave. I think there is a crucial point here. Going around the

doors in the referendum I got the sense of people saying they didn't

feel politicians listened to them. I think it would be a mistake not to

listen to the result of the referendum, that would further

exacerbate the alienation in politics.

Is the difficulty for you and the Labour Party that around two thirds

of Labour Party members work for remain, but two thirds of Labour

constituencies were four leaf and to try to bring those things together

was almost impossible? -- were in favour of leaving.

The results are therefore everyone to see in various constituencies.

What unites us is the post Brexit Britain we want to see and in the

House of Commons we will see in above amendments by the Labour Party

to shape post Brexit Britain, maintaining the environmental

protections, workers' rights, trying to secure tariff free access to the

single market which is crucial to Wales because 60% of our exports go

to the EU and we need to ensure that we don't become some giant tax

haven. Coming onto those details in a

minute. Just on the Labour and Jeremy Corbyn issue. Was he right,

considering this is a huge issue for all Labour MPs, to use its three

line whip to say you must vote this way?

I think we need to be understanding about colleagues who take a

particular view because they have to. I do think it was very important

we sent out a signal that we respected the result of the

referendum. That is exactly what we are doing. We are now fighting to

protect jobs... Does that mean those Labour MPs who

don't vote to trigger Article 50 are not respecting the overall result,

such as Jo Stevens? What every MP has to do is look at

the conflicting issues, like all MPs do before they vote in the House of

Commons. Looking at their constituency and broader concerns

and what they judge best. This is a quite unprecedented situation and I

am sympathetic to colleagues who take a different view. Over the next

few weeks with the amendments being put down we will be fighting for the

kind of post Brexit Britain, a fair one that we want to see.

How local are you that over the next couple of weeks there will be

discussions about triggering Article 50 and it will be more broadbrush.

How confident are you that there will be a settled well in the House

of Commons that Labour MPs and surgeon Conservative MPs will have a

settled view on these votes? -- and surgeon Conservative MPs? I

don't know if we will until we see where the conversation is going

forward. We will do all we can to shape Brexit going forward but it is

the government that is doing the negotiation and people did not vote

to become poorer and it is for the government to carry out that

instruction from the public in a way that doesn't make Briton Laura.

They will be judged upon that. I guess on that point the government

won't want to have... You wouldn't want to see tightening of the

wriggle room you can give Theresa May because by doing that you are

handing the negotiation position by those dashed to those other EU

countries. I used to be a lawyer and mediator.

Nobody is suggesting you hand over the details of negotiation before.

We don't want Britain as an island tax haven... We need to be straight

on the trade-offs going forward. Immediately that cuts away to May's

last option because she has said she is willing to walk away and have low

tax, low regulation. You are immediately saying you can't have

that. What I'm absolutely saying is the

kind of nightmarish vision she is talking about, this bargain basement

Britain, where we would be competing to be a tax haven with the single

market would be a disaster. That doesn't cut away any of her

negotiating strength. Who would see that as an option to make the

country stronger? She needs to be held to account.

File with that sort of manifest itself over the next couple of

weeks? What kind of votes do you think we can see coming forward from

the Labour Party? You will see amendments on workers'

rights, environmental rights, consumer protection, a broader

amendment on post Brexit Britain, including tariff free access to the

single market, which is vital, but also an anti-tax avoidance amendment

to avoid is becoming a tax haven. Another big political week ahead -

we'll be back to talk about it We're @walespolitics on Twitter,

but for now that's all from me. Welcome back and let's get back

to Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven

mainly Muslim countries. Earlier, the Labour leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, told ITV that a state visit by President Trump to the UK

should not go ahead I think it would be totally wrong

for him to be coming here while that situation is going on. He has to be

challenged on this. So until the ban is lifted, you don't think he should

come? I am not happy about him coming here until the ban is lifted.

