20/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


MPs are continuing to put pressure on the government over Brexit,


with Labour demanding a vote on the plans before


Theresa May is off to Brussels for her first EU summit,


she'll tell her fellow leader she doesn't want to wreck


the European project, but that there's no chance


of Britain doing anything other than leaving.


It's Clinton versus Trump round three, and this White House


title fight isn't getting any less nasty.


Now Donald Trump says he may not accept the result of the election.


Anyone like to bring back the blue passport?


That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?


We'll be talking about the campaign to bring back the old blue passport


There are not one but two parliamentary by-elections today,


as voters choose new MPs to take the place of David Cameron


And those by-elections may be two big political events today,


but broadcasting rules mean we can't discuss them until the polls close


So joining me to not discuss them, it's the former


He's now the Lib Dem spokesman on Europe and since leaving


government he's found time to write a book -


appear at a few literary festivals - and even star


Other than the Daily Politics I mean.


Welcome to the show, Nick.


More than 100 MPs have backed a Commons motion to strip former BHS


owner Philp Green of his knighthood following the collapse


of the high street chain, which left 11,000 staff out of work


and the pension scheme with a large deficit.


The debate on the demise of BHS is just getting


It's the first time Mps have tried to remove a knighthood from a member


of the public although we don't yet know if they will have a chance


Should it be subject to a vote? If there was a vote and I was there, I


would probably vote in favour. I think in particular what was


happening with the lack of clarity to the pension scheme is so


outrageous. So you would vote for him to lose his knighthood? I


probably would but I am quite uneasy about the fact that MPs will start


hand-picking people they think should or should not keep their


honour or not. What will happen next? Labour will table a motion


saying Lynton Crosby should have his knighthood revoked because they


don't like him or whatever? Isn't this bit Philip Green has been


before but committee of MPs and he has left thousands of people


possibly without pensions and this is a symbol, an important symbol for


parliamentarians to have a say? That of the argument and I get that. He


is in a unique and unflattering category of his own. I think the


country at large is absolutely flabbergasted at the cavalier way at


which people's pensions and jobs and livelihoods have been dealt with. I


just think if we made a habit as the Parliament of kind of saying, today,


it is Thursday, we are now going to target X server or Dame. The whole


honours system is a little peculiar as it is. I think it would properly


be even more topsy-turvy if Parliament spent too much time


trying to retract knighthoods and honours from people. And it doesn't


mean anything either? It is not binding because the forfeiture


committee has to do it. It is only symbolic. When it happened before


with Goodwin, it is not Parliament that does that. We will leave it


there. I think the debate is lasting for three hours.


Now it's time for our daily quiz, and today it's


about the Conservative MP Peter Bone.


Yesterday he told the Commons it was his birthday,


and the Prime Minister caused some amusement when she told him


she hoped that Mrs Bone would mark the occasion


I have no idea why some people found that funny.


Anyway, today's question is - what did Mrs Bone actually give


Or D) A signed copy of Nick Clegg's book?


At the end of the show Nick - who has absolutely no idea -


Theresa May is in Brussels today for her very first EU summit.


Russia's involvement in Syria and the immigration crisis


are on the main agenda, but we're told the Prime Minister


will tell the men and women who are, for now at least,


still her fellow EU leaders, that there will be no second


referendum, and that she wants our departure to be


Well, back at Westminster the Brexit secretary David Davis has been


taking questions from MPs including his Labour


Yesterday, Mr Speaker, I wrote to the secretary of state to ask a very


simple question. When will the plans be made available? The secretary of


state replied promptly to my letter but failed to answer that central


question. So, I am going to ask him again. When will the government's


plans for leaving the EU be made available to this House? It is


always our intention that Parliament should being gauged throughout. But


the house also agrees a vital caveat that such a process should respect


the decision of the EU when they vote to leave the EU -- should


respect the decision of the UK. There should be a balance to be


struck between transparency and good negotiating practice and I am


confident we can strike that balance.


Well, remain supporting MPs are showing no signs of letting up


the pressure on the government over Brexit, with many demanding a vote


on our future relationship with the EU.


To discuss this we're joined now by the Conservative MP Oliver Dowden.


Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Both of you voted Remain. We are not


talking about the rights and wrongs of the vote but you do have


different views on how to go forward from here. Oliver Dowden, broadly,


you have accepted the vote. Indeed. Nick Clegg, you have not? I have


accept the vote entirely that we will leave the European Union. What


was not put before the British public is how you leave. There is a


myriad different ways you could leave this club. There is not one


simple form of Brexit. Since the Brexit is themselves did not deign


to spell it out to the British people, not least because they could


not agree amongst themselves what makes it meant, that is an open


question. Yes there is a mandate to pull us out of the European Union


but how you do it should be open to scrutiny. You want Parliament to


vote before triggering article 50 say you want to see the plans from


the government before article 50 is even triggered. You also want a


second referendum on the terms of the deal at the end of the process.


