:00:37. > :00:38.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:41.MPs are continuing to put pressure on the government over Brexit,
:00:42. > :00:44.with Labour demanding a vote on the plans before
:00:45. > :00:50.Theresa May is off to Brussels for her first EU summit,
:00:51. > :00:52.she'll tell her fellow leader she doesn't want to wreck
:00:53. > :00:55.the European project, but that there's no chance
:00:56. > :00:59.of Britain doing anything other than leaving.
:01:00. > :01:02.It's Clinton versus Trump round three, and this White House
:01:03. > :01:06.title fight isn't getting any less nasty.
:01:07. > :01:12.Now Donald Trump says he may not accept the result of the election.
:01:13. > :01:14.Anyone like to bring back the blue passport?
:01:15. > :01:18.That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?
:01:19. > :01:23.We'll be talking about the campaign to bring back the old blue passport
:01:24. > :01:29.There are not one but two parliamentary by-elections today,
:01:30. > :01:32.as voters choose new MPs to take the place of David Cameron
:01:33. > :01:47.And those by-elections may be two big political events today,
:01:48. > :01:50.but broadcasting rules mean we can't discuss them until the polls close
:01:51. > :01:54.So joining me to not discuss them, it's the former
:01:55. > :02:00.He's now the Lib Dem spokesman on Europe and since leaving
:02:01. > :02:03.government he's found time to write a book -
:02:04. > :02:05.appear at a few literary festivals - and even star
:02:06. > :02:08.Other than the Daily Politics I mean.
:02:09. > :02:13.Welcome to the show, Nick.
:02:14. > :02:18.More than 100 MPs have backed a Commons motion to strip former BHS
:02:19. > :02:20.owner Philp Green of his knighthood following the collapse
:02:21. > :02:23.of the high street chain, which left 11,000 staff out of work
:02:24. > :02:25.and the pension scheme with a large deficit.
:02:26. > :02:28.The debate on the demise of BHS is just getting
:02:29. > :02:34.It's the first time Mps have tried to remove a knighthood from a member
:02:35. > :02:37.of the public although we don't yet know if they will have a chance
:02:38. > :02:53.Should it be subject to a vote? If there was a vote and I was there, I
:02:54. > :02:56.would probably vote in favour. I think in particular what was
:02:57. > :03:00.happening with the lack of clarity to the pension scheme is so
:03:01. > :03:06.outrageous. So you would vote for him to lose his knighthood? I
:03:07. > :03:09.probably would but I am quite uneasy about the fact that MPs will start
:03:10. > :03:15.hand-picking people they think should or should not keep their
:03:16. > :03:21.honour or not. What will happen next? Labour will table a motion
:03:22. > :03:26.saying Lynton Crosby should have his knighthood revoked because they
:03:27. > :03:30.don't like him or whatever? Isn't this bit Philip Green has been
:03:31. > :03:35.before but committee of MPs and he has left thousands of people
:03:36. > :03:38.possibly without pensions and this is a symbol, an important symbol for
:03:39. > :03:43.parliamentarians to have a say? That of the argument and I get that. He
:03:44. > :03:47.is in a unique and unflattering category of his own. I think the
:03:48. > :03:52.country at large is absolutely flabbergasted at the cavalier way at
:03:53. > :03:58.which people's pensions and jobs and livelihoods have been dealt with. I
:03:59. > :04:06.just think if we made a habit as the Parliament of kind of saying, today,
:04:07. > :04:10.it is Thursday, we are now going to target X server or Dame. The whole
:04:11. > :04:15.honours system is a little peculiar as it is. I think it would properly
:04:16. > :04:21.be even more topsy-turvy if Parliament spent too much time
:04:22. > :04:26.trying to retract knighthoods and honours from people. And it doesn't
:04:27. > :04:29.mean anything either? It is not binding because the forfeiture
:04:30. > :04:35.committee has to do it. It is only symbolic. When it happened before
:04:36. > :04:39.with Goodwin, it is not Parliament that does that. We will leave it
:04:40. > :04:42.there. I think the debate is lasting for three hours.
:04:43. > :04:44.Now it's time for our daily quiz, and today it's
:04:45. > :04:45.about the Conservative MP Peter Bone.
:04:46. > :04:48.Yesterday he told the Commons it was his birthday,
:04:49. > :04:50.and the Prime Minister caused some amusement when she told him
:04:51. > :04:52.she hoped that Mrs Bone would mark the occasion
:04:53. > :04:56.I have no idea why some people found that funny.
:04:57. > :04:59.Anyway, today's question is - what did Mrs Bone actually give
:05:00. > :05:13.Or D) A signed copy of Nick Clegg's book?
:05:14. > :05:16.At the end of the show Nick - who has absolutely no idea -
:05:17. > :05:22.Theresa May is in Brussels today for her very first EU summit.
:05:23. > :05:24.Russia's involvement in Syria and the immigration crisis
:05:25. > :05:27.are on the main agenda, but we're told the Prime Minister
:05:28. > :05:30.will tell the men and women who are, for now at least,
:05:31. > :05:32.still her fellow EU leaders, that there will be no second
:05:33. > :05:35.referendum, and that she wants our departure to be
:05:36. > :05:40.Well, back at Westminster the Brexit secretary David Davis has been
:05:41. > :05:43.taking questions from MPs including his Labour
:05:44. > :05:58.Yesterday, Mr Speaker, I wrote to the secretary of state to ask a very
:05:59. > :06:02.simple question. When will the plans be made available? The secretary of
:06:03. > :06:07.state replied promptly to my letter but failed to answer that central
:06:08. > :06:13.question. So, I am going to ask him again. When will the government's
:06:14. > :06:16.plans for leaving the EU be made available to this House? It is
:06:17. > :06:21.always our intention that Parliament should being gauged throughout. But
:06:22. > :06:25.the house also agrees a vital caveat that such a process should respect
:06:26. > :06:30.the decision of the EU when they vote to leave the EU -- should
:06:31. > :06:34.respect the decision of the UK. There should be a balance to be
:06:35. > :06:37.struck between transparency and good negotiating practice and I am
:06:38. > :06:39.confident we can strike that balance.
:06:40. > :06:45.Well, remain supporting MPs are showing no signs of letting up
:06:46. > :06:48.the pressure on the government over Brexit, with many demanding a vote
:06:49. > :06:50.on our future relationship with the EU.
:06:51. > :06:52.To discuss this we're joined now by the Conservative MP Oliver Dowden.
:06:53. > :06:58.Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Both of you voted Remain. We are not
:06:59. > :07:01.talking about the rights and wrongs of the vote but you do have
:07:02. > :07:09.different views on how to go forward from here. Oliver Dowden, broadly,
:07:10. > :07:14.you have accepted the vote. Indeed. Nick Clegg, you have not? I have
:07:15. > :07:18.accept the vote entirely that we will leave the European Union. What
:07:19. > :07:21.was not put before the British public is how you leave. There is a
:07:22. > :07:27.myriad different ways you could leave this club. There is not one
:07:28. > :07:29.simple form of Brexit. Since the Brexit is themselves did not deign
:07:30. > :07:34.to spell it out to the British people, not least because they could
:07:35. > :07:42.not agree amongst themselves what makes it meant, that is an open
:07:43. > :07:47.question. Yes there is a mandate to pull us out of the European Union
:07:48. > :07:52.but how you do it should be open to scrutiny. You want Parliament to
:07:53. > :07:56.vote before triggering article 50 say you want to see the plans from
:07:57. > :07:59.the government before article 50 is even triggered. You also want a
:08:00. > :08:03.second referendum on the terms of the deal at the end of the process.
