27/01/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May signals a shift in UK foreign policy as she rules out

future military action unless it's in our interests to intervene.

The PM meets Donald Trump in the White House later today -

the first foreign leader to meet the new president.

We'll discuss her hopes of an early trade deal with the States.

Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit problems mount up as his stance on Article 50

prompts one frontbencher to resign and more signal they'll

And it's the EU's answer to House of Cards, a new political TV drama

That sounds like my kind of television.

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole

of the programme today the journalist and author

Rachel Shabi, and Peter Hitchens, who writes for the Mail on Sunday.

So, Theresa May arrived in the States yesterday for her meeting

She kicked off her visit, though, with a speech

to Republican politicians during which she asserted the need

for a strong Nato alliance, urged President Trump to engage

but beware of Russia and reiterated the UK's

opposition to the use of torture in

But Theresa May made headlines with a section of her speech

in which she signalled a change of approach towards

It is in our interests, those of Britain and America together,

to stand strong together to defend our values,

our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.

This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past.

The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries

in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over.

But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real

and when it is in our own interests to intervene.

We must be strong, smart and hard-headed and we must

demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.

Philadelphia yesterday. I think both of you would be pretty radical of

what you might call the Blairite interventionist policy, Mr Cameron

did not go down that road although he did in Libya. You must be quite

pleased by what you have heard there? Pleased, no. There is a wider

picture here which isn't necessarily what she says or doesn't say about

military intervention, given that whatever she says is with a mind to

placating Donald Trump. It is the fact that she is getting engaged

with the US president in this way, I'd US president who at best can be

described as a lying, off right-wing populist who has no respect for the

current institutions and mechanisms in the global sense that maintain

stability and security in any meaningful way. So too allied

herself in any way with a US foreign policy, given the direction it is

likely to take, I think is dangerous and not good for Britain. Is only

saying this to placate Donald Trump? Do you think she would not be saying

it anyway? I do not think she is saying it's too but Kate Donald

Trump but on the other hand, it is not as good as good as it looks. A

large chunk of the speech mentions the fact that we are sending 800

troops to the Baltic republics in Poland, which is a mad thing for

Britain to be doing. Our policy towards Russia has become almost as

insane as our former policies to Iraq. It is a different type of

lunacy. She has drawn the distinction between wars of

intervention and supporting Nato. She has but I am not sure distinct.

This suppose Russian aggression, involving a voluntary departure

along hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory, into an

area with economic insignificance. And we still go on about it as if it

was a terrifying superpower about to squeeze the continent, and act

accordingly by building up the fears in Eastern Europe and the Baltics

which we claim through Nato to be soothing. It is a very odd posture

and one of the very few sensible things which Donald Trump has said

about foreign policy is that he thinks Nato is obsolete. It is

obsolete, as obsolete as mounting an alliance against the

Austro-Hungarian Empire or Napoleon Bonaparte. The Foreign Secretary has

also said that we need to think afresh on how we handle Syria,

hinting that Mr Assad could be allowed to run for election, if he

wants. That is just recognising, I would suggest, that Mr Assad is safe

as long as the Russians are backing him and that we really have no

influence there. I think there is a danger. When we look at what

happened over the last few months in terms of the Foreign Secretary, and

what has been said, and it all started with Nigel Farage being the

first to meet to Boris -- Donald Trump. And it is setting us on a

course of normalising Donald Trump, although his intentions are not

normal. Syria might be a reflection of realities on the ground but when

you look at something like Trump's statements regarding Israel, and

Theresa May displeased many in the region by ally in Britain to the US

president in a way which was a change of tack for the UK, and the

wrong change. I would suggest that the Foreign Secretary's statement is

a recognition that Syria is now a Russians are at it. It is an

extraordinary pull-back from a policy which has been defeated.

There are talks of safe stones being set up in Syria this morning which

some people say is a dangerous return to attempt to intervene. That

is for refugees? Supposedly but it could develop into more calls for

no-fly zones, but we note the military convocations of that. I

don't think it is entirely over yet but certainly it seems to be one of

the most dangerous policies which we have adopted over the past several

years has come to an end. And the absolute refusal to even begin to

see the possibility that the Assad government might survive has been

rather quietly stitched. I'm going to stop you there because we have a

lot to cover. We will return to some of these themes.

Theresa May is the first foreign leader to meet Donald Trump.

But which leader has been the first to cancel a meeting

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon of Scotland.

Or President Enrique Pena Nieto of Mexico?

At the end of the show, Rachel and Peter will no doubt give

Later today, the Prime Minister will meet President Trump

for face-to-face talks - as the first foreign leader

to visit the White House since he became president.

The PM's trip comes at the end of a frenetic first week

for Donald Trump, who has been busy putting pen to paper.

