24/11/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Brexit will cost the UK economy almost ?60 billion,


according to figures unveiled by the Chancellor yesterday,


but have forecasters taken too gloomy a view of the UK's ability


Thomas Mair was given a whole life sentence by a judge


at the Old Bailey yesterday for the brutal murder of MP Jo Cox,


but is enough being done to combat far-right extremism?


Donald Trump says he'll scrap a Pacific Trade deal on the first


So will President Trump use hard - rather than soft -


power to restrain the growing power of China?


It was the Shadow Chancellor's big moment at the despatch box yesterday


and Labour MPs were transfixed - by their mobile phones.


Have they got something to learn about mobile phone etiquette?


And with us for the whole of the programme today is a purveyor


of what's been described as the "dismal science",


Now, the Government has been defending the economic forecasts


that were used in yesterday's Autumn Statement.


The forecasts were produced by the independent Office


for Budget Responsibility - and they think that the Government


will have to borrow billions more because of the Brexit vote.


But that view has been condemned as far too gloomy


by Brexit-supporting MPs and economists.


So let's remind ourselves what we learnt yesterday,


when the Chancellor Philip Hammond got to the despatch box.


Between now and 2021, the Government is forecast


to borrow ?122 billion more than was originally predicted back


Nearly half of that extra borrowing, ?58.7 billion, is due


That's because of economic factors like lower migration


and higher inflation which, the OBR says, are linked to Brexit.


All that extra borrowing is obviously going to mean more debt.


The public finances are forecast to be nearly ?2 trillion


The debt-to-GDP ratio is also heading upwards.


It's set to peak at 90.2% in the next financial year,


And Philip Hammond said that the Government will now get rid


of the deficit "as soon as practicable" in


Philip Hammond has been talking about those forecasts this morning.


There are lots of uncertainties in the world and economic


forecasters have to try and make forecasts, notwithstanding


Our job is to respond to the forecasts and,


as I tried to do yesterday, to set out a path that builds


on the strengths of our economy, that invests in the future,


but also puts a little bit aside, creates a little bit


of reserve firepower, just in case things do


So that the Government is there and able to step


We're joined now by Patrick Minford - of Economists for Brexit.


And shortly by the Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, and the Shadow Chief


Secretary to the Treasur, Rebecca Long Bailey, who is here.


You'll have to borrow around ?60 billion according to the OBR, you'd


think that number is wrong, what in your mind is the correct figure? It


is less because Brexit will cause higher and not lower growth because


of the policies of free-trade being pursued by the Government with


respect to the rest of the world and the EU. That is the big error in the


OBR's forecast, figure at the trade policy is wrong and have assumed


that trade policies and the effects of uncertainty, which has already


been disproved by the very strong reactions of GDP in the second and


third quarter of the year which came in strongly and well above the


Treasury's on forecasts. On the trade steals, you say in the


long-term, Deluxe set they could be right over the next five years


that's because of Brexit, there could be a case of borrowing ?60


billion to compensate while we leave the EU and in the long term, you are


right and the money will be made up? Not really, they have assumed the


long-term effects of ex-expectations in the short term through investment


cost of spending falling, and that outcomes. Of that, they have put


this uncertainty effect for which there is no basis and having assumed


the exchange rate to drop instead of stimulating the economy, dump is


great in the economy, which is against what we know from modelling


practice and evidence. Linda Yueh, Dupree, have the OBR got it wrong?


They did not have much to work with because they did not have that much


from the Government in the first place -- do you agree. OBR forecasts


have been wrong in the past so could Patrick be right or is the OBR


right? I think the OBR forecast is in line with other forecasts, the


Bank of England, the International monetary fund is, they see a


negative hit from Brexit because of uncertainty. The difficulty of


assessing it is this, I treat uncertainty different than you. So


if you supported, let's not use Brexit, let's use kittens versus


poppies. He would be much more enthusiastic if you got your way but


businesses are cutting back on investment and they are worried


about the economic uncertainty so in that respect, I think the OBR has


set out almost a worst-case scenario about a permanent hit the growth


taking growth to just over 2% over the next 3-5 years. As they say, a


lot of the forecasts are wrong because it is hard to forecast


period when you do not know the Government's plans. And the


Government agrees, they say you might have to take them forecasts


broadly and they did not use the expression a pinch of salt but they


did say it could be the worst case scenario. Are you just upset as many


supporting Brexit are because you think the Bank of England as the OBR


are part of the Pro-remain establishment? Yes, I do and they


fought against Brexit and they are fighting for a soft Brexit. The


Chancellor is fighting for a soft Brexit and that tells you the


uncertainty is spurious. If we go for a soft Brexit, we will have the


status quo which leaves growth exactly where it would have been,


and a hard Brexit leads to free trade which is a good long-term


boost to the economy. As every schoolboy and first-year economics


student knows. Uncertainty is all positive here. Let's ask this


economics student here, I do not know if you are! Is a soft Brexit


gloom and doom and a hard Brexit on leases the UK economy and the


free-trade deals? I am an engineer, not an economist! My view is that of


the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, let's be prudent here.


