26/01/2017 Daily Politics

The Prime Minister is on her way to America

She'll say the UK and the US can lead the world again.

But Mr Trump may lead her into controversy, as he reaffirms

The government is about to publish legislation asking parliament

to approve triggering Article 50 and the formal process

of leaving the EU. We'll bring you all the latest.

Official figures show the British economy is beating forecasts again,

The Chancellor says there are still uncertainties ahead.

We'll look at how the UK has fared since the vote to leave the EU.

And they're all over Westminster - we'll tell you all you need to know,

and more, about the division bells that keep an MP's day

And with us for the whole of the programme today,

it's the financial analyst and commentator, Louise Cooper.

She used to work in the City, but decided to leave the Square

Mile, presumably to find a more rewarding career.

Unfortunately, she ended up being a journalist.

Welcome back to the show anyway, Louise.

So, Theresa May arrives in America later today -

it's something of a diplomatic coup for the Prime Minister,

as she will be the first world leader to meet new US President

She's expected to say that Britain and America can

"rediscover our confidence" and "lead together again".

No doubt Mr Trump will agree with that.

Meanwhile, Mr Trump has been busy, moving to deliver on many of his

campaign pledges, including advancing his plans for a wall

with Mexico, killing off a major multilateral trade deal,

and reducing funding for abortions, among other things.

Not necessarily policies the UK would want to be associated with.

Overnight he's also repeated his position on waterboarding -

that's an interrogation technique considered by many

Here is the President talking to ABC News.

When they're chopping off the heads of people because they happen to be

Christian in the Middle East, when Isis is doing things not heard of

since medieval times, would I feel strongly about water boarding? We

have to fight fire macro with tyre. No. I am going with General Mattis.

I am going with my secretary. I am going to go with what they say. But

I have spoken as recently as 24 hours ago with people at the highest

level of intelligence, and I asked them the question.

And the answer was, "Yes, absolutely."

That was the president of the United States in a long interview that went

out on the ABC network last night in America. Ten o'clock East Coast

time. The water boarding remarks have got the headlines.

We're joined now by the commentator and Republican, Charlie Wolf.

Welcome back. Would you describe or might consider water boarding as a

form of torture? Not as it was done at once Mowbray, going by a legal

definition established by the attorney general, it did not meet

the standards of torture. What the Japanese did in the Second World

War, yes, that would be torture. Do you accept it is now illegal in the

United States? I know that President Obama did not use it. And I

understand it is not being used at present. It is illegal, according to

Senator McCain. Do you except it is illegal as things stand? As things

stand, probably. I haven't researched that but I will take his

word. It is an important too loud side of the tool box. President

Trump said he would bring back water boarding and a hell of a lot worse

than water boarding. Can we agree that a hell of a lot worse than

water boarding would amount to torture? I think it wouldn't be a

legal standard, would it? But you also have to remember with Donald

Trump, he speaks as a New York businessman. He does not speak as a

politician. New York businessmen into torturing? No. He speaks in a

way that is not precise. He says he would bring back water boarding and

he would bring back a hell of a lot worse. We can sit here and quantify.

To him it is probably more, I will go out and do whatever it takes. But

he said he would rely on his secretary of defence, General

Mattis, and the new head of the CIA. And also, let's not forget, three

people were water boarded at Guantanamo Bay and it did actually

work. You are aware, will Mr Trump be aware of what the British Foreign

Secretary has described as the objection to torture which remains

unchanged? That's fine. I don't see water boarding as it was done at

Guantanamo Bay. That is your opinion. Many others do. I think

that is why there were moves to make it illegal. Mr Obama didn't do it.

Here is the question though. Why raise this at all? Given that he

said he's not going to do it, why raise it at all? You're smarter than

me. Is it -- isn't it interesting that Donald Trump has a way of

soaking the oxygen out of a room and getting people to talk about

everything else but whatever they want to talk about. For instance, we

had that march on Saturday, millions across the world. That one went down

the news agenda very quickly when he brought up, I can't even remember

what it was, but everybody started talking about what he said. I think

it was a complaint about the numbers at the inauguration. He has this

ability to move on the news agenda and most people bite. When you do

look at this, and I watched the whole interview, and I've read the

transcript, he gets it both ways. He says he is up for water boarding or

even worse, he said that during the campaign. That plays to his base.

