:00:37. > :00:40.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:43.Brexit will cost the UK economy almost ?60 billion,
:00:44. > :00:46.according to figures unveiled by the Chancellor yesterday,
:00:47. > :00:50.but have forecasters taken too gloomy a view of the UK's ability
:00:51. > :00:56.Thomas Mair was given a whole life sentence by a judge
:00:57. > :01:00.at the Old Bailey yesterday for the brutal murder of MP Jo Cox,
:01:01. > :01:06.but is enough being done to combat far-right extremism?
:01:07. > :01:08.Donald Trump says he'll scrap a Pacific Trade deal on the first
:01:09. > :01:15.So will President Trump use hard - rather than soft -
:01:16. > :01:18.power to restrain the growing power of China?
:01:19. > :01:23.It was the Shadow Chancellor's big moment at the despatch box yesterday
:01:24. > :01:27.and Labour MPs were transfixed - by their mobile phones.
:01:28. > :01:35.Have they got something to learn about mobile phone etiquette?
:01:36. > :01:46.And with us for the whole of the programme today is a purveyor
:01:47. > :01:48.of what's been described as the "dismal science",
:01:49. > :01:52.Now, the Government has been defending the economic forecasts
:01:53. > :01:56.that were used in yesterday's Autumn Statement.
:01:57. > :01:59.The forecasts were produced by the independent Office
:02:00. > :02:02.for Budget Responsibility - and they think that the Government
:02:03. > :02:05.will have to borrow billions more because of the Brexit vote.
:02:06. > :02:07.But that view has been condemned as far too gloomy
:02:08. > :02:11.by Brexit-supporting MPs and economists.
:02:12. > :02:14.So let's remind ourselves what we learnt yesterday,
:02:15. > :02:19.when the Chancellor Philip Hammond got to the despatch box.
:02:20. > :02:24.Between now and 2021, the Government is forecast
:02:25. > :02:27.to borrow ?122 billion more than was originally predicted back
:02:28. > :02:35.Nearly half of that extra borrowing, ?58.7 billion, is due
:02:36. > :02:43.That's because of economic factors like lower migration
:02:44. > :02:46.and higher inflation which, the OBR says, are linked to Brexit.
:02:47. > :02:52.All that extra borrowing is obviously going to mean more debt.
:02:53. > :02:54.The public finances are forecast to be nearly ?2 trillion
:02:55. > :03:02.The debt-to-GDP ratio is also heading upwards.
:03:03. > :03:05.It's set to peak at 90.2% in the next financial year,
:03:06. > :03:13.And Philip Hammond said that the Government will now get rid
:03:14. > :03:15.of the deficit "as soon as practicable" in
:03:16. > :03:19.Philip Hammond has been talking about those forecasts this morning.
:03:20. > :03:26.There are lots of uncertainties in the world and economic
:03:27. > :03:28.forecasters have to try and make forecasts, notwithstanding
:03:29. > :03:35.Our job is to respond to the forecasts and,
:03:36. > :03:38.as I tried to do yesterday, to set out a path that builds
:03:39. > :03:42.on the strengths of our economy, that invests in the future,
:03:43. > :03:45.but also puts a little bit aside, creates a little bit
:03:46. > :03:48.of reserve firepower, just in case things do
:03:49. > :03:52.So that the Government is there and able to step
:03:53. > :04:05.We're joined now by Patrick Minford - of Economists for Brexit.
:04:06. > :04:16.And shortly by the Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, and the Shadow Chief
:04:17. > :04:21.Secretary to the Treasur, Rebecca Long Bailey, who is here.
:04:22. > :04:26.You'll have to borrow around ?60 billion according to the OBR, you'd
:04:27. > :04:31.think that number is wrong, what in your mind is the correct figure? It
:04:32. > :04:36.is less because Brexit will cause higher and not lower growth because
:04:37. > :04:41.of the policies of free-trade being pursued by the Government with
:04:42. > :04:48.respect to the rest of the world and the EU. That is the big error in the
:04:49. > :04:51.OBR's forecast, figure at the trade policy is wrong and have assumed
:04:52. > :04:57.that trade policies and the effects of uncertainty, which has already
:04:58. > :05:02.been disproved by the very strong reactions of GDP in the second and
:05:03. > :05:07.third quarter of the year which came in strongly and well above the
:05:08. > :05:12.Treasury's on forecasts. On the trade steals, you say in the
:05:13. > :05:15.long-term, Deluxe set they could be right over the next five years
:05:16. > :05:21.that's because of Brexit, there could be a case of borrowing ?60
:05:22. > :05:26.billion to compensate while we leave the EU and in the long term, you are
:05:27. > :05:32.right and the money will be made up? Not really, they have assumed the
:05:33. > :05:35.long-term effects of ex-expectations in the short term through investment
:05:36. > :05:41.cost of spending falling, and that outcomes. Of that, they have put
:05:42. > :05:47.this uncertainty effect for which there is no basis and having assumed
:05:48. > :05:49.the exchange rate to drop instead of stimulating the economy, dump is
:05:50. > :05:56.great in the economy, which is against what we know from modelling
:05:57. > :06:00.practice and evidence. Linda Yueh, Dupree, have the OBR got it wrong?
:06:01. > :06:06.They did not have much to work with because they did not have that much
:06:07. > :06:11.from the Government in the first place -- do you agree. OBR forecasts
:06:12. > :06:17.have been wrong in the past so could Patrick be right or is the OBR
:06:18. > :06:21.right? I think the OBR forecast is in line with other forecasts, the
:06:22. > :06:24.Bank of England, the International monetary fund is, they see a
:06:25. > :06:31.negative hit from Brexit because of uncertainty. The difficulty of
:06:32. > :06:36.assessing it is this, I treat uncertainty different than you. So
:06:37. > :06:40.if you supported, let's not use Brexit, let's use kittens versus
:06:41. > :06:44.poppies. He would be much more enthusiastic if you got your way but
:06:45. > :06:48.businesses are cutting back on investment and they are worried
:06:49. > :06:52.about the economic uncertainty so in that respect, I think the OBR has
:06:53. > :06:57.set out almost a worst-case scenario about a permanent hit the growth
:06:58. > :07:01.taking growth to just over 2% over the next 3-5 years. As they say, a
:07:02. > :07:05.lot of the forecasts are wrong because it is hard to forecast
:07:06. > :07:09.period when you do not know the Government's plans. And the
:07:10. > :07:15.Government agrees, they say you might have to take them forecasts
:07:16. > :07:18.broadly and they did not use the expression a pinch of salt but they
:07:19. > :07:23.did say it could be the worst case scenario. Are you just upset as many
:07:24. > :07:28.supporting Brexit are because you think the Bank of England as the OBR
:07:29. > :07:33.are part of the Pro-remain establishment? Yes, I do and they
:07:34. > :07:37.fought against Brexit and they are fighting for a soft Brexit. The
:07:38. > :07:44.Chancellor is fighting for a soft Brexit and that tells you the
:07:45. > :07:48.uncertainty is spurious. If we go for a soft Brexit, we will have the
:07:49. > :07:53.status quo which leaves growth exactly where it would have been,
:07:54. > :07:58.and a hard Brexit leads to free trade which is a good long-term
:07:59. > :08:02.boost to the economy. As every schoolboy and first-year economics
:08:03. > :08:06.student knows. Uncertainty is all positive here. Let's ask this
:08:07. > :08:12.economics student here, I do not know if you are! Is a soft Brexit
:08:13. > :08:16.gloom and doom and a hard Brexit on leases the UK economy and the
:08:17. > :08:22.free-trade deals? I am an engineer, not an economist! My view is that of
:08:23. > :08:29.the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, let's be prudent here.
