01/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 01/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Donald Trump's whirlwind of activity continues,


as he announces his candidate for the Supreme Court.


Meanwhile, here in London, the Home Secretary ramps up


the criticism of his ban on immigrants.


So is the policy really that extreme?


The Commons will vote tonight on whether to allow Theresa May


to trigger our departure from the EU.


But with a majority of Labour MPs set to back the Government,


Will Mrs May be put on the spot over Brexit, or Donald Trump's


We'll bring you all the action from Prime Minister's


And why is Truro joining the race to be crowned


the European Capital of Culture in 2023, long after Britain


What's the answer to that question? You'll find out later in the show! I


shall stay tuned. All that in the next hour


and a half, a tour of world events And we're joined for all of it by


the Conservative MP, Andrew Percy. We're told he's the Communities


Minister, responsible for parks, seaside towns, high streets and pubs


- it sounds like he might Let's begin today, as we often do


by talking about Donald Trump. The US President been busy


as we slept in the UK, revealing his nomination for the US


Supreme Court. If the man he's chosen,


a Federal Appeals Court judge called Neil Gorsuch,


is confirmed by the Senate, it will restore the Supreme Court's


conservative majority. This matters a lot in America,


because the court has the final legal word on many of the most


sensitive US issues, Meanwhile, the worldwide controversy


over Mr Trump's executive order banning mainly Muslim


immigrants, goes on. Theresa May can expect to be


questioned today over when she knew about the travel restrictions,


and the wisdom of inviting the President to the UK


for an early state visit. You can bet this one


is going to run and run. Mr Trump is still only


10 days into the job, but he's been busy with his fountain


pen, issuing a flurry Donald Trump has shown he's a big


fan of executive orders - instructions to the government


which don't need a new law - and he marked his first day


in office by signing one to restrict President Obama's


healthcare reforms. Other orders have fast-tracked


approval for two controversial oil pipelines and restricted


environmental reviews of big President Trump also instructed


the government to draw up plans for the construction of a wall along


the US-Mexico border - And with his choice of nominee


for the US Supreme Court, Mr Trump hopes to restore


the court's conservative majority. After Theresa May became


the first foreign leader to visit the new president,


he talked of rebuilding the special relationship,


and reaffirmed the US commitment But within hours of her departure,


he signed his most controversial order yet -


announcing "extreme vetting" for immigrants from seven


Muslim-majority countries He also suspended the US


refugee programme. Protests in cities around the world


followed, including here in the UK, where a petition opposing Mr Trump's


state visit has attracted more than 1.7 million


signatures, and will now be Yesterday, Home Secretary Amber Rudd


was asked what she thought of the changes to US immigration


policy. Isil and Daesh will use any


opportunity they can to make difficulties,


to create the environment that they want to radicalise people,


to bring them over to their side. So it is a propaganda opportunity


for them, potentially. The difficulties to the UK over


terrorism are not caused by people largely coming from the sort


of countries that the US has named, but from people


becoming radicalised here. So I would urge our efforts


to continue to be on addressing That was the Home Secretary. Andrew


Percy, why is a temporary travel ban on people coming from countries that


Ore haven of terrorist activity, why is that a propaganda opportunity for


Islamic State? I think you have seen from the reaction to the executive


order, it has served as a good propaganda tool. You are right to


point out, it is a temporary ban, and after three months, the


president said on Facebook they will start issuing visas again. I don't


think that has come across in some of the coverage. So why is it a


propaganda opportunity? Downing Street said it is clear that Islamic


State will twist any policy from any government to their own propaganda


purposes. I think that's absolutely true. The concern around this is it


is seen as pitching the West against Muslim communities and countries.


That is probably where that fear comes from. Since the Government has


said, almost any policy that any Western government comes out with,


and by the way many governments in the Middle East as well, Islamic


State will twist that to their purposes. Why pick on that from


policy? That's true, there are many policies for which that can be said.


From the reaction to it, it is seen as pitching Western democracies


against Muslim countries. I think that's what the fear is. That may be


because certain people are reporting it in ways that are inaccurate. It


can hardly be a ban on Muslim countries when the five most


populous Muslim countries in the world are not covered by any of the


bands, temporary or permanent? That's absolutely true. Some of the


reporting of it and the suggestion that it is a ban on Muslims is


clearly not true. Banning certain countries for a three-month period.


What I find annoying about this whole thing is the hypocrisy of it.


