11/03/2017 The Papers

Hello. This is BBC News.

We'll be taking a look at tomorrow mornings papers in a moment.

Four countries in Africa and the Middle East need urgent help -

the United Nations says 20 million people are facing starvation.

A diplomatic row after Turkey's president calls the Dutch "Nazi

remnants" for banning his Foreign Minister.

A judge has been criticised for warning women that they could be

targeted by rapists if they get very drunk.

And England crush Scotland at Twickenham, winning a second

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

With me are Nigel Nelson, political editor of the Sunday Mirror

and the Sunday People, and the political

Some of tomorrow's front pages are already in.

The Observer says Theresa May is under fire by MPs who fear

she has no back-up plan if the UK fails to get a trade

The Mail on Sunday also leads on the Prime Minister's impending

plan to trigger Article 50 - the says she'll fire

The Sunday Telegraph's top story is what it calls a war

in the Cabinet over the Budget - with ministers reportedly furious

at the Chancellor for not warning them that he was planning to break

a manifesto promise with a rise in National Insurance

The front page of the Sunday Times has rugby hero Danny Care flying

through the air as scores in England's victory against

And The Sunday Express reports on a potential new lead in the hunt

The paper says police have been given extra

let's delve a little deeper. We start with the Observer. I feel we

need a drum roll. Tuesdays when we are likely to see the Prime Minister

triggering Article 50. Or Thursday. It is also triggering lots of

accusations of, do we really know what we are doing? Good question!

What the papers are full of tonight is a foreign affairs select

committee report which absolutely slams the government. It was chaired

by Tory Crispin Blunt. But he is broadly saying is that if we don't

plan for failure, then that would be a dereliction of duty. That is what

he is accusing the Prime Minister of. What has really got the gold of

MPs is they made the same kind of warning to David Cameron, saying,

you may want a referendum, you don't have a plan. Where is the plan? They

are saying this is similar. They think the negotiations may well

fail. What are we doing for planning if they do fail? At the moment we

can't hear anything from the government. We are going to stay

with this story. The Mail on Sunday, dereliction of his duty. Savaging

Brexit Minister David Davis, suggesting there is no plan. As

Nigel said, they had already been very critical of David Cameron,

accusing the government of gross negligence, of never having a plan B

for the result of the referendum, which resulted in a Leave vote. To

do it again would be absolutely appalling. They use this phrase,

mutually assured damage, which is a throwback to mutually assured

destruction, a Cold War term used by Russia and America. It is absolutely

damning. It is chilling for the government. It is chilling to

business. It is chilling to the country. If there is no deal, and

Theresa May has said we will walk away because no deal is better than

a bad deal, they have got this idea in their heads it is possible there

is not a deal they can agree to. What is the plan? If she does

trigger it on Tuesday or Thursday, they have two years to come up with

something. Politically, if there is a plan B that is being configured,

they don't want to make too much of it because they wanted to succeed.

What if it doesn't succeed? There needs to be a contingency plan. The

chaos that gripped Whitehall Atherley referenda must because

there was no plan for leaving in the first place. -- after the

referendum. Because we were caught out that time, the argument from MPs

is that we should be making plans for that. David Davis tells us he

has a plan A, plan B, plan see -- plan capital see... You get the

feeling they do not know what they are doing. Do you get the impression

the Parliamentary committee are giving guidelines as to what they

think the back-up should be? No, I don't think they are. They are

saying it is a possibility, so you can't pretend it may not happen. It

is an insurance. It is the duty of government. What they are saying is

you can't be negligent. I think what they are saying is that obviously

everybody involved is going into completely uncharted territory.

Probably the only people who have any idea of what it means and what

the deal will be will be the many lawyers working through. Nigel

touches on what David Davis is saying, and we make come on to that

in a bit, because he has written an article in another Sunday paper, but

you can't talk this up because it may not be down to us in the end. It

will be about what the other 27 countries are offering. Hiding

behind the claim that negotiations are not working. She wouldn't say

anything to begin with. Then she admitted we were going to be in the

single market. Other things are obvious, too. She must be more

honest. The Sunday Times has a headline that suggests she is clear

on some of the money payback. This sounds like a very jolly good story,

that we will be sitting on ?9 billion coming our way. The argument

seems to be that we have got 9 billion sitting in the European

investment bank. Our money. Theresa May, when she finally gets to

Brussels to start the negotiations, will say, before we start, can we

have the dosh back, please? The idea seems to be to spike the European

Commission's guns about starched -- charging us ?50 billion for leaving

the EU. Where they got this figure from seems to be a mystery. We're

Prattley oh a lot of pension contributions and so on. Good luck

to. -- we apparently owe a lot of pension contributions. This says

that ministers are confident they can reduce the size of a Brexit bill

to something more politically palatable. This goes back to talking

up. They may be confident but they don't know what the bill would be

yet. If we're going to get his ?9 billion back, allegedly, is the EU

going to ask for money back that it has already for farming subsidies or

other grants and things we benefit from. It is a bit like a Moroccan

Bazaar, isn't it?! This is an ugly divorce, isn't it? Somebody will end

up in a cold, chilly Park. Before we get too depressed, take us onto the

other story in the Sunday Times, a Russian cyber threat to UK

elections. This story has been running around. I have to confess I

was taking the Mickey out of Nigel last time we were on talking about

the spies in your cattle. -- kettle. Now your TVs! People at GCHQ, the

listening spying station, and what they are basically doing, they have

got a story which is that GCHQ are offering and calling for a summit.