But even says he is not going to do it because he is listening to mad

dogmatics. He is a tough guy, he doesn't think it should be done. And

the new head of the CIA doesn't think it should be done. So he heads

the base but he doesn't do it. Smart. What I find disease beaks to

his experts and they say it works. And yet the Guardian... He didn't

say it works. He said it wasn't illegal in Guantanamo Bay. The

Chapter, forgive me, his name escapes me, the guy who designed the

programme has been on several interviews and he can tell you how

it is working. General Mattis has said it didn't work. He would rather

go into an interrogation with a cigarette and a beer. In most cases

that probably works. But if you have talent Sheikh Mohammed sitting down,

he is not going to say anything to you unless you give him permission.

It's interesting you say that. There is also the potential backlash from

violent extremism if America goes down this route under Trump. There

was a piece in the Guardian by a former air force colonel who said

this threatens the National Security of America if we do this. So there

are questions about whether it works, whether it is illegal. On top

of that, it could provoke a far worse situation than we have

already. It may or may not. If you are in a war that everything is at

cost, you are fighting for your life, democracy, then I'm not going

to worry too much about the PR aspects. I feel you have to do what

you have to do. Now listen, one of the things that we lost out in that

war was PR. We are still seeing pictures of people in orange

jumpsuits. That was day one when they were coming off the tarmac so

they didn't get hit by other planes. Propaganda. It violent extremist

backlash is not PR. It threatens the national security of America. They

will use propaganda whatever you do. Do you bent to them or do what you

need to do? General Mattis, the new defence secretary, he says he has

never found it useful referring to water boarding and torture. The new

head of the CIA says he would -- he would not comply with a presidential

order to do water boarding. The Senate congressional -- and

congressional investigations into water boarding found almost no

examples of it working and found that the negative images created of

America, supposedly a civilised land of liberal, culture and values, far

outweighed any intelligence. I would discard the congressional report. I

would leave it to the commanders. It was used three times. People think

everybody got their orange jumpsuit and got water border. You cant leave

whether a country tortures or not to its commanders? The protocols were

in place. It was done to a very exacting standard. Let's not forget,

this was after 9/11 when we had no idea what was coming around the

bend. They had to do whatever was necessary to protect the United

States of America. Can we agree that despite the interview last night, it

is highly unlikely to happen? Exactly, but were still talking

about it. You know why. Thank you very much.

Theresa May will give President Donald Trump

a gift tomorrow, to remind him of his links to Scotland.

Is it tickets to see Trainspotting 2 at the Maidenhead

A bound collection of Robert Burns poems?

Or a quaich - a Scottish friendship cup?

At the end of the show, Louise will give us the correct answer.

We've had the latest figures growth figures for the UK

economy this morning, and they're once again more positive

than forecasters had predicted, showing this was the fastest-growing

economy in the G7 group of advanced nations last year.

And although the indicators are far from all positive, the Confederation

of British Industry says that UK manufacturing is "firing

So let's have a look under the bonnet of the British economy,

with a snapshot of some of the most important figures.

for National Statistics, GDP grew by 0.6% in the last three

This is an early estimate. They tend to be revised.

That means growth of a solid 2% for the whole of 2016.

The employment rate is currently 74.5% -

that's the joint highest it's been since records began in this

And the unemployment rate is also historically very low at 4.8%.

And figures out yesterday showed that 1.72 million cars were built

We haven't built that many cars in this country since 1999.

But it's not all good news for the automotive sector -

investment in the industry dropped by about a third

to ?1.66 billion in 2016. It was ?2.5 billion in 2015.

We don't know if that is just the investment cycle or people holding

back because of uncertainty. It reached a 31-year-low last

October, but has rebounded It has rebranded a bit since then.

Still well below where it started. -- rebounded.

it's currently at 1.6%, according to the CPI index.

That's the highest it's been since July last year.

So those are some of the economic indicators, although of course,

Let's have a listen to the Chancellor Philip Hammond

as he responded to this morning's growth figures.

The figures today, which are very good, show the resilience of the UK

economy. And points to the bright future we have as we go into this

period of negotiation with the European Union based on the very

clear agenda that the Prime Minister set out last week.

We're joined now by two economists, that noble profession which was said

to have suffered its Michael Fish moment after the financial

It's Danny Blanchflower and Liam Halligan.

So the economy growing by around about 2% is not great but it is

better than anybody else in the G7. It is not what the Remain campaign,

the Chancellor, the OECD bank said. Well, the Bank of England acted.

Don't smile, the Bank of England acted. And the indicators were bad

in August, so they cut rates. Absolutely. They cut rates, they did

QE, which raised confidence. And from here, the indicators are not

great. Investors in tensions and employment intentions are very weak.