We have people on the streets against a ban for three months, but


last night the Mayor of London hosted 11th dignitaries from


countries that have permanent travel bans by countries such as Israel. Is


it not clear that number ten's statement saying that Islamic State


will twist any government policy of any statement to their own purposes,


is number ten distancing itself from the Home Secretary? I think that is


probably a statement of fact. I haven't actually seen the statement


in full, there is no doubt that a whole range of different policies


have been twisted by IS, Daesh. This could be another example of that. It


is exactly that, because this is seen, and the reason it is seen as a


policy that is targeting Muslims is that in those seven countries, there


is also talk of a special dispensation for those who may be


religious minorities in those countries. When one of our closest


allies targets Muslims in this way, bans refugees, and you have the


Foreign Secretary saying, look, it wouldn't be our policy. We have a


Prime Minister failing to back the Home Secretary when she is stating


the bleeding obvious. This is weak. You know, I have a general point


here, I think the reaction has been characterised as weak and


mealy-mouthed. That's your view, but let's look at the substance. The


seven countries on the temporary visas suspension list, they are all


either terrorist havens or state sponsors of terrorism in themselves.


They are on a list dating from President Obama in 2015, which he


identified as the countries that America were at most risk from


terrorist attack. What is wrong with issuing temporary bans on the use


countries until you have tested if your freezer system is robust


enough? I don't think the rationale stacks up. Obama did tighten up the


Wiese scheme. But simply to ban all refugees in a blanket ban, when


refugees. Might that's a different band. I'll come onto the refugee ban


in a minute. You started answering a different question, I'm going to


bring you back to the one that I asked, the ban on the seven


essentially failed states, these seven countries. What is wrong,


until you are sure that your entry system is robust enough, having a 90


day ban? It's not for me to try and explain or defend Trump's policy,


which I detest. But why the rationale is flawed is that the


terrorist attacks, and the title of this executive order was protection


against terrorist attacks in the US. The people who have committed the


terrorist attacks in the US have overwhelmingly been US citizens or


naturalised citizens. They haven't been from the seven countries. The


most objectionable part of this. Might I'm afraid that's not quite


true. There has been a terrorist... Ohio State have a terrorist attack


from Somalia. The attack in San Bernardino involves people who had


come in from outside the country. Now, what is the difference between


what Mr Trump has done, and what Mr Obama did, when the FBI discovered


that using the refugee process, a number of Iraqis had got in who were


terrorist threats of the country? He then tightened up that, but he took


six months to do it, and the number of Iraqi refugees coming did was


reduced to a trickle during that time. What's the difference? First


of all, the majority of those people perpetrating attacks in the US have


not been from those countries. Secondly, he tightened up the


process, he didn't impose a blanket ban. What is most objectionable


about this is the blanket ban for 120 days on all refugees. Now, why


this is internationally causing such trouble is that it breaks not just


fundamental values that we try and uphold alongside the US, but the


very conventions that have been in place to take refugees for more than


60 years. But hold on, if you are not sure that your vetting


procedures are robust enough, and if, as the case with Mr Obama had,


that Iraq is had been using the refugee process to in full trade


terrorists, and there were two arrested in Kentuckian -- in full


trade terrorists. If you found that it is not robust enough, why would


you not have a temporary ban? I agree that a lifetime ban is


different, but why not a temporary ban until a man that was elected


saying that he would introduce extreme vetting has a chance to


check the system? What's wrong with that? What's wrong is that it


breaches fundamental established decades-old conventions about how in


this world we treat refugees and we don't discriminate against those who


are some of the most vetted, validated, checked. Might it's


temporary. He was elected on a platform of improving the vetting


procedure. Why can he not take 120 days to do that? He could do it in a


different way, he could do it like Obama. I fundamentally object to it.


The reaction people have had, my real criticism is with team-mate...


-- Theresa May. He shares platforms with... I'm looking at the substance


of the ban. Hold on, hold on. I want to ask you this. What should Britain


be doing? What should our British Prime Minister by doing? I'm sorry,


Mr Healy, it is on the basis of the substance of the Trump policy that


you want the visit to be banned and not to take place. I want to ask you


this on the refugees. At the height of the barrel bombing of women and


children in Syria, and of chemical weapons being used against them in


Syria, how many Syrian refugees did President Obama allow in? Andrew, I


have no idea. Well, I'll tell you. In 2012, 30 one. In 2013, 30 six. At


the height of the obscenity... Non-Foss have a record to be proud


of an Syria over the last few years. -- none of us. This is a question


about what Britain and our Prime Minister should do. At least Jeremy


Corbyn had the guts to stand up, like more than 1 million people


signing this position, to say this is not acceptable. Let's come back


to what Britain should do. I understand it is on the basis of


what Mr Trump's policy is that you don't want the state visit to


proceed. What is the difference between a state visit from a Chinese


president, a totalitarian leader, and a state visit from the president


of the United States? The talk is about postponing, not banning. In a


media endorsement of an encouragement of the state visit for


President Trump, it is in effect an endorsement of this worldwide ban on


refugees, and a very selective ban on Muslim majority country migrants.


