28/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Government says it hasn't promised extra cash to Nissan,


after the car maker announced it would boost


Theresa May says she's delivering the 2015 Conservative manifesto,


but after the government confirms it's ditching


another Cameron policy - this time on schools.


Do the PM's policy U-turns amount to more than just a bit of tweaking?


After weeks of wrangling, the Belgian region of Wallonia


drops its opposition to a trade deal between Canada and the EU.


So what does this mean for future trade deals?


And after Jeremy Corbyn compares Theresa May with Baldrick


from Blackadder, what makes a good political insult?


We've got our guide to the top five best ever.


All that in the next hour, and with us for the first half


of the programme today, Jenni Russell, who writes for


the Times and the Evening Standard, and the Sun's political


Let's kick off with the question of what assurances the Government


gave to Nissan to ensure the Japanese company would commit


to continued investment in their Sunderland factory.


Last night, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, insisted there was no


One of the things that we have committed to do as part


of our industrial strategy is to build on our strengths, to make


sure our universities and our research institutions work


Hang on, sorry, I must interrupt you.


Are you saying that you said to Nissan in Japan that


you, we're going to do development work on electric cars


and therefore you can do two new models here


It's a big problem, and I've referred to it


You never promised them a cheque book, nothing like that?


There is no cheque book, I don't have a cheque-book.


The important thing is they know that this is a country


in which they can have confidence that they can invest.


That was the assurance on the understanding that they had,


and they have invested their money on that basis.


We've been joined by Labour's Shadow International Trade


Hello. Would you like to congratulate the business secretary


for keeping Nissan in the UK, safeguarding 7000 jobs in Sunderland


and keeping his cheque-book in his pocket? I think it's wonderful that


Nissan is going to build two cars in the UK. There will be 40,000 people


who slept more soundly last night knowing that their mortgages were


going to be paid at the end of the month, their rents were going to be


paid, that they have jobs and security for the future. So you


would do the same? The problem is we don't know what the same is. The


question that Greg Clark so judiciously avoided answering is


what is the support and assurances that have been promised? He said in


the letter that he wrote there were some assurances. What we need to


know is, is this generally for the industry? And as Jim Farley of Ford


has said, you can't do a deal for one and not for the other. We have


to know. And actually, if there is money involved, even if its


compensation in the future, if the tariffs remain in place, we do need


to know what is happening with public money and public resources.


Do you suspect that is what has happened? I am not going to make


accusations. What I do know is what is in the public domain. Letters


were written, people were dispatched to Japan. And the chief executive of


the company had said only a couple of weeks ago, given that he needed


to make investment decisions, he had to have a deal about compensation


for any tariffs that would arise as a result of us leaving the EU. He


said Nissan Micra not invest unless the government gave compensation for


costs related to new tariffs. What will you say to Greg Clark? What


assurances are you seeking from the government today? What I am saying


to Greg Clark is, show us the letter. If this is simply a letter


that doesn't promise anything, that is unusual, out of the ordinary, or


any more than warm words about supporting the sector in general,


there is no need to hide it. What is the secrecy Gyor? This is the point.


-- what is the secrecy here? The Times reports that the letter was


regarded by Nissan as they promised they would not have to bear the cost


of punitive tariffs on car exporter if Britain leaves EU customs error


-- area. They seem to have had sight at least of this letter. You want to


see it yourself? I think the public have a right to see it. And


certainly every other business chief executive, not only in the


automotive industry, will want to see it as well. What they want to


know is why, given everybody is now behind as -- Kos exiting the EU, and


the government is saying this is a good thing that is opening


opportunities, why are we trying to bribe copies, if that is what it is?


-- companies. This is supposed to be a new opportunity for Britain


trading in the world. We think if we are having to persuade companies to


stay... Are you saying other sectors will have to be equally bribed? I am


not making an allegation of a bride, but the government has to be


transparent. Harry Cole, what do you make of it? This will come down to


the words remain competitive. Misano said the government has promised --


Nissan has said the government has promised they will remain


competitive. The government wants to support the car market and for it to


remain competitive. But go back to the idea this is nothing new, that


is the next conversation. Misano only build the plant in Sunderland


because they were encouraged to buy the government's industrial


strategy. The idea that was ever going to change remains to be seen.


You are saying it is interventionism? Whether you agree


or not, Theresa May said we need a new industrial strategy. Lo and


behold, what we are seeing here is industrial strategy. Aren't there


are dangers that if you intervene in one sector, other sectors say, what


about us? That is what is so puzzling. Those of us who didn't


want to leave the European Union because we thought it would mean a


financial hit to the country, what will the government do? Are they


going to subsidise agriculture? Are they going to turn to the city and


say, if banks cannot operate, we will compensate you for your losses?