It takes time for things to have an effect. Fortunately, the market

reacts. It was interesting that you offered a model at the time that

presumed no policy change but it was predictable the bank would have

reacted. To that extent, the models were misleading. Do you accept that

the cut of 25 basis points... It was a PR driven cut. Danny says the

economy turned on a sixpence because we cut interest rates. But here we

are, the Treasury said we would have an immediate and profound economic

shock. You know that was silly. It was repeatedly described as fact by

the Chancellor of the day and yet here we are with manufacturing PMI

above 56%, services growth above 56%. Buoyant GDP numbers. I agree

that the longer Brexit goes on, the more uncertainty there is about

Brexit, the more that will affect investment going forward but for now

at least, the UK economy remains resilient. Why did you smile?

Because cutting rates from 0.5% to 0.25%, I cannot understand how that

would have any effect on the economy. QE might have helped but

you cannot go any further. What more can they do to stimulate the

economy, that is the fundamental problem. The bank, what the Bank of

England did had very little effect. I agree with some of it and disagree

with some of it. Essentially, what they are showing is that the bank is

on the case and that had an impact. But you are right, the bank does not

really have very far to go. The reality is that the bond market, we

are buying the bonds of American companies so there is a limit to

what the Bank of England can do. The reality is that the recession is

coming and they come every eight or ten years. We are eight years in. If

you are eight or ten years on, that is what the cycle is. And you are

quite right to say that the bank is scared and it has nowhere to go. So

we have a recession, with or without Brexit? We would be. I would just

say, I think the time it Brexit was really bad because of a section was

coming soon. -- I think the timing of Brexit was really bad because a

recession was coming soon. The danger that we face is the potential

expulsion of the Eurozone as it goes through political turmoil, not that

I wish it to happen, but the euro has so many internal

inconsistencies. The even greater danger is the unwinding of this

absurd QE policy which Danny and other central bank policymakers have

commented. When I look at the models that got the predictions wrong, the

reason they got it wrong was very little to do with whether there was

more QE or a minuscule cut in interest rates, it was because they

assumed that the British consumer would be as frightened of Brexit as

they work. -- as they were and the savings ratio would rise in consumer

spending would fall. That did not happen, indeed the savings ratio

fell. They got it wrong for that reason. Can you not accept, coming

on to the future which is always more uncertain, although sometimes

the past is uncertain for economists... You do not know where

you are, where you are going or where you have been. That sums up

economics. Let me ask, before we move onto this year, can you not

accept that you and these forecasters, you got it wrong and

the economy has performed better than even the Brexiteers thought it

was going to. I think that is true. I agree with that. It is certainly

performed better than I would've thought. But... The result was a

butt. But I think the consumers have behaved in a way that I had not

expected. It is entirely unsustainable. -- there is always a

but. The survey is very weak. We have wage growth falling, if you

take the RBI, that is at 2.5%. Very soon, there we are, 2.5... You are

warning us about inflation now, that is ironic. But you know I am right.

You know I am right. Danny, we all know that depending on what

statistics you pick, you can say anything. The US has 1 million

different sets of economic data and economists still cannot tell us what

is going to happen. Pick out one piece of economic data, Liam can

pick out another, you can say it is bearish or you can say it is

bullish. You have to look at a whole load of them. With all respects, the

GDP number is pretty hard to spin in an advanced economy. However much

the Treasury tries. I will give you a spent, 1.4% of GDP per capita plus

the data we have out today, you will not like this. This is now proven to

be the slowest recovery in 300 years. But we knew that already. And

that is not the UK, that is the US and Europe and everywhere. But hang

on... Hold on a minute. Most economies have had a pretty slow

recovery. We are now 9% higher in GDP terms than before we went into

the crash. The Eurozone this year only got back to that level. There

is nothing unusual about it. Everybody has been slow to recover.

And some, like Italy, and chunks of Europe, have not recovered at all.

Andrew, I am the last person in the world is to say that you should have

been in the euro area, without your own central bank and currency. It

was crucial to have that, to have people like me able to cut rates and

do the QE that he hated, because the fiscal authorities had no idea what

they were doing. The reason the last seven years or so has been the time

of the central bank is because of the utter incompetence of the fiscal

authorities. Moving onto this year and possibly next year, just because

of the forecasters getting last year's wrong and it is irrefutable

that they did, Danny has admitted that, does that mean they will get

this year wrong? What do you say to the city, concerned that growth is

going to fall below 1.5% this year? Are they going to be proved right or

wrong again? I am actually pretty bearish for this year because the

longer that the political classes string out this slow motion Brexit

madness, the more incentive to invest will be prevented. For the

most part, practical business people, whatever they were saying on

the airwaves, they realised that once Brexit had happened, we should

just get on with it and it was not going to affect us that much. If

they see the political class is making a car crash out of this,

spreading uncertainty over the next five or ten years, getting the UK

into a never-ending referendum, that will hit our credit rating. It is

the first time I have ever agreed with anything he has said. I will do

my best to change that. It is quite a lively debate and you are doing a

good job, Andrew! What do you think is the prognosis for this year? Do

you think we could do better than the city? It is really interesting

that there is this consensus and it is all about consumer spending and

inflation going up. That is basically what everybody is saying.