Among the dozens of executive orders he's signed so far,

he's instructed officials to begin planning the border wall he promised

to build, and to scale back Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act.

Maybe as a precursor to getting rid of it altogether.

So what are Mrs May and Mr Trump likely to discuss this afternoon?

A possible US-UK trade deal is likely to be

While the UK can't begin to negotiate new trade deals

until it leaves the EU, Mr Trump has said he wants

Mrs May is also likely to remind the new president

of the strategic importance of NATO - an alliance that he has

The PM may also want to discuss how the US and UK deal

Mr Trump has been full of praise for Russia's President Putin

and says it's "an asset, not a liability" if he has

a relationship with him - a stance that has alarmed some

Mrs May is also under pressure to reject Mr Trump's

She has already suggested that the UK could scale back

on intelligence sharing if the US reintroduces torture.

She's also said she won't be afraid to challenge the president,

who continues to court controversy, telling the BBC:

"Whenever there is something that I find

unacceptable I won't be afraid to say that to Me Trump."

We've been joined from Strasbourg by the Conservative MP Nigel Evans,

who attended Donald Trump's inauguration last week,

and in the studio the joint leader of the Green Party,

Nigel Evans, you have met Mr Trump. You were in Washington before Mrs

May, what is his attitude to Britain? Well, I think we have a

great opportunity to rekindle the special relationship which Theresa

May spoke about to the Republican congressional retreat in

Philadelphia. I think she mentioned the special relationship about eight

times and the warm welcome that she had by those congressmen and

senators was absolutely superb. I spoke to a lot of congressmen,

Senators during the four days I was in Washington during your

inauguration and whenever I mention Brexit, they were lapping it up. --

during the inauguration. It did not matter whether they were Republican

or Democrat, the thumbs were up. They were keen to get a speedy trade

deal done between the UK and the US. If President Trump we have a man

whose mother was Scottish, who has got a couple of businesses in

Scotland in golf courses, who was in favour of Brexit and wants to do a

trade deal with the United Kingdom as quickly as possible. He put the

bust of Winston chill back in the Oval Office as one of his first

acts. What is there that we need to do? Engage with Donald Trump as much

as we can. Theresa May is the first world leader to meet Donald Trump

since becoming president. And we have said that about four times now

so it must be true. Angela Merkel has asked to see him, and he has not

even reply to her. But the fact that he wants to be their... Don't get

sidetracked. We're leaving the EU, which many people feel leaves us a

little bit without friends. There is a powerful man in the Oval Office

who wants to be our best friend. Why would we not take him up on that?

Because it puts us in a very weak position. We are the junior partner,

looking quite desperate. Theresa May looks quite desperate, falling over

herself to be the first in the queue. I think she should've bided

her time and gone with some clear red lines, particularly around

torture and Paris climate talks. We were on torture. She is in favour of

the Paris climate deal. Britain is not going to unsigned that. But she

should have gone saying that it was a red line for us. She needs

leadership. Rightly or wrongly, he is against it and the British

government cannot change his mind on it. So suddenly we have not any

influence? Either we are going to show leadership or we are not.

Mexico are showing us up at the moment, playing hardball. What we

have is a situation where we put ourselves in extreme Brexit context,

going cap in hand to America saying, what can you give us in terms of the

trade deal? Of course Donald Trump is welcoming her with open arms

because he knows he can ride roughshod all over her. He sees a

desperate Prime Minister asking what they can give her. Donald Trump is

at the best unpredictable, uncertain, possibly unreliable. Is

it wise for British Prime Minister to put all your eggs in this basket?

She is not putting all her eggs in one basket. She's going to be out

looking, she said to the congressmen. But trade with the US

will be massive in terms of leverage when we are talking about a trade

deal with the EU. Our neighbours in Europe, after we have done a deal

with the US, are they going to punish us? Because that is the voice

we are hearing at this moment in time. Donald Trump is a different

sort of president, we know that. He says things in a different sort of

way. The fact is, on building the wall, between Mexico and the United

States, the fact is that he has started the progress on that

straightaway. I think he is likely to be the first politician in

history to be roundly criticised for keeping its promises. He has said

that that was what he was going to do and he was elected by over 63

million people. We have to recognise that he is the President of the

United States. Influence is what I wanted to come onto. One of the

tests for Mrs May's influence will be whether from her point of view

and from Europe's point of view, particularly from the Germans, can

she bring him round to her way of thinking on Nato or not?