Forecast. As the OBR right? No, they forecasts and you forecast a


worst-case scenario. They do not know what deal we will get and I


think the Prime Minister will negotiate a good deal and forecasts


will have to be adjusted. It is right for Phillip Hammond to be


prudent, which is why he is talking about a ?20 billion the structure


and productive fund. What about a 100 Dorien pound fund? We are being


prudent and running a deficit of 2% beyond 2020. I think that is what


business expects to hear, what boardrooms around the country expect


to hear, a chance for and Prime Minister that are realistic and will


do what is best for the country. -- Chancellor. The Autumn Statement was


to make sure we have a country that is fit for purpose, to deal with us


coming out of the EU and negotiate the best deal. We will see if the


country is that because one of the things that has been levelled


justifiably is what has happened is the prudent? There is nothing


prudent, you will borrow ?122 billion more, the deficit is still


there and will remain beyond 2020. There was a promise in the Tory


manifesto to deal the debt, which will now be ?2 trillion by 2020,


there is nothing prudent about what this Government is doing all the


Autumn Statement. The lending markets, Linda will talk about that,


will decide if he is being prudent, I think he is very prudent... What


is prudent about ?122 billion extra borrowing that George Osborne said


would not and should not happen? Maybe it is right to borrow this


amount, are you happy those are the figures and the debt will spiral to


nearly ?2 trillion? It is what you are borrowing to do the money...


Investing in infrastructure, assets for UK pillows -- assets for UK plc


is good and bringing down the deficit to 2% is the right thing to


do. I think the markets will look at that as a prudent decision by the


Chancellor and Prime Minister. The Labour to say we can borrow ?500


billion, they need to explain that not only to the Houses of Parliament


and to the markets. How can you bring down the deficit to 2%? You


say you want to balance the books, how? If the debt is ?2 trillion and


Labour wins the election and you will add another ?500 billion in


infrastructure spending, how do you balance the books? It is interesting


you should mention the borrowing, the figures you have just shown that


the Government is about to run a cumulative deficit of 122 billion by


2021 and they have links that directly to Brexit. The rest is


attributable to mismanagement of the economy and the mood has not


invested in infrastructure to the levels we need, and skills and


education, the building blocks required to increase productivity.


How to ?500 billion helped to bring down the deficit and the debt? That


is the figure put forward by the CBI, think tanks such as the Policy


Exchange, as the number required to put us on a level footing with other


countries across the world. How does that help to bring down the debt? It


creates high skilled, highly paid jobs to return higher tax receipts


so the Treasury in the long term provides businesses with the


opportunity to grow their operations and diversify so that they again


campaign more in terms of taxes. That leads to increased public


spending figures. So you are trying to aim, Labour, with smaller money,


because you have admitted you should spend more on infrastructure and


grow the economy and you are catching up after George Osborne,


having choked on consumer demand to a certain expense is not paid down


the deficit. Now you are spending on infrastructure and it is a drop in


the ocean. George Osborne brought down... He has not eliminated it. By


two thirds. It allows us to be in a place where the country is fit for


purpose to invest in the programme of 23 billion in productivity. I


spent a year as the previous premise to's adviser on apprenticeships to


talk about the skills agenda. We have pioneered that, 3 million


apprenticeships by the start of this Parliament. 2.3 billion in the last


Parliament invested in apprenticeships including degree


apprenticeships. So the high skilled, high investment is coming


from a Conservative Government being prudent and the markets will reward


us for this prudence. Should the Conservative Party apologised to the


British public for failing to get rid of the deficit and for the


spiralling debt? I don't agree with you, I think the Chancellor has to


do what is necessary for the country, things have changed. We


have had a Brexit vote. Do you blame Brexit for this extra ?60 billion


that the OBR says the country has the borrow? No, is we have to act in


a way like any steward of any plc, make sure that the country is bit to


take on the challenges of the future. The current forecasts from


the OBR gives you the numbers you have rehearsed with Patrick Minford


but that could be wrong because the premise is fighting for a good deal.


Let's go back to Patrick, you have said this morning the OBR is wrong


to assume a spending slowdown, due to lower migration. But during the


referendum campaign, that was one of the centrepieces, lower migration.


One of the main arguments for Brexit. I had a discussion with you


about it as I recall and I pointed out on skilled migration caused


negative effects for our growth because it cost so much in terms of


welfare. That is really the focus of the referendum campaign. It was not


on skilled migration but migration of unskilled workers. But lower


migration numbers. Yes, but the point about the OBR's forecasts, if


they talk about constraining on skilled migration, that would have


given them a plus and not a minus. So the whole point is that there is


nothing wrong with the prudence of the Chancellor, what is wrong is the


negative tone he has taken over Brexit, where he is in charge of


policy with the Government and are committed to giving the best


policies. Free trade and so forth including controlling on skilled


migration which creates a negative. The turn that into a positive. What


the problem is, the tone of this Autumn Statement is totally negative


in the most crucial area which is Brexit policy. That is a real crime


by the Chancellor. So not just the OBR, in your mind. He did not have


to accept the OBR. They are the independent OBR and the Government's


independent armour. He could have said I am not -1


Brexit, we will pursue the policies that will be good for this country.