Everything you are doing suggests you want to prolong this whole


process, that you're hoping in some way to stay, if not as a full member


of the EU, you want to stay very closely aligned. It does not sound


like you have accept it at all? No, there is huge difference between


denying, I am not denial about the vote. I wish it was otherwise. But


you are trying to reverse it? Not at all. The plans of how you leave the


European Union, do you stay part of the customs union or not? Do you


stay part of the single market or not? Do you make financial


commitments if you are part of the crime-fighting commitments. The


government says they want to participate, how do you do that?


What does it mean for our law and budgetary contributions? My own


view, for what it is worth, is people voted for Brexit as George


Osborne pointed out. They did not necessarily vote for hard Brexit.


Which would mean us leaving the single market. Are you saying that a


remain alike Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband should shut up and go away


and they should not express the views that we are hearing? I am not


saying that at all. I think it is very important that Parliament


debates and scrutinises this. Nick and I both contributed to various


statements. The government will introduce the repeal bill. We will


debate that endlessly. What I disagree with Nick on is the need to


have a vote on invoking article 50. We in Parliament decided by a


majority of six to one to give the power to the British people. We


effectively delegated that decision to the British people. There was a


strong argument, there was a record turnout and people decided to leave


the European Union. The only consequence of that is to invoke


article 50. I cannot see the point in having a


vote on Article 50 because it is perfectly clear what the British


people want to say. Article 50 is like a stopwatch. It is just a


mechanism. We want to vote on what the substantive plan to leave the EU


is. What if it is voted down? We will have to go back to the drawing


board. Here is the crucial thing... What is not legal or workable about


leaving the single market? I met thousands of Brexit voters in


Sheffield. Lots of Brexit voters said they wanted it because of


immigration or they did not like this all like that. Not a single


voter who voted Brexit who I met, I agree it is not a scientific sample,


they did not say we want to stop British exporters from their


untrammelled access to our largest markets in Europe. No one said that


and no one wants that but apparently if you listen to David Davis and


Liam Fox, that is what they want to do. I would argue they don't have a


to do that. They do not have a mandate to inflict economic self


harm. Are you saying people did not know that was on the table to leave


the single market? It was not even debated. The Brexiteers did not even


to -- debate amongst themselves. We have put together what some of the


people said at the time. The British public would be voting to leave the


EU and leave the single market. Should we come out of the single


market? I think that would almost certainly be the case. Do you want


to stay inside the single market? No, we should be outside of the


single market. I said should we stay in the single market and he said No.


He is right. Absolutely. We would be out of the single market, that is


the reality. We would be quitting the single market. Britain did know.


If you voted to leave the EU it means we would leave the single


market. There is a huge difference between cobbling together clips of


thousands of minutes of debate and what the Brexit campaign said to the


British people. They said most prominently you will get 350 million


quid for the NHS every week. They said 80 million Turks might come


here soon. They absolutely did not say with one voice that they believe


leaving the European Union would mean leaving the customs union and


the single market. I think it is pretty clear that the senior


politicians on the Leave side said we would leave the single market. To


take Nick Clegg's point that that was not in some people's mind the


focal point of the campaign, do you accept that people do not realise it


would mean coming out of the single market? I completely disagree. It is


not just those quotes, as powerful as they were. Nick and I both served


the government, mine in a very junior capacity. I remember that


David Cameron wanted to be able to get control of immigration. In


particular, there was a large public disaffection of the hundreds of


thousands of people who had come from Eastern Europe and were allowed


completely free access to the United Kingdom and they felt they had not


had a say about it. The first thing we try to do is we tried to look at


the existing rules of the single market and see if we could control


it. The next proposition was that David Cameron tried to renegotiate


in order to control immigration. He made some progress but broadly the


British people did not feel he succeeded. We then had a referendum


where essentially the argument was on the one side from Brexit we


should be able to take back control and principally take back control of


our borders and laws. And on the other side, the Remain side made the


argument there would be a significant economic cost to this. I


was a reluctant Remain. I had sympathy but the economics trumped


it. You cannot disentangle being a member of the EU with being a member


of the single market. Free movement and mass migration was the thing


that turbo-charged this debate. That is true, isn't it? It is not true.


There are countries who are not members of the European Union and do


have full participation in the single market and have greater


powers. Which countries have complete curbs on migration? Not


complete curbs. The Norwegians do not exercise the powers in full but


they retain greater powers about who comes in. Do you accept that if we


become like Norway we would not have left the EU. We would still be under


the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we would have to


accept some freedom of movement because it is such a cornerstone of


the EU and therefore we would be defying the will of the people who


voted to leave? I have never accepted the argument


that there is some immutable, biblical link between membership of


the single market and the rules of freedom of movement. That's


certainly not what anybody says, they say that is an absolute


cornerstone. I do not believe that is the case and there are plenty of


European countries under a great deal of pressure about freedom of


movement and would, in my view, entertain a Europe-wide solution.


They would not do it Turing the negotiation with David Cameron.