That is one thing that she did clearly speak to the congressmen

about, which was, yes, Nato may not be as effective as it should be,

that is an understatement in itself, but we will spend 2% on defence and

it will increase in every parliamentary year up to 2020, and

she would use her influence with other European leaders to be able to

do just the same. Nato is in need of reform and she stated that the

congressman, it is not like we will sit back and say everything is

hunky-dory, we have already pointed out, there is that gaping problem

with Nato. The fact that we are spending 2% of our GDP on defence

and a lot of other European countries are basically taking a

free ride on the backs of the United Kingdom and the United States of

America will simply not be tolerated, they have to wake up and

realise that they had to pay their contribution towards their own

defence. Jonathan Bartley, do you care if

Nato is modernised? Are you in favour? We have been very

critical of Nato and there is common ground in what Peter said earlier

about Nato, it is a relic of the Cold War. When Donald Trump calls it

obsolete, you agree? In a time when we see increasing insecurity, it is

not the time to make drastic or snap decisions around Nato. You called it

a relic, Donald Trump called it obsolete, you agree with Donald

Trump? In some cases there will be common ground... Another one that is

common ground, Donald Trump has essentially canned the trade Pacific

partnership, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and TTIP, the north

Atlantic equivalent, is dead in the water. You approve of that? We will

see TTIP on steroids coming back, we will be handed a trade deal with

very little say over it. Donald Trump is now against multilateral

trade deals, your party has campaigned against multilateral

trade deals. We are looking at a bilateral trade deal with the

States. What will that look like? TTIP might be the blueprint. If we

go there without much to negotiate will be just accept free access to

the NHS from American countries? That was part of TTIP, presumably

becomes part of the debate which the British House of Commons will have

to decide. It is very hard to the special relationship with the

country talking about America first, America will try to squeeze

everything out of the UK they possibly can. That is what they do,

the United States' relationship with this country has always been one of

straightforward hard self-interest, the fantasy of the special

relationship does not standard to an examination. The only real special

relationship United States houses with Saudi Arabia, that is truly

close. They are baffled by our insistence on including this phrase

in documents, they are slightly embarrassed but will do it on

occasion. This is a glorified selfie whether British primers to the White

House, gets him herself photographed with the American president and

hopes to bask in reflected importance. This comes back to risks

involved? It is not glorifying selfie, that is the problem. I do

not know what shade of immoral you have to be to look at what President

Trump has done in the last week, among the highlights are announcing

that he to build a wall, announcing a partial ban on Muslims and

announcing that he wants to monitor the crimes of migrants, that is

straight out of a Nazi handbook. I don't know how... Is the implication

of all this, we know this is what he stands for, is it that the British

Government should have nothing to do with him? I don't know how you can

look at that in talk in terms of shared values, which is what Theresa

May has... That is the answer to your question. We should have

nothing to do with him? I agree we should bide our time and not rush to

make friends with him and born and thereby normalise what he says. If

he does not change his views... We are the first leaders to go in, we

have a responsibility to the world... Or do you recommend we have

nothing to do with him? It is not a binary option, it is whether we bide

our time, go in in a dignified manner, say we are worried you would

pull out of the Paris agreement, potentially threatening world trade

for decades. Those are the occasions. We are talking about

trade deals which will affect five or ten years, what about the 20 or

30 year picture? It will make as economic worse off if we cannot sort

out the biggest threat affecting humanity -- it'll make this economic

we were soft. We have a picture of you with Mr Trump, Nigel Evans,

shaking hands. That is when he was President-elect. British prime

ministers, Labour and Conservative, have always placed great store since

Churchill onwards by the special relationship. Is it not the highest

of high wire acts to play such store by it when it is Donald Trump in the

White House? I tell you what, I would rather Donald Trump in the

White House who wants to do a deal with United Kingdom, a trade deal,

and I listen to what Jonathan Bartley at has said, that man is

clearly not interested in any trader whatsoever, rather than President

Barack Obama who came and lectured the British electorate and said

Betta vote to stay in the European Union otherwise you will be at the

back of the queue for a trade deal. Now we have a president who wanted

Brexit, we voted for it, he wants to the congressman this trade deal

between the USA and America will not be easy. There is a continuity of

interest bringing the UK and USA together. We stood shoulder to

shoulder over decades on those areas where we have great interests

together. We will not walk away like the Greens want us to do, or Peter

Hitchens, or anybody else. He is the president of the United States, we

have the opportunity to have influence with him and work with

him, that is what we should do. We have run out of time. I have just

said we have run as a term that we are coming back to the special

relationship, so behave yourself rather than mumbling in the

background. The Green Party websites is your policy is to pull out of you

know -- Nato unilaterally. You want to get out of Nato and the something

better in its place, but now is not the time to mess around with

international institutions as the world gets more insecure daily. You

are not in favour of pulling out unilaterally? Not now. Peter is

still mumbling, but he does a lot of that.

Over the years, British Prime Ministers have enjoyed distinctive

The friendships forged between leaders have helped to shape

world history and brought varying degrees of political fortune.