Where do they stop? That is the problem. We do not know what has


been promised. Nissan are quite certain it will remain profitable to


be in the EU. The government may be promising Nissan that we will charge


cars that are imported into this country 10% tax and we will use that


to subsidise use. -- you. Will they do that in every sector? It would be


impossible. Is that something to take into account, maybe you could


offset one set of tariffs with another? All of us will agree that


we do not want a tariff war. Again, let's think about the wider


philosophy of the government. It is supposed to be free trade. One may


question why, if we are so in favour of free trade, we are leaving the


largest free-trade bloc in the entire world. That is nonetheless


the rhetoric of the government. One has to look at that very carefully.


You can see that the devaluation of the pound will also make Nissan cars


produced in the UK cheaper to buy abroad as well. And I think it's not


just looking at the 10% of tariffs that may be charged. It is also the


thought perhaps that if the pound keeps sinking in value, then


actually there will be a boost to Nissan sales. That may also have


played some role in the decision. That is not a good indicator for our


economy in general. It means that people think the value of UK plc has


gone down. Is it Labour Party policy that the UK should remain a member


of the single market? Its Labour Party policy that we should now


leave the EU, as the people have asked. But that we should retain the


best possible access for our companies. And let's not just make


this about the big Manufacturing brands. 60% of all people employed


in the private sector are employed in small and medium-sized companies.


We need a strategy that works for them, not just for the big boys.


Barry Gardiner, thank you. Now it's time for our daily quiz,


which today relates to the announcement that Twitter


is to close its video We thought we would take a look


at some of the most watched vines But which of these three


is the most viewed? Is it David Cameron checking his tie


before an interview? Is it Ed Miliband looking


the camera and set to music? Later in the show, we'll see


if Jenni and Harry know Theresa May insists her government


is committed to delivering David Cameron's 2015


Conservative manifesto. But over the past weeks and months,


the May government has dropped some Cameron-era policies


and tweaked others. Yesterday an announcement


was slipped out, confirming that the Education for All Bill,


which aimed to convert all schools in England


to academies, will be scrapped. How much has government policy


changed from the programme they were elected on last year?


None of the other parties could keep up with the Conservatives


when their car crossed the line first in 2015.


But government has made a number of U-turns since Theresa May


replaced David Cameron in the driving seat.


So what has the Prime Minister been tinkering with under the bonnet?


She's already changed the Government's approach


to tackling the deficit, abandoning George Osborne's pledge


A key part of the Help to Buy scheme - another flagship Osborne policy -


was also scrapped by the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, last month.


The scheme will no longer offer mortgage guarantees to help people


Plans to let consumers raise money by selling their pension annuities


On education, plans were dropped last week, to make all children


resit SAT tests at secondary school if they didn't achieve the expected


And it was confirmed yesterday that the Government will no longer


be bringing forward a previously announced Education Bill to convert


schools to academies, clearing the way for


So although it looks like the same Conservative car, is Theresa May's


government now headed for a different destination?


Well, here with me to discuss this further is the Conservative


Welcome. Is Theresa May pursuing the same government programme you were


elected on last year? The broad principles are exactly the same. We


are committed to deficit reduction, driving School standards and having


greater freedom in terms of provision of school. The free school


programme will absolutely be at the centre of what the government is


trying to do. But we have to appreciate we have had a huge vote,


Brexit, very significant. You have a different chancellor, a different


Prime Minister. That hasn't happened before. The EU referendum gives


Theresa May free rein to disregard the manifesto of 2015, apart from


broad principles? The EU referendum has completely changed the context


in which government is operating. We have a series of challenging


negotiations ahead. It is absolutely fair to see a government with


different personnel have different emphases. You wouldn't expect


anything else. It is not as if we are following a cookbook recipe


rigidly in a nonreflective way. You have to have different people,


different personalities. The party evolves. What about the people who


voted Conservative because they like the look of the education bill,


which has now been dropped? You were elected to expand academy schools.


What mandate does the government now have? A couple of things. On the


education mandatory academies, that was announced in the budget this


year. Strangely. They all had to be by 2022. Nicky Morgan announced,


when she was Education Secretary before the referendum, that the


policy would be reversed. It was going to be watered down. It was


watered down to the point where people like you said it was a


U-turn. But the commitment was still there


in the manifesto, wasn't it? The second thing I want to say, after


I've been on this programme I'm going to come back to my


constituency surgery. None of them is going to mention the fact that


the manifesto commitments haven't been met on these things. Are you


sure? While much unless they've changed. He has primed them in


advance! Are usually get a list of what they are going to blog about.