First of all it has happened which has delivered a big shock. What you


cannot navigate your way around is to say that you are going to have


access to a marketplace of rules and not abide by those rules. Leaving


the single market, if you don't leave the single market, you don't


believe the EU? You do, there are countries in the single market that


are not members of the EU, that already exists. It is not just


remoaners, as they are called, it is the split within government as well,


it is not easy just to point the finger at Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband


and say they cannot accept the result. These debates going on at


the heart of government at Cabinet level is blow as far as I can see


the Prime Minister has set out a clear position accepting the will of


the British people, that they want to control and have the best


possible economic deal. If it was possible to change the single market


rules, we would have done it before. We desperately wanted to be able to


do it and we failed. His point is the referendum has happened now.


David Cameron kept telling them I'm going to win, it is no problem, they


did not feel any pressure. First of all it is one of the four


fundamental principles of the single market alongside free movement of


labour, goods and services, secondly, Angela Merkel, from her


particular background, is very attached to free movement. She was a


child of Eastern Europe. There was no sign, she was clear to the Prime


Minister, she was not going to concede on this. I can't see that


even with this massive shock they are going to allow Britain to have


its own sweetheart deal. Let me point to one thing, the Austrian


Italian border, there is now barbed wire fencing, right? So freedom of


movement is already being kept physically by countries. Not within


EU citizens. Hang on, they are putting border checks to the heart


of the European Union. Things have moved on. I personally think if


Theresa May was smart about it she could encourage other European


countries to introduce an emergency brake in effect across the whole of


Europe in exchange for a sensible approach from Britain for continued


access. You know that is a separate point, we already have border


controls in the United Kingdom and those border controls are about


re-establishing border controls. They are not about limiting the


number of people from other countries coming in. And that's the


rub. People feel that hundreds of thousands of people came in, they


had no way of controlling it and they never gave consent to it.


Finally yes or no, if the plan for a second referendum and the head,


which looks unlikely, and the country voted it down, would we


still be in the EU? Gosh, that's a legally complex things. Isn't that


what you are trying for? I want accountability for the decisions the


government takes about how we leave the European Union, not the


principle that we are going to. We were not given and we still have not


been given a detailed depiction of what Brexit actually looks like in


practice. Thank you. Last night saw the third and final


TV debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,


ahead of next month's election that will see one of them becoming


the next US president. It's been an ugly contest so far,


and things didn't get any nicer when the candidates met in Las


Vegas. We have to keep the drugs


out of our country. Right now we getting the drugs,


they are getting the cash. But we have some bad hombres here


and we are going to get them out. I don't want to be sending


parents away from children. I don't want to see the deportation


force that Donald has talked about. If we got along well


that would be good. If Russia and the United States got


along well and went after Isis, It's pretty clear you won't admit


that the Russians have engaged in cyber attacks


against the United States of America, that you encouraged


espionage against our people. Those stories are all totally false,


I have to say that. And I didn't even apologise


to my wife, who is sitting right We asked Bernie Sanders


who he is supporting for president, and he has said, as he


has campaigned for me around the country,


you are the most dangerous person to run for president


in the modern history of America. That you will absolutely accept


the result of this election. We're joined now by the pollster


and Conservative peer Andrew Cooper. Welcome to the programme. As it


stands now, take us through the polls, particularly swing states,


because it is all about the electoral college and who reaches


the right number or gets within spitting distance and cannot be


caught. It's Hillary Clinton's now, isn't it? If we believe the polls,


yes. She has led 82 days in a row in the polls and in the past two or


three we've seen a big movement in her direction in key battle ground


states. Not only looking at the headline numbers, locking down some


of the classic swing states like Florida and North Carolina, but


starting to expand her map into states the Democrats would never


have dreamt of being competitive in, like Utah, Texas, Arizona. However,


we just lived through a referendum where the polls were wrong and they


don't have a brilliant record in America, so there is a nagging


doubt. You think there are still that many shied from voters, if


that's not a contradiction in terms, who could come out at this stage --


shy Trump voters. One of the challenges for pollsters is


estimating which people will actually vote. In America they based


on past voting behaviour. One of the things that happened in our


referendum was that 2.8 million people who had not voted in the


general election voted to leave. If, in America, there is a huge bubble


of basically angry old white men in rust belt states who don't usually


ever vote and are massively whited out of the public data, and the


polls only need to be wrong by 3.5%, and what looks like a landslide


could be much more competitive. Did you watch? It was the middle of the


night, wasn't it? I'm still fascinating by all these hand


movements. You'd have to ask him. But I don't think you will. Watching


the debate from here, the whole debate, the presidential campaign,


what's your view now that we are this close to the poll itself.