So it should be postponed. So it's just a matter of time? Even the


recent Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office has said, look, if


the state visit goes ahead on the circumstances, it's going to


embarrass the Queen. Of course we should be standing up to President


Trump on this. The question is, as Bowman and pressure, the proper way.


-- postponement. There is barely not a dictator the Queen has not had to


entertain at the bequest of the British Government. But she


shouldn't have two entertain the president of our most important


ally, a man who, unlike the Chinese president, was actually elected.


That's your position? The reality of being a country in


the modern world means we have to have good relationships. Our special


relationship with the United States brings a special responsibility to


be willing to speak out, which the Prime Minister hasn't done. On the


state visit, the question is wholehearted endorsement at this


stage is a wholehearted endorsement of what he has just announced. So


the debate is about postponement. The action needs to be pressure on


the president to rethink what he has just signed into law. Why the rush?


Mr Obama's first state visit wasn't until after two years? The same was


true of Mr Bush and Mr Reagan. Why not postponement? I find this


argument a bit bizarre. Are we saying that every time we don't like


the domestic policy of a particular president, we shouldn't invite them


to the United Kingdom? When you invite the head of state of the


United States, it is an honour to the entire country. It is about the


relationship between the UK and the US, our most important relationship.


Really important at the moment when we think about what the president


has said on trade. I think we get into dangerous territory if we start


saying because we don't like a particular domestic policy of a


democratically elected leader somewhere in the world, we want


invite in September but maybe he can come in November. It is ridiculous.


We have run out of time. No doubt this will come up at Prime


Minister's Questions. Later today, MPs will vote


on legislation to allow the Prime Minister to fire


the Brexit starting gun It's widely expected


that the Article 50 bill will survive this first


parliamentary test, with bigger challenges likely to occur later


on in the Brexit process. The debate on the bill began


yesterday, and it was notable that - for now at least -


splits in the Conservative Party on the issue have mostly melted


away, while Labour continues Here's Shadow Brexit


Secretary Kier Starmer. A decision was made on the 23rd of


June last year to leave the EU. Two thirds of Labour MPs represent


constituencies that voted to leave. One third represent constituencies


that voted to remain. This is obviously a difficult decision. I


wish the result had gone the other way. I campaigned passionately for


that. But as Democrats, our party has to accept the result.


That was Kier Starmer talking about the number of Labour seats


While the nationwide result in the referendum was fairly close,


with 48% Remain and 52% Leave, Remain voters tended to be clustered


in big cities and in Scotland and Northern Ireland -


Leave voters were more evenly spread.


This means that while a small majority of the country voted Leave,


a large majority of the country's 650 parliamentary constituencies did


so - that's according to work by Chris Hanratty


Well, before we talk about today's Commons vote,


we thought we'd test our guests knowledge of which


constituencies voted to leave and which were remain.


I know you have been looking forward to this. Have you got your paddles


at the ready? Yes! No expense spared. Leave on one side, Remain on


the other. It is like Strictly Come Dancing. Without the dancing. Or the


budget! Monmouth, Leave or remain? Right, you are split. Andrew, you


are right. It was 52% remain. Liverpool Walton. A Labour seat.


Both wrong. The MP, Steve Rotheram, supported Remain. Liverpool


Riverside was the charity Remain. Hastings and Rye. Very good. 56%


Leave. Newcastle upon Tyne East. You make it sound like you had distinct


knowledge. It actually is Remain. Andrew, you got that wrong. Banff


and Buchan. No. It was actually Leave. 54% Leave. You all look


surprised. We have picked seats that would test the knowledge. Carshalton


and Wallington, Leave or Remain? No. You are wrong again. Apart from


doing very badly, it was actually 56% Leave. It highlights the dilemma


between MPs who are voting one way and constituencies that voted


another. And particularly for your party, John Healey. It seems that


Labour is in a no-win situation. The vast majority of MPs voted Remain,


including yourself. The vast majority of Labour voters, two


thirds, voted Remain. Now MPs are being instructed to vote to trigger


Article 50 against many of their consciences. Do you have sympathy


for your colleagues who are not going to vote to trigger Article 50?