But just how well can Theresa May get along with President Trump,

and does the personal chemistry have to be right for the special

# Thank you for being a friend. # Travelled down a road and back

again. This is known as the Allies bench,

it captures the friendship between the American and British wartime

leaders. It is also a popular stop on the London to wrist Trail.

-- tourist trail. The concept of the special relationship first came

about because of President Rousseff valves and Winston Churchill. The

British prime ministers first came up with the phrase in a speech after

World War II and over 70 years since then, the relationship has seen its

ups and downs. -- because of President Roosevelt and Winston

Churchill. Reagan and Thatcher were political

soul mates, both supporters of Private business and free markets.

But things almost went pear shaped when the US invaded grenades, a

British Commonwealth country, until the President run-up to apologise.

Margaret Thatcher here. If I were there, Margaret, I would tilt my hat

in the door before I came in. No need. Listen, we regret very much

the embarrassment that has been caused you and I would just like to

tell you what the story is from our end out here.

The Blair and Bush bromance seemed an unlikely friendship, a Labour

leader with a right-wing Republican president. At first it seemed they

had little in common apart from using the same brand of toothpaste.

Yet Tony Blair ended up being dubbed as America's poodle by the press

because of his strong support for President Bush and the Iraq war.

Let me thank President Bush for coming here.

We are strong allies. The Prime Minister is a man of his word. He

has my admiration. And he has the admiration of the American people.

Jonathan Pelissie Tony Blair's chief of staff and saw first hand how the

Prime Minister got on with George Bush and Bill Clinton -- Jonathan

Powell was. So how much of a coup is it that Mrs May is the first leader

to meet the new president? Traditionally the first meeting is

with the Canadian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trudeau seems not in

a hurry to get to the White House, Angela Merkel is biding her time.

Theresa May has won the race but nobody else's competing,

so I don't think she can take great pleasure.

What would be your top tip to Theresa May? A joint press

conference can be very tricky, Tony Blair was tripped up with the one

with Bill Clinton on Monica Lewinsky and found the one with George Bush

very difficult, talking about Colgate and sharing toothpaste.

Theresa May will want to avoid any appearance of being President

Trump's golf caddy. She has criticised his remarks about women

and Muslims and made it clear that she is not afraid to challenge him.

Whenever there is something that I find unacceptable I will not be

afraid to say that to Donald Trump. The body language of the two leaders

at their first meeting might give away clues to any personal

chemistry. Will they ever appear as Paoli as David Cameron and Barack

Obama, flipping burgers at this Downing Street barbecue, although

differences of opinion on big issues like torture marker cooling in the

special relationship -- will they ever appear as pally as David

Cameron and Barack Obama? Just as you think it goes away, it

always come back, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

Barbara Plett Usher, our Washington correspondent, joins us from the

White House. Good to have you. We have a rough idea of what Mrs May

wants to achieve, any idea what the Trump administration hopes to get

out of this? Not really, they have not said very much about the meeting

other than Mr Trump's statements at about, yes, Britain is very special.

He said yesterday I have been meeting Theresa May and I don't have

a commerce Secretary yet but I will have to deal with it, I think that

is OK. We have no serious sense of what they want to get out of it. I

think it is fair to say that the special relationship is more

important to Britain than the United States, I think it has always been

that way but particularly so now because the other strategic

relationship with the European Union is in flux, so this one... Theresa

May can't afford to have this one we can, she has to come through and

make a point of saying, yes, we still have other options as world

players after Brexit, she wants to get a strong endorsement on that

from Mr Trump that he takes Britain seriously and particularly he is

willing to do a trade deal with Britain quickly, once the Brexit

negotiations are finished. I think that will be the main point of the

talks, the discussion about a possible trade deal.

Is the trump administration is serious about a trade deal? I have

heard some people in the administration say they know that

Britain can't sign a deal until it leaves the EU but they would quite

like to do heads of agreement. Looking at all the other things Mr

Trump is doing and the firing on all sides at the moment, has he got the

time to focus on this which, for him, is not imperative for

immediate? Does he have the ability to focus on much for any length of

time altogether, that is the question. The signal is important.

President Obama said Britain would go to the back of the queue if it

went to with Brexit, Mr Trump has essentially said we will put you to

the front. The details of negotiating another trade deal are

quite fraught and will be quite lengthy because they can't sign

another deal until Britain has sorted out its relationship with the

EU. Although Mrs May has said that we can have talks about what

barriers we can remove so we are ready to go on the day, I think the

American trade negotiators, who are very tough, will want to see what

sort of relationship Britain has with the EU market, what sort of

access, before signing a trade deal. That will take years before that is

sorted out. It is more about sending a signal.