Clinton has been a very unpopular candidate and we've seen a very


divided nation. What are your observations? Well American politics


tends to set trends which then wash across the Atlantic and so I'm


afraid, incongruous I'd arrive is that the evermore nasty sort of


personal character assassination which has distinguished this


campaign, unless we do something actively to avoid it will become


increasingly the kind of character of elections on this side of the


Atlantic. Why? Donald Trump is something of a phenomenon, good or


bad depending on your viewpoint, but he is not someone you can compare


with politicians here. Of course not. In that sense he might be a


one-off. I've been an MP for 11 years and in politics for a bit


longer and even I have seen here in the UK that there has been a trend


towards playing the man or the woman rather than the ball which has got


ever more pronounced. Maybe because it is effective, you know, slapping


people off for who they are, what they look like, the sound of their


voice, might resonate more than having a pointy-headed discussion


about local finance. For whatever reason it is increasing and it does


make politics evermore vituperative in tone. I hope we can avoid that. I


think the tone is massively important in life generally. People


don't actually listen to every syllable and consonant of what


politicians say but they pick up total. Do the debates make a


difference? They have done in the past. The history of US elections,


over the last four weeks there is almost no movement. No challenger


has ever close the gap of over 4% in the last move. Inasmuch as the


voters watch these things, the basic characteristics of these people was


priced into it a long time ago. The fact that Donald Trump is a horrible


man who says horrible things was factored in a long time ago for


many. In a way the impact he felt was after the tapes of him making


those lewd comments about women and also the fact that the Republican


party seems to have cut him loose. In a sense, the worry about that is


does that deliver his message for him? His message is I'm not like


them, I'm not a normal politician. It's similar to the referendum, the


uprising against the experts, against the establishment. A


parallel in terms of the worry of the carry-over to British politics


is that the business and depth of the division, that it is such a


deeply divided country, the enmity, the fact that the two sides can find


it impossible to see the world from the other's point of view. Isn't


that the problem, polarising politics in the way these two have


is the issue, isn't it, rather than saying it is all about an uprising


against the establishment and poor old establishment. This polarisation


towards populist extremes on both right and left, not just an American


phenomenon, from Podemos to Victor Orban, UC populism right across


Europe. What I have tried to write a book about is how does the moderate


sentiment make itself heard when it is being pulled from one extreme to


the other. I think it's a terrifically important challenge for


us to grapple with. Because if you can't make moderate politics are


attractive and compelling and emotionally, telling again, we are


constantly going to be hijacked by a roving cast of populists on both


right and left. Who's going to win? Hillary Clinton. That's good, has


least you manage to come out and firmly say one way and not the


other. Now, earlier this week our guest


of the day, Nick Clegg, who you may by this point have


realised supported the UK's membership of the EU,


gave a speech warning food prices Nick Clegg says that unless we stay


within the single market, the price of items like chocolate,


cheese and wine Well, at the moment,


being within the single market means we don't pay any tariffs on the food


we import from the EU. Leaving the single market could lead


to charges being slapped onto imported EU food,


increasing prices. What's more, Mr Clegg believes


Brexit could lead to a shortage of workers in the food industry,


which could be another reason And with the value of the pound


falling, buying anything from aboard including


food will cost us more. "Rubbish", shout his critics,


who say leaving the EU At the moment the EU enforces large


tariffs for all food products coming in from outside the EU,


once we leave we could get rid of all these which would lead


to cheaper imports. We could also cut better trade deals


with the rest of the world Finally, they argue,


whilst the value of the pound is currently going down,


in the medium term it could recover, increasing our purchasing


power, lowering prices. Joining me now is Ryan Bourne who's


head of public policy at the Institute of Economic


Affairs. Increased tariffs, a weak pound,


rising fuel costs, Nick Clegg is right, isn't he, too one about the


rising cost of food? Brexit was a long-term constitutional decision of


course. I would argue that in the long term what will determine food


prices in this country are the structural factors underlying the


market. I read Nick Clegg's peace. And the key takeaway I took from it


is that food prices will be higher if we make extraordinarily bad


political decisions. If we decide to adopt the EU Common external tariff


and apply that to the EU as well as maintaining the current levels to


the rest of the world, and if we prevent farmers from importing the


labour that they need in order to pick crops and things. And I just


don't think that we'd do that. I think that the liberal case is


actually to leave the EU, abolish the protectionism, abolish the


agricultural protectionism, moved towards a more dynamic, productive


agricultural sector, and allow farmers the workers they need and


that's the sensible thing. You are looking at the worst case scenario?


Firstly I am just taking what Liam Fox said at the WTO on the 27th of


September at face value. He said when the United Kingdom leaves the


European Union so the United Kingdom becomes a self standing member of


the WTO, you said in terms, we will keep what they call in the jargon


the schedule of commitments, all the thousands of tariffs we currently


have. I'm just simply translating into numbers what he said. There are


other decisions that could offset some of the things Liam Fox says


would happen. It's terrifically important, this. What he's saying is


that the United Kingdom unilaterally will maintain the wall of tariffs


that we multilaterally are part of in the European Union. By the way,


much though I'm sure Ryan might be able to explain what he's saying as


an economic model, there is no earthly way that any British


government is ever going to simply withdraw tariffs on manufacturing


and agricultural products, it would decimate British manufacturing and


agriculture overnight. No Conservative government would ever


do it. And by the way it's totally inconsistent to say we'll get rid of


the tariffs unilaterally and then negotiate new trade deals with


countries around the world. I didn't say that. We have no negotiating


capital left. Whatever happens in the long term


and you did start your introduction by saying in the long term, but you


admit food prices could go up, imports will be more expensive, they


will be more expensive from the EU. There is a sort of a mission that


will happen in the short term? It depends on the decisions we make. I


remember strongly in the referendum campaign a tweet from Paddy Ashdown


saying the secret is out, we will get cheap food flooding the country


as a result of Brexit. We will become a member of the WTA. There is


no reason why we have to maintain that current level of commitment.