They are calling on all political parties, the leaders of all

political parties, because political parties hold an enormous amount of

personal information online about their members and things, and they

are very concerned, GCHQ, lured the possible disruption to the next

general election -- to the possible disruption. They have intervened and

they have stopped apparently a cyber attack on the BBC election coverage.

Did you know that? I did not. By a gang of hackers known as the fancy

bares. They sound rather fond! Deliberately cuddly! Because of

what's happening, all the concerns about fake news and weather the

Russians were involved in the American election, it will fuel the

thing that we don't want to go down the route of online voting.

Old-fashioned as it may be, the paper and pencil works. That is

years away if it ever comes at all. It is a ramping up, telling people

to take it seriously. We were mentioning the parallel with the

states and that the Russians somehow had a hand in the American

presidential elections. The focus very much on Russia? Yes, they seem

to be the ones doing it. We have the same discussions going on in France

with the French elections. It does seem when you talk to people who

know about these things in Whitehall, it is always Russia.

China is pretty interested but they want to steal technology, really.

The Russians want to mess around with democracy. We are fearing that

Russians are actually doing this. It seems perfectly sensible. Have a

summit, swapped what you know, how you can protect yourself. The Sunday

Telegraph. Let's return to politics. This takes us back to the budget.

The suggestion that the Cabinet is now at war over a shambolic decision

by the Chancellor. Does this sound vaguely familiar, rows between the

Chancellor and MPs?! That old one. This is a story that claims that

Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, failed to brief the Cabinet on the

fact that the introduction of the increase in national insurance for

self-employed people was breaking the Tory party manifesto before the

last election. It does rather beg the question, if they were briefed

on it, do they not remember what was in their manifesto? This is a blame

game. Clearly that was an absolute error. It is a bit like George

Osborne's pasty tax. It is a nonsense that somebody in the

Treasury should have worked out what was going to happen, there was gone

to be this absolute uproar on the very people who are just about

managing, the self-employed, the entrepreneur ors. Whether or not,

reality is that all of those people would be affected, having the

resolution foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they

actually say it will not affect people on the very low level. It is

a way of levelling income tax and making it fair. If you are going to

do it, why not go on the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners, or

bring prescription charges down? It is a good job you are not on Twitter

because you would get lots of tweets about that. I know but don't just

pick on one easily identifiable group. Does seem a particularly Daft

decision. I was astonished when I heard in the budget. When you read

the Cabinet didn't notice it was breaking a manifesto commitment, I

found that hard to believe. One of the things we give the week before

the budget is we work out our predictions. This is one that had

been around. The reason we threw it out was on the basis that, hang on,

it is a manifesto commitment, surely they won't break it? Surely the

Cabinet know about it and if they don't, why not? Let's return to the

Observer. Tucked away down the side. You made reference to fake news, a

very zeitgeist thing. This is the web creator himself, Sir Tim

Berners-Lee, who says the Internet is broken. Perhaps he is going to

unplug it! This is one of these stories were the headline looks as

if it is an interesting story. When you look into it, there isn't

actually a story. He is meant to be unveiling a plan. He has unveiled a

radical plan to combat fake news 28 years after he created the Internet.

But what happens is he has written an open letter to the observer

talking about the chilling effect on free speech, Internet blindspots

that corrupt democratic process. But he says with public support he hopes

to comp up with policy solutions. -- to come. We want his solutions and

then we will support it. Did you come up with any solutions? Not yet!

Give us in minutes! This is not on our list. But knowing that you are a

fan and Nigel not so much, let's pay a little tribute to England's

victory in the Six Nations at Twickenham. They have lovely

pictures. We have Jonathan Joseph, man of the match. Got a hat-trick.

The Sunday Times with Danny Care. It is fantastic. 18 wins in a row for

the England team, which I think they are very close to beating New

Zealand's record. They have to play Ireland next week. That will be a

walk in the park. And this was the Calcutta cup. After we finished

this, you take Nigel away and give him a briefing and we will question

him at 11:30pm! It is an exam now! Very many thanks to Nigel and to

Joe. We will be back with more at half past 11. Coming next, it is

time for Reporters.