It must be wrong. That is kind of what I think. Because so often the

consensus is wrong, I think we might have a booming year in the context

that 2% is good and the US only grew at 1.6%. In the context of really

slow growth, I think the UK could do all right. Let me give you some

reasons why it might be better. One, there is going to be massive

Keynesian trouble in our biggest national export market, the United

States. Secondly, our biggest export market in terms of the regional

bloc, the Eurozone, is still going to grow about 1.5% this year. It has

not grown much recently, since the great financial crash. Sterling has

had an amazing competitive devaluation which will help, and

average earnings could still stay ahead of inflation. If that was to

happen, wouldn't the city consensus be wrong? I think inflation will

rise and I think wage growth will fall. But I live in America and I

think the chances of a large fiscal stimulus taking place in June 20

17th is almost zero. -- taking place in 2017. Because you need people in

place to comment at. -- to implement it. He needs 4000 people in place to

implement it and he has only employed 30. You do not need people

in place to cut taxes. But we have a position where the people in

Congress are going to do this and when you listen to the nominations,

just to start with, if you abolish... Trump says I will not

abolish Obamacare or touch Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and the

nominees in those positions say exactly the opposite, we have a

budget rector in places as the main thing we need to do is to reduce the

budget. -- budget director in place. The likelihood of it having an

impact in 27 is zero. Congress will take the tax cuts but they will not

allow the spending rises. I think it will end up as a debt ceiling

crisis, as was imposed on President Obama. A lot of the Republicans are

hawkish and that means tax cuts. And rates may well rise, because the Fed

may well raise rates. There is no doubt about that. But we have to

bring this to an end. I'm going to park it there and get it measured.

The two of you are now saying they will not be a Trump injection this

year. Maybe because of other reasons. You have made your bed and

you will now lie on it and you will be held to account. If you are both

wrong, yet again. It might be less than I thought, actually. I am very

disappointed, I am not having you two back again! Who thought that

economic Scooby so much fun? I didn't. -- who thought that

economics could be so much fun. Now do you know your single market

from your Customs Union? Well, of course you do,

because you watch And you've just watched

that discussion. But just in case there's a hint

of doubt in your mind about some terms being used as we discuss

the economy and Britain's exit from the EU, here's Adam to bring

a much needed sense of direction. Bamboozled by Brexit jargon? Let me

give you some directions. The single market is a set of policies designed

to reduce the barriers to the trade of goods and services between member

states within the EU. It is a combination of laws, common

standards, recognising others regulations, and rulings by the

European court of justice. EU countries are members and others

have varying degrees of access. Next... Customs union, which means

that the EU has a common external border for goods. Member states

apply the same import taxes on products from outside the EU with no

customs duties on products traded inside. It also means that trade

deals are done by the EU, not individual countries. The World

Trade Organisation. The World Trade Organisation overseas the global

export rules for countries that do not have free Tate deals between

each other. -- free trade. The EU will fall back on terms brokered by

the WTO until they make their own arrangements. There is a big debate

as to whether that will be a good or bad option for Britain. Here in the

city, the jargon gets technical because we're talking about

passports and equivalence. A passport means that a firm

registered with regulators in one EU company can -- EU country can

operate in all 27 other countries. Its cousin is equivalence, which

means that the EU recognises the regimes of countries outside the EU

in terms of regulation and although it is less and seven passports, it

means that those firms can do fewer things. And now you can speak on

Brexit and the economy. I think we have a reasonably good

idea of the single market and how the government doesn't feel it wants

to negotiate a free-trade deal with the single market. It is more

equivocal on the Customs Union, with sets the external tariffs on the EU.

Can you be half in and have either the Customs Union? I can't see how

we can be in it. If you are going around the world doing trade deals,

selling goods to the rest of the world, how can you stay within a

custom union that forces external tariffs -- Customs union. We can't

have the EU telling us what those tariffs can be. We can't stay. I

think that is the position of Liam Fox. Perhaps David Davis, to. But

not necessarily yet the Prime Minister, who has said the Customs

Union is not a binary choice. If she comes away from the Oval Office with

a sense that America really is up for a major trade deal, and are even

prepared to start work, none of it can be implemented until if and when

we leave. But to get down to what the shape of it would be, is there

not a high chance that she ditches the Customs Union? Look, Trump is

elected. He is what he is, whether you agree with his policies or not.