He has confidence in that. Instead of which he said it is going to be


bad and I'm going to be prudent. Let's move on because there was


another area where many people feel it was negative, in terms of


people's prospects, and that is the JAMs, the term for people just about


managing. Theresa May said they would be a government for everyone


but let's have a look at some of the figures because the Resolution


foundation have looked at the effect of the Autumn Statement on a typical


family. Policies like free childcare are raising the tax threshold would


save those families ?190 a year, plus 190.


But they will lose ?1970 come as though a net loss of ?1780. There it


is, black and white. Those families will be worse off. They will be a


lot worse. Nothing about helping the people who are just managing. Well,


we have not looked at freezing fuel duties, many of those families will


save money. It is not going to make ?1780. But you can't select --


selectively choose something and say that is the number when you have not


taken the whole of the Autumn Statement, including the freeze on


fuel duties, relief on council tax, affordable housing, all of these


things will make a difference. The net effect on those types of


families, those are the figures. They will be losing ?1780. You want


to put in your frozen fuel Judeo can take it down a little bit more come


but they are not being helped. Whichever way you cut it, Nadhim


Zahawi, they are losing. Over the past six years of you look at who


has shouldered the large burden in terms of both wage increase, so


those people have seen their wages go up, because of the national


living wage, which is going up in April against a ?7 50, worth


reminding of that, if you take the last six years, the wealthiest


people in our country has shouldered the largest burden of the belt


tightening we have had to take since the crash of 2008-9. That is the


difference. You are looking at a single year and saying the numbers


look like they are not doing... But the Chancellor has tried to help


because of the move on universal benefits, universal credit, that is


actually helped. A little bit. The move on universal credit will soften


the blow, it is no way going to reverse the cuts. I must come to


Rebecca. People who have shouldered the greatest responsibility to get


the economy back on its feet are the wealthiest in our country, any


economist will tell you that. So now you are going to hit the one to


answer well. The figures speak for themselves. Rebecca, when with


Labour eradicated episode? We would have taken very different decisions


to this government. We certainly would not have made cuts to the most


wealthiest in society's taxes, in terms of inheritance tax, capital


gains tax. We would have invested in our economy. So when would you have


eradicated the deficit? We have a fiscal credibility rule that has


been put together by world leading economists, and over five years we


would separate topic spinning and capital spending. The rolling


deficit-reduction plans, so when would it be react -- eradicated?


Within a period of five years, by the end of the next parliament after


we had taken over, yes. So 2025? Guess, unless there were situations


through the world economically, extremely adverse conditions. Do you


agree on having an overall cap on welfare spending? I think the cap


that the government has so far is not productive at all. I don't think


the decisions the government have been made have been morally correct.


Would there be a cat, with Labour would you cap the overall spend on


welfare? We are against the welfare cap generally that we would have the


USS welfare spend because you wanted to be there for everybody, to make


sure everybody pays their fair share, but equally want to make sure


people have enough to live on. So sounds like you are not in favour of


having a cap. At the same time he would make sure you had a housing


system where rents went sky high and people could afford to live, where


people could afford to buy their own homes. Everyone would agree with


that, at some stage you might be asked to put a cap on spending full


stop Linda Yueh, back on the Brexit point, you think Patrick Minford,


his argument, the reason he is so annoyed, is based also the fact that


the pro-Remain camp -- pro Remain camp argued so this firstly that


there would be an immediate recession, and immediate crash in


terms of economic perspective it hasn't happened? Yes, and I think


that is probably when the Remain camp oversold how confident they


could be about economic forecasts and assessments. But I think it


doesn't change the longer term point, which is it is going to be


years before we know what our relationship with the rest of the


world is, and our growth depends a great deal on getting into other


markets. So we use the term free trade a lot but free trade is not


free full stop you cannot get into a market unless you have an agreement


open at market, and that is why most economists would say we have now


entered a period of economic uncertainty and it is going to be


harder to get us back to where we are. But that's not the same thing


as saying obviously that immediately we will lose half a million jobs,


which I always thought was, you can't be too confident in any of


these economic assessments. CHUCKLING


All right, Patrick Minford, I will have to say goodbye to you and


Nadhim Zahawi and Rebecca Long Bailey, thank you all of you.


What was Nigel Farage photographed with last night


Was it - a) Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka?


Or d) A recently acquired American passport?


At the end of the show, Linda will give us


Now the something altogether different and a lot more serious.


Yesterday, Thomas Mair was convicted of the brutal murder


He was given a whole life sentence for his crime.


Only a Home Secretary can agree to his release from prison,


because of the "exceptional seriousness" of the crime.


The judge said that he was inspired by admiration for Nazis


and similar anti-democratic white supremacist creeds.


The Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, was asked


about Thomas Mair's conviction this morning.


I think all of us - and it isn't just politicians,


it's the whole of society now - have to look at how


Yes, some of the violent nature of our politics at the moment.


