19/07/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/07/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Theresa May holds her first Cabinet meeting as Prime Minister and says


want social justice to be the primary focus of her leadership.


After MPs handed Theresa May an overwhelming victory last night


over Trident renewal, the Prime Minister's been


meeting her top team for the first Cabinet meeting since she took


Jeremy Corbyn was on the losing side of the argument in yesterday's


debate and Labour MPs lined up to criticise his stance on Trident.


However, a new poll shows his support is as strong as ever,


so are his leadership challengers doomed to fail?


Remainers said it would damage our long-term prospects.


Leavers said it would provide a boost to our fortunes.


We examine the impact that Brexit will have on the health


And Donald Trump has his moment in the sun


as he hosts the Republican convention in Cleveland.


But can he reach out beyond his core supporters?


With us for the whole of the programme today is the former


Chancellor of the Exchequer Ken Clarke.


He recently said that Theresa May was a "bloody difficult woman"


and that Michael Gove would start three wars at once.


We would like to encourage that level of candour throughout


The House of Commons has overwhelmingly backed


the renewal of the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system.


The vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines


at a current estimated cost of ?31 billion.


The vote came after Theresa May, in her first Commons speech


as Prime Minister, confirmed she would be prepared to authorise


The vote also highlighted deep splits within the Labour Party


with more than half of its MPs going against the leader


Mr Speaker, we have waited long enough.


It is time to get on with building the next generation


It is time to take this essential decision to deter the most extreme


threats to our society, and preserve our way of life


Our nuclear weapons are driving proliferation, not the opposite.


Sadly she, and some members of the Labour Party, seem


to be the first to defend the country's enemies,


and the last to actually accept the capabilities...


Is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear


strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men,


And I have to say to the honourable gentleman, the whole point


of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be


We on these benches, despite our differences on some


issues, have always argued for the aim of


We might differ on how it's going to be achieved,


but we are united in our commitment to that end.


I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate


way to go about dealing with international relations.


For the official opposition to have a free vote on a matter


of such strategic national importance is a terrible indictment


of how far this once great party has fallen.


But what Labour's current front bench are doing is not principled.


It shows contempt for the public, for party members, and often,


The possession of the nuclear deterrent may be unpleasant,


but it's an unpleasant necessity, the purpose of which lies not in it


ever being fired, but in its nature as the ultimate insurance policy


against unpredictable future existential threats.


It is obscene that the priority of this government and sadly too


many people on the Labour benches, at a time of Tory austerity


and economic uncertainty following the EU referendum,


is to spend billions of pounds on outdated nuclear weapons


but we do not want, do not need and could never use.


Well to discuss the vote we've been joined by the former


Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn.


Welcome. Before I come to you, it was a trick, there was no need for a


vote at this time, it was only really done to expose divisions in


Hilary Benn's party? I do not know why David originally chose this


timing but there is no need for anybody to expose divisions in the


Labour Party now, they are there for all to see and do the interests of


clarity, it has probably helped the Labour Party to get over this. It


was an obstacle in their path. They knew they would have a painful day


and at least we know where the nation's defences are likely to be


for the next years, even though we do not have much idea what else will


happen to the country in the outside world. Labour Party led by Jeremy


Corbyn who has always been and continues to be against Trident and


its renewal. The fact he cannot carry the party with him, and there


was a free vote on what one colleague called key strategic


issue. That was in the end a pragmatic decision the Shadow


Cabinet took. Jeremy's position is well-known, he has always been


opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and I respect his view, I


fundamentally disagree with it and more to the point, Labour Party


policy for a long time has been to support the maintenance of the


nuclear deterrent and we were elected on that commitment and the


majority of Labour MPs who cast a vote voted to protect the nation's


security and support the building of the new submarines. What does it say


about the state of the Labour Party? There was a free vote and the leader


is against the policy the party is for, it is chaos. It is not


sustainable. I will be the first to accept that. We need new leadership


and we will have a leadership contest because we cannot carry on


with the situation in which the leader of the party and also the


leader of the Parliamentary party cannot command the confidence of a


majority of his members of Parliament. Jeremy, he has a mandate


I am reminded, but it includes to lead the party in parliament which


he is pay not able to do any more and that is why at this late stage,


the right thing would be for him to step down. We will have a contest


and hopefully we will come back at the end of September with a new


leader. What was the point of a policy review, Labour Party policy


on Trident. It was agreed at the manifesto it would be in favour of


renewal, when no one will change their mind on such a key issue?