:08:04. > :08:07.Everything you are doing suggests you want to prolong this whole
:08:08. > :08:12.process, that you're hoping in some way to stay, if not as a full member
:08:13. > :08:18.of the EU, you want to stay very closely aligned. It does not sound
:08:19. > :08:22.like you have accept it at all? No, there is huge difference between
:08:23. > :08:28.denying, I am not denial about the vote. I wish it was otherwise. But
:08:29. > :08:34.you are trying to reverse it? Not at all. The plans of how you leave the
:08:35. > :08:38.European Union, do you stay part of the customs union or not? Do you
:08:39. > :08:42.stay part of the single market or not? Do you make financial
:08:43. > :08:46.commitments if you are part of the crime-fighting commitments. The
:08:47. > :08:51.government says they want to participate, how do you do that?
:08:52. > :08:54.What does it mean for our law and budgetary contributions? My own
:08:55. > :09:00.view, for what it is worth, is people voted for Brexit as George
:09:01. > :09:06.Osborne pointed out. They did not necessarily vote for hard Brexit.
:09:07. > :09:10.Which would mean us leaving the single market. Are you saying that a
:09:11. > :09:14.remain alike Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband should shut up and go away
:09:15. > :09:20.and they should not express the views that we are hearing? I am not
:09:21. > :09:26.saying that at all. I think it is very important that Parliament
:09:27. > :09:33.debates and scrutinises this. Nick and I both contributed to various
:09:34. > :09:37.statements. The government will introduce the repeal bill. We will
:09:38. > :09:42.debate that endlessly. What I disagree with Nick on is the need to
:09:43. > :09:45.have a vote on invoking article 50. We in Parliament decided by a
:09:46. > :09:49.majority of six to one to give the power to the British people. We
:09:50. > :09:53.effectively delegated that decision to the British people. There was a
:09:54. > :09:57.strong argument, there was a record turnout and people decided to leave
:09:58. > :09:59.the European Union. The only consequence of that is to invoke
:10:00. > :10:17.article 50. I cannot see the point in having a
:10:18. > :10:19.vote on Article 50 because it is perfectly clear what the British
:10:20. > :10:22.people want to say. Article 50 is like a stopwatch. It is just a
:10:23. > :10:25.mechanism. We want to vote on what the substantive plan to leave the EU
:10:26. > :10:30.is. What if it is voted down? We will have to go back to the drawing
:10:31. > :10:34.board. Here is the crucial thing... What is not legal or workable about
:10:35. > :10:40.leaving the single market? I met thousands of Brexit voters in
:10:41. > :10:43.Sheffield. Lots of Brexit voters said they wanted it because of
:10:44. > :10:48.immigration or they did not like this all like that. Not a single
:10:49. > :10:54.voter who voted Brexit who I met, I agree it is not a scientific sample,
:10:55. > :10:58.they did not say we want to stop British exporters from their
:10:59. > :11:02.untrammelled access to our largest markets in Europe. No one said that
:11:03. > :11:05.and no one wants that but apparently if you listen to David Davis and
:11:06. > :11:12.Liam Fox, that is what they want to do. I would argue they don't have a
:11:13. > :11:15.to do that. They do not have a mandate to inflict economic self
:11:16. > :11:21.harm. Are you saying people did not know that was on the table to leave
:11:22. > :11:30.the single market? It was not even debated. The Brexiteers did not even
:11:31. > :11:36.to -- debate amongst themselves. We have put together what some of the
:11:37. > :11:39.people said at the time. The British public would be voting to leave the
:11:40. > :11:45.EU and leave the single market. Should we come out of the single
:11:46. > :11:50.market? I think that would almost certainly be the case. Do you want
:11:51. > :11:55.to stay inside the single market? No, we should be outside of the
:11:56. > :12:03.single market. I said should we stay in the single market and he said No.
:12:04. > :12:07.He is right. Absolutely. We would be out of the single market, that is
:12:08. > :12:12.the reality. We would be quitting the single market. Britain did know.
:12:13. > :12:17.If you voted to leave the EU it means we would leave the single
:12:18. > :12:20.market. There is a huge difference between cobbling together clips of
:12:21. > :12:25.thousands of minutes of debate and what the Brexit campaign said to the
:12:26. > :12:34.British people. They said most prominently you will get 350 million
:12:35. > :12:36.quid for the NHS every week. They said 80 million Turks might come
:12:37. > :12:39.here soon. They absolutely did not say with one voice that they believe
:12:40. > :12:43.leaving the European Union would mean leaving the customs union and
:12:44. > :12:46.the single market. I think it is pretty clear that the senior
:12:47. > :12:50.politicians on the Leave side said we would leave the single market. To
:12:51. > :12:55.take Nick Clegg's point that that was not in some people's mind the
:12:56. > :12:58.focal point of the campaign, do you accept that people do not realise it
:12:59. > :13:04.would mean coming out of the single market? I completely disagree. It is
:13:05. > :13:12.not just those quotes, as powerful as they were. Nick and I both served
:13:13. > :13:15.the government, mine in a very junior capacity. I remember that
:13:16. > :13:20.David Cameron wanted to be able to get control of immigration. In
:13:21. > :13:23.particular, there was a large public disaffection of the hundreds of
:13:24. > :13:26.thousands of people who had come from Eastern Europe and were allowed
:13:27. > :13:30.completely free access to the United Kingdom and they felt they had not
:13:31. > :13:34.had a say about it. The first thing we try to do is we tried to look at
:13:35. > :13:39.the existing rules of the single market and see if we could control
:13:40. > :13:42.it. The next proposition was that David Cameron tried to renegotiate
:13:43. > :13:46.in order to control immigration. He made some progress but broadly the
:13:47. > :13:50.British people did not feel he succeeded. We then had a referendum
:13:51. > :13:54.where essentially the argument was on the one side from Brexit we
:13:55. > :14:05.should be able to take back control and principally take back control of
:14:06. > :14:08.our borders and laws. And on the other side, the Remain side made the
:14:09. > :14:10.argument there would be a significant economic cost to this. I
:14:11. > :14:15.was a reluctant Remain. I had sympathy but the economics trumped
:14:16. > :14:20.it. You cannot disentangle being a member of the EU with being a member
:14:21. > :14:25.of the single market. Free movement and mass migration was the thing
:14:26. > :14:29.that turbo-charged this debate. That is true, isn't it? It is not true.
:14:30. > :14:33.There are countries who are not members of the European Union and do
:14:34. > :14:38.have full participation in the single market and have greater
:14:39. > :14:42.powers. Which countries have complete curbs on migration? Not
:14:43. > :14:49.complete curbs. The Norwegians do not exercise the powers in full but
:14:50. > :14:52.they retain greater powers about who comes in. Do you accept that if we
:14:53. > :14:57.become like Norway we would not have left the EU. We would still be under
:14:58. > :15:00.the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we would have to
:15:01. > :15:03.accept some freedom of movement because it is such a cornerstone of
:15:04. > :15:05.the EU and therefore we would be defying the will of the people who
:15:06. > :15:15.voted to leave? I have never accepted the argument
:15:16. > :15:19.that there is some immutable, biblical link between membership of
:15:20. > :15:23.the single market and the rules of freedom of movement. That's
:15:24. > :15:26.certainly not what anybody says, they say that is an absolute
:15:27. > :15:30.cornerstone. I do not believe that is the case and there are plenty of
:15:31. > :15:34.European countries under a great deal of pressure about freedom of
:15:35. > :15:40.movement and would, in my view, entertain a Europe-wide solution.
:15:41. > :15:44.They would not do it Turing the negotiation with David Cameron.