One all-important question, before you go, has the White House yet

learned how to spell the Prime Minister's first name? I have heard

that they got it wrong on the first attempt, but presumably once that is

corrected it will stay corrected throughout the day, but watch this

space. We will leave it there, we will know

if they can spell her name that the special relationship is alive and

well act summation thanks for joining us from the White House in

Washington, DC. Now, speaking of special

relationships, yesterday Jeremy Corbyn announced

that his Labour MPs would be under a three-line whip to vote

through the government's Article 50 Bill when it reaches

the Commons next month. Since then, though,

all hell has broken loose. Overnight two Labour whips

responsible for party discipline have said they will likely vote

to block Article 50. But neither Thangam Debbonaire nor

Jeff Smith said they would resign their position,

which could force Jeremy One person who has quit,

though, is Tulip Siddiq - seat borders that of Jeremy Corbyn -

and Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer. She quit as Shadow Early Years

Minister last night saying her loyalty to her constituents meant

she had no choice but to resign. Other frontbenchers

who said they will vote against the Labour whip

are Shadow Transport Minister Daniel Zeichner and Shadow Foreign

Minister Catherine West, Sources have said between 60 and 80

Labour MPs could rebel, though so far only a handful have

said publicly they will vote And the highest profile

potential rebel - Shadow Defence Secretary Clive Lewis

- yesterday withdrew He said he respected the result

of the referendum and would vote To discuss all this we're joined

from Cardiff by former Labour And I should mention that we did ask

the Labour Party for an interview with a member of Mr Corbyn's Shadow

Cabinet but none was available. So we go to Owen Smith. Thank you for

joining us. Good morning, Andrew. You have said he will vote against

Article 50. The country voted to leave the European Union, so why are

you doing that? Because I cannot in all conscience vote for something

that I think is in my view going to make the constituents that Ira

present poorer, and our country poorer and more isolated in the

world. -- the constituents I represent. It will compound the mere

politics we have in the West. The Shadow Home Secretary says that MPs

like you are undermining democracy. -- the meaner politics. I do not

think democracy started on June 23. That was not your zero. We have a

long-standing mandate as MPs to be representatives of our constituents

and use our judgment in representing them. I'm not a delegate for my

constituency. In my constituency, I know there is one piece of academic

research that has been done looking at which way my constituents voted,

suggesting they voted 55-45 to remain within the EU, so in that

regard, I am reflecting their view. My view is that this is bad for

Britain and the Labour Party needs to speak up for our convictions as

pro Europeans, and more importantly as people who will defend jobs and

opportunities and growth in our GDP in the UK. We think Brexit is bad

for those things, so we should vote against it. How many do you reckon

like-minded Labour MPs are? I do not know. It could be between 20 and 50.

People will be making their minds up over the next few days. There are

obviously will be other opportunities for people to express

their views in respects to aspects of it, the customs union, the single

market, but for my money we should be seeking to get another

referendum, at the end of the process, and that is one of the

amendments that I have tabled yesterday. I will also be voting

against Article 50, I imagine, because I doubt very much whether my

amendment will pass. Let's be generous and say you have got 50

Labour MPs that think the way that you do. You have one conservative,

the Lib Dems, one green, and the Scottish Nationalists, of course. So

the rebellion has already failed on take-off. A bit like a Trident

missile. I not anticipating... Off in the wrong direction and then into

the sea. Too demure slightly, I think we're going in the right

direction but you might be right in that the end point will be that we

land in the sea. I am not anticipating that we will stop

Article 50. There is a majority in the Labour Party and the Tories to

get that past. The right thing for me to do, and I think the right

thing for Labour to do is stand against it. But I appreciate that I

am in a sizeable minority on that point. I understand, but the reason

why the government can bank on a clear majority for Article 50,

without even having to hold its breath or by tits nails, is because

your party has opposed a 3-line whip to vote for Article 50. -- by its

nails. If it fails to get its way, that will be down to your party.

Yes. That is the best answer I have had in weeks. Is it not fair to say

that Jeremy Corbyn is between a rock and a hard place on this? He opposes

a 3-line whip and he gets to rebellion and we all say, he cannot

even do that! If he does not propose a 3-line whip, we will say that on

this vital issue, the biggest issue that Britain has had to take, you

have not even got a policy. I would suggest that no matter who is leader

of the Labour Party at the moment, this would be a real problem. I

agree with that. It is an unpalatable decision, like any

decision would be horrible for different reasons. And that speaks

to Labour's problem trying to bridge its voters who are in both remain

and leave camps. But I think that a lot of this would be avoided by the

Labour Party having a much clearer tone on the kind of Brexit that it

wants. And that come through. There are not many things they could do

about policy. There is no white paper, no plan. But a lot of it

relies on optics and tone. And I am not sure, I am not convinced that is

something the party is getting right at the moment. What do you make of

this, Peter? It is quite funny that Jeremy Corbyn, often derided as on

the edge of madness, has done something so sensible, and is now

being opposed by people whose attitude seems to be little short of

crazy. The British public have voted to leave the European Union and any

party which publicly stands to defy that decision is putting itself in a

position of derision, and use and we cannot do that. However you want to

oppose what has happened in the referendum, saying that we do not

accept this result and we will carry on sulking until you give us another

cake is not going to work. Jeremy Corbyn's decision was the only

conceivable move. And these poorer desperate playwrights have seen

their raison d'etre seized by the Conservative Party, because they do

not know what to do. I think they should join the Conservative Party.