Jeremy Corbyn voting against the renewal. The policy review has not


been completed, it has been delayed. It has been delayed and I don't know


what is in it because it has not been published. The long-standing


policy of the Labour Party since we abandoned unilateralism in the 80s


has been to support the nuclear deterrent and it is supported by the


major unions, because their members helped to build the submarines and


it is important we maintain that capacity to protect ourselves. Where


we agree, and I think Ken Clarke would agree, we want a world with no


nuclear weapons but the debate is how you get there and Britain giving


its deterrent up with not persuade other nuclear states in the world to


do so. There are new threats. Nobody knows what they will be in the years


ahead and I would not feel safe in a world where everyone had given up


nuclear weapons apart from North Korea. Jeremy Corbyn has support, in


his view, against renewing Trident from a large number of Labour


supporters and one reason is cited is the costs, which is fast. 31


billion is the government figure that does not include according to


Caroline Lucas for the Green Party, the costs of maintaining submarines,


something like ?200 billion. It is not something that can be just


batted away. You have to face up to it is a considerable cost. Jeremy


Peace against nuclear weapons being held by this country in principle.


He came into Parliament during the brief time the Labour Party was


unilateralists. Every government from Clement Attlee on Buzz has


favoured the policy we voted for yesterday. -- on the policy. It is a


dangerous world and not getting safer. By the time we get the new


submarines, nobody knows how far nuclear weapons may have


proliferated over the next 30 years. It is a large sum of money and the


overwhelming majority of people in the House of Commons and I think the


public accept it is a cost we have to undertake in order to maintain


security. What about the commitment to multilateral disarmament? Your


colleagues said on the face of this legislation that was not there and


without that there would be no attempt at trying to work towards


multilateral disarmament? Is that still important? It is important and


we have seen the benefit of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and


how it was used by the world to get Iran to give up nuclear ambition.


That agreement is important. During the last Labour government we


reduced the number of warheads, a contribution be made. You would need


local powers to do that. In particular it is those who are not


signatories that the problem and I highlight North Korea because I do


not think they are to negotiation. The costs, those who raised costs


are opposed to a nuclear deterrent in principle. If you go back to


Clement Attlee's speeches in the 1940s, he said, I know the defence


of the nation is a cost and it is an expense but it is one we should bear


because it is important, given the experience particularly the country


had just come out of, that we make sure we are defended. We know it's


destructive potential. It is to protect Britain from being the


subject of an attack. That is the reason we have it and it protects us


every day with those submarines patrolling around the world. Let's


talk more about Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. The BBC understands he


is likely to face a single challenger. The two current


challengers, Angela Eagle and Owen Smith have apparently reached a


common understanding However, a new poll in today's Times


shows that support for Mr Corbyn Our political correspondent


Iain Watson is outside Labour headquarters, where the party's


National Executive Committee is meeting to discuss Labour's


leadership election rules. Have please finally been decided?


Yes I think they have. The NEC meeting is taking place in this


building and some are rushing in. It has just got under way. A week is a


long time in politics. Last week, Jeremy Corbyn was trying to fight


for the right to be automatically on the ballot and as soon as he won the


fight he came out here to talk to the media and celebrate and to go to


a supporters' rally but inside two crucial decisions were made, first


to increase the fee registered supporters would have to pay from ?3


up to ?25. Many of them voted for Jeremy Corbyn last year, 100,000 of


them, and ?25 would make it more difficult to do so and this year


existing members would have to be party members for over six months to


get a vote and Jeremy Corbyn was not pleased about that, seeing it as


anti-democratic. Having spoken to NEC members, a senior member said


this matter is settled. They said constitutionally they cannot reopen


this for another three months, after the contest would take place and so


it looks like Jeremy Corbyn will not overturn the crucial decisions by


the NEC. As we speak there is a High Court challenge by a Labour funding


person who wants to take Jeremy Corbyn off the ballot. The first


stage of the legal challenges held today and it will be held in for one


week from now. It is still not clear if Jeremy Corbyn has to go through


the additional hoop of seeking MPs' support to get on the ballot, that


will be down to the courts rather than the NEC. The wrangling


continues. I did not realise that would go through the courts and


could still threaten Jeremy Corbyn being on the ballot paper. If you


look at the Labour Party membership and supporters, it looks like his


support is growing according to the latest poll. That is right. A poll


in the Times newspaper will come a shock reading for potential


challengers. They are trying to decide among themselves who should


be the sole challenger. To sort this out either today or at the latest by


tomorrow, depending on who seems to garner most support among MPs but


whoever wins according to this poll will be behind Jeremy Corbyn. A


YouGov poll suggests 54% of supporters would give Jeremy Corbyn


as first preference. Even if there were three candidates, Jeremy Corbyn


would be put in top position by a majority of existing Labour Party


members. There is a suggestion he is either 15, 20 points ahead of his


nearest rival, depending on who the rival happens to be. Whoever it is,


Owen Smith, Angela Eagle, they will have work cut out to convince Labour


Party members. That they should be chucking out Jeremy Corbyn when the


leadership result is announced in September.