He is the man we have to negotiate with. Theresa May said hold her nose

and do a deal. That is what she is there to do. I think it is

irrelevant what the EU thing. I cannot see how the EU political

class can be anything other than extremely hard on us. We, of the

country, have opened up the possibility of the country leaving

the EU. The political class of Europe do not want anybody else

contemplating that. I almost think we have no option but to leave the

EU completely and do as many trade deals out there with as many people.

We should go hell for leather with -- for that deal with the US.

Everything from outside the Customs Union comes in at the same tariff

rate, so there is no arbitrageurs between one country and another.

Anything that comes into Britain can go to France as part of the free

terms of the single market. If we are either the Customs Union, that

will not be the same any more. Will there not be complicated rules of

origin problems as we bring stuff in, say the parts of a car? We

import them from outside the U, they go into the car, we exported to

Germany, and the Germans say, hang on, a lot of this stuff has come

from outside the EU? This is the complexity of it. We do not have

enough trade experts that understand this in great detail. I have got

your calf, Andrew! This is one of the problems we have country. We do

not have the nitty-gritty detail. We do not have enough experts. We have

hyped it off to the EU for the last four decades. Does that mean then

that it is unrealistic to think in the two years when Brexit is

triggered, two things have to happen. One is we have to agree the

terms of the divorce. But secondly, and this is the free trade

arrangement the Prime Minister once, we have to agree our relationship

going forward after 2019? Can be -- can that be done in two years? I'm

not a politician. I would expect it will be difficult. The other thing

everybody is terrified of is the default option to the WTO. Clearly

for some industries that would be problematic. But I don't know why we

are so terrified of defaulting to WTO rules. Wouldn't that mean

tariffs? The average tariff on goods is something like 3%. There are

certain areas where the tariffs are higher or lower. If you look at what

sterling has depreciated, although again, be a bit careful saying

sterling has collapsed. The dollar is strong for other reasons. If you

look at the sterling euro rate, we have been at this level many, many

times over the last ten years. But it is still good news for trade.

Probably better and more important than any defaults to the PTO. If you

want more of our Brexit definitions, have a look at our Twitter account.

Now there's been a significant moment in the Commons this morning,

as Britain makes its way out of the European Union.

If you've been paying attention, you'll recall that on Tuesday,

judges at the Supreme Court ruled that the government must seek

the approval of Parliament before triggering Article 50,

the formal process of leaving the EU.

Well, ministers have accepted the ruling, and this morning

they responded by bringing a bill to the House of Commons.

It's only 133 words long. So it could be tweeted out quite quickly.

And it's not quite the shortest built on record but it is pretty

close. It contains only two clauses. The Prime Minister may notify under

Article 50 the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the EU.

And this section has effect despite any provision made by or under the

European Communities Act of 1972 or any other enactment. 1972 being the

year we passed legislation to join the U. -- like the EU. A few minutes

ago the bill received its first reading in the House of Commons to

the delight of many MPs. Presentation of Bill.

Mr secretary David Davis. Notification of withdrawal bill.

Second reading, what they? Tomorrow! Tomorrow.

Order. For an historic moment it wasn't exactly a packed house. Maybe

some didn't know it was coming. To make sense of this,

we're joined by the constitutional Give me your overview of this? What

do you make of it? We hear a lot about the sovereignty of Parliament

at the rim problem for Parliament as the people. Parliament has been

required to do something which is unprecedented in its history. They

need to votes for something that most MPs arrogance, namely Brexit.

