18/10/2016 The Papers

Hello and welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be

With me are Michael Booker, Deputy Editor of The Express

and Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor

Thank you gentlemen for being here. Let's have a look first of all at

all of the front pages. Before we get into the details.

The Telegraph leads on the latest delay to the decision

on whether to build a new runway at Heathrow.

The FT reports on the jump in the value of the pound,

as investors considered the possibility that

MPs may have a vote on the final Brexit deal.

The Metro reports on the murder of Elizabeth and Katie Edwards

The Express leads on concerns that adult migrants are posing as child

The Guardian says Cabinet ministers have been warned that the UK

could suffer a sharp fall in GDP if it pulls out of

The i leads on the rise in inflation.

And the Times leads on accusations that Theresa May has 'fudged'

More to come back as well. Gentlemen, let's begin. Michael you

will kick as off on the front page of the FT. This is a little bit of a

rally for the pound? We are getting the wind of possible fudges. The

fears of a hard Brexit have been eased. There are twitchy types in

the city at the moment, things are going up and down all the time for

that you get the impression until we do actually achieve full Brexit, the

FT are going to have headlines reflecting this up and down every

time. This time this has come on the back of a lawyer for the government

who has told the High Court there will be before a final deal in

Brussels, there will be Parliamentary approval given. This,

apparently, has given succour to those in the city that think we

might not get a hard Brexit or may not get Brexit at all because there

might be a vote against it. But any MP that does that, and any

parliament that does that, there will be riots on the streets. At the

moment the city are just enjoying... They are thinking, finally someone

is saying nice things, soft Brexit and are taking some solace in this.

But is it just putting it off? You get the impression it is. The

crucial thing here is in fact the people who are participating in the

court case arguing there should be a vote on triggering the Brexit

protest, they argue this vote at the end which the government lawyer has

suggested would happen to approve the treaty. If we strike a new deal

with the EU there will be a treaty that sets that out. UK law requires

parliament to consider that, that probably means a vote and that is

what he said. The argument is having triggered Brexit through Article 50,

Parliament, if it voted against, then we would just be out anyway

without a treaty. So we couldn't fall back on things like the World

Trade Organisation. The Remain camp are arguing this is an adequate. On

the back of this, the city have suddenly thought, this is positive,

it's not going to be as difficult as we thought, therefore the pound has

fluctuated up a little bit. Just to add to the confusion, in the FT

story here it says Goldman Sachs thinks the pound is still overvalued

and should go down further. Another big financial institutional is

saying the pound is now the other way round, undervalued and should be

going up. These are the great experts and they don't really know!

That's what we're seeing, lots of uncertainty. It seems ever seen the

vote no one has a clue, particularly those in the city. The way they are

reacting to every bit of news... And we had that Flash plunge of the

pound the other week, which was done by a computer. This is what we're

relying on at the moment in the city. You can see this is going to

be happening time and again until something actually happens. This is

where the Prime Minister is right, in fact if every cough in space is

talked about... She said we don't want a running commentary on

negotiation. Of course there should be scrutineering discussion, but on

the other hand, people can overinterpret every little sign and

then has this affect. Looking in terms of the FT themselves, they

wanted to stay in. They campaigned to stay in that, so headlines like

this, it's almost then mopping their own browser. If we are going to talk

about every nuance that comes up, the Guardian has picked up this

customs union issue, and how things might look if we pulled out of it.

It's a little bit... It is a little what if. It's one of the

possibilities and it goes into talking about less obtuse things,

like if there was a new customs barrier, we'd need another car park

at Dover. Because there is an proper space for the car parking delays

that would be required to get through. The practicalities, isn't

it? I'm quite sceptical. It is on papers drawn up before the vote and

it's just a theoretical scenario, and it says here it could lead to

4.5% fall in GDP by 2030. I would like to know precisely, we don't see

this in the story, but this has a ring of being similar to the

Treasury forecast, that we will be worse off, each household ?4300

worse off. When you looked at it wasn't people would be worse off

than today, but the increase in wealth was going to be less than it

would otherwise have been if we stayed in. I wonder if that's still

growth, still the country growing but theoretically not as much. The

key thing to discover these reports came before the referendum. Why are

they still looking at these outdated reports? The entire story seems to

be repackaged... This idea that if we suddenly have to have customs

checks, at our borders, the backlog of things that have to go through

our extreme. Do think they pick on is the extra car parking spaces.

There is some investment for car parking companies and tarmac. Glass

half full. It is a legitimate concern on something the Prime

Minister and government team will be dealing with, but it is a long way

from happening. A teasing out a more minor issue. Let's stay with

politics. The Daily Telegraph, they have got may delays Heathrow

decision for you. We thought this couldn't take any longer to make a

decision on new runways but we're still going. To be fair to Theresa

May she has some huge things on her desk when she moved in. This is

another one. What I like about this is it is full of vagaries. People

say this is just kicking the can down the road and fudging but it is

good political fudging. The fact she said she is going to give colleagues

the freedom to voice opposition, but with a number of caveats. The

caveats to me are fantastic. A number... You have to have

previously voiced opinion on the matter, have constituencies close to

the affected airports, banned from campaigning actively, can't publicly

criticise the decision-making process and barred from speaking

against the government's position in the Commons. You can say whatever

you like... Had a nice little dinner party at your house. It's clever.