Iain Watson, thank you very much. Hilary Benn, are you shocked by that


poll that puts Jeremy Corbyn more popular with Labour supporters? I


think it's more popular than a poll that was taken three or four weeks


ago. As I read it last night, it was something like 45% said they would


definitely vote for him and then there were those who said they would


probably. He could win again. It is possible. Labour Party members need


to wake up the position we're in. Jeremy Corbyn has brought ideas and


up debate... Do you really believe that? I think a lot of people voted


for him because they wanted to shake things up a bit. That is what


members have said to me. But I am eating party members who voted for


him last time, who are now saying that was my motivation but it isn't


really working -- I am meeting party members. There is going to be a very


lively campaign and I hope the membership recognises we do need a


new leader. Why Angela Eagle and not Owen Smith? Angela showed


extraordinary courage in being the first person to say she will


challenge Jeremy. Owen Smith has great qualities, too. There is a


strong view in the Parliamentary Labour Party that we would like to


see a single candidate challenging Germany. -- challenging Jeremy. We


don't yet know how the nominations will pan out... But the person who


garners the most support should be the one that goes forward, whether


that's Owen Smith or Angela Eagle? I think that the cause of there being


only one candidate but I won't pre-empt the decision. I'm backing


Angela. You've resigned from the Shadow Cabinet. I was sacked, Jo.


You must act, saying Jeremy Corbyn wasn't a credible leader. -- you


were sacked. What makes you think Owen Smith or Angela Eagle are going


to be able to unite what is now a completely fractured party? I think


they have the capacity to do so. On the basis of what? On the basis we


can't carry on. There is no evidence to show you can unite two sides of


the Labour Party that fundamentally disagree with each other. We've been


through difficult times like this before. I'm old enough to remember


the late 70s and early 80s. It is a difficult time, it some pleasant, we


are having party meetings suspended because of worries about


intimidation and that's not a healthy state for any political


party to be in. I'm sure even Ken would concede, we need a strong and


effective opposition to the government because that's important


for our democracy. I think that if we get a new leader, whether it is


Angela or Owen, if they are able to beat Jeremy, I think we will begin


the process of healing the party because I know they will reach out


to others. I'm afraid Jeremy hasn't reached out and that's part of the


reason the PLP has lost confidence in him. He says he would like to


bridge the gulf. It does sound at the moment anybody but Jeremy


Corbyn, it doesn't really matter to people like yourself what happens


afterwards as long as you get rid of him. It matters enormously. I want


us to be a credible party of government. We cannot just be a


party of protest. I would say to Jeremy's supporters, none of his


ideas are going to come to pass, none of them will be put into effect


because the public don't see him as a credible Prime Minister. What


other policies do you fundamentally disagree with and can't be part of


the manifesto under Angela Eagle? I had quite well-known disagreements


with Jeremy when it comes to foreign policy and those came to a head over


Syria. I'll give you an example of two policies I support, the


re-nationalisation of the railways. It's popular with the public.


Secondly, more affordable housing. Jeremy wants to lift the borrowing


cap put on local authorities to build more houses. The point is,


this isn't a dispute actually about policy. It is about Jeremy's


capacity to lead. You'll have seen the article Lilian Greenwood wrote


yesterday where she set out from her point of view, she said it was to


functional. That's why you've seen the vast majority of the Shadow


Cabinet resign and that's why you've seen 80% of Labour MPs saying we


don't have confidence in him. If Jeremy Corbyn wins, and there is a


high probability he will, what then? We'll have to deal with the


situation then. I hope that isn't the case... But you must have


thought about it, because you made the mistake, not you personally but


the party made that mistake of not thinking about it carefully first


time around. Would you serve under Jeremy Corbyn? I don't think there's


any likelihood he would invite me to serve. People have said honestly we


don't have confidence in you in that eventuality, to then say they've


changed their mind. So it would split the party? The party isn't


going to split. If Jeremy Corbyn wins who's going to serve in the


Shadow Cabinet? That is a problem for Jeremy to sort out. To be


absolutely clear, the Labour Party isn't going to split because it


belongs to all of us. Lots of people have devoted their life to the party


and it belongs to all of us, not to any one individual or any part of


the party. Ken Clarke, one thought on the disconnect between membership


and the Parliamentary party. The Tory party have experienced that and


under Iain Duncan Smith you could say there was that sort of


disconnect. How does that happen? It is obviously dangerous.