None of them are saying, we are very upset with Theresa May because she's


not going to continue David Cameron's programme. What about


economic policy. You said that you are still broadly trying to tackle


the deficit. But the manifesto you were elected on clearly said, I am


quoting, the only way to keep our economy secure the future is to


eliminate the deficit entirely and start running a surplus, anything


less would be to ignore the lessons of the past, and the surplus was to


be removed into at the end of this Parliament, that is not going to


happen now, is it, with Philip Hammond's reset of the economy.


Philip Hammond has recognised the reality. I came in 2010, the plan at


that time was to reduce the deficit to something like ?20 billion by


2015. It's sad to say, but we missed every target in the last Parliament.


What Philip is saying is, there was no point in setting these targets


if, as in the last Parliament, we missed every single one. I think it


is a more responsible approach. But, you know, there has been a


significant shift in a number of policies. We could have included


Philip Hammond's plan to stop selling shares to avoid the bank to


the public. A much cooler at home to Northern Powerhouse, George


Osborne's baby. Going back on plans to curb junk food advertising as


part of the obesity strategy. People will be looking at this Government


and thinking, it is very different, this isn't exactly what I voted for.


Or are you saying, we've got a new leader, be loud and proud about it,


new leader, new policies, is that what was saying? We have a new


leader and new personalities and they have a slightly different


approach. Nobody is saying, I'm not going to break the these people


because they are not sticking to obesity strategy. Very few people


will be saying that. They recognise it as a Conservative government,


they look at Labour and the alternatives and say, no, thank you


very much. The polling suggests that Theresa May is enjoying a honeymoon


period. People are broadly supportive of what the Government is


trying to do. Are you effectively saying the manifesto isn't worth the


paper it is written on? No, what I'm saying is that if you have different


people and you have a seismic road like Brexit, it's not surprising to


see that a new leadership will have slightly different and this is


impolitic -- a seismic vote. Is perhaps the issue is to have another


general election, what do you think? I think Kwasi Kwarteng is absolutely


right. I speak not as a Tory supporter, but it is clear that the


Tories have a mandate at the moment, 40% in the polls, nobody thinks


there is any serious opposition. People who are really worried about


Brexit nevertheless do not think that any other party can takeover.


They do recognise that circumstances have changed. Whether there will be


another election is an interesting question. In many ways it would make


the reason may's wife a great deal easier if she did, with the


opposition in total disarray -- Theresa May's life. Reselection


coming up and internal rows in Labour, she would get in fact a


majority. On the other hand, we know she has said, I won't do this, I


have a mandate, will carry on. So far she has claimed that she wants


to keep her word. But the manifesto has changed. Why can't her word


change on Brexit? I think the reason may is a new Prime Minister, she is


clearing the way, she doesn't want to fight David Cameron's old baffles


or George Osborne's all battles on academies, she wants to clear the


field of battle because she is about to have a huge row over grammar


schools, she has the hammer that through the House. What does annoy


me a little bit about all of this is that when Theresa May stands up at


Tory Party conferences saying, we're going to reform capitalism and put


workers marching forwards towards Socialism together, you know! When


at Miliband even hinted that the things, people like Theresa May


stood up and said he was an economic threat to the nation committee is


dangerous, she should not be anywhere near the leaders of power.


Then they say it is all wonderful but so likes doing his policies.


People get sick of it. You know, politicians attacking others. That


is one of the classic divisions. Tories say, we're going to reform


capitalism, and people don't get along. They are the party of


capitalism, people assume they are not going to threaten it. It is only


maybe that could do things like reforming welfare and the NHS will


stop Iain Duncan Smith would have something to say about that! Labour


can do it with less criticism. That is the issue, you can always deal


more easily with things which are seen to be your natural territory


that you would defend, because people don't assume that you have


other territories. Your characterisation of the Prime


Minister's speech is exaggerated, I think! It was very much like


Miliband! She didn't say, let's march to socialism! Intervening in


the energy market was Miliband policy, workers on company boards,


Miliband policy, borrowing to invest, Ed Balls' policy. The Tories


hammered him for it. David Cameron and George Osborne were talking


about these things. They were talking about trying to make


capitalism there for a broader mass of people than just a few fat cats.


And thank goodness some people are finally starting to see that,


especially when the Brexit vote shows that people feel that


capitalism has treated them badly. Tory voters voted against those


policies are the last election. We have to leave it there. Kwasi


Kwarteng, thank you very much indeed.


There's going to be a parliamentary by-election


in Richmond, in West London, on the 1st of December.


But you've probably heard enough about that in recent days.


However, you probably haven't heard that there were three


These were not, of course, for Westminster, but


Labour held the ward of Rhyl West, in North Wales, and there were two


by-elections in Rother in East Sussex - the Conservatives


held Darwell, and Collington was gained by an Independent,


Well, some people think that these local by-elections are a good


indicator of the political parties' underlying electoral strength.