And while we do have to apply the same tariffs to every country around


the world, I think the liberal case that you should be making is why


don't we abolish these tariffs? If you are a free marketeer then you


could do these things with countries outside the EU? Of course I don't


dispute Ryan's ideological case. In an ideal world you would have lower


taxes and tariffs. Is that achievable? I don't think there is a


remit possibility that any British government in their right mind will


pull the rug out from under the feet of British farmers. You would


basically overnight expose British manufacturing to a degree of


low-cost competition they could not withstand from one moment to the


next. It is not politically realistic to say to hell with it.


And you have to look at the real politic here before you put forward


your economic case, post-Brexit, because otherwise industries will


suffer and could suffer and the consumer will pay the price. If


there will be curbs on migration which there will be, that could


cause problems in the food industry? I have been suggesting that the


British government should come out and guarantee the rights of workers


here. I think there would be a replacement scheme to something like


the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. There is a precedent for a


liberalisation of the agricultural sector. New Zealand had a much


bigger agricultural sector in the 1980s. They removed all subsidies


over a five-year period. Yes, the industry did change. Some farms were


eliminated entirely. Fund grew bigger and some diversify into new


products and New Zealand is held up as a model. Could that happen in the


UK? I think politicians should be making the case for this. It does


surprise me that liberals are making this case for protection? Unlike


most people in British politics I worked as an EU trade negotiator.


You have to have some bargaining chips you can throw onto the table


to get the best deal possible. If you unilaterally decide yourself and


go straight to tariffs on all of our protected sectors now, there is no


incentive for any other country whether it is America, China or


India to give us any concessions because we would have thrown away


all the negotiating chips at the outset. I think Liam Fox was right


to say he would keep the European commitments in the first instance


but we have to understand what the implications mean. It does mean


prices will go up for food. Ultimately, it is consumers who will


pay the costs. If other countries want to raise prices and have less


reductive industry and agriculture as a result, that is up for them,


but the British government should be setting out what is best for Britain


and not worrying what the rest of the world will do. Thank you.


The Scottish government has this morning published a draft bill


setting out plans for a second independence referendum.


The First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, argues that the Brexit vote


means her government has a mandate to seek another vote,


although at this stage the plans are only being put


Our Scotland editor Sarah Smith is in Edinburgh.


Sarah Smith, is there much fanfare accompanying this today? Well, it is


remarkably low-key actually. They have published the draft bill online


and there has been a statement from a government minister but the First


Minister Nicola Sturgeon is not giving a big press conference. They


had a fairly huge event at their party conference at the weekend when


Nicola Sturgeon announced her plans to publish this and she got a


rapturous response from the SNP delegates who were in the hole at


the time. Will this be enough to satisfy her supporters? This is just


the legislative roasters. It does not mean we will necessarily see


another independent referendum taking place soon? It does not mean


there will be one soon and there is no date for this consultation. The


First Minister thinks Scotland does have the right to take another


decision about independence before the UK leave the EU. But this is not


just aimed at her supporters and keeping them happy, that there is


the prospect of another referendum in the offing, this is aimed


squarely at the Prime Minister. Nicola Sturgeon will meet Theresa


May on Monday. They will have their first serious talks on how the


Scottish Government will be involved in Brexit negotiations. Nicola


Sturgeon is worried that the Prime Minister will not make good on her


promises to keep the Scottish Government fully engaged. So she has


created a bargaining chip. She can say unless you give us some of what


we want, I have the prospect of another referendum on Scottish


independence in my back pocket. She wants more devolved powers for the


Scottish Government and if she doesn't get them she can say well I


will be forced to go to another referendum. We have also heard about


plans to change Scottish constituencies. Can you bring us


up-to-date? The boundary -- the boundary commission has released


their plans. Seats will be reduced from 5019 53. The seat of Edinburgh


South will disappear and be hived off into neighbouring seats. That


really matters because that is the only Labour constituency in Scotland


at the moment where Ian Murray is the MP. There is only one Lib Dem MP


and he represents all clear Shetland and that will be untouched and David


Mundell's seat will remain largely unchanged. There might not be any


Labour constituency after the election in 2020. Of course, it does


not mean they cannot win another seat somewhere else but the one they


have at the moment will vanish. Thank you.


Now, it's been 30 years since we stopped using these -


yes it's the old navy blue passport, used by British travellers


until 1988 when they began to be replaced with the burgundy number


which is standard across most of the EU.