:08:30. > :08:33.Forecast. As the OBR right? No, they forecasts and you forecast a
:08:34. > :08:35.worst-case scenario. They do not know what deal we will get and I
:08:36. > :08:39.think the Prime Minister will negotiate a good deal and forecasts
:08:40. > :08:44.will have to be adjusted. It is right for Phillip Hammond to be
:08:45. > :08:53.prudent, which is why he is talking about a ?20 billion the structure
:08:54. > :08:57.and productive fund. What about a 100 Dorien pound fund? We are being
:08:58. > :09:02.prudent and running a deficit of 2% beyond 2020. I think that is what
:09:03. > :09:07.business expects to hear, what boardrooms around the country expect
:09:08. > :09:12.to hear, a chance for and Prime Minister that are realistic and will
:09:13. > :09:16.do what is best for the country. -- Chancellor. The Autumn Statement was
:09:17. > :09:20.to make sure we have a country that is fit for purpose, to deal with us
:09:21. > :09:25.coming out of the EU and negotiate the best deal. We will see if the
:09:26. > :09:28.country is that because one of the things that has been levelled
:09:29. > :09:33.justifiably is what has happened is the prudent? There is nothing
:09:34. > :09:37.prudent, you will borrow ?122 billion more, the deficit is still
:09:38. > :09:45.there and will remain beyond 2020. There was a promise in the Tory
:09:46. > :09:48.manifesto to deal the debt, which will now be ?2 trillion by 2020,
:09:49. > :09:51.there is nothing prudent about what this Government is doing all the
:09:52. > :09:55.Autumn Statement. The lending markets, Linda will talk about that,
:09:56. > :10:02.will decide if he is being prudent, I think he is very prudent... What
:10:03. > :10:06.is prudent about ?122 billion extra borrowing that George Osborne said
:10:07. > :10:10.would not and should not happen? Maybe it is right to borrow this
:10:11. > :10:14.amount, are you happy those are the figures and the debt will spiral to
:10:15. > :10:21.nearly ?2 trillion? It is what you are borrowing to do the money...
:10:22. > :10:24.Investing in infrastructure, assets for UK pillows -- assets for UK plc
:10:25. > :10:29.is good and bringing down the deficit to 2% is the right thing to
:10:30. > :10:33.do. I think the markets will look at that as a prudent decision by the
:10:34. > :10:40.Chancellor and Prime Minister. The Labour to say we can borrow ?500
:10:41. > :10:44.billion, they need to explain that not only to the Houses of Parliament
:10:45. > :10:48.and to the markets. How can you bring down the deficit to 2%? You
:10:49. > :10:53.say you want to balance the books, how? If the debt is ?2 trillion and
:10:54. > :10:57.Labour wins the election and you will add another ?500 billion in
:10:58. > :11:00.infrastructure spending, how do you balance the books? It is interesting
:11:01. > :11:04.you should mention the borrowing, the figures you have just shown that
:11:05. > :11:12.the Government is about to run a cumulative deficit of 122 billion by
:11:13. > :11:16.2021 and they have links that directly to Brexit. The rest is
:11:17. > :11:20.attributable to mismanagement of the economy and the mood has not
:11:21. > :11:24.invested in infrastructure to the levels we need, and skills and
:11:25. > :11:27.education, the building blocks required to increase productivity.
:11:28. > :11:32.How to ?500 billion helped to bring down the deficit and the debt? That
:11:33. > :11:36.is the figure put forward by the CBI, think tanks such as the Policy
:11:37. > :11:41.Exchange, as the number required to put us on a level footing with other
:11:42. > :11:45.countries across the world. How does that help to bring down the debt? It
:11:46. > :11:49.creates high skilled, highly paid jobs to return higher tax receipts
:11:50. > :11:53.so the Treasury in the long term provides businesses with the
:11:54. > :11:58.opportunity to grow their operations and diversify so that they again
:11:59. > :12:03.campaign more in terms of taxes. That leads to increased public
:12:04. > :12:08.spending figures. So you are trying to aim, Labour, with smaller money,
:12:09. > :12:11.because you have admitted you should spend more on infrastructure and
:12:12. > :12:15.grow the economy and you are catching up after George Osborne,
:12:16. > :12:20.having choked on consumer demand to a certain expense is not paid down
:12:21. > :12:24.the deficit. Now you are spending on infrastructure and it is a drop in
:12:25. > :12:30.the ocean. George Osborne brought down... He has not eliminated it. By
:12:31. > :12:37.two thirds. It allows us to be in a place where the country is fit for
:12:38. > :12:40.purpose to invest in the programme of 23 billion in productivity. I
:12:41. > :12:45.spent a year as the previous premise to's adviser on apprenticeships to
:12:46. > :12:49.talk about the skills agenda. We have pioneered that, 3 million
:12:50. > :12:54.apprenticeships by the start of this Parliament. 2.3 billion in the last
:12:55. > :12:57.Parliament invested in apprenticeships including degree
:12:58. > :13:00.apprenticeships. So the high skilled, high investment is coming
:13:01. > :13:05.from a Conservative Government being prudent and the markets will reward
:13:06. > :13:08.us for this prudence. Should the Conservative Party apologised to the
:13:09. > :13:11.British public for failing to get rid of the deficit and for the
:13:12. > :13:16.spiralling debt? I don't agree with you, I think the Chancellor has to
:13:17. > :13:21.do what is necessary for the country, things have changed. We
:13:22. > :13:26.have had a Brexit vote. Do you blame Brexit for this extra ?60 billion
:13:27. > :13:33.that the OBR says the country has the borrow? No, is we have to act in
:13:34. > :13:37.a way like any steward of any plc, make sure that the country is bit to
:13:38. > :13:41.take on the challenges of the future. The current forecasts from
:13:42. > :13:44.the OBR gives you the numbers you have rehearsed with Patrick Minford
:13:45. > :13:49.but that could be wrong because the premise is fighting for a good deal.
:13:50. > :13:54.Let's go back to Patrick, you have said this morning the OBR is wrong
:13:55. > :13:59.to assume a spending slowdown, due to lower migration. But during the
:14:00. > :14:02.referendum campaign, that was one of the centrepieces, lower migration.
:14:03. > :14:08.One of the main arguments for Brexit. I had a discussion with you
:14:09. > :14:11.about it as I recall and I pointed out on skilled migration caused
:14:12. > :14:16.negative effects for our growth because it cost so much in terms of
:14:17. > :14:20.welfare. That is really the focus of the referendum campaign. It was not
:14:21. > :14:26.on skilled migration but migration of unskilled workers. But lower
:14:27. > :14:31.migration numbers. Yes, but the point about the OBR's forecasts, if
:14:32. > :14:35.they talk about constraining on skilled migration, that would have
:14:36. > :14:39.given them a plus and not a minus. So the whole point is that there is
:14:40. > :14:44.nothing wrong with the prudence of the Chancellor, what is wrong is the
:14:45. > :14:47.negative tone he has taken over Brexit, where he is in charge of
:14:48. > :14:52.policy with the Government and are committed to giving the best
:14:53. > :14:59.policies. Free trade and so forth including controlling on skilled
:15:00. > :15:02.migration which creates a negative. The turn that into a positive. What
:15:03. > :15:05.the problem is, the tone of this Autumn Statement is totally negative
:15:06. > :15:10.in the most crucial area which is Brexit policy. That is a real crime
:15:11. > :15:16.by the Chancellor. So not just the OBR, in your mind. He did not have
:15:17. > :15:18.to accept the OBR. They are the independent OBR and the Government's
:15:19. > :15:37.independent armour. He could have said I am not -1
:15:38. > :15:41.Brexit, we will pursue the policies that will be good for this country.