Since the local elections on 5th May, there have been 139 local


council by-elections held across England, Wales and Scotland.


So how have the parties been getting on?


The Conservatives have recorded a net loss of 14 seats.


It's bad news for Labour too - they're down eight.


Ukip aren't doing too well either - they've lost a total


But the Lib Dems, in stark contrast, have been doing very well.


And the Greens have gained one councillor.


To read the runes of these local election results, we've been joined


by Professor Tony Travers from Department of Government


Tony Travers, you are excited by all of this, I know! Bring your


excitement with you! There are local by-elections every Thursday almost


all year round. It's amazing what you learn! It looks like there is


one clear story coming out at least from this recent set. By-election


wins for the Dems. Are they on the up? Remember, almost all of these


elections will last when the Lib Dems were doing really badly during


the coalition or immediately afterwards on general election day


in 2015, it is a low base. On the other hand, they are doing much


better, better in these by-elections than in national opinion polls,


interestingly. But the other story of course is that Labour, as the


main opposition party, is really not doing well at all. So if you add it


all together, it does tell us something about the shifting sands


underneath what becomes national politics later on. We mentioned that


that Labour have lost eight councillors. The Conservatives have


lost 14. Are you saying that as part of the course for the government


party? The Conservatives have been in power for six and a half years


now, they are going in the midterm in the second time, you would expect


them to do badly in by-elections and local elections, that's what is


happening. Not bad badly, in fact, in a number of by-elections there is


a swing from Labour to the Conservatives underneath the overall


result. But the Labour, who have now been in opposition since 2010, they


really ought to be picking up not only in these local by-elections


week by week, but if you go back to the May elections, the local


elections this year, they didn't do nearly as well as an opposition


party should have done. One or two years after a general election. If


you add up the local election results, particularly once a year


when they take place altogether, there are Berry good indicators of


how well the party is likely to do at an election. That is the thing we


always look for, that read across from success in by-elections like


these across to the general election. For the Lib Dems, who are


placing so much store on these by-elections and indeed the


by-election coming up in Richmond, they were very pleased with their


results in Witney, have they got cause to not necessarily celebrate,


but to have a lot more optimism than they may have had before now? Well,


less pessimism, perhaps! LAUGHTER


In fairness to the Lib Dems, this is the way they built up. If you


remember, the Lib Dems did really badly in the 50s and 60s, there was


the old joke about how small the liberal conference was. Since then,


over 60s, 70s, 80s, they built up step-by-step, pavement politics, all


of that, they got to the point where in the 2010, after the 2010


election, there were enough of them with the Conservatives to form a


government. That proved the undoing because they were punished for that


in 2015. I suspect what we are seeing is the beginning of a gradual


build up step-by-step. The question is, how long will it take. The


by-election in Richmond-upon-Thames is Tripoli interesting, because


there is only things going on at once inside it -- Tripoli


interesting. Jenni and Harry, you will be watching that. Are you


anticipating, Jenni, that the Lib Dems could see an improvement? What


is your reading of things? The interesting question is whether it


becomes a referendum on Brexit rather than a referendum, which


Goldsmith hopes it is, on Heathrow. The problem for him is that he is


personally popular but his constituency voted heavily for


Remain. This is Zac Goldsmith who has stood down. In order to protest


about the Heathrow decision. But the one left-wing stance against him


from the Lib Dems and makes it a referendum on Brexit... A hefty


majority would overturn him. He has worked that seat for 12 years now


and built up a very strong database, I understand, of the voters and who


they are he is popular, got a whacking great majority. It is over


20,000? About 23,000. They need 17% to remain. The big test in this, can


Lib Dems drag off local issue? He has a local reputations is


officially enough to put trust in a candidate who no one has actually


heard of. Tony, what do you think? He's in a slightly difficult


position. I agree with all of that, but I think opposition parties will


try to say, vote against the Conservatives to show that we have


opposition. I think the problem the that Goldsmith, if he has a large


majority, if it were to fall, how would we read that -- the problem


for Zac Goldsmith. He is trying to campaign against the airport. If


that majority falls, which most people think it might, I'm not sure


that would look like a resounding win against the airport. Interesting


that you could have decided not to put up a candidate in that seat. --


that Ukip. How unusual is it for major parties to not field


candidates in important seats? It is an unusual circumstance, a


by-election, Jo Cox's seat was a different kind of case. I think it


is a usual, but normally in by-elections as you know, there are


17 or 18 candidates, including all of our old friends who stand in lots


of by-elections. It is an usual, but I think what in a sense Ukip are


doing here, Labour are thinking about this, whether they should make


this a fight perhaps about the EU, and about the referendum, and all of


that all over again. I think they are probably thinking, let's make


this as near as possible a binary choice. The question is, on what?