Jo's was a terrible extreme example, but if you look at the abuse that


some people have suffered - in the past, we've had it,


Not just against migrants, but we've had hate crime rise


And so I think what we have to be careful about in all walks


of life now is to see how we can unite people.


And even on this Brexit vote, you know, it's divided society,


We're joined now by the Labour MP and chair of the Home


Affairs Select Committee, Yvette Cooper.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. Would you describe the murder of Jo Cox as


a terrorist incident? Guess, I think so. It was a political assassination


and as much a terrorist act as other kinds of either far right extremism


or Islamist extremism, and we should face that is what it was. Jo Cox was


murdered because of her views, because of what she believed in and


it was a deliberate attempt to pursue a political agenda. Now


actually I think, as Jo's husband Brendan Cox said yesterday, it is


also an attack that failed in its terrorist objectives, because what


it led to was the huge outpouring across West Yorkshire and across the


country of support not just for Jo and her family but for a lot of the


ideas that she stood for as well. Right, so you dismiss the idea that


he was in some way a lone wolf? I mean he was a loan move, that


inspired by the ideology you have outlined -- he was a lone wolf. Do


you think at the time some politicians and campaigners were


accused of trying to politicise Jo's murder? We were right in the middle


of that frenetic campaign. Do you think somehow there was hate whipped


up by the EU referendum campaign? I think you have two separate out the


referendum itself, and the way in which people behave around it,


because it has to be legitimate to have referenda, to have proper


public debates and arguments about things in a democracy. That is what


the Moxey is all about. What I think Thomas Mair added, though, was an


assault on democracy, an attack on obviously a democratically elected


member of Parliament but it was an assault on democracy, not an


expression of democracy, which is what the referendum was all about.


We have been looking at issues around hate crime in Taiwan, and


some of the escalation of hate crime, and reports of hate crime in


the run-up to and immediately after the referendum and concerns people


have raised about the way in which some people were whipping up hatred


is part of the campaign. That is separate, I think, from the fact of


having a referendum itself. OK, because you talked about the day


afterwards on the today programme, the day after Jo Cox was murdered


about the vitriol in the campaign and the nasty this, but do you think


that is the sort of thing that led someone like Thomas Mair to carry


out something they had perhaps been thinking about for a long time? It


was clear with Thomas Mair that he had been investigating far right


extremist websites, white supremacists, neo-Nazi, really vile


ideology for a very long time. One of the groups that gave evidence to


our select committee said, hope not hate, they said it was not that


these sorts of political events increased the number of people who


expressed hatred, but that those who were already may be extreme racists


all advocates of violence somehow became involved in, and there is a


difference between those two, but it shows we have to be vigilant and


stand up for that. Do you think politicians have not been vigilant


enough, because there has been a lot of talk and coverage about the risks


of Islamic terrorism and ideology poisoning the minds of young


Muslims, but has the threat been completely underestimated?


Interestingly, this is the third violent attack in recent years,


because there was the attack in North Wales, an attempt to behead


someone by a far right extremist, and also the murder of Mohammed


Salim, who was murdered simply for being Muslim, again by a far right


extremist. So I think we have to take these attacks extremely


seriously, and it is right that the police should do so as part of


preventing extremism as well. Of course, these are crimes, which


would be tried and prosecuted anyway, but in terms of the spread


of an ideology driving those sorts of crimes, has that been


underestimated? Some of the figures from Prevent, the government's


counter radicalisation strategy, are saying that in certain parts of the


country that actually the rise, there has been a significant


increase in far right extremist either attacks were protests, and


they are growing. Nationwide they still say Islamic terrorism is the


bigger problem but perhaps this has been overlooked. And it is in


particular areas as well. Small, very nasty groups of neo-Nazi


organisations as well. And small organisations in different parts of


the country that I'd have different focuses. I think the police need to


take it very seriously. But there is also a wider responsibility on all


of us not to take democracy for granted and to promote the sort of


values that I suppose actually Jo Cox stood for, the more in common


campaign that Jo's family have setup is to tackle that kind of hatred at


its source before it can escalate and spread. Is there a danger of


linking populist right-wing ideologies with far right extremist?


So you could look at the alt right in the strip -- in the States. They


seem to be feeling more comfortable with Donald Trump was not associated


with them in anyway. Do you have to be careful not to link the two? I


think all politicians, and that includes the President elect of the


United States, have to be really careful not to give licence to these


far right extremists, white supremacists, bile organisations.


And I think that is the risk. You are right, we should not just merge


things were mediocre about it, but equally that means in every


organisation for Donald Trump right now, but similarly for politicians


right here, they have to be very careful not to whip up hatred and


give licence to it. Does that include the accusations of just


dismissing or ignoring the claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? I


have always said we should do much more to deal with anti-Semitism in


the Labour Party and across the country. So when John McDonald talks


about unity and trying to bring people together, does he and do


Jeremy Corbyn have to do more? -- John McDonnell. Ulverston. That is


why I have said whether it is in the Labour Party or other political


parties across the country, we also have to do more -- wall of us do. We


also have to do more to challenge online hatred because that can go


into something much worse as well. Thank you.