:15:42. > :15:48.He has confidence in that. Instead of which he said it is going to be
:15:49. > :15:50.bad and I'm going to be prudent. Let's move on because there was
:15:51. > :15:57.another area where many people feel it was negative, in terms of
:15:58. > :16:00.people's prospects, and that is the JAMs, the term for people just about
:16:01. > :16:03.managing. Theresa May said they would be a government for everyone
:16:04. > :16:06.but let's have a look at some of the figures because the Resolution
:16:07. > :16:12.foundation have looked at the effect of the Autumn Statement on a typical
:16:13. > :16:16.family. Policies like free childcare are raising the tax threshold would
:16:17. > :16:24.save those families ?190 a year, plus 190.
:16:25. > :16:33.But they will lose ?1970 come as though a net loss of ?1780. There it
:16:34. > :16:37.is, black and white. Those families will be worse off. They will be a
:16:38. > :16:43.lot worse. Nothing about helping the people who are just managing. Well,
:16:44. > :16:48.we have not looked at freezing fuel duties, many of those families will
:16:49. > :16:52.save money. It is not going to make ?1780. But you can't select --
:16:53. > :16:56.selectively choose something and say that is the number when you have not
:16:57. > :17:03.taken the whole of the Autumn Statement, including the freeze on
:17:04. > :17:06.fuel duties, relief on council tax, affordable housing, all of these
:17:07. > :17:10.things will make a difference. The net effect on those types of
:17:11. > :17:16.families, those are the figures. They will be losing ?1780. You want
:17:17. > :17:20.to put in your frozen fuel Judeo can take it down a little bit more come
:17:21. > :17:24.but they are not being helped. Whichever way you cut it, Nadhim
:17:25. > :17:28.Zahawi, they are losing. Over the past six years of you look at who
:17:29. > :17:31.has shouldered the large burden in terms of both wage increase, so
:17:32. > :17:34.those people have seen their wages go up, because of the national
:17:35. > :17:38.living wage, which is going up in April against a ?7 50, worth
:17:39. > :17:43.reminding of that, if you take the last six years, the wealthiest
:17:44. > :17:47.people in our country has shouldered the largest burden of the belt
:17:48. > :17:52.tightening we have had to take since the crash of 2008-9. That is the
:17:53. > :17:56.difference. You are looking at a single year and saying the numbers
:17:57. > :18:00.look like they are not doing... But the Chancellor has tried to help
:18:01. > :18:04.because of the move on universal benefits, universal credit, that is
:18:05. > :18:08.actually helped. A little bit. The move on universal credit will soften
:18:09. > :18:14.the blow, it is no way going to reverse the cuts. I must come to
:18:15. > :18:19.Rebecca. People who have shouldered the greatest responsibility to get
:18:20. > :18:22.the economy back on its feet are the wealthiest in our country, any
:18:23. > :18:25.economist will tell you that. So now you are going to hit the one to
:18:26. > :18:31.answer well. The figures speak for themselves. Rebecca, when with
:18:32. > :18:35.Labour eradicated episode? We would have taken very different decisions
:18:36. > :18:41.to this government. We certainly would not have made cuts to the most
:18:42. > :18:46.wealthiest in society's taxes, in terms of inheritance tax, capital
:18:47. > :18:51.gains tax. We would have invested in our economy. So when would you have
:18:52. > :18:56.eradicated the deficit? We have a fiscal credibility rule that has
:18:57. > :19:03.been put together by world leading economists, and over five years we
:19:04. > :19:05.would separate topic spinning and capital spending. The rolling
:19:06. > :19:11.deficit-reduction plans, so when would it be react -- eradicated?
:19:12. > :19:17.Within a period of five years, by the end of the next parliament after
:19:18. > :19:21.we had taken over, yes. So 2025? Guess, unless there were situations
:19:22. > :19:27.through the world economically, extremely adverse conditions. Do you
:19:28. > :19:30.agree on having an overall cap on welfare spending? I think the cap
:19:31. > :19:35.that the government has so far is not productive at all. I don't think
:19:36. > :19:39.the decisions the government have been made have been morally correct.
:19:40. > :19:44.Would there be a cat, with Labour would you cap the overall spend on
:19:45. > :19:47.welfare? We are against the welfare cap generally that we would have the
:19:48. > :19:50.USS welfare spend because you wanted to be there for everybody, to make
:19:51. > :19:54.sure everybody pays their fair share, but equally want to make sure
:19:55. > :19:58.people have enough to live on. So sounds like you are not in favour of
:19:59. > :20:02.having a cap. At the same time he would make sure you had a housing
:20:03. > :20:05.system where rents went sky high and people could afford to live, where
:20:06. > :20:10.people could afford to buy their own homes. Everyone would agree with
:20:11. > :20:15.that, at some stage you might be asked to put a cap on spending full
:20:16. > :20:21.stop Linda Yueh, back on the Brexit point, you think Patrick Minford,
:20:22. > :20:25.his argument, the reason he is so annoyed, is based also the fact that
:20:26. > :20:30.the pro-Remain camp -- pro Remain camp argued so this firstly that
:20:31. > :20:35.there would be an immediate recession, and immediate crash in
:20:36. > :20:38.terms of economic perspective it hasn't happened? Yes, and I think
:20:39. > :20:42.that is probably when the Remain camp oversold how confident they
:20:43. > :20:45.could be about economic forecasts and assessments. But I think it
:20:46. > :20:48.doesn't change the longer term point, which is it is going to be
:20:49. > :20:52.years before we know what our relationship with the rest of the
:20:53. > :20:57.world is, and our growth depends a great deal on getting into other
:20:58. > :21:00.markets. So we use the term free trade a lot but free trade is not
:21:01. > :21:03.free full stop you cannot get into a market unless you have an agreement
:21:04. > :21:07.open at market, and that is why most economists would say we have now
:21:08. > :21:10.entered a period of economic uncertainty and it is going to be
:21:11. > :21:14.harder to get us back to where we are. But that's not the same thing
:21:15. > :21:18.as saying obviously that immediately we will lose half a million jobs,
:21:19. > :21:23.which I always thought was, you can't be too confident in any of
:21:24. > :21:25.these economic assessments. CHUCKLING
:21:26. > :21:29.All right, Patrick Minford, I will have to say goodbye to you and
:21:30. > :21:36.Nadhim Zahawi and Rebecca Long Bailey, thank you all of you.
:21:37. > :21:41.What was Nigel Farage photographed with last night
:21:42. > :21:44.Was it - a) Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka?
:21:45. > :21:49.Or d) A recently acquired American passport?
:21:50. > :21:53.At the end of the show, Linda will give us
:21:54. > :21:59.Now the something altogether different and a lot more serious.
:22:00. > :22:01.Yesterday, Thomas Mair was convicted of the brutal murder
:22:02. > :22:06.He was given a whole life sentence for his crime.
:22:07. > :22:09.Only a Home Secretary can agree to his release from prison,
:22:10. > :22:11.because of the "exceptional seriousness" of the crime.
:22:12. > :22:13.The judge said that he was inspired by admiration for Nazis
:22:14. > :22:15.and similar anti-democratic white supremacist creeds.
:22:16. > :22:17.The Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, was asked
:22:18. > :22:23.about Thomas Mair's conviction this morning.
:22:24. > :22:26.I think all of us - and it isn't just politicians,
:22:27. > :22:28.it's the whole of society now - have to look at how
:22:29. > :22:38.Yes, some of the violent nature of our politics at the moment.
:22:39. > :22:46.Jo's was a terrible extreme example, but if you look at the abuse that
:22:47. > :22:49.some people have suffered - in the past, we've had it,
:22:50. > :22:54.Not just against migrants, but we've had hate crime rise
:22:55. > :22:59.And so I think what we have to be careful about in all walks
:23:00. > :23:02.of life now is to see how we can unite people.