With Britain now heading for Brexit, there have been calls from some


politicians for the old-style passport to be bought back


as a symbol of the country regaining sovereignty.


9am, the passport office in London's Victoria,


Are you applying for a new passport?


If you knew you were going to get a dark blue one, would it be


I don't know what a dark blue one is.


It's what the old British passport used to be like.


And some people are campaigning for us to go back to the dark blue.


What's the difference with the colours?


I don't know, doesn't really make a difference to me.


I think to some people it would be a symbol that we are an independent


nation again, that we are not in the EU any more.


I'd have no issue with it going back to blue, I'd be quite happy,


particularly by voting for Brexit myself as a voter.


Anyone like to bring back the blue passport?


Obviously not this size, that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?


The size of our real passports is controlled strictly


The reason they are burgundy is because of EU law.


And so if the UK unilaterally changes the colour of its passports


while it's still in the EU, then it runs the risk


of being hauled in front of the European Court of Justice.


Do you care about the colour of your passport?


Yeah, and you're stuck with it because you're


Would you rather have one of those or one


The Home Office says it's done some work on options for post-Brexit


passports, but they've made no decisions about


It's only a colour difference.


Are you colour-blind when it comes to passports?


Do you care what colour your passport is?


There is an opportunity to look at the design of British passports


coming up in the near future because the contract to provide them


But a red passport is all right for me as well.


I'll take a pink passport if you are going to give me one.


Do you really remember having a dark blue passport?


I can't remember whether I do or not.


I think my passport has always been red.


And what about people like me who don't need a new passport


Although I've spoken to an MP whois said he'd lose his down the sofa


to get a new blue one, if there are new blue ones.


And I should just say if there is a new one it will not have the


European Union of course emblazoned on the top.


And we're joined now by the Conservative Andrew Rosindell,


he's one of a number of MPs backing a campaign to bring back


We would have a job getting it in our pockets! I like the colour. What


is in a colour? Is it really that important? Absolutely. It is about


national identity. It is about showing we are British, Britain is


back. When we travel abroad, instead of having this run-of-the-mill


standard EU passport we have our own British passport again. The one


thing that matters to British people, and that was shown in the


referendum, they feel they are losing their identity and losing


their sovereignty. The one thing you can do easily go back to the Royal


blue British passport and I think it will be popular among British


people. Will you see it as they symbol of independence? Of course


not. Andrew is right that identity is important that if it was as


simple as changing the colour I think life would be simpler.


Personally, I cannot get excited about whether it is burgundy or


blue. This is utterly meaningless to millions of young voters who have


never known anything other than a burgundy passport. What I find


interesting about this bait is there is a strand of thinking which has a


very nostalgic wish to turn the clock back which is very difficult


for young people. There were a couple of people on that clip you


did not know there was a blue one before. I think we need to move on


and not constantly think that the only way you can be confident about


your identity is about turning the clock back. How about turning it


forward? Are you turning the clock back? Quite opposite. We are


rekindling things we have lost. Isn't that turning the clock back?