I am not holding my breath for that. Sensible thing is so seldom happen

but it would be the right thing. I understand that and that is your

view. Owen Smith, Labour has some crucial by-elections coming up on

that the 23rd, we will be live bringing the results to you. I want

to run you a clip from Jeremy Corbyn, which is to do with the

Copeland constituency in the North West of England. This is what he had

to say. Do you support the building

of a new nuclear power plant There's going to be a mix of energy

production in this country for a long time to come,

because we haven't invested in renewables at the same

rate that Germany has. The issue at Moorside

is clearly important. Our local candidate

strongly supports Moorside. You say your candidate supports it,

my question was do you support it? I recognise that there has

to be a mix of energy You're saying you don't

support Moorside? The Government is going to have

to make that decision on the basis of the issues facing the company

and the area at the time, That was on ITV yesterday. Owen

Smith, in the Copeland constituency you have a very small majority and

nuclear power is an enormous issue. A lot of jobs depend on it. There is

talk of a new nuclear power station they are, as you have heard. The

leader of the Labour Party could not really and the question because his

long-standing view has been that he is against such things. -- answer

the question. And in Stoke, the other radio or you are defending a

majority, larger but not huge, you have picked a candidate who was

enthusiastically pro remain in a constituency which is basically the

Brexit capital of the Midlands. Does Labour know what it is doing? I'm

not in charge of the Labour Party, Andrew. We know that, you failed on

that one. As we all know, I did. And therefore I am just a backbencher so

you need to ask people in the current leadership of the Labour

Party that question. Are you going to lose Copeland to the Tories and

Stoke to Ukip? I hope we're going to win both of those seats and I am

going up to Copeland to campaign there in a week or so myself.

Nuclear is a very important issue there and the Labour Party's

position, my position is that we are pro civil nuclear. There is a very

good case for building a new plant there. I know there is huge support

for it locally and I'm sure we be on the doorstep doing delete my getting

our message out there during the campaign. Are you going to stalk as

well? Hopefully, if I have time. Surely you must make time, to save

this seat for your party. Unfortunately, the Tories are put to

the Brexit bill right in the middle of our campaign but I am sure I will

go. It also looks like the Tories will not fight Stoke very much and

will put their emphasis into Copeland in the hope that if Labour

loses in Stoke, it will be to Ukip, and the Tories will try to take

Copeland. You have challenged Mr Corbyn once. Even if he loses these

two by-elections, which I think would be pretty unprecedented in

modern times, in the midterm of a government, for the main opposition

party to lose two by-elections. The tradition in our country is that

opposition parties win by-elections. Does that threaten Mr Corbyn in

anyway or has that horse left the stable? If you mean is that going to

be another challenge, I think that horse has left the stable, to borrow

your phrase. I see no prospect of that, certainly none of mine doing

that -- my doing that. If we lost those seats, they have been Labour

seats for the best part of 80, 90, even 100 years in one case. That

would be disastrous. But I hope and expect that we will retain them.

Owen Smith, thank you for joining us.

You could be forgiven for thinking that all the legal wrangling

over the UK's departure from the European Union is now over.

After all, the Supreme Court brought an end to the long-running Brexit

case on Tuesday with its judgement that only Parliament, not ministers,

can trigger Article 50 - the formal method of kicking off

But as of today a new legal challenge is underway.

A case has been filed with the Irish High Court

about whether Article 50 is reversible or, as some

In other words, you can turn it back.

The litigants are hoping that the case will be referred

to the European Court of Justice and that judges there will rule that

even after Article 50 has been triggered we could,

in theory, just change our mind and maybe even decide to stay

When the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU,

David Davis, appeared in front of the Brexit Select Committee last

month, he said that even he didn't know whether Article 50

As recently as October, at least one head of government was saying,

And many of the others still feel it can't really happen.

So that's partly the sort of mindset that's still...

As we get further into this, once we've served the Article 50 letter,

one of the virtues of the Article 50 process is it sets you on the way.

It's very, very difficult to see it being revoked.

It may not be revocable, I don't know.

And I expect at least at that point people's calculation will change

from "How can we make them change their minds?"

And we've been joined by Jolyon Maugham, one of the people

bringing the case in Dublin, and by Gunnar Beck from

Lawyers for Britain - a pro-Brexit campaign group.

One thing our viewers will want to know first of all, why Dublin?