Thank you very much. Those questions will continue.


Now, how do you cut down your political enemies


Well, with the acerbic wit of a great political insult, of course.


But did Jeremy Corbyn's attempt at PMQs make the mark?


On Monday, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House,


and I quote, "We have a plan, which is not to set


out at every stage of the negotiation the details."


I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, Mr Speaker.


I think when you're searching for the real meaning


and the importance behind the Prime Minister's statement,


you have to consult the great philosophers.


The only one I can come up with, Mr Speaker, is Baldrick,


who says, "Our cunning plan is to have no plan!"


Tony Robinson afterwards said Baldrick means Baldrick!


Not perhaps the most effective political insult ever.


In fact, it doesn't make it into the Daily Politics'


At five, well, we had to start with Winston Churchill.


A politician whose stinging quips were nearly as good


His all-time classic has to be the one aimed at the Labour MP


Bessie Braddock, and what better way to come back when someone complains


how drunk you are - "Tomorrow I shall be sober,


In at number four, so who could cut Winston Churchill down to size?


David Lloyd George, of course, the man who steered Britain


He was talking about Churchill's reputation as a self-publicist,


when he suggested the British bulldog would make a drum out


of the skin of his own mother in order to sound his own praises.


At three, remember when Gordon Brown entered Number Ten with a reputation


for being a formidable Chancellor and everyone quite


Then came the election that never was and things


In the Commons, Vince Cable mercilessly summed up


The House has noticed the Prime Minister's remarkable


transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean.


In at two, they called it the Rose Garden love-in,


when Nick Clegg took the Liberal Democrats into Government.


But soon found himself getting all the blame and little credit.


People called the Lib Dems the Conservatives' human shield,


David Cameron's kind of lapdog-cum-protection device


for the more difficult things that David Cameron has to do.


But, taking the top spot this week, the best political insults


are the ones that do lasting political damage.


Michael Howard was Home Secretary in the 90s when he fell out badly


with his Prisons Minister, Ann Widdecombe.


She said he had "something of the night about him."


A reputation that stubbornly stuck with him, and duly cost him


And even when he did win the leadership six years


later, people were still banging on about it.


But Ann Widdecombe herself was a little coy when asked


What does "something of the night" mean?


I've just said to you, I don't really want


Something of the night. That was one of the great insult of our time. Do


you have a favourite? George Bush putting a silver foot in his mouth.


When the great history books are written about Brexit, I think people


will look back at Nigel Farage standing in the European Parliament


and summing of really what everyone thought was, who were these


unelected Eurocrats? A bit rude, but really, who are you? Eurocrats


nobody voted for. As with so many things in the anti-Europe campaign,


it was based on a total falsity. Was -- at the back of that shot was a


man with his head in his hand who turned out to be a trained cardiac


surgeon. These people had a real jobs. What about your favourite? The


brilliant politico and -- political insults and those that get the heart


of some weakness. Churchill said of Clement Attlee was a shebeen she's


clothing. Michael foot was called Worzel Gummidge. And when Michael


foot said of Norman Tebbit he was a semi-housetrained polecat, that lost


an image of Tebbit in the public mind. Churchill to Bessie Braddock,


that was not a need political insults, that was just a classic


sexist put down of the kind Donald Trump is engaged in. I don't think


it makes it into the top five political insults.


It's time now to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was, which of these is the most used political vine in the


UK? David Cameron is checking his tie before an interview. Is it Ed


Miliband looking moody, set to music? Or is it Michael Gove


clapping? The one that I would keep watching would be Michael blow. He


looks like a Thunderbird puppet. The seductive Ed Miliband. Do you think


there are dreamy girls who look at that? The answer is... Michael Gove.


I like Michael but that is a wonderful vine.


Coming up in a moment, it's our regular look at what's been


For now, it's time to say goodbye to Jenni and Harry.


So for the next half an hour, we're going to be focussing on Europe.


We'll be discussing trade deals, big companies' tax bills,


First though, here's our guide to the latest from Europe,


A trade deal between the EU and Canada is back on the table


after Belgian politicians agreed to last-minute concessions.


Canadian PM Justin Trudeau says he is confident


Meanwhile, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and Norway can


extend their use of border controls, which have been in place


since the summer to stem the flow of migrants.


Speaking of which, Italy may veto the EU budget unless other countries


PM Matteo Renzi said the likes of Hungary need to help out.


Big companies like Starbucks and Apple could be subject


to new EU-wide tax rules, which the Commission hopes should


stop them shifting their profits around to lessen their tax bill.


And the President of the European Parliament referred


the altercation between Ukip MEPs Mike Hookem and Steven Woolfe


Party leader Nigel Farage was not impressed.


This is completely political on behalf of the European Union.