:23:03. > :23:04.And even on this Brexit vote, you know, it's divided society,
:23:05. > :23:11.We're joined now by the Labour MP and chair of the Home
:23:12. > :23:14.Affairs Select Committee, Yvette Cooper.
:23:15. > :23:23.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Would you describe the murder of Jo Cox as
:23:24. > :23:28.a terrorist incident? Guess, I think so. It was a political assassination
:23:29. > :23:31.and as much a terrorist act as other kinds of either far right extremism
:23:32. > :23:36.or Islamist extremism, and we should face that is what it was. Jo Cox was
:23:37. > :23:40.murdered because of her views, because of what she believed in and
:23:41. > :23:46.it was a deliberate attempt to pursue a political agenda. Now
:23:47. > :23:50.actually I think, as Jo's husband Brendan Cox said yesterday, it is
:23:51. > :23:54.also an attack that failed in its terrorist objectives, because what
:23:55. > :23:58.it led to was the huge outpouring across West Yorkshire and across the
:23:59. > :24:02.country of support not just for Jo and her family but for a lot of the
:24:03. > :24:06.ideas that she stood for as well. Right, so you dismiss the idea that
:24:07. > :24:11.he was in some way a lone wolf? I mean he was a loan move, that
:24:12. > :24:15.inspired by the ideology you have outlined -- he was a lone wolf. Do
:24:16. > :24:22.you think at the time some politicians and campaigners were
:24:23. > :24:25.accused of trying to politicise Jo's murder? We were right in the middle
:24:26. > :24:31.of that frenetic campaign. Do you think somehow there was hate whipped
:24:32. > :24:34.up by the EU referendum campaign? I think you have two separate out the
:24:35. > :24:38.referendum itself, and the way in which people behave around it,
:24:39. > :24:43.because it has to be legitimate to have referenda, to have proper
:24:44. > :24:47.public debates and arguments about things in a democracy. That is what
:24:48. > :24:53.the Moxey is all about. What I think Thomas Mair added, though, was an
:24:54. > :24:56.assault on democracy, an attack on obviously a democratically elected
:24:57. > :25:00.member of Parliament but it was an assault on democracy, not an
:25:01. > :25:03.expression of democracy, which is what the referendum was all about.
:25:04. > :25:11.We have been looking at issues around hate crime in Taiwan, and
:25:12. > :25:14.some of the escalation of hate crime, and reports of hate crime in
:25:15. > :25:19.the run-up to and immediately after the referendum and concerns people
:25:20. > :25:22.have raised about the way in which some people were whipping up hatred
:25:23. > :25:27.is part of the campaign. That is separate, I think, from the fact of
:25:28. > :25:31.having a referendum itself. OK, because you talked about the day
:25:32. > :25:36.afterwards on the today programme, the day after Jo Cox was murdered
:25:37. > :25:42.about the vitriol in the campaign and the nasty this, but do you think
:25:43. > :25:45.that is the sort of thing that led someone like Thomas Mair to carry
:25:46. > :25:49.out something they had perhaps been thinking about for a long time? It
:25:50. > :25:54.was clear with Thomas Mair that he had been investigating far right
:25:55. > :25:59.extremist websites, white supremacists, neo-Nazi, really vile
:26:00. > :26:05.ideology for a very long time. One of the groups that gave evidence to
:26:06. > :26:10.our select committee said, hope not hate, they said it was not that
:26:11. > :26:14.these sorts of political events increased the number of people who
:26:15. > :26:24.expressed hatred, but that those who were already may be extreme racists
:26:25. > :26:27.all advocates of violence somehow became involved in, and there is a
:26:28. > :26:31.difference between those two, but it shows we have to be vigilant and
:26:32. > :26:35.stand up for that. Do you think politicians have not been vigilant
:26:36. > :26:38.enough, because there has been a lot of talk and coverage about the risks
:26:39. > :26:46.of Islamic terrorism and ideology poisoning the minds of young
:26:47. > :26:49.Muslims, but has the threat been completely underestimated?
:26:50. > :26:53.Interestingly, this is the third violent attack in recent years,
:26:54. > :26:59.because there was the attack in North Wales, an attempt to behead
:27:00. > :27:03.someone by a far right extremist, and also the murder of Mohammed
:27:04. > :27:07.Salim, who was murdered simply for being Muslim, again by a far right
:27:08. > :27:10.extremist. So I think we have to take these attacks extremely
:27:11. > :27:14.seriously, and it is right that the police should do so as part of
:27:15. > :27:18.preventing extremism as well. Of course, these are crimes, which
:27:19. > :27:21.would be tried and prosecuted anyway, but in terms of the spread
:27:22. > :27:25.of an ideology driving those sorts of crimes, has that been
:27:26. > :27:29.underestimated? Some of the figures from Prevent, the government's
:27:30. > :27:32.counter radicalisation strategy, are saying that in certain parts of the
:27:33. > :27:38.country that actually the rise, there has been a significant
:27:39. > :27:43.increase in far right extremist either attacks were protests, and
:27:44. > :27:47.they are growing. Nationwide they still say Islamic terrorism is the
:27:48. > :27:52.bigger problem but perhaps this has been overlooked. And it is in
:27:53. > :27:57.particular areas as well. Small, very nasty groups of neo-Nazi
:27:58. > :28:01.organisations as well. And small organisations in different parts of
:28:02. > :28:07.the country that I'd have different focuses. I think the police need to
:28:08. > :28:11.take it very seriously. But there is also a wider responsibility on all
:28:12. > :28:15.of us not to take democracy for granted and to promote the sort of
:28:16. > :28:21.values that I suppose actually Jo Cox stood for, the more in common
:28:22. > :28:25.campaign that Jo's family have setup is to tackle that kind of hatred at
:28:26. > :28:34.its source before it can escalate and spread. Is there a danger of
:28:35. > :28:39.linking populist right-wing ideologies with far right extremist?
:28:40. > :28:44.So you could look at the alt right in the strip -- in the States. They
:28:45. > :28:49.seem to be feeling more comfortable with Donald Trump was not associated
:28:50. > :28:54.with them in anyway. Do you have to be careful not to link the two? I
:28:55. > :28:57.think all politicians, and that includes the President elect of the
:28:58. > :29:03.United States, have to be really careful not to give licence to these
:29:04. > :29:07.far right extremists, white supremacists, bile organisations.
:29:08. > :29:12.And I think that is the risk. You are right, we should not just merge
:29:13. > :29:18.things were mediocre about it, but equally that means in every
:29:19. > :29:21.organisation for Donald Trump right now, but similarly for politicians
:29:22. > :29:25.right here, they have to be very careful not to whip up hatred and
:29:26. > :29:28.give licence to it. Does that include the accusations of just
:29:29. > :29:33.dismissing or ignoring the claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? I
:29:34. > :29:36.have always said we should do much more to deal with anti-Semitism in
:29:37. > :29:40.the Labour Party and across the country. So when John McDonald talks
:29:41. > :29:46.about unity and trying to bring people together, does he and do
:29:47. > :29:52.Jeremy Corbyn have to do more? -- John McDonnell. Ulverston. That is
:29:53. > :29:55.why I have said whether it is in the Labour Party or other political
:29:56. > :30:01.parties across the country, we also have to do more -- wall of us do. We
:30:02. > :30:03.also have to do more to challenge online hatred because that can go
:30:04. > :30:08.into something much worse as well. Thank you.