:15:45. > :15:50.First of all it has happened which has delivered a big shock. What you
:15:51. > :15:56.cannot navigate your way around is to say that you are going to have
:15:57. > :16:00.access to a marketplace of rules and not abide by those rules. Leaving
:16:01. > :16:04.the single market, if you don't leave the single market, you don't
:16:05. > :16:07.believe the EU? You do, there are countries in the single market that
:16:08. > :16:15.are not members of the EU, that already exists. It is not just
:16:16. > :16:19.remoaners, as they are called, it is the split within government as well,
:16:20. > :16:22.it is not easy just to point the finger at Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband
:16:23. > :16:26.and say they cannot accept the result. These debates going on at
:16:27. > :16:30.the heart of government at Cabinet level is blow as far as I can see
:16:31. > :16:33.the Prime Minister has set out a clear position accepting the will of
:16:34. > :16:40.the British people, that they want to control and have the best
:16:41. > :16:44.possible economic deal. If it was possible to change the single market
:16:45. > :16:49.rules, we would have done it before. We desperately wanted to be able to
:16:50. > :16:53.do it and we failed. His point is the referendum has happened now.
:16:54. > :17:00.David Cameron kept telling them I'm going to win, it is no problem, they
:17:01. > :17:03.did not feel any pressure. First of all it is one of the four
:17:04. > :17:08.fundamental principles of the single market alongside free movement of
:17:09. > :17:12.labour, goods and services, secondly, Angela Merkel, from her
:17:13. > :17:16.particular background, is very attached to free movement. She was a
:17:17. > :17:19.child of Eastern Europe. There was no sign, she was clear to the Prime
:17:20. > :17:23.Minister, she was not going to concede on this. I can't see that
:17:24. > :17:28.even with this massive shock they are going to allow Britain to have
:17:29. > :17:33.its own sweetheart deal. Let me point to one thing, the Austrian
:17:34. > :17:37.Italian border, there is now barbed wire fencing, right? So freedom of
:17:38. > :17:41.movement is already being kept physically by countries. Not within
:17:42. > :17:45.EU citizens. Hang on, they are putting border checks to the heart
:17:46. > :17:49.of the European Union. Things have moved on. I personally think if
:17:50. > :17:53.Theresa May was smart about it she could encourage other European
:17:54. > :17:56.countries to introduce an emergency brake in effect across the whole of
:17:57. > :18:00.Europe in exchange for a sensible approach from Britain for continued
:18:01. > :18:03.access. You know that is a separate point, we already have border
:18:04. > :18:07.controls in the United Kingdom and those border controls are about
:18:08. > :18:10.re-establishing border controls. They are not about limiting the
:18:11. > :18:14.number of people from other countries coming in. And that's the
:18:15. > :18:17.rub. People feel that hundreds of thousands of people came in, they
:18:18. > :18:24.had no way of controlling it and they never gave consent to it.
:18:25. > :18:28.Finally yes or no, if the plan for a second referendum and the head,
:18:29. > :18:33.which looks unlikely, and the country voted it down, would we
:18:34. > :18:38.still be in the EU? Gosh, that's a legally complex things. Isn't that
:18:39. > :18:41.what you are trying for? I want accountability for the decisions the
:18:42. > :18:44.government takes about how we leave the European Union, not the
:18:45. > :18:48.principle that we are going to. We were not given and we still have not
:18:49. > :18:50.been given a detailed depiction of what Brexit actually looks like in
:18:51. > :18:52.practice. Thank you. Last night saw the third and final
:18:53. > :18:55.TV debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,
:18:56. > :18:57.ahead of next month's election that will see one of them becoming
:18:58. > :19:00.the next US president. It's been an ugly contest so far,
:19:01. > :19:04.and things didn't get any nicer when the candidates met in Las
:19:05. > :19:07.Vegas. We have to keep the drugs
:19:08. > :19:14.out of our country. Right now we getting the drugs,
:19:15. > :19:17.they are getting the cash. But we have some bad hombres here
:19:18. > :19:21.and we are going to get them out. I don't want to be sending
:19:22. > :19:27.parents away from children. I don't want to see the deportation
:19:28. > :19:31.force that Donald has talked about. If we got along well
:19:32. > :19:38.that would be good. If Russia and the United States got
:19:39. > :19:41.along well and went after Isis, It's pretty clear you won't admit
:19:42. > :19:48.that the Russians have engaged in cyber attacks
:19:49. > :19:52.against the United States of America, that you encouraged
:19:53. > :19:58.espionage against our people. Those stories are all totally false,
:19:59. > :20:02.I have to say that. And I didn't even apologise
:20:03. > :20:05.to my wife, who is sitting right We asked Bernie Sanders
:20:06. > :20:09.who he is supporting for president, and he has said, as he
:20:10. > :20:11.has campaigned for me around the country,
:20:12. > :20:14.you are the most dangerous person to run for president
:20:15. > :20:16.in the modern history of America. That you will absolutely accept
:20:17. > :20:20.the result of this election. We're joined now by the pollster
:20:21. > :20:38.and Conservative peer Andrew Cooper. Welcome to the programme. As it
:20:39. > :20:41.stands now, take us through the polls, particularly swing states,
:20:42. > :20:44.because it is all about the electoral college and who reaches
:20:45. > :20:48.the right number or gets within spitting distance and cannot be
:20:49. > :20:55.caught. It's Hillary Clinton's now, isn't it? If we believe the polls,
:20:56. > :21:00.yes. She has led 82 days in a row in the polls and in the past two or
:21:01. > :21:04.three we've seen a big movement in her direction in key battle ground
:21:05. > :21:08.states. Not only looking at the headline numbers, locking down some
:21:09. > :21:12.of the classic swing states like Florida and North Carolina, but
:21:13. > :21:17.starting to expand her map into states the Democrats would never
:21:18. > :21:24.have dreamt of being competitive in, like Utah, Texas, Arizona. However,
:21:25. > :21:27.we just lived through a referendum where the polls were wrong and they
:21:28. > :21:31.don't have a brilliant record in America, so there is a nagging
:21:32. > :21:34.doubt. You think there are still that many shied from voters, if
:21:35. > :21:42.that's not a contradiction in terms, who could come out at this stage --
:21:43. > :21:45.shy Trump voters. One of the challenges for pollsters is
:21:46. > :21:49.estimating which people will actually vote. In America they based
:21:50. > :21:52.on past voting behaviour. One of the things that happened in our
:21:53. > :21:56.referendum was that 2.8 million people who had not voted in the
:21:57. > :22:03.general election voted to leave. If, in America, there is a huge bubble
:22:04. > :22:06.of basically angry old white men in rust belt states who don't usually
:22:07. > :22:14.ever vote and are massively whited out of the public data, and the
:22:15. > :22:18.polls only need to be wrong by 3.5%, and what looks like a landslide
:22:19. > :22:24.could be much more competitive. Did you watch? It was the middle of the
:22:25. > :22:28.night, wasn't it? I'm still fascinating by all these hand
:22:29. > :22:32.movements. You'd have to ask him. But I don't think you will. Watching
:22:33. > :22:36.the debate from here, the whole debate, the presidential campaign,
:22:37. > :22:43.what's your view now that we are this close to the poll itself.