Not at all. You only appreciate things when you have lost them. All


generations... All generations? The people we spoke to were not


interested. There was an older lady. Maybe people do forget. The more you


talk to people, the more people are keen to see our British traditions


and British identity cherished and upheld and not discarded under the


banner of the European Union. Are you going to go forward with these


plans before we leave the EU? It is a good question. I have asked the


government to look into the legalities of this. Frankly, it is


ludicrous to get Brussels opinion. Would you like to go back to weights


and measures -- imperial weights and measures? We are talking about


passports. I want the British people to decide what is best for our


country. We should make those decisions. But that is a classic


example of what people will use do from the past, it was hours, it was


imperial. Wouldn't you want to go further? If we think that is a good


thing for Britain then so be it. I am asking what you think. I would


certainly think about that. I think it is worth considering. Today, I


want to talk about passports. I think if you asked most British


people, although some people don't care and I accept that, if we say


should we have our own British passport or stick with the European


format, most people would say we should go for British. Do you want


to try and pursue this ahead of leaving the EU? Guest-macro. It is a


symbolic gesture. But it does break the EU law. The government doesn't


seem to be showing any appetite for this at all. The very least they


could do is publish their design and plan for what we will have


eventually. Clearly, when we leave the EU, if we have to wait that long


to bring our British passport back, they should be thinking about what


type of design. It does not just affect the United Kingdom. The Isle


of Man and the Channel Islands use the British passport as well and


they are not in the EU. But they are numbered with an EU passport even


though they are not in the EU. International rules guide the size


of the passport but beyond that, the material, the colour and wording


would be free for us to choose. Would you like to see some


impressions come out in the future? I'm afraid I don't tie myself up in


knots with the future colour of the passport. Clearly, it will change so


we have to have different designs. If Andrew wants to campaign for a


particular colour, maybe someone else wants green. We can come up


with aesthetic schemes. My worry about this is this is a really big


moment of change in our country and I think for younger voters, the vast


majority of whom did not want us to leave the European Union, I think


they would want us to talk that stuff which is about their future,


not hankering for a past which, as I said I am pretty agnostic about the


colour of my passport in my pocket, for them, it is not top of their


priorities. This is my point, it is something we


can sort out quickly. We are going back to doing things the British


way. You do want to go back? Yes, restore the colour, but let's do it


quickly, not fat around. And what a great symbol that would be to


everybody. Darren Deed in 30 years' time younger people would be used to


that country -- guaranteed. What about stamps in the passport, would


you like to see them come back with yellow if there is a need for it, a


practical use. I'm not sure that's something we can


decide today. I don't think so, certainly not with countries that we


don't have visas with, but that's another topic altogether. I'm


talking about the symbolic importance of restoring our British


passport. You will no doubt be campaigning in the Home Office for


all of these changes. Now, the Liberal Democrats


and Labour have been attacking each other in the House of Lords this


week over the Labour has attacked the bill but did


not back a Lib Dem attempt to block certain parts of it.


Here's the Lib Dems' Brian Paddick speaking in the Lords yesterday.


Telephone operators already keep a record of the details of every


phone call made and every text message sent.


Internet service providers are being forced by this bill


to keep a record of every website you and I and everyone else in this


country has visited over the previous 12 months.


A provision this house agreed to on Monday


in a division when they rejected the Liberal Democrat


We're joined now by Angela Smith, Baroness Basildon, leader of Labour


Nick Clegg, what is so wrong with this bill now? This aspect of it,


Internet connection records is, in my view, they called it something


different, but it was always there. It basically is a sort of Dragnet


approach to the retention of particular forms of data. It doesn't


include the content at it can build up a very detailed picture of


peoples usage it's not really done anywhere else. The Danes did it and


scrapped it. In my view it is disproportionate. Because you'd have


had access to those high security briefings, you will also know, they


will have presented to you how important it is that security


services have all the tools at their disposal, and yet you still feel it


is disproportionate? This is awful jargon, about how big you need to


create the haystack to look for the needle, and who retains it, is it


the government, GCHQ or in this case the communications operators


themselves. In my view there is very little evidence that this huge


retention of massive amounts of data in a very unwieldy way is the best


way to go after the needles. So why are you siding with the


Conservatives over this very illiberal bill? Your Shadow Cabinet


Bill Diane Abbott described it as Draconian. I think it was when it


was first introduced into the House of Commons. It was only after we got


certain checks and balances that we voted it. On this particular issue,


I wish you'd shown a bit longer, you would have seen two very senior


Liberal Democrats, including the former leader, criticising that


approach and voting against it. In fact Brian Pavlik had to withdraw


because one his own side did not support him. There have been


changes. Internet collection of information, we talking about


serious organised crime, how do they communicate? Via the Internet. But


we have checks and balances that were not there before, basically


both the Home Secretary and the judicial commission would have to


sign this off as being justified and proportionate and necessary. So


you've got a political and a judge, a double lock, as it were, on


whether this is appropriate. Because what you need to do is actually


dispense of the information you don't need and get to what you do.


The independent commission an independent reviewer of this


legislation said this is necessary. There would be a judicial check.


What more do you want? Angela is absolutely right. I think the


Liberal Democrats have sat on the sidelines and whinged about the


bill, meanwhile our key people, our brightest and best in both houses,


has said this bill needs checks and balances and changes. I have


actually lived with this bill for many years. You are not the only


one. The procedural decision making changes, of course it will. It gets


quite technical. But look, when you ask the government what do


interconnection records mean, they literally mean the moment you


connect onto the Internet, whether it's Google maps, whether it's on to


a dodgy website, it is literally any connection. So you can imagine the


vast, vast amounts of inert, useless, entirely redundant data


that is being stored by, by the way, unqualified, across everybody, the


whole population. These fishing expeditions to worry people. It is


not fishing expeditions. That information is held and has to be


kept, it is not looked at. And then if there is clear evidence that both


the Home Secretary and a judge say we need to have access. Why does no


other modern jurisdiction do this? Bay may well do in the future. That


amount of personal data, as you probably both agree is useless in


the vast majority of cases, to be held for any length of time. For a


year. It is being held and if access is needed, which would mean, who's


been talking to who, it may be a case, not just terrorism, it could


be child abduction, child pornography, child abuse, all those


areas. I think we need access on when it is justified to look at the


specific records, the police and security services are able to do so


for our protection. It is an age-old debate, this. Security, privacy,


liberty, and how much data and of what kind do you retain on the whole


population including millions of innocent people going about their


business in order to go after the bad people. And no other modern


jurisdiction in the developed world does this sledgehammer approach. Is


this still a sledgehammer? You are retaining huge amounts of


information. But it is not used unless there is some sort of


judicial oversight and the Home Secretary saying yes we will pursue


this. The only other modern jurisdictions that have tried to do


this scrapped it because it was so unwieldy and so impractical and it


did not add to the crime busting powers that you want our agencies to


have. When somebody like David Anderson, the independent reviewer


of this kind of legislation, investigates this and looks at it,


and says is it proportionate and necessary, he says yes in some cases


it is. Brian paddock had to change his view and admit part of what he


said in the House of Lords the other day. We interviewed David Anderson,


what do you say he said about this? He said it was a proportionate


response and there is a case for doing so and that is quite clear.