:30:09. > :30:10.On Tuesday, Donald Trump confirmed that he will be abandoning
:30:11. > :30:12.something called TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
:30:13. > :30:14.It's a trade deal with other countries in the Pacific region,
:30:15. > :30:17.but while TTP's about trade, it was also about challenging
:30:18. > :30:21.So what does abandoning it mean for the balance of power in
:30:22. > :30:29.If Donald Trump's victory was an anti-globalisation vote,
:30:30. > :30:37.then his pledge to scrap big trade deals was the rallying call.
:30:38. > :30:38.The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster,
:30:39. > :30:42.done and pushed by special interests, who want
:30:43. > :30:46.Just a continuing rape of our country.
:30:47. > :30:55.On Tuesday, President-elect Trump made good on that promise,
:30:56. > :30:58.in a YouTube video setting out his plans for his first
:30:59. > :31:02.I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw
:31:03. > :31:03.from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster
:31:04. > :31:09.Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring
:31:10. > :31:15.jobs and industry back onto American shores.
:31:16. > :31:19.The partnership was supposed to unite 12 countries and 40%
:31:20. > :31:21.of the world economy, in a giant single market,
:31:22. > :31:29.Known as TPP for short, to its fans, it spelled prosperity
:31:30. > :31:34.and an increase in living standards across the globe.
:31:35. > :31:37.To critics, it could cost jobs and was too helpful to corporations.
:31:38. > :31:39.China is now pushing its own rival partnership programme,
:31:40. > :31:46.This week, the Chinese Premier was selling the idea in South America.
:31:47. > :31:51.There's no better illustration of China's expansionary instincts
:31:52. > :31:55.than the artificial islands it's building in the Pacific,
:31:56. > :31:59.potentially for use as military bases.
:32:00. > :32:03.President Obama was already committed to expanding the US
:32:04. > :32:06.presence in the Pacific, with plans for 60% of the American Navy to be
:32:07. > :32:15.The Trans-Pacific Partnership was partly designed as a way
:32:16. > :32:22.of countering their economic and military might.
:32:23. > :32:24.With that trade deal dead in the water, how
:32:25. > :32:26.will Trump's America stand up to them now?
:32:27. > :32:29.We're joined now by Leslie Vinajamuri, from Foreign Affairs
:32:30. > :32:31.think tank Chatham House, and the economist Linda Yueh
:32:32. > :32:41.Leslie, how important was the Trans-Pacific Partnership to Obama's
:32:42. > :32:45.China strategy? It was absolutely central, a central piece of the US
:32:46. > :32:51.pivot to Asia and it was seen as a way of containing the rise of China
:32:52. > :32:54.and securing America's role in the region and integrating the Asian
:32:55. > :33:00.economies through trade. It was central, so this is a big lose for
:33:01. > :33:04.the Obama administration. A big ruse for the Obama administration, is it
:33:05. > :33:10.a big clues for America? I think it is, in many ways, America's standing
:33:11. > :33:14.in the world is not just about trade but influence in all parts of the
:33:15. > :33:17.world and that is what the Obama administration was trying to cement
:33:18. > :33:21.and move away from the Middle East and towards Asia which is faster
:33:22. > :33:27.growing. So the fact that President-elect Trump is going to
:33:28. > :33:32.turn them inward, he will concede ground to China in terms of global
:33:33. > :33:36.influence. And President Obama knows how hard it is to save TPP, there
:33:37. > :33:41.were three things he wanted to save with Donald Trump in the first
:33:42. > :33:44.meeting, the Iran deal, climate change and Obamacare, trade did not
:33:45. > :33:48.make it onto the list, which shows you how much of his legacy is at
:33:49. > :33:51.risk. He was facing towards the Pacific and many felt he had
:33:52. > :33:56.abandoned the Middle East and the conflicts that because he was going
:33:57. > :34:00.to face it differently in his administration. Can it survive
:34:01. > :34:05.without the US, the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is there any point to
:34:06. > :34:11.it? No, and it is interesting, it is very unlikely and China has put its
:34:12. > :34:13.own deal on the table for a regional and comprehensive and economic
:34:14. > :34:18.strategy. There will now be an opening for China to act as a leader
:34:19. > :34:23.in the region and to unite trade and economic claims more generally. What
:34:24. > :34:27.about militarily, will there be an opportunity, will the Chinese take
:34:28. > :34:31.the opportunity in terms of trying to at least flex their muscles
:34:32. > :34:35.militarily now they see there is an opening? Yes, China has been more
:34:36. > :34:42.assertive in the South China Seas and the big unknown is that Trump is
:34:43. > :34:48.unknown and his people still. It is whether they tried to pursue a more
:34:49. > :34:50.aggressive and assertive policy strategy of containment through
:34:51. > :34:54.military build-up in the region, or whether there is a complete
:34:55. > :34:58.withdrawal, which seems unlikely. But the rhetoric has been all over
:34:59. > :35:04.the map and it is difficult to predict, very uncertain. What does
:35:05. > :35:07.Donald Trump do if he wants to constrain growing Chinese power? Is
:35:08. > :35:12.he just going to use soft power to do that? I think the fear is he
:35:13. > :35:16.might go harder. And what you don't want is a renewal of military
:35:17. > :35:21.tensions above all else. So one of the worrying thing is about Trump is
:35:22. > :35:25.we know he is closer to regimes such as Russia than his predecessors and
:35:26. > :35:30.that raises the prospect is that you have a very different view of how
:35:31. > :35:39.you integrate the world. Is it about positioning yourself for influence
:35:40. > :35:41.or about integrating and linking and we don't know enough about
:35:42. > :35:44.President-elect Trump to know which way he will go? Looking inward, I am
:35:45. > :35:47.sure it will not be helpful for the accommodate in America which he
:35:48. > :35:51.wants to double the growth rate of, America needs to be part of the girl
:35:52. > :35:57.-- global system. If China sets the terms of trade, that does not help
:35:58. > :36:02.America. Thinking in the UK, one of the things Trump is worried about is
:36:03. > :36:05.the negative impact on American wages of dealing with American --
:36:06. > :36:09.developing countries and that is less of a case with developed
:36:10. > :36:14.countries. He has already said Britain will not be at the back of
:36:15. > :36:21.the queue. We would be comparable. Is this the end of the multilateral
:36:22. > :36:26.trade deals? If Trump on pics or at least ratifies these multilateral
:36:27. > :36:32.trade deals, it will be about bilateral trade deals? It was
:36:33. > :36:34.already moving that way in terms of bilateral, multilateral is the World
:36:35. > :36:41.Trade Organisation doing another massive round. People would argue
:36:42. > :36:44.they don't always achieve that much. No, and probably the difficult of
:36:45. > :36:48.multilateral ones now is that trade is so much more complicated and is
:36:49. > :36:52.about investment and services. Even though economists would like to see
:36:53. > :36:55.a big multilateral trade deal, it takes two long and so now they will
:36:56. > :37:03.be more specific about what is negotiated like services. And China
:37:04. > :37:05.is interesting because they initiated the Asia infrastructure
:37:06. > :37:11.investment bank which the United States did not join, the UK did. It
:37:12. > :37:15.is another effort to think regionally and collaboratively and
:37:16. > :37:19.to displace the US leadership and power and standards and norms, which
:37:20. > :37:24.is a grave threat to the US leadership role in the world. As
:37:25. > :37:29.Linda said, if the soft power is going to be put to one side on the
:37:30. > :37:34.trade deal, one will look at some of the military signs and Trump has
:37:35. > :37:39.said he wants to expand the US Navy, and build up the number of ships,
:37:40. > :37:44.what is the significance of that? I think the concern is that if you
:37:45. > :37:48.pursue a strategy that focuses on hard power without integrating trade
:37:49. > :37:51.and soft power and diplomacy to the centre, it sets you up to have a
:37:52. > :37:57.more contentious relationship with the region. And as we know in the
:37:58. > :38:01.campaign, the commitment to the US commitment to Japan and Korea was
:38:02. > :38:05.not on the table firmly so even with the military build-up, there is a
:38:06. > :38:09.lot of uncertainty about what that means for America's one standing
:38:10. > :38:13.allies. Some of these countries already jumping at the chance of a
:38:14. > :38:19.bilateral, Chile for example, they see it as an opportunity as well?