:22:44. > :22:46.Clinton has been a very unpopular candidate and we've seen a very
:22:47. > :22:52.divided nation. What are your observations? Well American politics
:22:53. > :22:57.tends to set trends which then wash across the Atlantic and so I'm
:22:58. > :23:03.afraid, incongruous I'd arrive is that the evermore nasty sort of
:23:04. > :23:07.personal character assassination which has distinguished this
:23:08. > :23:10.campaign, unless we do something actively to avoid it will become
:23:11. > :23:15.increasingly the kind of character of elections on this side of the
:23:16. > :23:18.Atlantic. Why? Donald Trump is something of a phenomenon, good or
:23:19. > :23:22.bad depending on your viewpoint, but he is not someone you can compare
:23:23. > :23:27.with politicians here. Of course not. In that sense he might be a
:23:28. > :23:31.one-off. I've been an MP for 11 years and in politics for a bit
:23:32. > :23:35.longer and even I have seen here in the UK that there has been a trend
:23:36. > :23:40.towards playing the man or the woman rather than the ball which has got
:23:41. > :23:44.ever more pronounced. Maybe because it is effective, you know, slapping
:23:45. > :23:50.people off for who they are, what they look like, the sound of their
:23:51. > :23:54.voice, might resonate more than having a pointy-headed discussion
:23:55. > :23:58.about local finance. For whatever reason it is increasing and it does
:23:59. > :24:05.make politics evermore vituperative in tone. I hope we can avoid that. I
:24:06. > :24:08.think the tone is massively important in life generally. People
:24:09. > :24:11.don't actually listen to every syllable and consonant of what
:24:12. > :24:14.politicians say but they pick up total. Do the debates make a
:24:15. > :24:21.difference? They have done in the past. The history of US elections,
:24:22. > :24:24.over the last four weeks there is almost no movement. No challenger
:24:25. > :24:31.has ever close the gap of over 4% in the last move. Inasmuch as the
:24:32. > :24:35.voters watch these things, the basic characteristics of these people was
:24:36. > :24:39.priced into it a long time ago. The fact that Donald Trump is a horrible
:24:40. > :24:44.man who says horrible things was factored in a long time ago for
:24:45. > :24:48.many. In a way the impact he felt was after the tapes of him making
:24:49. > :24:52.those lewd comments about women and also the fact that the Republican
:24:53. > :24:56.party seems to have cut him loose. In a sense, the worry about that is
:24:57. > :25:00.does that deliver his message for him? His message is I'm not like
:25:01. > :25:05.them, I'm not a normal politician. It's similar to the referendum, the
:25:06. > :25:09.uprising against the experts, against the establishment. A
:25:10. > :25:14.parallel in terms of the worry of the carry-over to British politics
:25:15. > :25:17.is that the business and depth of the division, that it is such a
:25:18. > :25:21.deeply divided country, the enmity, the fact that the two sides can find
:25:22. > :25:24.it impossible to see the world from the other's point of view. Isn't
:25:25. > :25:29.that the problem, polarising politics in the way these two have
:25:30. > :25:32.is the issue, isn't it, rather than saying it is all about an uprising
:25:33. > :25:38.against the establishment and poor old establishment. This polarisation
:25:39. > :25:47.towards populist extremes on both right and left, not just an American
:25:48. > :25:52.phenomenon, from Podemos to Victor Orban, UC populism right across
:25:53. > :25:57.Europe. What I have tried to write a book about is how does the moderate
:25:58. > :26:00.sentiment make itself heard when it is being pulled from one extreme to
:26:01. > :26:04.the other. I think it's a terrifically important challenge for
:26:05. > :26:08.us to grapple with. Because if you can't make moderate politics are
:26:09. > :26:12.attractive and compelling and emotionally, telling again, we are
:26:13. > :26:16.constantly going to be hijacked by a roving cast of populists on both
:26:17. > :26:22.right and left. Who's going to win? Hillary Clinton. That's good, has
:26:23. > :26:24.least you manage to come out and firmly say one way and not the
:26:25. > :26:25.other. Now, earlier this week our guest
:26:26. > :26:28.of the day, Nick Clegg, who you may by this point have
:26:29. > :26:30.realised supported the UK's membership of the EU,
:26:31. > :26:33.gave a speech warning food prices Nick Clegg says that unless we stay
:26:34. > :26:37.within the single market, the price of items like chocolate,
:26:38. > :26:39.cheese and wine Well, at the moment,
:26:40. > :26:52.being within the single market means we don't pay any tariffs on the food
:26:53. > :26:56.we import from the EU. Leaving the single market could lead
:26:57. > :26:58.to charges being slapped onto imported EU food,
:26:59. > :26:59.increasing prices. What's more, Mr Clegg believes
:27:00. > :27:02.Brexit could lead to a shortage of workers in the food industry,
:27:03. > :27:05.which could be another reason And with the value of the pound
:27:06. > :27:12.falling, buying anything from aboard including
:27:13. > :27:15.food will cost us more. "Rubbish", shout his critics,
:27:16. > :27:18.who say leaving the EU At the moment the EU enforces large
:27:19. > :27:26.tariffs for all food products coming in from outside the EU,
:27:27. > :27:29.once we leave we could get rid of all these which would lead
:27:30. > :27:32.to cheaper imports. We could also cut better trade deals
:27:33. > :27:38.with the rest of the world Finally, they argue,
:27:39. > :27:44.whilst the value of the pound is currently going down,
:27:45. > :27:47.in the medium term it could recover, increasing our purchasing
:27:48. > :27:49.power, lowering prices. Joining me now is Ryan Bourne who's
:27:50. > :27:51.head of public policy at the Institute of Economic
:27:52. > :27:59.Affairs. Increased tariffs, a weak pound,
:28:00. > :28:05.rising fuel costs, Nick Clegg is right, isn't he, too one about the
:28:06. > :28:08.rising cost of food? Brexit was a long-term constitutional decision of
:28:09. > :28:12.course. I would argue that in the long term what will determine food
:28:13. > :28:17.prices in this country are the structural factors underlying the
:28:18. > :28:21.market. I read Nick Clegg's peace. And the key takeaway I took from it
:28:22. > :28:26.is that food prices will be higher if we make extraordinarily bad
:28:27. > :28:30.political decisions. If we decide to adopt the EU Common external tariff
:28:31. > :28:33.and apply that to the EU as well as maintaining the current levels to
:28:34. > :28:37.the rest of the world, and if we prevent farmers from importing the
:28:38. > :28:41.labour that they need in order to pick crops and things. And I just
:28:42. > :28:46.don't think that we'd do that. I think that the liberal case is
:28:47. > :28:49.actually to leave the EU, abolish the protectionism, abolish the
:28:50. > :28:53.agricultural protectionism, moved towards a more dynamic, productive
:28:54. > :28:56.agricultural sector, and allow farmers the workers they need and
:28:57. > :29:01.that's the sensible thing. You are looking at the worst case scenario?
:29:02. > :29:07.Firstly I am just taking what Liam Fox said at the WTO on the 27th of
:29:08. > :29:13.September at face value. He said when the United Kingdom leaves the
:29:14. > :29:17.European Union so the United Kingdom becomes a self standing member of
:29:18. > :29:21.the WTO, you said in terms, we will keep what they call in the jargon
:29:22. > :29:26.the schedule of commitments, all the thousands of tariffs we currently
:29:27. > :29:29.have. I'm just simply translating into numbers what he said. There are
:29:30. > :29:33.other decisions that could offset some of the things Liam Fox says
:29:34. > :29:37.would happen. It's terrifically important, this. What he's saying is
:29:38. > :29:42.that the United Kingdom unilaterally will maintain the wall of tariffs
:29:43. > :29:46.that we multilaterally are part of in the European Union. By the way,
:29:47. > :29:49.much though I'm sure Ryan might be able to explain what he's saying as
:29:50. > :29:53.an economic model, there is no earthly way that any British
:29:54. > :29:58.government is ever going to simply withdraw tariffs on manufacturing
:29:59. > :30:00.and agricultural products, it would decimate British manufacturing and
:30:01. > :30:05.agriculture overnight. No Conservative government would ever
:30:06. > :30:08.do it. And by the way it's totally inconsistent to say we'll get rid of
:30:09. > :30:11.the tariffs unilaterally and then negotiate new trade deals with
:30:12. > :30:13.countries around the world. I didn't say that. We have no negotiating
:30:14. > :30:21.capital left. Whatever happens in the long term
:30:22. > :30:26.and you did start your introduction by saying in the long term, but you
:30:27. > :30:30.admit food prices could go up, imports will be more expensive, they
:30:31. > :30:36.will be more expensive from the EU. There is a sort of a mission that
:30:37. > :30:42.will happen in the short term? It depends on the decisions we make. I
:30:43. > :30:46.remember strongly in the referendum campaign a tweet from Paddy Ashdown
:30:47. > :30:52.saying the secret is out, we will get cheap food flooding the country
:30:53. > :30:55.as a result of Brexit. We will become a member of the WTA. There is
:30:56. > :31:00.no reason why we have to maintain that current level of commitment.