On Tuesday, Donald Trump confirmed that he will be abandoning


something called TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.


It's a trade deal with other countries in the Pacific region,


but while TTP's about trade, it was also about challenging


So what does abandoning it mean for the balance of power in


If Donald Trump's victory was an anti-globalisation vote,


then his pledge to scrap big trade deals was the rallying call.


The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster,


done and pushed by special interests, who want


Just a continuing rape of our country.


On Tuesday, President-elect Trump made good on that promise,


in a YouTube video setting out his plans for his first


I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw


from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster


Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring


jobs and industry back onto American shores.


The partnership was supposed to unite 12 countries and 40%


of the world economy, in a giant single market,


Known as TPP for short, to its fans, it spelled prosperity


and an increase in living standards across the globe.


To critics, it could cost jobs and was too helpful to corporations.


China is now pushing its own rival partnership programme,


This week, the Chinese Premier was selling the idea in South America.


There's no better illustration of China's expansionary instincts


than the artificial islands it's building in the Pacific,


potentially for use as military bases.


President Obama was already committed to expanding the US


presence in the Pacific, with plans for 60% of the American Navy to be


The Trans-Pacific Partnership was partly designed as a way


of countering their economic and military might.


With that trade deal dead in the water, how


will Trump's America stand up to them now?


We're joined now by Leslie Vinajamuri, from Foreign Affairs


think tank Chatham House, and the economist Linda Yueh


Leslie, how important was the Trans-Pacific Partnership to Obama's


China strategy? It was absolutely central, a central piece of the US


pivot to Asia and it was seen as a way of containing the rise of China


and securing America's role in the region and integrating the Asian


economies through trade. It was central, so this is a big lose for


the Obama administration. A big ruse for the Obama administration, is it


a big clues for America? I think it is, in many ways, America's standing


in the world is not just about trade but influence in all parts of the


world and that is what the Obama administration was trying to cement


and move away from the Middle East and towards Asia which is faster


growing. So the fact that President-elect Trump is going to


turn them inward, he will concede ground to China in terms of global


influence. And President Obama knows how hard it is to save TPP, there


were three things he wanted to save with Donald Trump in the first


meeting, the Iran deal, climate change and Obamacare, trade did not


make it onto the list, which shows you how much of his legacy is at


risk. He was facing towards the Pacific and many felt he had


abandoned the Middle East and the conflicts that because he was going


to face it differently in his administration. Can it survive


without the US, the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is there any point to


it? No, and it is interesting, it is very unlikely and China has put its


own deal on the table for a regional and comprehensive and economic


strategy. There will now be an opening for China to act as a leader


in the region and to unite trade and economic claims more generally. What


about militarily, will there be an opportunity, will the Chinese take


the opportunity in terms of trying to at least flex their muscles


militarily now they see there is an opening? Yes, China has been more


assertive in the South China Seas and the big unknown is that Trump is


unknown and his people still. It is whether they tried to pursue a more


aggressive and assertive policy strategy of containment through


military build-up in the region, or whether there is a complete


withdrawal, which seems unlikely. But the rhetoric has been all over


the map and it is difficult to predict, very uncertain. What does


Donald Trump do if he wants to constrain growing Chinese power? Is


he just going to use soft power to do that? I think the fear is he


might go harder. And what you don't want is a renewal of military


tensions above all else. So one of the worrying thing is about Trump is


we know he is closer to regimes such as Russia than his predecessors and


that raises the prospect is that you have a very different view of how


you integrate the world. Is it about positioning yourself for influence


or about integrating and linking and we don't know enough about


President-elect Trump to know which way he will go? Looking inward, I am


sure it will not be helpful for the accommodate in America which he


wants to double the growth rate of, America needs to be part of the girl


-- global system. If China sets the terms of trade, that does not help


America. Thinking in the UK, one of the things Trump is worried about is


the negative impact on American wages of dealing with American --


developing countries and that is less of a case with developed


countries. He has already said Britain will not be at the back of


the queue. We would be comparable. Is this the end of the multilateral


trade deals? If Trump on pics or at least ratifies these multilateral


trade deals, it will be about bilateral trade deals? It was


already moving that way in terms of bilateral, multilateral is the World


Trade Organisation doing another massive round. People would argue


they don't always achieve that much. No, and probably the difficult of


multilateral ones now is that trade is so much more complicated and is


about investment and services. Even though economists would like to see


a big multilateral trade deal, it takes two long and so now they will


be more specific about what is negotiated like services. And China


is interesting because they initiated the Asia infrastructure


investment bank which the United States did not join, the UK did. It


is another effort to think regionally and collaboratively and


to displace the US leadership and power and standards and norms, which


is a grave threat to the US leadership role in the world. As


Linda said, if the soft power is going to be put to one side on the


trade deal, one will look at some of the military signs and Trump has


said he wants to expand the US Navy, and build up the number of ships,


what is the significance of that? I think the concern is that if you


pursue a strategy that focuses on hard power without integrating trade


and soft power and diplomacy to the centre, it sets you up to have a


more contentious relationship with the region. And as we know in the


campaign, the commitment to the US commitment to Japan and Korea was


not on the table firmly so even with the military build-up, there is a


lot of uncertainty about what that means for America's one standing


allies. Some of these countries already jumping at the chance of a


bilateral, Chile for example, they see it as an opportunity as well?