There are a reduced number of people who join political parties compared


to 30 years ago. Our membership tends to be elderly and to the


right. There's is young and to the left. They've got a lot more


members. Hours are keen on being in government. I think our members


would have voted for Theresa May. We had only one plausible prime


ministerial candidate and I think she would have won easily. They


aren't complaining that we shortened the process. This new young


membership of the Labour Party, they are radical people of protest. It is


a policy thing. I agree with your premise, I want to see the sensible


members of the Labour Party emerged with a credible government in


waiting. It improves the performance of the government in power once you


are challenged properly which we aren't being at the moment.


Last night on a train in Southern Germany,


a 17-year-old Afghan refugee was shot dead by police


after he attacked fellow passengers with an axe and knife.


A hand-painted flag of the self-titled Islamic State has


since been found in the teenager's room and the IS-linked Amaq news


A hand-painted flag of the self-titled Islamic State has


since been found in the teenager's room and the IS-linked Amaq news


agency has claimed the teenager was an IS "fighter".


Four people from Hong Kong were injured in the attack -


Our correspondent in Berlin, Damien McGuiNness, has


the latest on this story and the reaction in Germany.


What's been the reaction in Germany politically and in the court of


public opinion? I think what we can safely say is that this attack is


going to have a major impact on German society. That's because as


you know, last year Germany Tech in a large number of refugees and


migrants. That decision was quite controversial. Lots of people agreed


with it and saw it as a good humanitarian gesture. Lots of people


disagreed with it and said it wanted destabilise Germany. -- said that it


would destabilise Germany. This attack was carried out by a young


asylum seeker who came in as part of the wave of refugees and migrants


coming here. It's really going to reignite that debate over whether


Perlin did the right thing by welcoming in so many refugees and


migrants. On the other hand it's also going to put more pressure on


Chancellor Angela Merkel because she is facing re-election in a general


election next year. We also have regional elections here in Berlin in


September. It's going to really have a political impact on the debate,


particularly on the one hand to do with the refugee crisis and the


government's response, and on the other hand the government's response


to security and anti-terrorism measures. It'll increase the


nervousness here in Germany that a large attack may at some point


happen. It's seen as an individual taking violent action, only 17 years


old. But the self-styled IS said they recruited him as a fighter, but


it wasn't organised in the way we would perhaps presume if they had


had a carefully orchestrated incident like this. That's right,


Jo. That's the question right now. The first question was whether this


was an Islamist extremist attack, it appears it probably was. There was


the IS flagged in his accommodation and the fact that officials have


found texts saying that Muslims should take up arms against the


West. The second question is whether this was in fact organised by IS or


whether he was a lone attacker. Officials in Germany are saying


there's no connection they can see between this young man and so-called


Islamic State. So far, all the evidence they say is pointing to the


fact this was probably a lone attacker. This doesn't make Germans


feel more secure because it doesn't mean this was a lone wolf attacking.