There is something called Olcan data. I'm fashionably amongst


liberals I have always said there is a case for agencies to hold what is


called bulk data. This is the stuff that comes in great pipes under the


sea from other jurisdictions. This is quite different. Internet


connection records is every time you click back computer under this table


here, that is going to be stored on a database somewhere. It's a


completely different thing. You have let Civil Liberties go? Absolutely


not. The checks and balances that we have inserted in this bill would not


have been there. And they are misleading people and playing a bit


of a game here and I think it is a dangerous approach. You can say we


are trading Civil Liberties against security, both are equally important


and that's the route we have taken. Thank you.


Now we sometimes bring you news of defections on this programme.


We rarely hear of politicians defecting back again.


And it's even rarer to to hear of them doing so within 24 hour.


But that's what's happened in Swindon, where the defection


of a councillor called Matthew Courtliff from Labour


to the Conservatives was greeted with some pleasure by local Tories,


But just hours after the announcement, Mr Courtliff said


he'd changed his mind and would be staying with Labour after all.


He described it as the "worst 24 hours of my life".


Well, the journalist who's been covering the story, Chris Humphreys,


Tell us what happened. It's been a bizarre 24 hours. We got news on


Tuesday night that he was in with the council leader in a meeting and


was looking to change side. There had been rumours for a few days.


Within an hour there were very strong statement put out, he said he


was looking forward to Theresa May Bulls leadership as a conservative,


that Jeremy Corbyn had lost touch with people. He was warmly welcomed


by the leader of the Council, a local Conservative MPs. Labour


councillors were scathing and called it the worst thing about politics.


Less than 24 hours later he said he made a terrible state and he


regretted it and he wanted people to forgive him. You wonder what


happened in those 24 hours, I mean, are Swindon conservatives really


that bad? He is quite young, 25, the youngest on the council and I think


the attention he got was quite a shock. You think he did not realise


he was going to come under the spotlight in quite the way he did.


But what about his Labour colleagues? They put out a statement


as you said saying it was a dishonourable position and


represented the worst of politics, what did they say when he came back?


There is a mixture, certain more moderate Labour councillors who want


to see it as a mistake and put it behind them, but there are some


further to the Jeremy Corbyn side of the party who will not take kindly


to his messages of support for Theresa May and criticising the


leadership. And you've spoken to him, I presume, how is he feeling? I


think a little raw is probably the way I'd describe it. It's probably


his first encounter with the ruthlessness of front line politics


even at the local level. It might take him a few weeks to come out and


stand up to residents and explain himself. Ayew upset he did not go to


the Liberal Democrats? He is in a traumatised state, if he wants to


spend time with nice people, we'll give him a nice cup of tea, you can


always join the Liberal Democrats and make it a clean sweep, a


hat-trick. I presume he hasn't considered joining the Liberal


Democrats? Well, we don't know. He certainly considered the


Conservative Party and they said they left their door open. I'm sure


the Liberal Democrats would welcome another member in Swindon. I'm sure


they would. I don't know how many they've got. Do you think voters


will be understanding? Certain people who were out campaigning with


him when standing as a Labour candidate have been critical and


said, can I have my vote back? Others have said, if we cannot trust


you on this and your positions are not set in stone, how can we trust


you on other issues. And when is he up for re-election? He'll be up in


the general election year. So not only has he got to prove his worth


to residents, he has also got to fight against the Labour performance


nationally as well. Thank you very much.


Now it's nearly time to bring you the answer


to our quiz, first let's remind you what it's all about.


Here's an exchange from Prime Minister's Questions yesterday,


when Conservative MP Peter Bone was asking Thersa May


Would she support the reopening of Wellingborough prison as part of


this excellent programme, or would she rather just


I say to my honourable friend I'm very happy to


wish him a very happy birthday today, many happy returns.


I hope that Mrs Bone is going to treat the


Well that innuendo, intentional or not, caused


But what we want to know is, what did Peter Bone actually get


Was it, A, a replica Vote Leave bus,


B, a new tie, C, a new photo of Margaret Thatcher,


or D, a signed copy of Nick Clegg's book?


And we have the book here. Did you give that for his birthday? No,


Peter Bowen and I are old adversaries. I can't imagine his


wife would have ruined his birthday by presenting him with a great big


photograph of me on the cover. I have just a hunch it might be, since


we are talking about nostalgia and the glories of the past, maybe a


photograph of Margaret Thatcher. No, it was his tie! Because he was


wearing that's slightly lurid green tie.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


Andrew will be back for This Week tonight at 11.45 on BBC One.


Download Subtitles