Yes, and the route which hosted the summit were China, they immediately


asked to sign up to a Chinese lead free trade area -- and the roof.


Thank you very much. Now, in less than a fortnight,


the Supreme Court will be hearing the most important case


in a generation. At stake, whether the Government


alone can decide to trigger the process of our exit


from the European Union, or whether Parliament needs


to approve the process first. Earlier this month, three High Court


judges sided with campaigners, telling the Government that it


would have to get the approval of Parliament before


triggering Article 50. Theresa May wants to trigger Article


50, starting the UK's divorce negotiations


with the European Union, Talks are supposed to last two


years, so that would mean the UK So the Government has appealed


to the Supreme Court and, next month, 11 judges


there will have to decide whether to uphold or overturn


the High Court Ruling. Last week, the Court also decided


that the senior law officers from Scotland and Wales will be


allowed to address the Court At stake is whether triggering


Article 50 leads inevitably to the repeal of the 1972


European Communities Act. Normally, only MPs and peers


have the power to repeal The Government is planning


to introduce what they are calling "The Great Repeal Bill"


in the spring, but that faces the prospect of months of debates,


amendments and votes in the Commons and the Lords,


so approval for that could be We're joined now from Cambridge


by Professor Christopher Forsyth, who is a professor of Public Law


at Cambridge University, and the SNP MP Joanna Cherry,


who is on the Brexit Select Welcome to both of you. Christopher,


does the triggering of Article 50 ultimately leads to the repeal of


the 1972 act? No, it does not. It may read irrevocably to our


departure from the EU but it does not do anything about repealing the


EU act. Can you look into the camera? Perfect. Why do you say


that? That was the position of the Government lawyers, as well as the


person who brought the case, Gina Malone. We may be talking about a


technical difference here. We could cease to be members of the EU and


the treaties would no longer apply, but unless Parliament legislated to


remove the 1972 act from the statute book, it would remain on the statute


book. That is the sense in which it is not being repealed and we would


cease to be members of the EU. The point being made is that we would


lose rights, we would lose rights that would be lost for ever and that


cannot happen unless Parliament, both the Commons and the Lords, have


a say in those rights being repealed or lost. That is absolutely right.


But it is from a slightly different principle. The prerogative should


not be used to frustrate Parliamentary legislation. And that


is what would be happening, so the argument for the claimants goes, in


the current case. That is what would be happening if we cease to be


members of the EU, it would effectively amounts to the repeal of


the act. In your view, once Article 50 is triggered, it is it


reversible? Well, the High Court found it was irrevocable and the


Government lawyers conceded that in the High Court. As a matter of law,


it is open to the Government lawyers to withdraw their concession to the


Supreme Court and it may be difficult for them to do so. It


would involve political difficulties for the Government because of


Article 50 triggering which is not remarkable and Brexiter does not


mean Brexit. And Parliament does not have to give its approval?


Ultimately, the question of whether Article 50 is irrevocable is a


matter for the European Court of Justice and it would be rather


embarrassing for the British Government giving it stands and


reluctance to exist -- to accept the justice and Luxembourg, to refer the


question of Article 50 to Luxembourg. You have tried to


compare it to the Brexit vote. The Brexit vote was a referendum, it was


one... I have not compared to the vote, this is illegal and is not


political matter. You have tried to say Brexit would not mean Brexit.


Let me just explained. So that people understand. One is a


political answer to a question. That can be interpreted in whatever way,


but everyone is broadly agreed. Actually, people said they wanted to


leave the EU. Even if they say... It was a UK referendum. Indeed, but I


am here as a Scottish MP and I want to talk about the fact that 62% of


Scots voted to remain. It was not a devolved issue. 72% in my


constituency. The EU is written into the Scotland Act which founded the


Scotland Parliament and European law affects citizens in Scotland and


indeed businesses. And so there is a very strong argument that triggering


Article 50 will affect the rights of individuals in Scotland, this is


where Scotland comes in. Let's put that to Christopher, do you agree on


that? I agree that the question of whether the Article 50 notice can be


revoked is an important question. And there is a respectable case for


suggesting that it could be revoked, based upon a technical argument to


do with the Vienna Law of treaties. But if the UK could revoke the


notice once it is given, it would completely transform the position


because it would mean if we did not like the deal we got at the end of


the process, we could walk away from it by revoking our notice. And of


course, it would completely undermine the argument that the


triggering of the notice removes rights. Of course, as Joanna has


just remarked, that would cause difficulties for the Government


because it is ultimately a question of EU law and would require


reference to the EU Court, meaning delays of up to two years and you


could imagine the political consequences of a EU court denying


us Brexit! On that basis, do you think the Government lawyers have


employed the wrong arguments by making their case here?