:38:20. > :38:23.Yes, and the route which hosted the summit were China, they immediately
:38:24. > :38:27.asked to sign up to a Chinese lead free trade area -- and the roof.
:38:28. > :38:33.Thank you very much. Now, in less than a fortnight,
:38:34. > :38:36.the Supreme Court will be hearing the most important case
:38:37. > :38:37.in a generation. At stake, whether the Government
:38:38. > :38:40.alone can decide to trigger the process of our exit
:38:41. > :38:42.from the European Union, or whether Parliament needs
:38:43. > :38:45.to approve the process first. Earlier this month, three High Court
:38:46. > :38:48.judges sided with campaigners, telling the Government that it
:38:49. > :38:51.would have to get the approval of Parliament before
:38:52. > :38:52.triggering Article 50. Theresa May wants to trigger Article
:38:53. > :38:55.50, starting the UK's divorce negotiations
:38:56. > :38:56.with the European Union, Talks are supposed to last two
:38:57. > :39:06.years, so that would mean the UK So the Government has appealed
:39:07. > :39:16.to the Supreme Court and, next month, 11 judges
:39:17. > :39:18.there will have to decide whether to uphold or overturn
:39:19. > :39:27.the High Court Ruling. Last week, the Court also decided
:39:28. > :39:31.that the senior law officers from Scotland and Wales will be
:39:32. > :39:33.allowed to address the Court At stake is whether triggering
:39:34. > :39:37.Article 50 leads inevitably to the repeal of the 1972
:39:38. > :39:41.European Communities Act. Normally, only MPs and peers
:39:42. > :39:44.have the power to repeal The Government is planning
:39:45. > :39:54.to introduce what they are calling "The Great Repeal Bill"
:39:55. > :39:56.in the spring, but that faces the prospect of months of debates,
:39:57. > :40:00.amendments and votes in the Commons and the Lords,
:40:01. > :40:03.so approval for that could be We're joined now from Cambridge
:40:04. > :40:07.by Professor Christopher Forsyth, who is a professor of Public Law
:40:08. > :40:10.at Cambridge University, and the SNP MP Joanna Cherry,
:40:11. > :40:24.who is on the Brexit Select Welcome to both of you. Christopher,
:40:25. > :40:34.does the triggering of Article 50 ultimately leads to the repeal of
:40:35. > :40:39.the 1972 act? No, it does not. It may read irrevocably to our
:40:40. > :40:45.departure from the EU but it does not do anything about repealing the
:40:46. > :40:50.EU act. Can you look into the camera? Perfect. Why do you say
:40:51. > :40:53.that? That was the position of the Government lawyers, as well as the
:40:54. > :40:59.person who brought the case, Gina Malone. We may be talking about a
:41:00. > :41:03.technical difference here. We could cease to be members of the EU and
:41:04. > :41:09.the treaties would no longer apply, but unless Parliament legislated to
:41:10. > :41:13.remove the 1972 act from the statute book, it would remain on the statute
:41:14. > :41:17.book. That is the sense in which it is not being repealed and we would
:41:18. > :41:21.cease to be members of the EU. The point being made is that we would
:41:22. > :41:26.lose rights, we would lose rights that would be lost for ever and that
:41:27. > :41:31.cannot happen unless Parliament, both the Commons and the Lords, have
:41:32. > :41:36.a say in those rights being repealed or lost. That is absolutely right.
:41:37. > :41:42.But it is from a slightly different principle. The prerogative should
:41:43. > :41:46.not be used to frustrate Parliamentary legislation. And that
:41:47. > :41:51.is what would be happening, so the argument for the claimants goes, in
:41:52. > :41:56.the current case. That is what would be happening if we cease to be
:41:57. > :42:01.members of the EU, it would effectively amounts to the repeal of
:42:02. > :42:06.the act. In your view, once Article 50 is triggered, it is it
:42:07. > :42:10.reversible? Well, the High Court found it was irrevocable and the
:42:11. > :42:13.Government lawyers conceded that in the High Court. As a matter of law,
:42:14. > :42:17.it is open to the Government lawyers to withdraw their concession to the
:42:18. > :42:20.Supreme Court and it may be difficult for them to do so. It
:42:21. > :42:25.would involve political difficulties for the Government because of
:42:26. > :42:28.Article 50 triggering which is not remarkable and Brexiter does not
:42:29. > :42:35.mean Brexit. And Parliament does not have to give its approval?
:42:36. > :42:38.Ultimately, the question of whether Article 50 is irrevocable is a
:42:39. > :42:40.matter for the European Court of Justice and it would be rather
:42:41. > :42:47.embarrassing for the British Government giving it stands and
:42:48. > :42:52.reluctance to exist -- to accept the justice and Luxembourg, to refer the
:42:53. > :42:56.question of Article 50 to Luxembourg. You have tried to
:42:57. > :43:02.compare it to the Brexit vote. The Brexit vote was a referendum, it was
:43:03. > :43:07.one... I have not compared to the vote, this is illegal and is not
:43:08. > :43:13.political matter. You have tried to say Brexit would not mean Brexit.
:43:14. > :43:18.Let me just explained. So that people understand. One is a
:43:19. > :43:23.political answer to a question. That can be interpreted in whatever way,
:43:24. > :43:28.but everyone is broadly agreed. Actually, people said they wanted to
:43:29. > :43:33.leave the EU. Even if they say... It was a UK referendum. Indeed, but I
:43:34. > :43:39.am here as a Scottish MP and I want to talk about the fact that 62% of
:43:40. > :43:44.Scots voted to remain. It was not a devolved issue. 72% in my
:43:45. > :43:50.constituency. The EU is written into the Scotland Act which founded the
:43:51. > :43:55.Scotland Parliament and European law affects citizens in Scotland and
:43:56. > :43:58.indeed businesses. And so there is a very strong argument that triggering
:43:59. > :44:03.Article 50 will affect the rights of individuals in Scotland, this is
:44:04. > :44:09.where Scotland comes in. Let's put that to Christopher, do you agree on
:44:10. > :44:13.that? I agree that the question of whether the Article 50 notice can be
:44:14. > :44:17.revoked is an important question. And there is a respectable case for
:44:18. > :44:21.suggesting that it could be revoked, based upon a technical argument to
:44:22. > :44:27.do with the Vienna Law of treaties. But if the UK could revoke the
:44:28. > :44:30.notice once it is given, it would completely transform the position
:44:31. > :44:34.because it would mean if we did not like the deal we got at the end of
:44:35. > :44:38.the process, we could walk away from it by revoking our notice. And of
:44:39. > :44:43.course, it would completely undermine the argument that the
:44:44. > :44:52.triggering of the notice removes rights. Of course, as Joanna has
:44:53. > :44:57.just remarked, that would cause difficulties for the Government
:44:58. > :45:02.because it is ultimately a question of EU law and would require
:45:03. > :45:07.reference to the EU Court, meaning delays of up to two years and you
:45:08. > :45:13.could imagine the political consequences of a EU court denying
:45:14. > :45:15.us Brexit! On that basis, do you think the Government lawyers have
:45:16. > :45:22.employed the wrong arguments by making their case here?