:31:01. > :31:04.And while we do have to apply the same tariffs to every country around
:31:05. > :31:09.the world, I think the liberal case that you should be making is why
:31:10. > :31:13.don't we abolish these tariffs? If you are a free marketeer then you
:31:14. > :31:19.could do these things with countries outside the EU? Of course I don't
:31:20. > :31:25.dispute Ryan's ideological case. In an ideal world you would have lower
:31:26. > :31:29.taxes and tariffs. Is that achievable? I don't think there is a
:31:30. > :31:32.remit possibility that any British government in their right mind will
:31:33. > :31:43.pull the rug out from under the feet of British farmers. You would
:31:44. > :31:46.basically overnight expose British manufacturing to a degree of
:31:47. > :31:50.low-cost competition they could not withstand from one moment to the
:31:51. > :31:55.next. It is not politically realistic to say to hell with it.
:31:56. > :32:01.And you have to look at the real politic here before you put forward
:32:02. > :32:05.your economic case, post-Brexit, because otherwise industries will
:32:06. > :32:10.suffer and could suffer and the consumer will pay the price. If
:32:11. > :32:15.there will be curbs on migration which there will be, that could
:32:16. > :32:19.cause problems in the food industry? I have been suggesting that the
:32:20. > :32:24.British government should come out and guarantee the rights of workers
:32:25. > :32:27.here. I think there would be a replacement scheme to something like
:32:28. > :32:32.the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. There is a precedent for a
:32:33. > :32:36.liberalisation of the agricultural sector. New Zealand had a much
:32:37. > :32:41.bigger agricultural sector in the 1980s. They removed all subsidies
:32:42. > :32:46.over a five-year period. Yes, the industry did change. Some farms were
:32:47. > :32:52.eliminated entirely. Fund grew bigger and some diversify into new
:32:53. > :32:57.products and New Zealand is held up as a model. Could that happen in the
:32:58. > :33:01.UK? I think politicians should be making the case for this. It does
:33:02. > :33:08.surprise me that liberals are making this case for protection? Unlike
:33:09. > :33:12.most people in British politics I worked as an EU trade negotiator.
:33:13. > :33:14.You have to have some bargaining chips you can throw onto the table
:33:15. > :33:23.to get the best deal possible. If you unilaterally decide yourself and
:33:24. > :33:27.go straight to tariffs on all of our protected sectors now, there is no
:33:28. > :33:30.incentive for any other country whether it is America, China or
:33:31. > :33:34.India to give us any concessions because we would have thrown away
:33:35. > :33:39.all the negotiating chips at the outset. I think Liam Fox was right
:33:40. > :33:43.to say he would keep the European commitments in the first instance
:33:44. > :33:48.but we have to understand what the implications mean. It does mean
:33:49. > :33:51.prices will go up for food. Ultimately, it is consumers who will
:33:52. > :33:55.pay the costs. If other countries want to raise prices and have less
:33:56. > :33:59.reductive industry and agriculture as a result, that is up for them,
:34:00. > :34:03.but the British government should be setting out what is best for Britain
:34:04. > :34:06.and not worrying what the rest of the world will do. Thank you.
:34:07. > :34:08.The Scottish government has this morning published a draft bill
:34:09. > :34:10.setting out plans for a second independence referendum.
:34:11. > :34:12.The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, argues that the Brexit vote
:34:13. > :34:15.means her government has a mandate to seek another vote,
:34:16. > :34:17.although at this stage the plans are only being put
:34:18. > :34:23.Our Scotland editor Sarah Smith is in Edinburgh.
:34:24. > :34:30.Sarah Smith, is there much fanfare accompanying this today? Well, it is
:34:31. > :34:34.remarkably low-key actually. They have published the draft bill online
:34:35. > :34:39.and there has been a statement from a government minister but the First
:34:40. > :34:43.Minister Nicola Sturgeon is not giving a big press conference. They
:34:44. > :34:46.had a fairly huge event at their party conference at the weekend when
:34:47. > :34:50.Nicola Sturgeon announced her plans to publish this and she got a
:34:51. > :35:03.rapturous response from the SNP delegates who were in the hole at
:35:04. > :35:05.the time. Will this be enough to satisfy her supporters? This is just
:35:06. > :35:07.the legislative roasters. It does not mean we will necessarily see
:35:08. > :35:10.another independent referendum taking place soon? It does not mean
:35:11. > :35:14.there will be one soon and there is no date for this consultation. The
:35:15. > :35:17.First Minister thinks Scotland does have the right to take another
:35:18. > :35:24.decision about independence before the UK leave the EU. But this is not
:35:25. > :35:28.just aimed at her supporters and keeping them happy, that there is
:35:29. > :35:32.the prospect of another referendum in the offing, this is aimed
:35:33. > :35:35.squarely at the Prime Minister. Nicola Sturgeon will meet Theresa
:35:36. > :35:40.May on Monday. They will have their first serious talks on how the
:35:41. > :35:43.Scottish Government will be involved in Brexit negotiations. Nicola
:35:44. > :35:46.Sturgeon is worried that the Prime Minister will not make good on her
:35:47. > :35:50.promises to keep the Scottish Government fully engaged. So she has
:35:51. > :35:55.created a bargaining chip. She can say unless you give us some of what
:35:56. > :35:58.we want, I have the prospect of another referendum on Scottish
:35:59. > :36:01.independence in my back pocket. She wants more devolved powers for the
:36:02. > :36:05.Scottish Government and if she doesn't get them she can say well I
:36:06. > :36:10.will be forced to go to another referendum. We have also heard about
:36:11. > :36:17.plans to change Scottish constituencies. Can you bring us
:36:18. > :36:24.up-to-date? The boundary -- the boundary commission has released
:36:25. > :36:29.their plans. Seats will be reduced from 5019 53. The seat of Edinburgh
:36:30. > :36:33.South will disappear and be hived off into neighbouring seats. That
:36:34. > :36:36.really matters because that is the only Labour constituency in Scotland
:36:37. > :36:43.at the moment where Ian Murray is the MP. There is only one Lib Dem MP
:36:44. > :36:48.and he represents all clear Shetland and that will be untouched and David
:36:49. > :36:54.Mundell's seat will remain largely unchanged. There might not be any
:36:55. > :37:00.Labour constituency after the election in 2020. Of course, it does
:37:01. > :37:03.not mean they cannot win another seat somewhere else but the one they
:37:04. > :37:05.have at the moment will vanish. Thank you.
:37:06. > :37:08.Now, it's been 30 years since we stopped using these -
:37:09. > :37:10.yes it's the old navy blue passport, used by British travellers
:37:11. > :37:13.until 1988 when they began to be replaced with the burgundy number
:37:14. > :37:15.which is standard across most of the EU.