I think that is perhaps so, I think it was for political reasons they


conceded the point about revocable at it, but the other grounds they


conceded that they shouldn't have. The one that strikes you most


obviously is the status of the 2015 referendum act, the act under which


the referendum took place was that that is the act which forms the


foundation of the proposition that the outcome of the referendum is


only advisory. Now I'm not sure that that's absolutely right, because it


seems to me that you can argue that by the 2015 act, Parliament


delegated to the people the right to decide this question, and the people


have decided it. Right, then if following on from that, do you think


this is an example, Christopher Forsyth, of a broader trend of


judicial activism? Now, I certainly don't think that. The judgment of


the court below is commendably orthodox, it upholds the supremacy


and constitutional law in an understandable way. It is arguable


that some of those principles have been randomly applied, and this is


by the government may be successful on appeal, but it is a commendably


orthodox judgment and there is nothing wrong with... I'd deprecate


the attacks on the judges made as a result. Let me come back to you on


the idea of Scotland getting a separate deal, Joanna Cherry, do you


think that is paid in the water now, there is no indication from the EU


that could happen? Scotland getting a separate deal is ultimately a


matter to discuss between the Scottish and the British government


in the first instance, and then the UK Government would go to the EU to


say this is the deal we want, and I don't think it is dead in the water


and the Scottish Government will shortly be coming forward with their


detailed proposals. But it is all about the right of Scottish voters


through the Scottish Parliament to be consulted, and this is why the


Lord Advocate James Weir off QC has sought to intervene on behalf of the


Scottish Government and the Supreme Court have allowed him to make


submissions about points arising from Scottish constitutional law,


which may be relevant to the case. Of course in the high case, -- in


the High Court was no proper argument, and the High Court made


the assumption that the constitutional them in Wales and


Scotland is the same, which we would argue is not the case. Thank you


very much, Joanna Cherry. The government has been heavily


criticised for its lack of planning for a vote to leave


the European Union, and Bernard Jenkin, the Chair


of Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs


Committee, has laid the blame on civil servants, who he says


"are not emotionally Here he is speaking


in a Westminster Hall A lot of the civil service


is struggling to catch up with the absence of preparation


for the outcome of the referendum, which I think is one of the lessons


we must take from this referendum. It is unforgivable for a government


to call a referendum and remain completely unprepared for one


of the possible eventualities. And therefore, there are a lot


of officials who are rapidly trying to get their brains around -


perhaps in a scenario that they're not emotionally attracted to anyway


- some very, very difficult and complicated questions,


and it's taking some time. And I'm joined now by Bernard


Jenkin, and the Liberal Democrat MP So you're blaming the civil service


for everything and they are not emotionally attracted to Brexit, why


do you have to be? Of course civil servants are impartial and are not


blaming civil servants. You are. You're putting words in my mouth. I


thought I was being rather tactful. Even by your standards. The problem


was it was the Prime Minister of the day that forbade civil servants to


make any preparations for a leave vote, and I am not admiring of the


Cabinet Secretary who in fact kind of illicitly good and awayday with


the permanent secretaries during the final weeks of the referendum


campaign when nobody was looking in order to say if there is a leave


vote what should we actually do? I am very pleased we have an impartial


civil service that does not do what ministers and others want them to do


if they think it is in the interest of the nation. You can't have it


both ways, but you still haven't been what does it mean not


emotionally attracted? I should imagine quite a lot more civil


servants voted remain as opposed to leave, the thing that is a surprise.


Listening to Bernard, I'm afraid my mind goes back to the fantastic yes


Minister sketch where he says he had served 11 government in 30 years


that if he had believed everything all his political masters had ever


believed, he would have been in favour of going in and coming out of


the common market. He would have been in favour of Keynesian economic


is, they destroy and a preserve of grammar schools. He says Bob Wells,


Bernard, not you obviously, above all else Bernard, he says, I would


have been stark, staring, raving mad. That maybe so, but that is the


impartiality of the civil servants. Do you think they should have had a


nice big file that said Brexit plan? Vote to leave committee is the plan


that will follow on 24th of June if they win? I will tell you exactly


what I thought should have happened. Before a general election, months


before, the main opposition party will go and see the civil servants


in private and say this is our manifesto, this is what we would


expect you to be able to implement if we were elected. And I think


there is a very strong case for, even though a Leave campaign is not


a prospective government, for there to have been formal engagement. Did


you try? Now, it was absolutely off-limits! Did you have anything


even to share them if you had got in contact? Yes, there was a very large


volume produced by business for Britain could change or go, and you


would have heard of it, and that went into a great deal of the detail


that civil servants are having to now grapple with. There was a great


deal of legal discussion amongst members of Parliament about what


Article 50 meant and what would have to be negotiated, and how a free


trade agreement might be constructed. And a great deal of


work was done. But you did not have the opportunity. We always made it


clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. Lots of


people said lots of different things. Now, we were very clear.


Alistair Carmichael, if Bernard Jenkin is blaming the government of


the day. His own government. Then should there have been preparation?