:45:23. > :45:29.I think that is perhaps so, I think it was for political reasons they
:45:30. > :45:33.conceded the point about revocable at it, but the other grounds they
:45:34. > :45:40.conceded that they shouldn't have. The one that strikes you most
:45:41. > :45:45.obviously is the status of the 2015 referendum act, the act under which
:45:46. > :45:49.the referendum took place was that that is the act which forms the
:45:50. > :45:54.foundation of the proposition that the outcome of the referendum is
:45:55. > :46:00.only advisory. Now I'm not sure that that's absolutely right, because it
:46:01. > :46:04.seems to me that you can argue that by the 2015 act, Parliament
:46:05. > :46:09.delegated to the people the right to decide this question, and the people
:46:10. > :46:14.have decided it. Right, then if following on from that, do you think
:46:15. > :46:19.this is an example, Christopher Forsyth, of a broader trend of
:46:20. > :46:25.judicial activism? Now, I certainly don't think that. The judgment of
:46:26. > :46:32.the court below is commendably orthodox, it upholds the supremacy
:46:33. > :46:36.and constitutional law in an understandable way. It is arguable
:46:37. > :46:42.that some of those principles have been randomly applied, and this is
:46:43. > :46:46.by the government may be successful on appeal, but it is a commendably
:46:47. > :46:51.orthodox judgment and there is nothing wrong with... I'd deprecate
:46:52. > :46:58.the attacks on the judges made as a result. Let me come back to you on
:46:59. > :47:02.the idea of Scotland getting a separate deal, Joanna Cherry, do you
:47:03. > :47:07.think that is paid in the water now, there is no indication from the EU
:47:08. > :47:10.that could happen? Scotland getting a separate deal is ultimately a
:47:11. > :47:12.matter to discuss between the Scottish and the British government
:47:13. > :47:16.in the first instance, and then the UK Government would go to the EU to
:47:17. > :47:20.say this is the deal we want, and I don't think it is dead in the water
:47:21. > :47:24.and the Scottish Government will shortly be coming forward with their
:47:25. > :47:27.detailed proposals. But it is all about the right of Scottish voters
:47:28. > :47:31.through the Scottish Parliament to be consulted, and this is why the
:47:32. > :47:35.Lord Advocate James Weir off QC has sought to intervene on behalf of the
:47:36. > :47:41.Scottish Government and the Supreme Court have allowed him to make
:47:42. > :47:43.submissions about points arising from Scottish constitutional law,
:47:44. > :47:48.which may be relevant to the case. Of course in the high case, -- in
:47:49. > :47:52.the High Court was no proper argument, and the High Court made
:47:53. > :47:54.the assumption that the constitutional them in Wales and
:47:55. > :47:56.Scotland is the same, which we would argue is not the case. Thank you
:47:57. > :48:00.very much, Joanna Cherry. The government has been heavily
:48:01. > :48:02.criticised for its lack of planning for a vote to leave
:48:03. > :48:05.the European Union, and Bernard Jenkin, the Chair
:48:06. > :48:07.of Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs
:48:08. > :48:09.Committee, has laid the blame on civil servants, who he says
:48:10. > :48:11."are not emotionally Here he is speaking
:48:12. > :48:14.in a Westminster Hall A lot of the civil service
:48:15. > :48:20.is struggling to catch up with the absence of preparation
:48:21. > :48:24.for the outcome of the referendum, which I think is one of the lessons
:48:25. > :48:28.we must take from this referendum. It is unforgivable for a government
:48:29. > :48:31.to call a referendum and remain completely unprepared for one
:48:32. > :48:36.of the possible eventualities. And therefore, there are a lot
:48:37. > :48:41.of officials who are rapidly trying to get their brains around -
:48:42. > :48:43.perhaps in a scenario that they're not emotionally attracted to anyway
:48:44. > :48:46.- some very, very difficult and complicated questions,
:48:47. > :48:51.and it's taking some time. And I'm joined now by Bernard
:48:52. > :49:04.Jenkin, and the Liberal Democrat MP So you're blaming the civil service
:49:05. > :49:08.for everything and they are not emotionally attracted to Brexit, why
:49:09. > :49:14.do you have to be? Of course civil servants are impartial and are not
:49:15. > :49:19.blaming civil servants. You are. You're putting words in my mouth. I
:49:20. > :49:23.thought I was being rather tactful. Even by your standards. The problem
:49:24. > :49:27.was it was the Prime Minister of the day that forbade civil servants to
:49:28. > :49:33.make any preparations for a leave vote, and I am not admiring of the
:49:34. > :49:36.Cabinet Secretary who in fact kind of illicitly good and awayday with
:49:37. > :49:40.the permanent secretaries during the final weeks of the referendum
:49:41. > :49:44.campaign when nobody was looking in order to say if there is a leave
:49:45. > :49:48.vote what should we actually do? I am very pleased we have an impartial
:49:49. > :49:51.civil service that does not do what ministers and others want them to do
:49:52. > :49:54.if they think it is in the interest of the nation. You can't have it
:49:55. > :49:59.both ways, but you still haven't been what does it mean not
:50:00. > :50:04.emotionally attracted? I should imagine quite a lot more civil
:50:05. > :50:09.servants voted remain as opposed to leave, the thing that is a surprise.
:50:10. > :50:17.Listening to Bernard, I'm afraid my mind goes back to the fantastic yes
:50:18. > :50:20.Minister sketch where he says he had served 11 government in 30 years
:50:21. > :50:23.that if he had believed everything all his political masters had ever
:50:24. > :50:28.believed, he would have been in favour of going in and coming out of
:50:29. > :50:33.the common market. He would have been in favour of Keynesian economic
:50:34. > :50:37.is, they destroy and a preserve of grammar schools. He says Bob Wells,
:50:38. > :50:41.Bernard, not you obviously, above all else Bernard, he says, I would
:50:42. > :50:46.have been stark, staring, raving mad. That maybe so, but that is the
:50:47. > :50:52.impartiality of the civil servants. Do you think they should have had a
:50:53. > :50:57.nice big file that said Brexit plan? Vote to leave committee is the plan
:50:58. > :51:01.that will follow on 24th of June if they win? I will tell you exactly
:51:02. > :51:07.what I thought should have happened. Before a general election, months
:51:08. > :51:11.before, the main opposition party will go and see the civil servants
:51:12. > :51:14.in private and say this is our manifesto, this is what we would
:51:15. > :51:18.expect you to be able to implement if we were elected. And I think
:51:19. > :51:23.there is a very strong case for, even though a Leave campaign is not
:51:24. > :51:27.a prospective government, for there to have been formal engagement. Did
:51:28. > :51:33.you try? Now, it was absolutely off-limits! Did you have anything
:51:34. > :51:38.even to share them if you had got in contact? Yes, there was a very large
:51:39. > :51:40.volume produced by business for Britain could change or go, and you
:51:41. > :51:44.would have heard of it, and that went into a great deal of the detail
:51:45. > :51:48.that civil servants are having to now grapple with. There was a great
:51:49. > :51:54.deal of legal discussion amongst members of Parliament about what
:51:55. > :51:57.Article 50 meant and what would have to be negotiated, and how a free
:51:58. > :52:02.trade agreement might be constructed. And a great deal of
:52:03. > :52:07.work was done. But you did not have the opportunity. We always made it
:52:08. > :52:10.clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. Lots of
:52:11. > :52:15.people said lots of different things. Now, we were very clear.
:52:16. > :52:21.Alistair Carmichael, if Bernard Jenkin is blaming the government of
:52:22. > :52:24.the day. His own government. Then should there have been preparation?