Ive been joined by two MEPs, Patrick O'Flynn for Ukip,


Let's take a look at one of those stories in more detail -


the investigations into the altercation between Ukip MEPs


Let me ask you, Patrick O'Flynn, first of all, obviously there has


been an internal investigation by Ukip. Now we know that the president


of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, has reported the altercation


to the French state prosecutors because they watched alleged


criminal activity -- there was. Is that a good thing? Another thing


Martin Shields has done is prejudice any investigation by saying that in


the parliament he had no doubt about Steven Woolfe's allegations. I find


that very regrettable. I saw the preamble. If you read the party


chairman's report thoroughly, you will see that within the room there


was general understanding that Steven Woolfe had instigated this


altercation. There was an understanding that he had said,


let's take this outside and removed his jacket. Nobody knows what


happened between the men and whether a blow was delivered? That is right.


What we do know is that the next day in the Daily Mail there were quotes


from Mr Woolfe saying that Mike Hookem had got the wrong end of the


stick and he was not challenging him to an altercation. Within the room


that was completely understood. Their work shouts. You think you


represent -- reprimand from Mike Hookem is enough? Should there be


further investigation? It is quite astonishing that you have two grown


adults who are unable to reconcile their differences in a normal way.


If you have a criminal assault taking place, wherever it is,


allegedly, then it would seem normal that the authorities would want to


pursue potential prosecutions were proven to be something that would be


worthy of pursuing a prosecution on. Presumably we cannot leave it open


to individual political parties. What does it say about the behaviour


of your party at the European Parliament? The leader of the


centre-right party group said Ukip members were behaving like ruffians.


What it says about bus is absolutely nothing. After all, several Labour


MPs got sent to prison for embezzlement in the last parliament.


I would not dream of characterising them as a party and badgers. -- a


party of embezzlers. You are an argumentative party, aren't you? We


are a party of honest, free debate. But really, trying to characterise


physical altercations or invitations, as typical of what kind


of meetings we have in the European Parliament, I can assure you it is


absolutely a typical. I would like some recognition by Steven Woolfe of


personal responsibility and regret. You're prejudicing the outcome by


saying it is his fault, aren't you? No. Mike Hookem has apologised and


expressed regret. I think Steven Woolfe should do the same. You


supporting Suzanne Evans? I certainly am. Paul Nuttall, she and


he are close. What happens, would you switch allegiance? I'm


supporting Suzanne Evans. I think she should have been allowed to


stand in the last election. We have two high-calibre candidates. You


didn't fancy it yourself? I see my role as advising, perhaps a


spokesman, advising the leader, not actually being the leader. I have


seen the pressure Nigel Farage was placed under. The sheer intensity of


the job. That is not from me. After years of negotiations,


a trade deal between the EU and Canada is on the verge


of being approved by But it has been a bumpy few weeks


for the CETA trade agreement, with politicians in the Belgian


region of Wallonia refusing to agree to the deal until


the very last moment. Ellie Price reports


from Strasbourg. The problem is even caused Donald


Tusk to warn it could be the last EU trade deal.


Ellie Price reports from Strasbourg.


It has cast a cloud over the European Union.


A long heralded trade deal that has been agonisingly close,


Ceta has been seven years in the making.


Now, in order to get the go-ahead it needs the backing of all 28


And it's got the backing of 27 of them.


And specifically the southern part of Belgium, Wallonia.


Now, that is home to around 3.5 million people, which,


when you think about it, is quite a small proportion


The Wallonian regional government, headed up by Paul Magnette,


was worried about the implications on the environment, labour laws


Concerns shared by some MEPs, who say the stalling of the deal


I think that it is a good thing for the European Union,


Not each member state has got the same possibility.


And too often we see that our interests are not covered


Others aren't so against Ceta in principle, but say this


is the latest symptom of an anti-EU malaise, and must be addressed for


I do see that this adds up to crisis after crisis after crisis.


And people see again that the Council is not able


But on trade, at the same time you see there is a lot


of discussions and a lot of question marks in the NGO world,


in the unions, but also in the public opinion.


We needed to say stop and look at it fundamentally, and that's


But those supporting Ceta say the agreement would save EU


exporters 500 million euros per year, a good deal


And one that is being held up by a small minority.


But they say the fault lies with the Belgian constitution,


and a lack of compromise on the socialist left,


If there are a number of regions which have concerns then, yes,


we should go back to the table and check, is this


But after so many concerns have been solved, after we were able


to convince so many people who had concerns,


like the German Economic Minister and the Austrian Chancellor,


to only mention two of them, I think if they understood


what is Ceta about and what is Ceta not about, then also the region


of Belgium should be able to understand this.