Would it not have been a lot easier if there had been a proper look and


investigation? Actually, now I don't. When I was in government and


we were going through the Scottish referendum preparation we said we


are not going to plan for something that we do not want to happen. This


is not government policy, we will of course respect the outcome as indeed


we did but we're not going to plan the something we do not want to


happen. Bernard does have a point, though, in that since the 23rd of


June there should have been planning, there should have been


political dimension given to the civil service, and as a member of


the select committee, meeting the senior management team a couple of


weeks ago, it is painfully obvious that even now, five months down the


line, none of that is happening. Do you think as an observer, Linda


Yueh, that there was a plan? Do you think the government has an idea


that it wants to do at this stage you not? I think there is probably


different tools within government about what Brexit is when they say


Brexit means Brexit, but I think the capacity timber and what they want


is probably something that needs to Bielik that much more -- different


views. We have not had trade negotiations for 40 years in


government because that is done by the European Union. We don't have


specialist lawyers, those who can advise us on how you get out for


instance of current trade deals. Like the Canadians, they have


negotiated a free-trade deal with the EU, they said they expect the UK


to be in this trade deal but when we leave the EU they would want to


discuss us keeping that trade deal on similar terms and I think that is


the kind of expertise you cannot build up very quickly. Right, so


there is a frantic chase to get new stuff and people on board and lots


of money is being spent? Buried in the OBE are documents those a few


bob in their meant for just the cost of admin of Brexit. So it will be


costly. The sort of sea change that has been spoken about would not have


been any more achievable if it had started in March rather than June.


The alarming thing is that in November it still has not started


yet. And in that sense if all of that money is going to be spent on


some of your Brexit colleagues say it won't cost any more in terms of


admin, it will cost a little bit more, do you think now there will be


needed some serious investment in the rights of the people to deliver


free-trade deals but Munster do? We will need to acquire, I'm in Canada


has some hundreds of trade negotiators, and we will need to


manage their trading relationships with the rest of the world and the


United Kingdom will need a similar department, which is why the


government has established a department for international trade,


and it is taking time to build up that apartment -- department. But


the civil service will have to adapt to, people tend to Allied order this


into some great big messy plot. There are some things which the


government needs to decide now, in preparation for negotiations and


some things that actually need to be decided in the agreement. Most of


what people are discussing is what to do after we have left. And still


the question about whether it was clear on leaving or not? That is the


next time. Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr programme made it


absolutely clip. Stephen Phillips had to leave Parliament, it was that


clear. There's just time before we go to


find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: what was


Nigel Farage photographed with last Was it a) Donald Trump's


daughter, Ivanka? or d) a recently acquired


American passport? So, Linda, what's


the correct answer? And actually why haven't we got a


nice big pile of fellow La Rochelle here? There we go, we have. He looks


very pleased with himself, doesn't it? Well done, you got the right


answer to stop hang on a second. I had better take this call.


When is it OK to stop concentrating on what's happening around you,


and start enjoying the world vicariously through your


Well, yesterday, when Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell


was delivering his very important response to Philip Hammond's Autumn


Statement, it wasn't holding the full attention of Labour


No fewer than 21 MPs sitting behind John McDonnell in the chamber can be


seen fiddling with their mobile phones, instead of concentrating


fully on what their esteemed colleague was saying.


So was this a gross discourtesy to the Shadow Chancellor, or is it


Who better to ask than etiquette coach, Jean Broke Smith?


What you make of this image, they are all intensely looking at their


messages. Horrified. I counted about 20. There was the Shadow Chancellor


responding, and I don't know what they were doing, perhaps they


were... Online shopping? Sorry be a little bit day-to-day. -- bit late.


And they were spreading the Labour leadership is Mac message, which


would have been a very important one on the day of the Autumn Statement,


I suppose isn't that the waves of things are these days? We hope so.


Mobile phones, as much as we need them, it has taken over our lives


completely. You go to a restaurant and you never see to people having


a, session. They are either under the table or they are actually


speaking loudly. I mean something happened to me two days ago, I was


walking down my road, just minding my end business, somebody was loudly


speaking on the phone, waving the arms around, walked straight into me


like that and look to me as if I should not have been on the


pavement. Yes, do you think now we have lost sight of General courtesy,


day-to-day manners when it comes to mobile phones? I think there was a


lot of truth to that. In Parliament I think it is completely egregious.


I know John McDonnell said they were treating up -- treating up messages


but he also said public perception matters. I suppose it is not quite


as bad as the Norwegian Prime Minister who was caught playing


Pokemon Go on her mobile phone during a session of Parliament. I


could not believe that at first. It was so extraordinary. I was just


thinking this morning, about when Cameron was in five or six years


ago, the band mobile phones from Cabinet meetings. I was asked what I


thought and I said well done. But the Norwegian situation, I read it


and thought this can't be. Pokemon Go and food ninja. Anyway, I am


pleased to say we don't allow phones only for the particular purpose of


that item. Thank you to all of our guests for coming in.


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


Andrew will be here on BBC One tonight with Michael Portillo,


Liz Kendall, Dan Hodges, Tim Shipman, John Nicolson


and Stewart Lee joining on This Week from 11.45pm.


And the Daily Politics will be back at noon tomorrow with all the big


Download Subtitles