It's almost harder to prevent something like that because it is


such a random attack that you can't foresee. Officials are saying they


see no connections with other Islamist groups and they also see no


connection official league with so-called Islamic State. It could be


that this young man was inspired by IS rather than radicalised directly


by the group. This must be the worry that


following the tragic events in Nice that individuals saying they are


acting on behalf of so-called Islamic State are just deciding to


do these things on their own. I agree. It will be a problem for


years to come, it's one of the major problems all Western societies are


going to face. If IS loses its territory in Syria and Iraq as a


result of military campaigns, they will move into this kind of


terrorism and there is undoubtedly a crazy mood amongst a fringe of young


Muslims that attracts them to this one-off individual massacre of


innocent people. It's no good thinking there's a simple way of


getting rid of it. You have to improve your intelligence and


security, you also have to decide how to mobilise the bulk of the


Muslim population, to try to stop this awful influence. The pressure


on Angela Merkel will be building, ever since she made that decision


that meant that large numbers of migrants and refugees from Syria and


other parts of the Middle East came into Europe in Germany, she is at


risk politically, isn't she? She might be but that is because


extremists and populist groups like to turn into the answer is stop


these immigrants coming. They like to pray on these fears. The idea


that the solution for Germany is to somehow stop foreigners coming, make


sure the people fleeing anarchy and violence in the Middle East and


Africa are turned back at our borders, is perverse. The fact is as


we know, we've had random items of terrorism, we'll have more I'm


afraid although our intelligence services do quite well. We've had


British citizens carrying out attacks in London and killing


people. Exploiting immigration is just a hardline right-wing


exploitation of the understandable worries we have about terrorism in


the next few years. The campaign to keep Britain


in the EU hoped that their warnings of dire economic consequences


if we left would be enough to persuade voters


to maintain the status quo. But in the end Project Fear -


as it was dubbed by the Leave campaign -


failed to convince. So what impact has the decision


to leave the EU had We can now say the decision taken


in 1975 by this country to join the Common market has been reversed


by this referendum to leave the EU. After weeks of campaigning


and predictions of disaster from either side, whatever we chose,


the result was, to many, unexpected, and came with a truckload


of concerns and questions. Having been told by the then


Chancellor George Osborne, among others, that leaving the EU


would spell financial turmoil, he is no longer in charge of that


economy nor in the government that But in one regard he was right


and Leave supporters Brexit was always the more


uncertain choice, because it And if there's one thing


markets hate and react Across the world's markets


that morning, sterling fell against the dollar,


UK's credit rating was downgraded, the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 fell,


as did shares in banks. And the IMF cut economic growth


forecasts for the eurozone. Did it mean that Project Fear


was becoming Project Fact? Loathe as I am to set up a strawman


just to knock it down again, here in the Treasury of course


they're watching the UK economy to see whether the vote to leave has


had an effect on it. But when you're trying to decide


that, it really rather depends If you are a Remainer you will look


for evidence they were right, it is all a disaster


and it is all going to go wrong. If you are a Leaver,


you are going to be looking for evidence that backs up the fact


that it was all fine after all. And the truth is it's


really too early to tell. Frustratingly, that provides no


reassurance for either But as economists who supported


Brexit gathered in London last week, they were perhaps


unsurprisingly upbeat. Often overlooked is


the government borrowing rate Admittedly borrowing rates of many


countries are at low levels but it suggests that international


investors have not It highlights the fact that the UK


Government, if it wanted to, with a new Prime Minister,


could borrow incredibly cheaply So when you look at the markets,


look at what is happening, as opposed to listening to what


people are saying in some respects. Nonetheless, in the world financial


powerhouse that is London, there are still signs our referendum


decision is having some negative repercussions, especially


within the currency markets. Because why would you invest


in a country that has yet to work out what its new position


is in the normal world environment? But we are not in a normal


world environment. We are in a world with almost 0


to negative interest rates. We are in a world where growth


is at best sluggish. The US could be led by,


the first time really in 100 years, by somebody who doesn't believe


in international trade and global China, the next biggest economy


in the world, is slowing rapidly. Nobody quite knows how much


because the official GDP data In a normal world, if this happens,


then yes, people would stop Softbank's ?24 billion purchase


of ARM will be seized But in the months to come expect


supporters of Leave and Remain to cherry pick economic news that


chips away at the Joining me now is the former Justice


minister and leading Leave Welcome back. Let's look at the


data. After the vote to leave, the UK growth forecast for 2016 was cut


to 1.9%. Down to door .4% for 2017 and consumer confidence fell at its


fastest pace in 22 years with the high street suffering in the wake of


the vote to leave, according to a research Society. The warnings of a


bomb on to the economy and recession have been proved wrong on the


forecasts you just gave me because the suggestion there might be a cut


of growth is different from going into recession. Employment is at


record levels borrowing levels are good for us and the latest


manufacturing index data has been positive and the FTSE 100 and 250


are at higher levels than when David Cameron came back with the EU deal


in February. Nobody has said there are not short-term risks but my


argument would be when we go into the Brexit negotiation and as


parameters become clearer and we are clear we will not end up with


massive trade barriers, we should focus on managing risk but there are


huge opportunities. Let's not talk of it as a damage limitation


exercise. Manage the risk and sees those opportunities. It is too early


to tell, isn't it? I agree with your commentator. It is silly to look at


economic policy and movement in terms of fighting a game that


ridiculous referendum campaign when arguments on both sides were frankly


painful and rather silly. What you cannot do, my view is you cannot


reduce trade links with the market of 500 million people without making


yourself poorer. I think there is uncertainty that is causing not only


financial markets to go mad. Which they do anyway. We have no


investment taking place and falling confidence. The longer the


uncertainty goes on more likely we go into recession between now and


Christmas. The sooner we end the uncertainty and I agree with


Dominik, make sure we do not put new barriers to trade and investment --


Dominic Raab. We are going to talk about... All the other things they


are arguing about, I would leave that. I would get on with restoring


confidence and get people to invest here again by establishing the kind


of access the Norwegians have got. There is a recession by Christmas?


We were told we would be on an economic cliff edge the day after. I


did not say that. He said there would be a recession the day after?


I said economic cliff edge. We have not seen that. Look at the Footsie.