There is renewed hope now that the deal will be signed


But those frustrated by the slow progress point out that Canada


is about as like-minded to most EU countries in terms of public


services and environmental concerns as you can get.


If the EU had such trouble making a deal work with Canada,


it may not bode well for trade agreements with other countries


The EU had hoped to unfurl its red carpet for Canadian Premier Justin


Trudeau this week so he could sign off the deal.


When he does finally make it over, it will be too late to stop


the questions over the EU's ability to negotiate


And we've been joined by Christophe Bondy,


a former trade advisor to the Canadian government,


who worked for many years on the Ceta trade deal.


You must be mopping job row in exasperation at what is happening!


Did you think it would be a little bit quicker than it has been? We've


been pursuing this agreement since 2009, diligently, and consulting


along the way. We understood when Europe decided this would be viewed


as a mixed agreement, there could be snags and it could require, because


it would require approval at member state level as well. I think we've


learned to be patient and I think it's bearing fruit. The final


last-minute changes still need to be approved by all the member states.


Do you share the Canadian Prime Minister's confidence that that will


happen? Yes, in fact there aren't last-minute changes right now. There


is an agreement between Belgium and the EU and the war you


administration -- and will only about certain steps. Those steps


were already understood. Things that were exclusively within the EU


competency would be provisionally entered into force, but other


elements would require further ratification. They've also requested


reference to the European court with regard to one aspect of the


agreement, the investment treaty dispute resolution system. But 90%


of the agreement will be entering provisionally into force once this


last approval goes through. Dragging it down to basics though, Wallonia


wanted guarantees that this deal would lead to privatisation and job


losses -- the deal would not. And it was almost derailed at the final


hour by a group of farmers. Are you surprise that a deal of this mag


dude could come down to such a tiny element potentially blocking get --


this magnitude. In trade agreements, usually one goes from the broader,


easier issues to the last knob issues, that happens in any


negotiation, in a sense that was a microcosm. Because the European


Union past summer, it gave member states the right to approve the


agreement as opposed to being approved at European level, it gave


power to the smaller sub regions to express concerns. Farming is very


important in Wallonia. They gave them the power and they exercised


it. Putting that point to you, Patrick O'Flynn, doesn't this add-in


to those concerns that people have had about the difficulties of


securing trade deals if you have to have widespread approval and one


tiny group in one country can offset a trade deal. It's not going to be


that easy, is it? I'd like to congratulate Christophe for


concluding this deal with the EU that doesn't have a requirement of


freedom of movement, which is the majority of such deals. But I think


you're wrong to draw a parallel to the United Kingdom's position and


Canada's. I think in round terms, Canada at the moment is


approximately a ?35 billion per year and export market -- 30 5 million


euros. The United Kingdom is a 350 million export market. My point is


that a deal can be derailed by the tiniest element. We cannot just


assume that these deals are going to be so easy to strike as we've been


told. It is true that the article 50 process could get complicated and


convoluted, which is why I would prefer something that I think John


Redmond and Peter Lilley have alluded to, sort of looking in the


eyeball and say, we are quite happy to carry on with free trade, or we


will move to the WTO regime. There was a reporter at the beginning of


the week that made clear that if we moved to the WTO regime or exporters


would face ?5.2 billion worth of tariffs. But the United Kingdom


would raise theirs. Or 10% tariffs on the car industry. Our car


industry is the Nissan deal, we are very confident about the continued


good place to be to produce motorcars in the United Kingdom. Is


this a moment for the EU to think about streamlining its processors


when it comes to striking trade deals? I think there will be a lot


of questions raised about how we can make it more efficient and speed it


up. But ultimately, a lot of the process so much criticism that has


been levelled at the EU has been about the lack of democracy and


ability for people to have a say about big issues like trade. And


here we have, like Tuesday, a bunch of farmers, but ultimately be pulled


a key stake on the the outcome of a deal. People who were worried about


their livelihoods. Exactly, and the democratic structure has allowed at.