Because the essence of the complaint is that by excluding the United

Kingdom from cancel meetings in advance of serving Article 50

notice, the United Kingdom has been disadvantaged. That is a complaint

that can only be taken in the courts of the countries that have

disadvantaged the United Kingdom so you are looking at the remaining 27

courts and of them, Ireland is the natural choice, similar legal

system, same operating language, and also Irish courts are very

accustomed to dealing with the court of justice in Luxembourg. That

explains Dublin. What is it that you hope to establish? Well, look, this

is a very, very uncertain world we live in. Donald Trump has come on

Andy he is changing everything. He is talking about Nato being obsolete

and we are going to see a whole new trade arrangement. Let me accept the

uncertain that, what are you hoping to achieve? What I want is a free

option for the United Kingdom on hasta siding with the benefit of

further evidence that remaining is the right thing for the country. So

the government could change its mind and the process of the Article 50

negotiations? The government, as always, will be led by what the

electorate wanted to do. And if the electorate changes its views about

Brexit, then the government will follow. There are many MPs who

accept that the result of the referendum requires that we trigger

Article 50, but who still have doubts about the wisdom of that

course. If they hear loud and strong from voters that that is the right

thing to do, I'm sure they will put pressure on the government. The

issue in dispute here is whether that would be legal or not. Does it

not make sense to establish the legality of that? Well, the fact of

the matter is that at present we simply have not got a dispute. The

British government have voted to leave the European Union, and the

supreme court has stated that it is up to Parliament and the onus is on

Parliament to confirm that vote. Once that has happened, Article 50

is entirely clear that the United Kingdom will notify its intention to

withdraw. Do you believe Article 50 is

irrevocable or not? It proceeds on the assumption that when a country

notifies its intention to withdraw it means what it says. You think it

is irrevocable? It proceeds on the assumption that a country means what

it says, just as when any country applies to join the European Union,

negotiations for accession are conducted on the basis that that

country too means what it says. The man credited with writing

Article 50 told the BBC that Article 50 is not irrevocable, if the

country was to decide we do not want to leave after all, everybody would

be very cross but legally they could not insist. Article 50 does not

provide any support for that view. In any event the issue has not

risen. Legally speaking, the situation is entirely clear. The

Court of Justice has ruled more than 30 years ago that it will not accept

references on entirely hypothetical questions. The question not whether

the UK wants to reassess its intention to withdraw hasn't arisen

yet, we haven't got a dispute, the European Court of Justice shouldn't

even look at that. I understand that is your point.

Jolyon Maugham, the judgment and as a bream Court of Article 50, it said

it cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that once

given it cannot be withdrawn. That would seem to be something of an

Exocet through your case? It would be a powerful Exocet if it was a

good point, but it is not. Are you saying the Supreme Court has not

made a good point?! Whoever has given you that quote has given you a

bad point. I will explain why. If you look at paragraph 26 of the

Supreme Court decision, it says very clearly we're not deciding whether

Article 50 is bookable, the Government and the claimants both

phones are politically convenient to proceed on the assumption that it

was but we're not deciding the point -- we're not deciding if article 50

is revocable. Rachel? I think it is great, it is one thing to accept the

democratic votes, and the public as to respect that, but it raises all

kinds of constitutional questions, and I think it is great that we have

a system that works, that we have checks and balances on Parliament

that work, that is a good thing and we should celebrate that. Peter? It

is a good diversion. The serious opponents of our departure from the

European Union really need to stop thinking -- start thinking in a

broader way. I don't want to offer advice or help them but it would

seem to me that they have a much better prospect of frustrating

departure from the EU by salami slicing it so much June the

negotiations in Parliament but what we end up with is that we move from

being as we are now, half-out of the European Union, to being half in it,

which would seem the most likely result. These legal diversion seem

to be trading on the success of the Supreme Court, which was notable but

did not make much difference to the outcome of events, trying to divert

us from the centre of this, the negotiations between this country

and the EU, and what Parliament then with those, which still seems to be

in a great deal of doubt. Do you really think there was a

cat's chance in hell that the Government will change its mind? The

Government is a political creature, if people change their minds, the

Government bill. I think it is a very, very real possibility. I

recognise what the political mood is today. I am not stupid, I read the

papers, I listen to you, I watch the Daily Politics religiously, of

course. But I also believe that the world is changing fast, I believe

there is a lot of evidence for what Brexit means that we are still get

to see, we don't even have a white paper and I think it is very, very

plausible that people will revise their views, and if they do, the

Government will fly. Is it your view that Dublin High Court is likely to

pass this to the European Court, or do you feel that the Dublin court

will throw it out? That is for the Dublin court to decide. It should

throw it out, I think the law is quite clear that we have a

hypothetical question, it may be interesting, but a hypothetical

question should not be referred, that is quite simple. Can we all

come to Dublin and watch this unfold? I will buy you a pint. I

thought you were going to buy my ticket, the BBC will not!