:37:16. > :37:18.With Britain now heading for Brexit, there have been calls from some
:37:19. > :37:20.politicians for the old-style passport to be bought back
:37:21. > :37:23.as a symbol of the country regaining sovereignty.
:37:24. > :37:30.9am, the passport office in London's Victoria,
:37:31. > :37:38.Are you applying for a new passport?
:37:39. > :37:43.If you knew you were going to get a dark blue one, would it be
:37:44. > :37:46.I don't know what a dark blue one is.
:37:47. > :37:48.It's what the old British passport used to be like.
:37:49. > :37:53.And some people are campaigning for us to go back to the dark blue.
:37:54. > :37:55.What's the difference with the colours?
:37:56. > :37:58.I don't know, doesn't really make a difference to me.
:37:59. > :38:01.I think to some people it would be a symbol that we are an independent
:38:02. > :38:04.nation again, that we are not in the EU any more.
:38:05. > :38:08.I'd have no issue with it going back to blue, I'd be quite happy,
:38:09. > :38:11.particularly by voting for Brexit myself as a voter.
:38:12. > :38:14.Anyone like to bring back the blue passport?
:38:15. > :38:20.Obviously not this size, that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?
:38:21. > :38:22.The size of our real passports is controlled strictly
:38:23. > :38:29.The reason they are burgundy is because of EU law.
:38:30. > :38:32.And so if the UK unilaterally changes the colour of its passports
:38:33. > :38:34.while it's still in the EU, then it runs the risk
:38:35. > :38:37.of being hauled in front of the European Court of Justice.
:38:38. > :38:39.Do you care about the colour of your passport?
:38:40. > :38:44.Yeah, and you're stuck with it because you're
:38:45. > :38:48.Would you rather have one of those or one
:38:49. > :38:57.The Home Office says it's done some work on options for post-Brexit
:38:58. > :38:59.passports, but they've made no decisions about
:39:00. > :39:01.It's only a colour difference.
:39:02. > :39:06.Are you colour-blind when it comes to passports?
:39:07. > :39:15.Do you care what colour your passport is?
:39:16. > :39:26.There is an opportunity to look at the design of British passports
:39:27. > :39:29.coming up in the near future because the contract to provide them
:39:30. > :39:39.But a red passport is all right for me as well.
:39:40. > :39:44.I'll take a pink passport if you are going to give me one.
:39:45. > :39:47.Do you really remember having a dark blue passport?
:39:48. > :39:51.I can't remember whether I do or not.
:39:52. > :39:53.I think my passport has always been red.
:39:54. > :39:56.And what about people like me who don't need a new passport
:39:57. > :40:00.Although I've spoken to an MP whois said he'd lose his down the sofa
:40:01. > :40:09.to get a new blue one, if there are new blue ones.
:40:10. > :40:14.And I should just say if there is a new one it will not have the
:40:15. > :40:16.European Union of course emblazoned on the top.
:40:17. > :40:18.And we're joined now by the Conservative Andrew Rosindell,
:40:19. > :40:21.he's one of a number of MPs backing a campaign to bring back
:40:22. > :40:34.We would have a job getting it in our pockets! I like the colour. What
:40:35. > :40:39.is in a colour? Is it really that important? Absolutely. It is about
:40:40. > :40:44.national identity. It is about showing we are British, Britain is
:40:45. > :40:48.back. When we travel abroad, instead of having this run-of-the-mill
:40:49. > :40:51.standard EU passport we have our own British passport again. The one
:40:52. > :40:55.thing that matters to British people, and that was shown in the
:40:56. > :41:07.referendum, they feel they are losing their identity and losing
:41:08. > :41:10.their sovereignty. The one thing you can do easily go back to the Royal
:41:11. > :41:13.blue British passport and I think it will be popular among British
:41:14. > :41:15.people. Will you see it as they symbol of independence? Of course
:41:16. > :41:18.not. Andrew is right that identity is important that if it was as
:41:19. > :41:22.simple as changing the colour I think life would be simpler.
:41:23. > :41:27.Personally, I cannot get excited about whether it is burgundy or
:41:28. > :41:31.blue. This is utterly meaningless to millions of young voters who have
:41:32. > :41:35.never known anything other than a burgundy passport. What I find
:41:36. > :41:39.interesting about this bait is there is a strand of thinking which has a
:41:40. > :41:43.very nostalgic wish to turn the clock back which is very difficult
:41:44. > :41:46.for young people. There were a couple of people on that clip you
:41:47. > :41:50.did not know there was a blue one before. I think we need to move on
:41:51. > :41:54.and not constantly think that the only way you can be confident about
:41:55. > :42:04.your identity is about turning the clock back. How about turning it
:42:05. > :42:06.forward? Are you turning the clock back? Quite opposite. We are
:42:07. > :42:10.rekindling things we have lost. Isn't that turning the clock back?
:42:11. > :42:17.Not at all. You only appreciate things when you have lost them. All
:42:18. > :42:23.generations... All generations? The people we spoke to were not
:42:24. > :42:27.interested. There was an older lady. Maybe people do forget. The more you
:42:28. > :42:31.talk to people, the more people are keen to see our British traditions
:42:32. > :42:35.and British identity cherished and upheld and not discarded under the
:42:36. > :42:41.banner of the European Union. Are you going to go forward with these
:42:42. > :42:45.plans before we leave the EU? It is a good question. I have asked the
:42:46. > :42:49.government to look into the legalities of this. Frankly, it is
:42:50. > :42:57.ludicrous to get Brussels opinion. Would you like to go back to weights
:42:58. > :43:00.and measures -- imperial weights and measures? We are talking about
:43:01. > :43:04.passports. I want the British people to decide what is best for our
:43:05. > :43:08.country. We should make those decisions. But that is a classic
:43:09. > :43:14.example of what people will use do from the past, it was hours, it was
:43:15. > :43:20.imperial. Wouldn't you want to go further? If we think that is a good
:43:21. > :43:28.thing for Britain then so be it. I am asking what you think. I would
:43:29. > :43:32.certainly think about that. I think it is worth considering. Today, I
:43:33. > :43:35.want to talk about passports. I think if you asked most British
:43:36. > :43:40.people, although some people don't care and I accept that, if we say
:43:41. > :43:45.should we have our own British passport or stick with the European
:43:46. > :43:52.format, most people would say we should go for British. Do you want
:43:53. > :43:58.to try and pursue this ahead of leaving the EU? Guest-macro. It is a
:43:59. > :44:02.symbolic gesture. But it does break the EU law. The government doesn't
:44:03. > :44:07.seem to be showing any appetite for this at all. The very least they
:44:08. > :44:11.could do is publish their design and plan for what we will have
:44:12. > :44:15.eventually. Clearly, when we leave the EU, if we have to wait that long
:44:16. > :44:21.to bring our British passport back, they should be thinking about what
:44:22. > :44:25.type of design. It does not just affect the United Kingdom. The Isle
:44:26. > :44:29.of Man and the Channel Islands use the British passport as well and
:44:30. > :44:34.they are not in the EU. But they are numbered with an EU passport even
:44:35. > :44:41.though they are not in the EU. International rules guide the size
:44:42. > :44:43.of the passport but beyond that, the material, the colour and wording
:44:44. > :44:48.would be free for us to choose. Would you like to see some
:44:49. > :44:53.impressions come out in the future? I'm afraid I don't tie myself up in
:44:54. > :44:58.knots with the future colour of the passport. Clearly, it will change so
:44:59. > :45:01.we have to have different designs. If Andrew wants to campaign for a
:45:02. > :45:06.particular colour, maybe someone else wants green. We can come up
:45:07. > :45:09.with aesthetic schemes. My worry about this is this is a really big
:45:10. > :45:13.moment of change in our country and I think for younger voters, the vast
:45:14. > :45:16.majority of whom did not want us to leave the European Union, I think
:45:17. > :45:23.they would want us to talk that stuff which is about their future,
:45:24. > :45:26.not hankering for a past which, as I said I am pretty agnostic about the
:45:27. > :45:28.colour of my passport in my pocket, for them, it is not top of their
:45:29. > :45:37.priorities. This is my point, it is something we
:45:38. > :45:43.can sort out quickly. We are going back to doing things the British
:45:44. > :45:47.way. You do want to go back? Yes, restore the colour, but let's do it
:45:48. > :45:50.quickly, not fat around. And what a great symbol that would be to
:45:51. > :45:54.everybody. Darren Deed in 30 years' time younger people would be used to
:45:55. > :45:58.that country -- guaranteed. What about stamps in the passport, would
:45:59. > :46:00.you like to see them come back with yellow if there is a need for it, a
:46:01. > :46:07.practical use. I'm not sure that's something we can
:46:08. > :46:11.decide today. I don't think so, certainly not with countries that we
:46:12. > :46:16.don't have visas with, but that's another topic altogether. I'm
:46:17. > :46:20.talking about the symbolic importance of restoring our British
:46:21. > :46:21.passport. You will no doubt be campaigning in the Home Office for
:46:22. > :46:23.all of these changes. Now, the Liberal Democrats
:46:24. > :46:25.and Labour have been attacking each other in the House of Lords this
:46:26. > :46:42.week over the Labour has attacked the bill but did
:46:43. > :46:46.not back a Lib Dem attempt to block certain parts of it.