Let's be clear about the FTSE and the value of sterling. There were


falls and it has rallied a little against the dollar and euro. The


FTSE 100 later recovered but the FTSE 250 is still below the


pre-referendum level. But not below the level when David Cameron came


back in February. Businesses from Aston Martin to Amazon have since


the result announced new investment in the UK in terms of Aston Martin's


Welsh facility and jobs in the UK. I would say there is uncertainty but


it is not the doom and gloom predicted. Just before that, on


uncertainty, it would be about whether businesses hold on cash,


they don't invest. Will that happen because we have to wait at least two


years before we know what will come? Two things have happened. One of the


causes of uncertainty was about the vacuuming government after the


referendum when David Cameron resigned and that has been resolved


mercifully swiftly which is one reason why sterling and the FTSE


rebounded. And the second thing that has to happen, which we expect by


Christmas, is the parameters of the negotiation will be clearer. I hope


that that point... There -- it is clear there will not be huge trade


barriers. Wait and see the light of the land. It has nothing to do with


ludicrous scaremongering preceding the referendum. The ludicrous


scaremongering, the idea of a punishment budget, we know what


happened to George George Osborne. Balancing the budget at the end of


the Parliament has been abandoned. Growth put before deficit reduction,


these are positive things? Some things that were said were as daft


as the billions of Turks that would flood in if we voted to remain. I


stick to the IMF, Bank of England. Mark Carney has been running the


shop recently very well. We reported about the institutions. There is a


view that many Leave voters felt they were not benefiting from the


so-called recovery. We had enough experts. For example, IMF, Bank of


England, Mark Carney, the IMF come out with dire predictions. The


former chief economist of the IMF, and the committee of the bank of


England said it will not be quite as bad as that. What we argued was some


political appointees are coming out with rather partisan assessments


which their experts do not agree with. Do not attack Mark Carney as a


political appointee. Do not interpret the events of the first


month as a means of allowing you to make attacks on these institutions


made in the first part of the campaign. You got the Euro wrong.


Silly populist politics is not the way to deal with a serious economic


problem. I scrutinised Mark Carney. Did you accuse him of not being


independent? The point I made was when these people came out we


looked, for example, Mark Carney, at the Select Committee gave a balanced


set of evidence and when he went on the Andrew Marr Show I felt it was a


stronger political intervention. You shake your head but compare the


evidence he gave to the Treasury Committee. On batch... The serious


problem is you will not get major investment in this country. It will


not all stop. You will not get the major investment and restore


confidence. Rolls-Royce. Gentleman. Until you establish exactly what


trade and economic relationships will be. We will discuss that. If


you sacrifice some of the axis we have now to the European single


market, you will make this country poorer. We are going to talk about


it. I want to ask Dominic Raab briefly. You were not on the -- you


on the winning side, disappointed you lost your job? More gratified to


see Britain take the right decision and I want to see at work and I will


support this government and also like Ken Clarke enjoyed the freedom


of the backbenchers. Be backed Michael Gove. He is no longer around


the cabinet. How big a loss is he to government? One of the great social


reformers of our generation so I am sorry to see him go. I will not


quibble with the new Prime Minister who has the right to pick a team. I


did not bad-mouth anyone through the campaign nor the leadership contest


and I will not do it now. You expected probably to be there


because people would say you were a leading light in the Leave campaign


that was victorious. Very kind, but lots of people have expectations.


Politics is a game of ups and downs. One of the big issues as we begin


the process of leaving the EU will be what it means for trade


with the rest of the world. Those who wanted us to remain


in the EU argued the size of the single market is an advantage


when striking trade agreements with other countries,


while Leave campaigners say the EU is slow at agreeing deals and that


Britain loses out from not being able to negotiate


our own deals. As well as operating as a single


market for trade within the EU, the European Union currently has


in place 22 bilateral and five The UK is prevented from signing


individual trade deals with other member states or with non-EU


countries before it has Brexit Minister David Davis


and Trade Minister Liam Fox say they are working towards a leaving


date of first January 2019 and that they are already involved


in informal trade talks with the aim of having agreements ready


to sign on that date. At the weekend Liam Fox said


he is "scoping out" deals with a dozen countries and had


opened "very fruitful" He cites Australian Prime Minister


Malcolm Turnbull's offer to strike a deal with the UK "as soon


as possible" as evidence that post-Brexit Britain can be


"a beacon for open trade." But others warn that as Britain


will be unable to conclude trade deals until it has officially left


the EU it may initially have to operate under


World Trade Organisation Rules and faces uncertainty over future


access to the single market. EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia


Malmstrom said earlier this month that the UK cannot begin negotiating


a new trade relationship with the EU Dominic Raab is still with us


and we've also been joined by Sir Lockwood Smith, New Zealand's


High Commissioner in London. Welcome. We were starting to talk


about it, we cannot sign deals until we have officially left, that has to


be the most worrying thing for British business, the uncertainty


you were conceding could set in. I think it is the opposite. We can do


the preliminary negotiation and have them ready to go when we leave the


EU. Can they be ready to go on day one? You can have informal


discussions. People will not invest here to sell cars in Australia or


New Zealand. You cannot activate deals because you cannot remain in


the single European market and then just let everybody else import into


your bit of it. We have to put frontiers in place to get government


access. Trade is a complicated thing and those people who have talked


about trade negotiations have never had anything to do with them. I have


probably heard more rubbish on trade negotiations talked in the


referendum than any other subject. Deal with New Zealand, fine but for


the time being we are in the single market and we have to work out the


basis of what access we will retain to that market. Does Ken Clarke have


a point, that should be the priority? We will talk about free


trade deals with Australia and Canada but given over 40% of exports


go to the EU, is that the priority, securing access to that single


market? The referendum was won on taking back control of the economy,


laws and borders and the idea we would have free movement and trade,


with single market access will not happen. What you said about 40% is


right. The gradual share of UK exports of shifted from the


continent. Why is that important? Strike more free trade deals, boost


jobs at home and cut prices in the shops. That was not my question.


What should be the priority? We are not going to trade free movement for


access to the single market but there is massive mutual


self-interest in making sure we keep that trade going because we have a


trade deficit. Why on earth would the French and Germans go into


elections in 2017 on a manifesto promising to hike trade barriers.


I was the first Trade Minister in the world to sign China up to the


World Trade Organisation. I initiated Australia New Zealand...


So I know a bit about it. It is complex. One has to be honest. In


fact how the UK and negotiates this parting of the ways is hugely


important for the world. Because the world needs both the UK and the EU


doing well. New Zealand does well when you people do well. With that


affect the sort of trade deal you'd be prepared to sign with the UK?


We'll work in formerly obviously with the UK. But in fact a couple of


things have to happen. First this negotiation with the EU, how the


future trade relationship will be. Also at the WTO, the UK has to


establish its schedule at the WTO. That may involve replacing the word


EU with the UK. All the other members have the chance to have a


say in that. These things have to be progressed carefully, wisely and New


Zealand is prepared to help whenever we can. It sounds tentative. You're


saying you want to see what's going to happen first. We want to help. We


think it is not a matter of waiting to see what will happen, we want to


help the UK sort out the steps and how to get a really good outcome.


It's in our interests. In that sense, there's also talk that being


too eager to sign up to trade deals with the likes of Zealand and


Australia in formerly, until actually the UK leads the EU, that


you will give away too much. There will be too much eagerness to have


these deals ready to go that mistakes will be made. I don't think


that's the dynamic. I'll see you step negotiating basement protection


agreements so I know what it's like to negotiate some of these deals. We


should go to countries like New Zealand and Australia. They sell


their exports of wine to the UK. We should be going to them, we want to


drink more of your wine. That will put the pressure on the French and


will be the biggest dampening on the likelihood of trade barriers. We


should be doing the same with the Koreans and the Japanese around


cars. We should at the same time be going to the business there's an


trade fairs across continental Europe and saying, we want to keep


buying your goods, we are going to have a more competitive arrangement


going forward. Don't let the politicians ruin it. In 2017 there


are German presidential elections, are they really going to run on a


manifesto of trade barriers that will crush French and German jobs?