It's going to put it off again until next winter, which is incredibly

vague. We are going to hear the government position before the end

of the month. The end of next week, I think. In a sense there is

progress, albeit slow. I think these are almost Boris causes. Another

cabinet minister with a London constituency who is opposed to

Heathrow, which is what it looks like it's going to be. At the same

time I suspect... There is a political desire to keep those

people within the cabin and not force them into a corner, so they

will allow them to voice their concerns, at the same time I suspect

there is a degree to which the government wants to make sure they

are, it sounds ridiculous, shown to be consulting properly, as if that

hasn't been enough consideration. From a legal point of view, I think

the government does need to be absolutely sure it shown every

effort to consult and account of all opinions otherwise they will face

legal battles, judicial review of the legal making process. We were

saying earlier she did the same with Hinckley. Looking around at all the

issues she's inherited and she has to do the same at this. Not start

from scratch but given careful consideration. Michael, take us to

the Daily Express, your paper, what is your lead story? In the last

couple of days we have seen the child migrants who have been coming

over from Calais as the jungle camp is dismantled. Most British people

will be glad to trying help out kids coming over here who have got

families here already. We've been told they are looking at the

vulnerable children still over there. When some of the pictures

came out in the last 24 hours or so, some Tory MPs, we had quite a lot of

readers contacting us today saying, we are also vulnerable kids being

brought over here when we see the pictures of kids blown up in Aleppo

and things like that, orphans there, then we see some of the ones here

and a lot of them do look a lot older. The Home Office say they have

given as many checks as they can, but the anger here is at least

checks. If they don't have any papers on them, which a lot of them

don't in the camps, then it's just done on a visual look at these

people. If their physical appearance or demeanour suggests to them they

are definitely not over 18, then they have been allowed through. Some

people are saying, particularly Tory MP David Davis, he is saying we are

giving hospitality to hulking young men. He is going to the extremes,

but I think... It is a thorny issue. We have a duty of care to a lot of

these people, but if it is these people who are pretending to be

children getting in, we have a problem because they're taking the

place of honourable children. Is tricky. It is, a problem the Home

Office has faced with people on the borderline between being children,

16-17 and slightly older or a fair bit older than that. Having been in

Afghanistan a few times, sometimes people there do look quite old when

they are not very old. You discover sometimes they are not very clear

themselves, to be frank, about when their birthday originally was. There

is some confusion in this. Clearly there are a lot of honourable people

there. It's good that we're taking at least some of them, some people

are saying we're not doing enough and there is still this ongoing

problem of what will happen to the people who are not automatically

entitled to come here, have no family connections here, who are in

the Calais camp and what will happen to them. That is an open question.

The plan is now the jungle is being dismantled but there doesn't seem to

be much of a follow-up plan? Not at the moment, they seem to disperse

people and it's just luck. This has been an ongoing issue. There were

some figures earlier on, for 2015 there was for asylum seekers here in

many cases 571 age disputes about people claiming asylum. Out of them

371 were found to be adults. There are people who have been trying to

exploit this. Putting yourself in their position, if you have a chance

of a new life, maybe you would lie as well. If it is taking the places

of honourable children, it is a problem. Normally you would be

entitled to asylum regardless of your age, if you met the criteria.

The difference is how they are treated in this particular scheme,

it's meant to be about children rather than adults. Martin, take us

back to the FT. They have a picture of President Obama, changing tack

completely going overseas, a large election coming up. Weighing in

today is President Obama, who has a message to Donald Trump to stop

whining. He has a message but I don't think it will get through.

Telling him to stop whining because Donald Trump has been going round

ever more vehemently insisting the election is ripped against him,

everything is against him in effect, and creating his defence in advance

of what's looking more likely to be a defeat by the day in the

presidential poll when it comes. And so Obama saying exactly that, should

be concentrating on fighting the election, trying to gather votes.

Obviously he doesn't want him to get many votes, but he's telling him to

do that rather than spend all his time with great conspiracy theory,

which is simply that, I think. That could be explosive, at the end of

the day. If he keeps saying this. If the Democrats... They look like

there are increasingly confident, but if it gets to the point where he

is still talking this rhetoric am election dates and he is still

saying it's being raped, then you have people, is very angry people

over bets, it could be a flash point. -- saying it's being rigged.

We finish with the Telegraph, a story that will raise an eyebrow.

Fashion eating this one, brushing teeth could prevent heart attacks.

Wake your kids up and tell I will be brushing my teeth before I go to

bed. The experts, the boffins in the States believe that brushing your

teeth thoroughly, it brings down inflammation in the body, similar to

what statins do. They say it is almost as effective as statins in

bringing down inflammation, linked to a high prevalence of heart

attacks. They've been able to do this with people pass by putting

some special to space to show whether plaque is, you brush had

out, get that off, your information goes down all through your body and

less chance of a heart attack. A description of a tube of toothpaste

blue incredible, the person that led this, and medical professor from

Florida, apparently he's part of the team that worked out the benefits of

aspirin. He is clearly a very serious... Player on information. He

says exactly that, it's a very simple thing to do, could have a big

impact and no side-effects... I consider we've done everyone a

public service. Four minutes to 11, almost bedtime, go and get your

toothbrush. My thanks to Michael Booker and Martin Bentham for coming

to talk me through the papers this evening. That is all from us

tonight. Don't forget all the front pages

are online on the BBC News website where you can read a detailed review

of the papers. It's all there for you -

7 days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers, and you can see us there too,

with each night's edition of The Papers being posted

on the page shortly after we've Thank you once again to Martin and

Michael foot of the weather coming up next.

A day of sunny skies and clear air for many of you but for others

dramatic skies and spectacular rainbows. Quite a few