Ultimately that is something that ought to be welcomed by those who


are calling for increased parliamentary democracy within the


EU structures. I mean, they exist and they are implemented. The


International Trade Secretary here, Liam Fox, said that a trade deal


during article 52 year negotiation process requires only a qualified


majority -- the article 52 year negotiation process. But it could be


subjected to the same problem? Would have to be approved by all the


individual member states? The issue with modern trade agreements is


that, unlike old school trade agreements that deal with tariffs


and goods, these agreements are much more complex on the issue at


European level is that they spill over from purely European to member


state competency, which requires consultation and approval at times


for those of aspect of the deal. So, you know, I don't want the deal to


be struck between Britain and the EU, but in any kind of agreement


that the EU is going to be pursuing, it is going to shut on more than


just the core trade issues like tariffs. I think it's going to like


we were acquired -- likely require certainly larger consultation, and


broad approval processes. People might wonder if the EU card make a


deal with Canada, who can it make a deal with? Trade deals right now,


and this deal with Canada had it in mind, people have certainly become


much more aware of, oh, the broad range of issues that are raised in


these agreements. They deal not only with tariffs, but also trade in


services, regulatory Corporation. They don't force any regulatory


change. They just engage different economic spheres in conversation to


see if those regulatory barriers can be smoothed over three neutral


discussions. So go through mutual discussions. They don't force


privatisation either. There are a lot of misconceptions. I think a lot


of those discussions are taking place around Ceuta, and hopefully


going forward the general public will have a better sense of what


they actually entail and they will be more confident. Certainly in


Canada right now, there is a broad debate about the link between trade


and the social agenda, to help people understand and be confident


about the future, because they know that that trade agenda is also


linked to a broader system of support. So maybe make these trade


deals, explain them a little bit more before they go through this


process. Christophe Bondy, thank you.


Now, this week MEPs demanded an increase to the EU's budget


At more than 160 billion euros, it's an increase on last year.


But concern is also growing about a possible shortfall this


year, with the slump in sterling's exchange rate meaning the UK's


contribution is worth almost 2 billion euros less than forecast.


Ellie Price has been talking to German MEP Jens Geier,


who is leading the budget negotiations on behalf


She began by asking him why MEPs are asking


We are not asking for more money, we are asking for sufficient money


in order to fulfil what member states demand from


You cannot really make working for jobs and growth and trying


to cope with the migration crisis a priority and then do not handle it


like a priority in terms of giving sufficient means.


One of the problems you face is the weaker pound.


Obviously that is lowering the contributions that


How much of a problem is that for you, and what are


So the exchange rate on which the contributions


from Great Britain are measured is set on the 31st of December 2015.


And after the Brexit, as you perfectly know,


So now it costs return 10% more in pound sterling


to fulfil its obligations in euros, and that creates a deficit.


So we cannot close the budget here with red figures.


The Commission now calculates the deficit as 1.8 billion euros.


And there are three possibilities to cover that, and none of them


First, ask the British for more money.


Second, ask the other member states to cover


And third, let's find money in the European budget.


We have some time to go until the end of the year,


so maybe the British, the pound sterling recovers


a little bit, maybe there is more finance coming in.


But it would cover today about two thirds of it.


I could imagine some sort of burden sharing between the UK


Britain will leave the EU in just over two years' time, and take


Well, it will go along with the renegotiation


And that will mean that all what the EU is giving money


for is renegotiated, every contribution is renegotiated,


in terms of paying and in terms of getting the money.


So it would be a perfect possibility to just recalculate what does


the European member states want from the EU, how much money


they are ready to give, and how would be the burden sharing


So my feeling is it might be a little bit more for some,


So it could mean a major overhaul, essentially?


So Britain's leaving the EU will have a major impact


No, not so much, don't take it so serious!


Seb Dance laid out some possible scenarios. Ask Britain for more


money, get the EU nations to cover, or take money out of the EU budget.


What do you think it should be? It remains to be seen what collectively


will be seen as the best of those three options. What do you think?


Nobody wants to pay in more money. In the European Parliament, we voted


not to increase the budget because we don't believe that we should be


paying more money in real terms into the budget at this point. But I mean


obviously when we have a situation when the pound has lost so much in


its value internationally, you know, there is a lot of currency


volatility around. When that exchange rate is set, it inevitably


means that our contributions will go up if we just stick with the current


contributions. And that obviously is a problem that Brexit has posed, the


level of volatility is such that we can't be sure about what our


contributions will be. Patrick, on a point of principle, should the UK


rather than EU member states make up the rest was brought no, of course


it, some of this budget should be brought back. SAP says his -- Seb


Dance says his group voted not the increases, we voted for cuts,


cutting the salaries, allowances and travel expenses of MEPs which Mr


Schultz ruled out of order. There are so many useless things. Youth


clubs in Azerbaijan, combating hate speech in the Middle East. This is a


bloated organisation that cannot pay its bills. If you blame others for


their spending priorities, Howard and earth do you shift the focus on


them to choose one of those options which is to get us to pay more?


Ultimately they are not going to share the burden if we treat the


European Union in the way that you are suggesting. I mean, you have to


work constructively with partners, you have to work as an engaged


partner in a Single Market, as you will remember, as we still are, of


course. It would seem as an obvious point that if we want their goodwill


in the forthcoming negotiations, simply criticising them for their


current spending allocations is not going to... We pay more at every


turn. We pay 1.8 million bought just because of our economy. Thank


goodness we're leaving stop my final word from Patrick O'Flynn. Thank you


very much indeed.


Download Subtitles