They make it more difficult to make concessions. The German and French


will want to minimise the damage from this but I hope Liam Fox is


listening to this is about how we are going to go on. Meanwhile what I


really dislike is the idea that of course is the condition of the trade


deals is it all depends on our reaching some decision about which


people we are going to stop coming to work here, which people will stop


coming to be students. We are going to say to the Europeans, we don't


want your construction workers, your academics, the students coming to


our universities, we are going to put our controls on them. And of


course trade is going to be dependent on our agreement first of


all. This nonsense has got to be abandoned. But people will have to


respond to the vote. We've run out of time but do you think you will


sign up a deal the day after Brexit happens? We certainly want to be


involved in the informal work but it's got to be done sensibly and


wisely and the EU has got to be part of this. It's got to be done in a


balanced way with smart minds. On the other side of the political


pond, this was supposed to be the week where Donald Trump was anointed


as Republican candidate for the presidential election. The


Republican Convention Toft Way rather chaotic start. Andrew is in


New York and has been across events. Tell us what happened. America went


to bed in King Mrs Trump had done a pretty good job. It was a little


over scripted but she pulled it off and was getting good reviews in the


post-speech analysis. America has woken up to a huge row that a huge


chunk of the speech was plagiarised from Michelle Obama's speech to the


Democratic convention. They overlapped, the use of words is


almost exactly the same. Normally what would happen is that the speech


writer would be given a loaded revolver and a bottle of whiskey and


simply held off a tall building. The problem is that Mrs Trump has told


an American network that she scripted the speech almost entirely


herself and she only had to rehearse it once. It's an ongoing row but


this being the Trump campaign, in the end probably nothing will come


of it. Does anything seem to stick? Does any of it matter? Nothing so


far. Other than Mrs Trump last night, it was a collection of beer


list celebrities. There was a guy from Happy Days, there was an


Italian male model, there will walk on parts


from The Apprentice. The attempt to try and stop him from being the


Republican nomination petered out yesterday afternoon. It now builds


up to his coronation on Thursday night. What we still don't know is


how he will reach out beyond his base which was there last night, to


the broad electorate that he needs to win. That will be the test he's


got to pass on Thursday. What did you make of Rudy Giuliani? He gave a


fairly rousing speech himself. It was barnstorming. It was probably


the best speech of the night if you like that kind of thing. He was way


ahead of the other speakers and it hammered home the theme of this


convention that America is unsafe, it will take Donald Trump to make it


safe, that Obama has been weak and Hillary Clinton will be even weaker.


That was the theme pounded out again and again and again. Not say from


its enemies abroad, not save they save from its enemies within. And


taking place after yet more police shootings, this resonates with the


Republican base. Does it resonate beyond that? That, we still don't


know. Is there any evidence that he's reaching out beyond the core?


There is. The polls are narrowing in his favour. Mrs Clinton is still in


the lead but there's quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the more


you talk about law and order issues, the more you talk about toughness in


America, the more that connects with a particular blue-collar vote. This


Republican party is not the Republican party of old, of the East


Coast, of the establishment, of the money, of Wall Street. This is a


reinvented workers party. It is increasingly a blue-collar party on


the right. The question is, and it's a white blue-collar party. I'm told


there may be fewer black delegates at this convention than there were


at the 1964 convention when Goldwater was nominated post-civil


rights. Mr Trump intends on getting a massive turnout of disillusioned


white voters, and there are plenty of those around. Thank you very much


forgetting up so early to talk to us. Your cheque is in the post. Yet


another 10p. LAUGHTER Now, Ken here is famous


for speaking is mind, Indeed he tends to be even more


outspoken when he thinks the microphones are off but are,


in fact, on. In a recent unguarded moment he


described Theresa May as a bloody difficult woman although it doesn't


seem to have dented her career prospects.


So to honour this Great British tradition of accidental


plain-speaking, here's our top five microphone gaffes.


Well all these Eastern Europeans that are coming in...


About a million British people have gone into Europe.


The irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah


His derogatory comments about the three, who are known


to have reservations about Britain's links with Europe,


is just the kind of political blunder Mr Major could ill afford,


The Prime Minister said he'd got threebastards in the cabinet.


Mr Reagan was at the ranch preparing for the weekly radio broadcast.


Testing the microphone, he made a light-hearted remark that


For the networks recorded it and last night broadcasted it.


My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that


I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia for ever.


Those famous gaffes. We're joined by Parliamentary sketch writer for the


Guardian. Do they ruin careers best amok not in the case of Ken, for


certain. One of the secret sister have first name recognition. I think


if you are a Boris, your gaffes tend to be forgiven -- one of the secrets


is to have first name recognition. There was a sense that you were


saying something that everybody thought was true. You said what you


really meant. Absolutely. I went on to compare her with Margaret


Thatcher who was also a bloody difficult woman. I think I added to


the entertainment of the nation, that was the impression I got. Every


colleague I met came towards me laughing because they'd just been


watching it. Don't you think it's time politicians learn to be careful


around radio microphones? LAUGHTER In the age of spin doctors who


carefully micromanage lines, and politicians only saying things


they've been told to say by the whips, it is often refreshing to get


something of the real person. With your line on Michael Gove, I think


you were probably conservative. I think he could fight a war with four


or five countries at the same time not just three! Anything you'd like


to say to the nation today before we go?! I accept the stricture that


Malcolm Rifkind and I have been around far too long to be caught


sitting in a TV studio with the microphone on. We are obviously


losing a bit of our old professionalism really. Worse things


have happened. I don't think heard with those other mega disasters mind


was anything other than enlightening the nation of what precisely my


views were. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for being the guest of the


day. Goodbye. You're coming across as, frankly,


ridiculous. You've done an appalling job


of selling them online. Erm...


I mean, I'm... We're... We're...


Download Subtitles