About 75% of MPs are for Remain. Are they to vote on this bill according

to their views of what is best for Britain? Or are they to vote on the

result of the referendum? The government says it accepts the

result of the referendum. MPs now have to make up their minds. That

makes it different from, say the 1975 referendum to stay in the

common market because a majority of the Commons wanted to stay in. It

makes it different from the referendum in Scotland and evolution

because the majority of Parliament wanted to stay in. It -- this is

unprecedented in the sense that the people have voted a different way

from the consensus view of Parliament itself? Absolutely. There

are only two parties that favour Brexit. The DUP, the Democratic

Unionist of Northern Ireland, with nine MPs, and Ukip with one MP. That

is not representative of the country. Can this be amended, this

short build? This is the difficulty. The government have deliberately

framed the bill very tightly, hoping that amendments will be ruled out of

order. The bill will go to the committee of the whole house, which

is chaired by the Deputy Speaker, whom I think you are interviewing

later. We have all the superstars on this programme. It is entirely at

his discretion what counts as a regal amendment, one that is within

the scope of the bill. Would it be reasonable to say, we will trickle

Article 50 provided you stay in the single market? Of the Scottish

Nationalists could ask for a veto for the Scottish parliament. Your

guess is as good as mine. The Deputy Speaker decides. It is in his

discretion. There is no appeal from his decision. When the SNP

threatened 50 amendments, to big a round number, they don't necessarily

get most of the... They could all be called, are none of them could be

called? That's right. The government could timetable the bill so it gets

through in a limited amount of time. The key question is whether certain

amendments can be discussed. The one I mentioned about only being able to

trigger Article 50 if the Scottish parliament is being given a veto.

The Deputy Speaker will have to decide if that amendment is to be

discussed. That amendment would not get through, would it? No, they

won't get through but they would be discussed and give the SNP a further

scope for grievance. Five days, we are told MPs will have. Yes,

presumably the timetable motion will be accepted. That doesn't

necessarily follow. In 2012, House of Lords reform was scuppered when

Conservative MPs refused a timetabling motion. What about the

House of Lords, where the consensus against Brexited even stronger? The

House of Lords is more of a problem for the government. It does not have

a majority. Even more important, it has no control over the timetable or

scope of amendments. The Lords has no power to rule any amendments out

of order. The only constraint is itself of -- sense of self

restraint. Should a pit itself against not only the government and

the House of Commons, but the people? I think it would be unwise

for them to do that. Self restraint or self-preservation? Absolutely

right. Or the Prime Minister could call a general election if the House

of Lords appears to thwart the will of the government and the people.

Would that be an election not just about Brexit but about the future of

the House of Lords? That may be the case. The Liberals, the strongest

these days on the powers of the Lords, it could be they curtail the

powers of the Lords after their budget in 99 was thrown out by the

Lords. I think it would also probably result in a landslide

Conservative victory in the general election, with liberal -- which

Liberal Democrat peers would presumably not want. Lots to take

into account. Thank you for joining us.

Now, is the government planning to weaken workers' rights

It's something we discussed on the show earlier in the week,

and it's become a central claim made by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

He argues that Theresa May is planning a "bargain-basement

Brexit", a reference to the Prime Minister's

threat that if the EU tries to punish Britain

in negotiations, then the government would change our economic model

Let's have a listen to the exchanges at Prime Minister's

What's the PM -- what the Prime Minister is doing is petulantly

aiming a threat at our mock -- add our public services with her threat

of a bargain basement Britain. Is priority our struggling NHS, those

denied social care, children having their school funding cut? Or is it

once again further cuts in big business taxation to make the rich

even better off? One of the objectives I set out in my plan for

negotiation was to protect workers' rights. He talks about threats to

public services. I'll telling what the threat to public services would

be. A Labour government borrowing 500 million extra pounds. That would

destroy our macroeconomy and mean no funding for our public services.

That was yesterday. I'm joined now by the Conservative

MP Nadhim Zahawi and Welcome. Bargain basement Britain,

Ben Bradshaw, is a good line. A good sound bite. It doesn't sound a

future for Britain in the 21st century. But the Prime Minister and

the Chancellor have never used these words? Those are Jeremy's words.

Some people quite like a bargain, don't they?! But I know what he

means. The issue for me is that Philip Hammond was clearly using

this as a threat but one he didn't want to fulfil, because he made it

clear he wanted us to stick with our social market economy, European

mature democratic economy. So are not quite sure that using a thread

that you don't actually want to carry through is particularly

effective. -- threat. If it goes pear shaped, that was the situation,

it's impossible to do a kind of deal without an agreement. We moved to an

alternative economic model. What would be the headline features of

that? First of all, the Prime Minister has been very clear on

this. I am going to come to workers' rights in a minute. That was not my

question. What would an alternative economic model looked like? Just

give me a couple of things that would be different.

The objective is to bring in more taxes and therefore encourage more

investment. To protect people's work, to protect the economy. If you

look at WTO, for example, which is where we could enter up, the average

mean tariff is 4.9%. I think the advantage on foreign exchange and

what we were doing in aggressively pursuing trade deals with America,

Australia... We have never applied a beggar thy neighbour. WTO rules are

something you take if you go out without a deal. It's not an

alternative economic model. How would we run our economy differently

if this scenario plays out? What you would do is create a strongly tax

advantageous economy for investment. That's what you would look at.