:46:47. > :46:49.Here's the Lib Dems' Brian Paddick speaking in the Lords yesterday.
:46:50. > :46:51.Telephone operators already keep a record of the details of every
:46:52. > :46:54.phone call made and every text message sent.
:46:55. > :46:56.Internet service providers are being forced by this bill
:46:57. > :47:03.to keep a record of every website you and I and everyone else in this
:47:04. > :47:06.country has visited over the previous 12 months.
:47:07. > :47:09.A provision this house agreed to on Monday
:47:10. > :47:11.in a division when they rejected the Liberal Democrat
:47:12. > :47:18.We're joined now by Angela Smith, Baroness Basildon, leader of Labour
:47:19. > :47:31.Nick Clegg, what is so wrong with this bill now? This aspect of it,
:47:32. > :47:39.Internet connection records is, in my view, they called it something
:47:40. > :47:42.different, but it was always there. It basically is a sort of Dragnet
:47:43. > :47:48.approach to the retention of particular forms of data. It doesn't
:47:49. > :47:52.include the content at it can build up a very detailed picture of
:47:53. > :47:57.peoples usage it's not really done anywhere else. The Danes did it and
:47:58. > :48:01.scrapped it. In my view it is disproportionate. Because you'd have
:48:02. > :48:05.had access to those high security briefings, you will also know, they
:48:06. > :48:08.will have presented to you how important it is that security
:48:09. > :48:15.services have all the tools at their disposal, and yet you still feel it
:48:16. > :48:19.is disproportionate? This is awful jargon, about how big you need to
:48:20. > :48:23.create the haystack to look for the needle, and who retains it, is it
:48:24. > :48:26.the government, GCHQ or in this case the communications operators
:48:27. > :48:31.themselves. In my view there is very little evidence that this huge
:48:32. > :48:35.retention of massive amounts of data in a very unwieldy way is the best
:48:36. > :48:39.way to go after the needles. So why are you siding with the
:48:40. > :48:42.Conservatives over this very illiberal bill? Your Shadow Cabinet
:48:43. > :48:46.Bill Diane Abbott described it as Draconian. I think it was when it
:48:47. > :48:51.was first introduced into the House of Commons. It was only after we got
:48:52. > :48:57.certain checks and balances that we voted it. On this particular issue,
:48:58. > :49:00.I wish you'd shown a bit longer, you would have seen two very senior
:49:01. > :49:07.Liberal Democrats, including the former leader, criticising that
:49:08. > :49:12.approach and voting against it. In fact Brian Pavlik had to withdraw
:49:13. > :49:21.because one his own side did not support him. There have been
:49:22. > :49:24.changes. Internet collection of information, we talking about
:49:25. > :49:28.serious organised crime, how do they communicate? Via the Internet. But
:49:29. > :49:31.we have checks and balances that were not there before, basically
:49:32. > :49:35.both the Home Secretary and the judicial commission would have to
:49:36. > :49:38.sign this off as being justified and proportionate and necessary. So
:49:39. > :49:43.you've got a political and a judge, a double lock, as it were, on
:49:44. > :49:45.whether this is appropriate. Because what you need to do is actually
:49:46. > :49:51.dispense of the information you don't need and get to what you do.
:49:52. > :49:53.The independent commission an independent reviewer of this
:49:54. > :49:58.legislation said this is necessary. There would be a judicial check.
:49:59. > :50:05.What more do you want? Angela is absolutely right. I think the
:50:06. > :50:09.Liberal Democrats have sat on the sidelines and whinged about the
:50:10. > :50:12.bill, meanwhile our key people, our brightest and best in both houses,
:50:13. > :50:17.has said this bill needs checks and balances and changes. I have
:50:18. > :50:22.actually lived with this bill for many years. You are not the only
:50:23. > :50:30.one. The procedural decision making changes, of course it will. It gets
:50:31. > :50:32.quite technical. But look, when you ask the government what do
:50:33. > :50:36.interconnection records mean, they literally mean the moment you
:50:37. > :50:41.connect onto the Internet, whether it's Google maps, whether it's on to
:50:42. > :50:46.a dodgy website, it is literally any connection. So you can imagine the
:50:47. > :50:52.vast, vast amounts of inert, useless, entirely redundant data
:50:53. > :50:55.that is being stored by, by the way, unqualified, across everybody, the
:50:56. > :51:00.whole population. These fishing expeditions to worry people. It is
:51:01. > :51:04.not fishing expeditions. That information is held and has to be
:51:05. > :51:07.kept, it is not looked at. And then if there is clear evidence that both
:51:08. > :51:12.the Home Secretary and a judge say we need to have access. Why does no
:51:13. > :51:18.other modern jurisdiction do this? Bay may well do in the future. That
:51:19. > :51:22.amount of personal data, as you probably both agree is useless in
:51:23. > :51:27.the vast majority of cases, to be held for any length of time. For a
:51:28. > :51:32.year. It is being held and if access is needed, which would mean, who's
:51:33. > :51:36.been talking to who, it may be a case, not just terrorism, it could
:51:37. > :51:40.be child abduction, child pornography, child abuse, all those
:51:41. > :51:45.areas. I think we need access on when it is justified to look at the
:51:46. > :51:49.specific records, the police and security services are able to do so
:51:50. > :51:55.for our protection. It is an age-old debate, this. Security, privacy,
:51:56. > :51:59.liberty, and how much data and of what kind do you retain on the whole
:52:00. > :52:01.population including millions of innocent people going about their
:52:02. > :52:07.business in order to go after the bad people. And no other modern
:52:08. > :52:12.jurisdiction in the developed world does this sledgehammer approach. Is
:52:13. > :52:17.this still a sledgehammer? You are retaining huge amounts of
:52:18. > :52:20.information. But it is not used unless there is some sort of
:52:21. > :52:24.judicial oversight and the Home Secretary saying yes we will pursue
:52:25. > :52:27.this. The only other modern jurisdictions that have tried to do
:52:28. > :52:33.this scrapped it because it was so unwieldy and so impractical and it
:52:34. > :52:38.did not add to the crime busting powers that you want our agencies to
:52:39. > :52:41.have. When somebody like David Anderson, the independent reviewer
:52:42. > :52:45.of this kind of legislation, investigates this and looks at it,
:52:46. > :52:51.and says is it proportionate and necessary, he says yes in some cases
:52:52. > :52:59.it is. Brian paddock had to change his view and admit part of what he
:53:00. > :53:03.said in the House of Lords the other day. We interviewed David Anderson,
:53:04. > :53:07.what do you say he said about this? He said it was a proportionate
:53:08. > :53:10.response and there is a case for doing so and that is quite clear.