I do have sympathy, especially for those who are in strongly Remain


seats, particularly those who have a fight on their hands as they did at


the last election, to hold those seeds and sense it is their duty to


speak for the constituents who elected them. But in the end, Kier


Starmer said it, this is a democratic question. A national


referendum. And respecting and recognising the result of the


referendum and the will of the people in the referendum requires a


national party to back triggering of Article 50, which is what we are


doing. Even if you don't really believe it, which was clear from


Kier Starmer's tone? He was speaking in sorrow, really. Of course, but


this was about the result of the referendum. It is right to respect


the national vote. It is to start the process. Why are so many of your


colleagues not following the party line and then? If you add the


leadership have put out a clear instruction to vote to trigger


Article 50, why are so many of your labour colleagues voting against?


Most Labour MPs this evening will vote for the short piece of


legislation that triggers or allows the Prime Minister to trigger the


negotiation process, Article 50. Some will votes according to their


constituency voices. And some national parties will try and go


against the national result, the Lib Dems and the SNP. The real question


is, what happens beyond this short Bill? It is only the start of the


process. That is where the amendments that Labour will be


tabling, that is where the important process starts. What Britain we want


before Brett -- beyond Brexit. That is where a number of key Tory


Remainers will join possibly Labour in voting for a vote that Parliament


could have before the very end of the negotiating process. What is


wrong with that? The people who have absolutely no right to set the terms


of our exit our Remainers have not accepted the result. People like


Anna Soubry have respected the result. I think she's very


principle. She has long held beliefs on this issue. But there are others


who will try to thwart this bill or future legislation. But my question


was about having an amendment where people have said they accepted it,


even though they remove -- they voted Remain, who said they would


like a vote that was meaningful for Parliament. If Parliament is to have


a proper say, surely they need to scrutinise the deal put before them


at a point at which they could send it back to the government to say,


you need to improve it? We have debated Brexit every single day in


some form since the referendum. The Prime Minister has made it clear the


final proposal will go before Parliament. It is a take it or leave


it. So it should be. The decision taken by the people was to leave the


European Union. It wasn't to leave bits of it and stay in some of it,


and it wasn't to give Parliament the final say. At no point was ever


anywhere in the question that Parliament would decide the final


deal. To be fair, there wasn't anything other than exiting the EU.


What we get to a situation where Parliament rejects a deal? Are we


then going into second referendum territory? Labour are divided. Over


the next couple of years that division will be constantly reminded


to Labour MPs who don't have a collective voice on this. It want,


actually. This is a short Bill. We won't frustrate the process. But you


can't describe proper public and parliamentary challenge to a Prime


Minister's aims for negotiation, her achievements, or a sense of how we


want the country to be, as somehow trying to thought the process. To


answer your question, this is where the clearer division will come


between the Conservatives and Labour. This is where you will find


Labour MPs and labour voters pulling together to try to do our proper job


as the official opposition. We have to leave it there. Audience after


Prime Minister's Questions. Now, it looks like Number 10


and Buckingham Palace will have more than a few things to worry about,


as they plan Donald Trump's state There will probably be protests


on the streets on a major scale. Prince Charles might buttonhole


Mr Trump about climate change. The 45th president might


hold Her Majesty's hand if he encounters any steps


at Windsor Castle. And, possibly most damagingly


of all, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he won't attend


if he is invited. They speak of nothing else in


Washington, DC this morning as they wake up to that shock news!


But if anyone from Buck House is watching, don't worry -


we have the perfect way to impress Mr Trump at the big banquet.


Yes, you just need to put the royal Asti Spumante


Is that how you usually drink sparkling wine, in a mug?!


I'm interested that you think I would drink sparkling wine!


Any awkward moments will soon be forgotten, as you raise the toast


with this desirable alternative to boring old crystal glassware.


Other sparkling wines are available. Mr Trump will not drink any of them


because he doesn't drink. Never mind the banned, he doesn't drink! Are


you saying there is something wrong with that?


Yes, the only problem is you'll have to win lots of them -


so you'd better start entering our guess


All you need to do is tell us when all of this happened.


And we should warn you, there are some flashing in the film.


MUSIC: Is There Something I Should Know by Duran Duran.


I just became a victim of the political impact


Can I ask you why you're not wearing a seat belt?


MMUSIC: Every Breath You Take by The Police.


I don't intend, as I said in my statement, to make


MUSIC: (Keep Feeling) Fascination by The Human League.


To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,


send your answer to our special quiz email address -


Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms


and conditions for Guess The Year on our website.


It's coming up to midday, and there's Big Ben -


which means Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.