Fans of political TV dramas have feasted on some great

series in recent years - from the US remake of House

Who would ever have thought that Danish coalition building could

become so popular in Britain? Now the Dutch are getting

in on the act with a political drama set in the heart of the EU's

Brussels HQ. The kind of show covering

treating... Treaty negotiations on trade deals, can it ever get the

pulses racing? Year is a clip. And because it is an idea,

we should be willing to welcome any nation which is special enough

to share our values. This is my empire. It has my

attention and I'm not even sure what it is about yet!

We can talk now to the series writer, Leon de Winter,

That is in the Netherlands, of course. What story are you trying to

tell, what is the narrative? The narrative... Of course, the

background is politics, Brussels, but what is politics? The art of

balancing what you wish for, what is necessary and what is possible. It

depends upon the characters which one of these three elements is most

important to them. Basically you could say every story is about these

three elements. The main thing is, let us say, the original idea is

nothing to do with politics. We know what original sin is, the oldest

profession, the oldest lie in my definition is a female light, who is

the father of your child. In which case -- in this case the woman

becomes an EU commissioner, had an affair 25 years ago with a young,

up-and-coming Russian politician who is now a billionaire and they are

both in Brussels, they are conferences, they have their

interests and the rest speaks for itself.

In house of cards and even in Borgen there was a clear good guy and bad

guy, who is the good guy in this series? I have always problems of

defining good and bad guy. Maybe you know them, the good guys and the bad

guys? I am afraid I couldn't work with these stereotypes. Even the

Russian billionaire who is in Brussels talking to his friends in

the commission, in parliaments, trying to arrange the best deal for

his interests, even he has interesting aspects, even he is not

completely evil. And the Dutch Euro Commissioner, the female

protagonist, she should be the hero but she is a stuff, and an alpha

woman. We know alpha males, this is an alpha female. It is not clear-cut

bad, evil, there are many grades of grey and colours, as you know.

Absolutely right, and all the best series... What is noticeable about

TV drama now, because it is allowed to breathe, it deals in shades of

grey now, not black and white. House of Cards had the advantage that it

was all based around a position, a person, a pinnacle of power that we

all know, the president of the United States. We are not quite sure

the pinnacles of power in Brussels, what is the pinnacle of power, what

is this all revolving around? All revolving is, of course, the

confrontation between interest, ambitions, ego. They fight to gain

position, to be wealthy. And people told me even about sex. Yes. Dear

me! Things like that happen, I was surprised as well ex-commissioner

sex in Brussels?! No wonder this is fiction! The big question we want to

know here, in this series, do the British get a punishment beating? I

had already finished writing the screenplay, suddenly there is a

Brexit and I talk about 28 nations in my story. So should I take one

out?! No, let us say it is a bit of an historical series, because I

could not see that that was going to happen.

Leon, I think it sounds great. The big question is when and where do we

see it in the United Kingdom? Well, of course it is produced for a

Dutch streaming platform, one of the biggest productions ever in the

Netherlands. I would be very shocked if it would not be shown in the UK.

Quite right. I will have a word with the director-general of the BBC, we

are very close, you know? I met him in 1961, leave it to me! Leon de

Winter, good luck with the show, I will seek it out on the web even if

it is not shown here, but I'm sure it will be. Thank you for joining

us. It started with news of a rogue

Trident missile and ended with Theresa May's meeting

with Donald Trump. Here's Adam with the lowdown

on the political week Theresa May launched her modern

industrial strategy on Monday by taking her Cabinet to Warrington,

but that was overshadowed by a row over whether she should have told

MPs a Trident missile test had All eyes were on the Supreme Court

on Tuesday where Lord Neuberger lay The Supreme Court rules

that the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act

of Parliament On Wednesday, Theresa May

announced there would be And on Thursday the Government

published its one-page Jeremy Corbyn told his MPs to back

the bill, prompting Tulip Siddique And the Prime Minister jetted off

to the States to meet President Donald Trump,

saying opposites attract. It's going to be beautiful,

just beautiful! There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was, which foreign

leader has cancelled a meeting President Hollande of France,

President Raul Castro of Cuba, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon

of Scotland or President Enrique Rachel, Peter - what's

the correct answer? President Enrique Pena Nieto, via

Twitter. Correct. You beat me to it. I was going to get it, I had no

idea, I am not on Twitter. Good place. Mexico has elections coming

up in a couple of years, this will play big-time into it, we will see

how that works out. Thanks to Rachel, Peter

and all my guests. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday

with the Sunday Politics - The clue is in the name! I will be

talking to Nigel Farage. Should've seen Hillary's face.

She was stood there with Bill.