:52:25. > :52:28.Would it not have been a lot easier if there had been a proper look and
:52:29. > :52:33.investigation? Actually, now I don't. When I was in government and
:52:34. > :52:35.we were going through the Scottish referendum preparation we said we
:52:36. > :52:40.are not going to plan for something that we do not want to happen. This
:52:41. > :52:43.is not government policy, we will of course respect the outcome as indeed
:52:44. > :52:49.we did but we're not going to plan the something we do not want to
:52:50. > :52:51.happen. Bernard does have a point, though, in that since the 23rd of
:52:52. > :52:56.June there should have been planning, there should have been
:52:57. > :53:01.political dimension given to the civil service, and as a member of
:53:02. > :53:04.the select committee, meeting the senior management team a couple of
:53:05. > :53:08.weeks ago, it is painfully obvious that even now, five months down the
:53:09. > :53:13.line, none of that is happening. Do you think as an observer, Linda
:53:14. > :53:15.Yueh, that there was a plan? Do you think the government has an idea
:53:16. > :53:21.that it wants to do at this stage you not? I think there is probably
:53:22. > :53:25.different tools within government about what Brexit is when they say
:53:26. > :53:28.Brexit means Brexit, but I think the capacity timber and what they want
:53:29. > :53:32.is probably something that needs to Bielik that much more -- different
:53:33. > :53:35.views. We have not had trade negotiations for 40 years in
:53:36. > :53:39.government because that is done by the European Union. We don't have
:53:40. > :53:45.specialist lawyers, those who can advise us on how you get out for
:53:46. > :53:48.instance of current trade deals. Like the Canadians, they have
:53:49. > :53:51.negotiated a free-trade deal with the EU, they said they expect the UK
:53:52. > :53:54.to be in this trade deal but when we leave the EU they would want to
:53:55. > :53:58.discuss us keeping that trade deal on similar terms and I think that is
:53:59. > :54:04.the kind of expertise you cannot build up very quickly. Right, so
:54:05. > :54:10.there is a frantic chase to get new stuff and people on board and lots
:54:11. > :54:13.of money is being spent? Buried in the OBE are documents those a few
:54:14. > :54:19.bob in their meant for just the cost of admin of Brexit. So it will be
:54:20. > :54:22.costly. The sort of sea change that has been spoken about would not have
:54:23. > :54:25.been any more achievable if it had started in March rather than June.
:54:26. > :54:30.The alarming thing is that in November it still has not started
:54:31. > :54:33.yet. And in that sense if all of that money is going to be spent on
:54:34. > :54:37.some of your Brexit colleagues say it won't cost any more in terms of
:54:38. > :54:41.admin, it will cost a little bit more, do you think now there will be
:54:42. > :54:45.needed some serious investment in the rights of the people to deliver
:54:46. > :54:50.free-trade deals but Munster do? We will need to acquire, I'm in Canada
:54:51. > :54:53.has some hundreds of trade negotiators, and we will need to
:54:54. > :54:56.manage their trading relationships with the rest of the world and the
:54:57. > :55:00.United Kingdom will need a similar department, which is why the
:55:01. > :55:03.government has established a department for international trade,
:55:04. > :55:07.and it is taking time to build up that apartment -- department. But
:55:08. > :55:11.the civil service will have to adapt to, people tend to Allied order this
:55:12. > :55:15.into some great big messy plot. There are some things which the
:55:16. > :55:19.government needs to decide now, in preparation for negotiations and
:55:20. > :55:23.some things that actually need to be decided in the agreement. Most of
:55:24. > :55:28.what people are discussing is what to do after we have left. And still
:55:29. > :55:41.the question about whether it was clear on leaving or not? That is the
:55:42. > :55:44.next time. Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr programme made it
:55:45. > :55:45.absolutely clip. Stephen Phillips had to leave Parliament, it was that
:55:46. > :55:50.clear. There's just time before we go to
:55:51. > :55:53.find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: what was
:55:54. > :55:56.Nigel Farage photographed with last Was it a) Donald Trump's
:55:57. > :55:59.daughter, Ivanka? or d) a recently acquired
:56:00. > :56:03.American passport? So, Linda, what's
:56:04. > :56:13.the correct answer? And actually why haven't we got a
:56:14. > :56:18.nice big pile of fellow La Rochelle here? There we go, we have. He looks
:56:19. > :56:23.very pleased with himself, doesn't it? Well done, you got the right
:56:24. > :56:28.answer to stop hang on a second. I had better take this call.
:56:29. > :56:31.When is it OK to stop concentrating on what's happening around you,
:56:32. > :56:33.and start enjoying the world vicariously through your
:56:34. > :56:39.Well, yesterday, when Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell
:56:40. > :56:41.was delivering his very important response to Philip Hammond's Autumn
:56:42. > :56:43.Statement, it wasn't holding the full attention of Labour
:56:44. > :56:48.No fewer than 21 MPs sitting behind John McDonnell in the chamber can be
:56:49. > :56:50.seen fiddling with their mobile phones, instead of concentrating
:56:51. > :56:56.fully on what their esteemed colleague was saying.
:56:57. > :56:59.So was this a gross discourtesy to the Shadow Chancellor, or is it
:57:00. > :57:09.Who better to ask than etiquette coach, Jean Broke Smith?
:57:10. > :57:19.What you make of this image, they are all intensely looking at their
:57:20. > :57:23.messages. Horrified. I counted about 20. There was the Shadow Chancellor
:57:24. > :57:28.responding, and I don't know what they were doing, perhaps they
:57:29. > :57:35.were... Online shopping? Sorry be a little bit day-to-day. -- bit late.
:57:36. > :57:38.And they were spreading the Labour leadership is Mac message, which
:57:39. > :57:42.would have been a very important one on the day of the Autumn Statement,
:57:43. > :57:46.I suppose isn't that the waves of things are these days? We hope so.
:57:47. > :57:50.Mobile phones, as much as we need them, it has taken over our lives
:57:51. > :57:54.completely. You go to a restaurant and you never see to people having
:57:55. > :58:00.a, session. They are either under the table or they are actually
:58:01. > :58:04.speaking loudly. I mean something happened to me two days ago, I was
:58:05. > :58:08.walking down my road, just minding my end business, somebody was loudly
:58:09. > :58:11.speaking on the phone, waving the arms around, walked straight into me
:58:12. > :58:16.like that and look to me as if I should not have been on the
:58:17. > :58:20.pavement. Yes, do you think now we have lost sight of General courtesy,
:58:21. > :58:23.day-to-day manners when it comes to mobile phones? I think there was a
:58:24. > :58:29.lot of truth to that. In Parliament I think it is completely egregious.
:58:30. > :58:32.I know John McDonnell said they were treating up -- treating up messages
:58:33. > :58:37.but he also said public perception matters. I suppose it is not quite
:58:38. > :58:40.as bad as the Norwegian Prime Minister who was caught playing
:58:41. > :58:45.Pokemon Go on her mobile phone during a session of Parliament. I
:58:46. > :58:50.could not believe that at first. It was so extraordinary. I was just
:58:51. > :58:54.thinking this morning, about when Cameron was in five or six years
:58:55. > :59:02.ago, the band mobile phones from Cabinet meetings. I was asked what I
:59:03. > :59:08.thought and I said well done. But the Norwegian situation, I read it
:59:09. > :59:16.and thought this can't be. Pokemon Go and food ninja. Anyway, I am
:59:17. > :59:19.pleased to say we don't allow phones only for the particular purpose of
:59:20. > :59:23.that item. Thank you to all of our guests for coming in.
:59:24. > :59:25.The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
:59:26. > :59:28.Andrew will be here on BBC One tonight with Michael Portillo,
:59:29. > :59:30.Liz Kendall, Dan Hodges, Tim Shipman, John Nicolson
:59:31. > :59:32.and Stewart Lee joining on This Week from 11.45pm.
:59:33. > :59:36.And the Daily Politics will be back at noon tomorrow with all the big