Because what we've never done is what was done in Luxembourg, a

beggar thy neighbour kind of policy. We have never followed that. That is

a tax haven. The difference here, this is hypothetical, we inject ?60

billion into the EU 27 every year in demand. They don't want to lose that

demand and have us without a deal. So this idea that we won't get a

good deal is for the birds. The Spanish foreign minister said today

he wants to start negotiations on a trade deal today.

, because I am not, to what the alternative economic model will be?

-- are you any wiser, because I am not. No, but the geography is

smaller than that Fischer, with a large small workforce that does not

enjoy the employment rights Theresa May says she wants to preserve in

this country. Well, let me as steel, do you believe that workers' rights

are at risk, given the government has said quite clearly that it

believes, it claims, it promises that they will not be? Yes, and the

reason for that is that I cannot see us getting a better deal than we

have at the moment. When you talk about WTO rules, for sheep farmers

in Devon, that is a 51% tariffs if we fall back on that. Something has

to be done to keep us competitive and the only thing I can think of

this law or regulation on food quality, the environment, and worse

workers' rights. The mayor tell you what will kick in is the law of

comparative advantage. For national leaders, they will look at the

economy, where we are strong, like financial services, and it will be

no good for the EU to weaken ourselves in that area because they

will weaken themselves. I cannot see us going to a place where we will

not have a good deal. The Spanish Foreign Minister yesterday said,

let's not wait, let's start negotiating for a deal with the UK

because they think we are an important trading partner. All of

this Armageddon scenario is just not true. What do you make of the

mayoral London's remarks that he has been in discussion with the

government, because busy Brexit has a huge location for the City of

London, that he does not see any threat to workers' rights? I am sure

he has been given those assurances and that is what the ministers are

saying publicly but the logic of this Armageddon scenario was falling

back on WTO rules or not getting a better deal than we have at the

moment. If I was city calm, I would be saying what he is saying because

he wants to hold the government and ministers to what they have said in

public. -- if I was Sadiq Khan. That is the problem with your party, you

are flip-flopping. You either agree that there will be protection for

workers' rights and we move on or the same thing you are doing over

triggering Article 50, because you are worried about your northern

seats which voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. Therefore you are

oscillating between positions. We are going over some well trodden

ground. What is your reaction to the Brexit bill? I think the

restructuring to the debate is the most -- I think the restriction to

the detail is the most important thing and will impact on what is to

come. We have weeks on the Maastricht Treaty and days on the

legislation but I hope that all the opposition parties, including the

Labour Party, will vigorously oppose any programme aimed at enforcing

this straitjacket on Parliament. Is your party going to enforce a three

line whip to vote for this bill? I don't know but every single Labour

backbencher who spoke at the business statement just now in

response to that announcement was outraged and made it very clear that

three days on such a huge issue was completely unacceptable, so... The

Guardian has just reported that the Shadow Cabinet has decided on a

three line whip. To oppose the programme motion? To support Article

50. Well I think that is a great pity. I do not know why we're doing

that because we are supposed to be in opposition. The opposition's job

is to oppose. But it is in the national interest. The government

has denied the ability to negotiate. This is not a piece of legislation

from Europe. We are not talking about negotiation, we're talking

about the only chance MPs will have to voice their view about hard

Brexit. Do you expect that there will be a major rebellion on

backbenchers? If it comes to a vote, I imagine that there will be a

considerable number of Labour MPs and one would hope any MP who cares

about the sovereignty of Parliament, who would not support a programmed

motion of that type. And do you expect that could be a rebellion in

line with the three line whip, perhaps within the Shadow Cabinet? I

cannot speak for my Shadow Cabinet colleagues. You will have to ask

them. When I get the chance, I will but I am grateful to you both.

BELL RINGS. No, it's not the bell that tells us it's lunchtime at the

BBC or even the fire alarm. It's the division bell,

which sounds throughout the parliamentary estate

and beyond, to let MPs and peers know that a vote,

or division, as it is known, Ellie, who's always

very a-ppealing... Do you see what I did there, has

more. It is what happens when the speaker needs MPs to vote on

something. A division. The doors would normally be shot but the

speaker will shout, division, and there is usually someone else on the

door who will shout, and it is up to the doorkeeper to do something about

it. Once division has been shouted, I will lift up the road here and

press the button, for the division bells to go off. You have to do it

as quickly as possible? As soon as the vision is shouted, I will shout

division and press the button. The bells go off for two minutes around

the palace itself, the outbuildings, and some of central London. Then the

members have eight minutes to get to the lobbies to vote. And if they do

not get back in time, tough, the doors are locked. So here is what

happens. Division, clear the lobby. The bells, the bells, are all run

the Parliamentary estate but it is not just in here. -- are all around

the Parliamentary estate. There are 384 bells around the area, and they

are meant to be within an eight minute radius of the Commons so MPs

can lead it back to vote. So let's put it to the test. This is the red

Lion pub on Whitehall and this is its division bell. Not that one,

this one. It doesn't look like much but apparently it doesn't work that

well, but in theory MPs can go for a quiet drink and still be back in

Parliament in time if they are suddenly needed for a aye or a no.