Look at what is happening with those countries. What will be the long

term effect of this on the rest of the world? Is this state visit going

to become a matter of huge political debate in this country? It would be

anyway, but it is a temporary ban, so Jeremy Corbyn is on safe

territory. It will be over by April and he is not due to come until

summer. But there are three bands. There is the 90 day ban on people

coming from the southern countries. There is the 120 day ban on refugees

from anywhere in the world, and there is the indefinite ban on

Syrian refugees. So there may still be some bans in place. But bear in

mind the number of Syrian refugees and refugees from around the world

that President Obama took over his eight years. There were years when

it was not even up to 50 Syrian refugees that were taken since the

civil war has started. This is an ongoing American policy. 12,500

Syrian refugees have come in the last year. Before that, it was a

hundred and sometimes under 50. But they are reasonable numbers now,

although not something America couldn't absorb. Donald Trump is

discovering that being a president is different from being a business

man. And Jeremy Corbyn has to learn the art of leadership, having been a

backbench MP, and has struggled to do it, as we are about to discuss

with article 50. With this, you have to dramatise the politics of this,

and this is what he has done with that statement. Most controversial

ever state visit now? I would imagine so. Even regardless of any

opposition from the opposition to trump's physical presence in the

streets, the presence of demonstrators will be an

international new story. If trump's demands for the details of the visit

are quite as extreme and as picky as some of the Sunday papers have

suggested, that could also be the source of controversy. What do you

have in mind? Isn't he anxious that only certain members of the Royal

Family turn up? He doesn't want a one-on-one with Prince Charles. Who

would, though! Some people may be sympathetic on that. It is the one

subject where he is in line with British opinion. Playing golf in

front of the Queen may be a higher priority. We have to be realistic.

Given the other people from around the world that the Queen has played

host to, like the Chinese president and Saudi kings and the like, we

have had a lot worse come to visit than Donald Trump. Brexit - how

serious our neighbour's problems on this? Very serious, but they often

are with Europe. Labour were splits when we joined in the 70s, and still

won general elections, in 1974 and 1975. There were all over the place

in terms of the single currency. Blair said one thing one day and the

opposite the next day. Brown did the same.

Brown usually set the opposite of what Blair said! They won landslide

because they have the political skills to put all of the pressure on

the major government, even though their position on the single

currency was the same as major's. It is about with Europe the art of

leadership. You have to be a political conjuror, you have to

dissemble authoritative leak when you lead a divided party over

Europe, and Jeremy Corbyn to his personal credit cannot dissemble,

but he's not an individual person on this. He's leading a split party in

danger of falling apart, and you need the skills of a political

conjurer. Clearly self-evidently he's not displaying it because we

are talking about the chaotic split which will manifest itself in that

vote on Article 50. Labour and the SNP and the Lib Dems too I would

have thought will all put amendments down to the short Article 50 piece

of legislation. Do they have any chance of succeeding? No substantial

world is changing amendments. I don't think Theresa May has much to

worry about actually. I think if anything the reason she's pushed the

legal appeal is that it helps her to have a big chunk of the media and a

big chunk of public opinion worrying that the popular will of last year

is in danger of being overturned and so even if it was a completely

hopeless legal appeal, it generated headlines for a week that as an

incumbent Prime Minister trying to execute believe vote suits you

politically. I think it is a much bigger problem for Labour, we've

already seen some Shadow Cabinet issues in the previous week. You

have got to remember it's not just a majority of Labour MPs that want to

stay in the European Union, but a majority of Labour constituencies,

and a majority of labour macro voters wanted to stay as well so we

have three lines of division. One amendment that might get through if

it was called, and it is in the hands of the Deputy speaker who will

be chairing these debates, and that will be an amendment that said

regardless of how the Europeans treat our citizens in Europe, all EU

citizens here will be afforded full rights to remain. That might get

through. It may indeed and lots of backbench MPs would backpack. We all

know there will not be mass deportations, it is not legal, it

won't happen, it is simply a negotiating tactic. I agree with

those who say you shouldn't be using people as a negotiating tactic, but

the reality as it is the EU leaders that are doing that because it's

already been offered. The remain as should be attacking the EU

governments for not offering that in return. Article 50 is the easy bit

for her. I agree with other members of the panel that she will get it

through and the court case almost helps her by getting an easy journey

through Parliament, then it gets really difficult. All of this has

been a preamble and once she begins that nightmarish negotiation, there

will be opportunities for a smart opposition to make quite a lot of

the turmoil to come. Whether Labour are capable of that, let's wait and

see. The divisions in Labour are nightmarish for them but by no means

unprecedented. Arguably it was much more complicated in the early 1970s

when you had Titans on either side, big ex-cabinet ministers... Tony

Benn... Michael Foot, they were all at it. The fundamental issue of in

or out, and they won two elections, so you have got to be really clever.

But also how money more Labour MPs will resign. We shall find out this

week. The Daily Politics is back

tomorrow at midday and all I'll be back here

on BBC one next week. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.