:53:11. > :53:16.There is something called Olcan data. I'm fashionably amongst
:53:17. > :53:21.liberals I have always said there is a case for agencies to hold what is
:53:22. > :53:25.called bulk data. This is the stuff that comes in great pipes under the
:53:26. > :53:28.sea from other jurisdictions. This is quite different. Internet
:53:29. > :53:32.connection records is every time you click back computer under this table
:53:33. > :53:37.here, that is going to be stored on a database somewhere. It's a
:53:38. > :53:42.completely different thing. You have let Civil Liberties go? Absolutely
:53:43. > :53:46.not. The checks and balances that we have inserted in this bill would not
:53:47. > :53:50.have been there. And they are misleading people and playing a bit
:53:51. > :53:54.of a game here and I think it is a dangerous approach. You can say we
:53:55. > :53:57.are trading Civil Liberties against security, both are equally important
:53:58. > :53:58.and that's the route we have taken. Thank you.
:53:59. > :54:01.Now we sometimes bring you news of defections on this programme.
:54:02. > :54:02.We rarely hear of politicians defecting back again.
:54:03. > :54:06.And it's even rarer to to hear of them doing so within 24 hour.
:54:07. > :54:08.But that's what's happened in Swindon, where the defection
:54:09. > :54:10.of a councillor called Matthew Courtliff from Labour
:54:11. > :54:13.to the Conservatives was greeted with some pleasure by local Tories,
:54:14. > :54:21.But just hours after the announcement, Mr Courtliff said
:54:22. > :54:25.he'd changed his mind and would be staying with Labour after all.
:54:26. > :54:27.He described it as the "worst 24 hours of my life".
:54:28. > :54:30.Well, the journalist who's been covering the story, Chris Humphreys,
:54:31. > :54:42.Tell us what happened. It's been a bizarre 24 hours. We got news on
:54:43. > :54:46.Tuesday night that he was in with the council leader in a meeting and
:54:47. > :54:50.was looking to change side. There had been rumours for a few days.
:54:51. > :54:54.Within an hour there were very strong statement put out, he said he
:54:55. > :54:57.was looking forward to Theresa May Bulls leadership as a conservative,
:54:58. > :55:03.that Jeremy Corbyn had lost touch with people. He was warmly welcomed
:55:04. > :55:06.by the leader of the Council, a local Conservative MPs. Labour
:55:07. > :55:10.councillors were scathing and called it the worst thing about politics.
:55:11. > :55:15.Less than 24 hours later he said he made a terrible state and he
:55:16. > :55:19.regretted it and he wanted people to forgive him. You wonder what
:55:20. > :55:24.happened in those 24 hours, I mean, are Swindon conservatives really
:55:25. > :55:27.that bad? He is quite young, 25, the youngest on the council and I think
:55:28. > :55:31.the attention he got was quite a shock. You think he did not realise
:55:32. > :55:35.he was going to come under the spotlight in quite the way he did.
:55:36. > :55:39.But what about his Labour colleagues? They put out a statement
:55:40. > :55:41.as you said saying it was a dishonourable position and
:55:42. > :55:46.represented the worst of politics, what did they say when he came back?
:55:47. > :55:49.There is a mixture, certain more moderate Labour councillors who want
:55:50. > :55:54.to see it as a mistake and put it behind them, but there are some
:55:55. > :55:57.further to the Jeremy Corbyn side of the party who will not take kindly
:55:58. > :56:01.to his messages of support for Theresa May and criticising the
:56:02. > :56:06.leadership. And you've spoken to him, I presume, how is he feeling? I
:56:07. > :56:09.think a little raw is probably the way I'd describe it. It's probably
:56:10. > :56:16.his first encounter with the ruthlessness of front line politics
:56:17. > :56:20.even at the local level. It might take him a few weeks to come out and
:56:21. > :56:28.stand up to residents and explain himself. Ayew upset he did not go to
:56:29. > :56:31.the Liberal Democrats? He is in a traumatised state, if he wants to
:56:32. > :56:35.spend time with nice people, we'll give him a nice cup of tea, you can
:56:36. > :56:40.always join the Liberal Democrats and make it a clean sweep, a
:56:41. > :56:45.hat-trick. I presume he hasn't considered joining the Liberal
:56:46. > :56:47.Democrats? Well, we don't know. He certainly considered the
:56:48. > :56:51.Conservative Party and they said they left their door open. I'm sure
:56:52. > :56:54.the Liberal Democrats would welcome another member in Swindon. I'm sure
:56:55. > :57:01.they would. I don't know how many they've got. Do you think voters
:57:02. > :57:04.will be understanding? Certain people who were out campaigning with
:57:05. > :57:08.him when standing as a Labour candidate have been critical and
:57:09. > :57:12.said, can I have my vote back? Others have said, if we cannot trust
:57:13. > :57:17.you on this and your positions are not set in stone, how can we trust
:57:18. > :57:21.you on other issues. And when is he up for re-election? He'll be up in
:57:22. > :57:26.the general election year. So not only has he got to prove his worth
:57:27. > :57:29.to residents, he has also got to fight against the Labour performance
:57:30. > :57:31.nationally as well. Thank you very much.
:57:32. > :57:34.Now it's nearly time to bring you the answer
:57:35. > :57:36.to our quiz, first let's remind you what it's all about.
:57:37. > :57:38.Here's an exchange from Prime Minister's Questions yesterday,
:57:39. > :57:41.when Conservative MP Peter Bone was asking Thersa May
:57:42. > :57:47.Would she support the reopening of Wellingborough prison as part of
:57:48. > :57:49.this excellent programme, or would she rather just
:57:50. > :57:56.I say to my honourable friend I'm very happy to
:57:57. > :57:59.wish him a very happy birthday today, many happy returns.
:58:00. > :58:01.I hope that Mrs Bone is going to treat the
:58:02. > :58:14.Well that innuendo, intentional or not, caused
:58:15. > :58:21.But what we want to know is, what did Peter Bone actually get
:58:22. > :58:29.Was it, A, a replica Vote Leave bus,
:58:30. > :58:33.B, a new tie, C, a new photo of Margaret Thatcher,
:58:34. > :58:35.or D, a signed copy of Nick Clegg's book?
:58:36. > :58:50.And we have the book here. Did you give that for his birthday? No,
:58:51. > :58:56.Peter Bowen and I are old adversaries. I can't imagine his
:58:57. > :59:00.wife would have ruined his birthday by presenting him with a great big
:59:01. > :59:04.photograph of me on the cover. I have just a hunch it might be, since
:59:05. > :59:09.we are talking about nostalgia and the glories of the past, maybe a
:59:10. > :59:14.photograph of Margaret Thatcher. No, it was his tie! Because he was
:59:15. > :59:15.wearing that's slightly lurid green tie.
:59:16. > :59:21.The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
:59:22. > :59:28.Andrew will be back for This Week tonight at 11.45 on BBC One.