Or they could be here, one of many restaurants with a bell of its own.

This one is better to look at, but that slap up meal may be cut short.

There are hotels and conference centre is fitted with division

bells. But for some of them, getting back to the Commons is a bit of a

challenge. Especially if you're walking. I am not sure what the

rules are. Taxi! And who better to tell us more

about this than the man who is often called upon to trigger a division

in the Commons? It's the Principal Deputy

Speaker, Lindsey Hoyle. Welcome to the programme. You of the

moment. You have been referenced several times but not to do with

bells. How do you know that they can get there in eight minutes? Do you

have teams of clerks doing time trials? They were extended. We had a

member who suffered a heart attack trying to make the division and they

were very generous and expended it by a minute. -- and extended it.

Eight minutes as the norm and hopefully people are warned in

advance so they are ready to leave and on their way. But I would say

that if you were on the top floor in one of the outer buildings, get in

the left quickly, get to the ground floor because you do not want to

fall the whips for missing the vote. What is the furthest away you can be

and hear the bell? I think you have covered quite a few of the outlying

areas, including public houses. That restaurant is a fair wok. I know

that you would probably have to be Linford Christie to have a good

chance at making it in eight minutes. If you know that division

is coming, you will have a taxi waiting. Some of the MPs who can

afford of -- can afford to live in this part of Westminster, would they

have had bells in their home? At one point they did. The wealthier

members, like Michael is time, he may well have done, but I was not

going into individual names. Michael Portillo? You have to be called

Michael to have a bell on. It seems to be a trend. Or a good bank

account. -- have a bell at home. Do you think he has bells on his trains

these days? What happens if the bell does not work? You will be warned

but if you are outside the estate, we get a message to say that the

bell is not working and that we had no time. We give extra time we know

there is an issue or the left has failed. You have that ability to

say, let's take a sensible view about this, we know it is not their

fault that the bell did not ring. It is that ability to extend it. A bell

is very quaint, but I like the sound of a bell. But it is 2017. Shouldn't

they be messaged on Whatsapp? The one thing that will come, not only

will the bell starts swinging on your television or in the office, it

will also say division. There are other methods and you will still

have people going around shouting, division. So we have different kinds

of ways of getting the message out but at least people respond to the

bell. It is amazing. I'm sure my colleagues thought there was a vote

when they left a minute ago. Is it like padlocks dog? They hear the

sound and they start running. -- Pavlov's dog. Over in the house,

when the bill goes, they usually say, look after my drink. I always

say, what are you going to vote on and nine times out of ten, they have

no idea. There is always a good whip to advise you, don't worry. You're

the man of the moment, chairing two of the parliamentary events. The

great repeal Bill and the Article 50 bill. You have to decide what

amendments are taken? I will be looking into that when it comes,

yes. Are you looking forward to this? Like everything, it goes with

the job. I am very lucky to have such a good job and with the job

comes responsibility. This is one of those responsibilities. Decisions

have to be taken and you can take advice as well. The bottom line,

when it comes, I will ensure to do the job as best I can. And it will

be great training to be the next speaker. But we have a good speaker.

He is going next year, he says. I have had the privilege of working

with the speaker, and we are all on the team together. In fairness, he

is going nowhere. There is no vacancy. I am amazed. It seems that

Ladbrokes are running this to make some money. How very cynical. I

think there is evidence in his denial. He is the next speaker.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, what gift will Theresa May give Donald Trump

tomorrow to remind him of his links to Scotland?

Was it tickets to see Trainspotting 2 at the Maidenhead

A bound collection of Robert Burns poems?

Or a quaich - a Scottish friendship cup?

So Louise, what's the correct answer?

It's a quaich - a Scottish friendship cup.

Although bizarrely, Mr Trump does not drink. Try to pronounce it. You

keep on saying lock, like Loch Lomond. It's loch. I have to do

everything on this programme. But you do raise a good point, what is

the point of giving a quaich to a man who doesn't drink? It is not

appropriate for diet Coke. We all know it must be iron brew. I did

Scottish drink. -- a good Scottish drink. Maybe we should bring a

bottle of diet Irn Bru over. The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. I will be back next week with the

whole cast