Laura Kuenssberg, who managed to escape the United States, after


doing her best to destroy the special relationship! Great


question. I tweeted how proud I was of you. Thank you. I've learned from


the master, of course. Trump, the refugee banned and related issues we


have been discussing, the state visit. Mr Corbyn cannot avoid some


kind of mixture of that? He could, of course. But I think today Jeremy


Corbyn will go on this issue. Not the workers directive, your personal


favourite. I am 99.99% sure Jeremy Corbyn will indeed go on the Trump


travel banned. Theresa May's delayed response to that. And whether or not


there should be a state visit with the full bells and whistles, the red


carpet, the gold carriage, the shoulders -- soldiers in their


shining breastplates. Not least because it is an issue Jeremy Corbyn


feels strongly about, but also because many of his backbenchers


sitting behind him feel strongly about it, and also plenty of people


on the opposite benches have some sense of disquiet about it. Not


necessarily that there are serious calls the man should be led into the


country, but there is disquiet about whether or not Theresa May has been


seen to be cosying up to him too fast. What is Jeremy Corbyn's


official position? John Healey said earlier it was a matter of timing.


Is it a matter of timing, or are they against a visit outright? Or is


it, all right he can come but he doesn't get the joint session in


Parliament? There are a variety of different initiatives going on.


People have been organising about this. There is a motion put down by


MPs to say that he shouldn't be allowed to do the joint address in


the Palace of Westminster. That is one specific issue. There is then,


as I understand it, the official position that until something


changes about the travel banned, the full state visit should not be


extended to the president until there is some kind of move. One of


the really interesting things about the last couple of days is that MPs,


lots of different MPs, have put forward ways about protesting.


He was an outstanding parliamentarian, I'm sure that our


thoughts are with his friends and family. I had meetings with


ministerial colleagues and others, and I shall have further such


meetings later today. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I associate myself with the


tribute paid to the victims in Canada and to the family of Tam


Dalyell. Mr Speaker, North Devon is quite rightly concerned that the


current review of health services across the county may result in the


loss of some acute services at our hospital in Barnstable. For some


residents, the nearest alternative could be three hours away. Will my


honourable friend assure me that she will listen carefully to those


concerns, because I want to be able to say to North Devon that we are


the party of the LHS? -- the NHS. I thank my honourable friend for his


question. I can reassure him that this Government is absolutely


committed to ensuring the best possible health care for patients


right across the country. I recognise that there are concerns


that have been expressed locally about the North Devon District


Hospital. I'd understand that there are no specific proposals at the


moment, but I know that the input of local communities will remain


crucial Robin Briars says. And I can assure him that of course it is this


party in Government that is putting in the extra funding into the NHS


and showing how we evaluate. Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I


joined the Prime Minister in offering condolences to all those


who died in the horrific attack, fuelled by hate, in Quebec. We


should send our solidarity to everybody in Canada in this sad


occasion. I also associate myself to the tribute for the former member


for West Lothian, can DL. Former father of the House, he probably


thought to expose official wrongdoing and cover-ups from the


miners strike to a ruck. I'm sure that the Prime Minister would agree


with me that his scrutiny and contributions made this House a


better place. And can I recommend to all members his autobiography, The


Importance Of Being Awkward. LAUGHTER


And I'm quite happy, Mr Speaker, to offer my copy to the Secretary of


State for Brexit to have a good read of it. I'm sure he's probably


already read it. Mr Speaker, at last week's Prime Minister is questions,


the Prime Minister told the House, I'm not afraid to speak frankly to


the president of the United States. What happened? Well, first of all,


can I say to the right honourable gentleman that I wasn't aware of the


book that he referred to, but I suspect, given the number of


resignations he's had from his front bench, that some of his colleagues


have indeed read that book! I'm happy to say to the right honourable


gentleman that when I visited the United States, I'm pleased to say


that I was able to build on the relationship that we have with our


most important ally. And to get some very significant commitments from


President Trump. And crucial among those was a 100% commitment to Nato.


Nato, which keeps us safe and Europe safe too. Mr Speaker, Downing Street


has not denied that the Prime Minister was told by the White House


that the executive order on travel to the US was imminent. So let's be


clear, was the Prime Minister told about the ban during her visit, and


did she tried to persuade President Trump otherwise? First of all, on


the policy that President Trump has introduced, this Government is clear


that that policy is wrong. We wouldn't do it. In six years as Home


Secretary, I never introduced such a policy. We believe it is divisive


and wrong. If he's asking me whether I had advanced notice of the ban on


refugees, the answer is no. If he's asking me if I had advanced notice


that the executive order could affect British citizens, the answer


is no. If he's asking if I had advanced notice of the travel


restrictions, the answer is, we all did, because President Trump said he


was going to do this in his election campaign. The question, the question


is how you respond. The job of Government, the job of Government is


not to chase the headlines. The job of Government... The job of


Government is not a trait to the streets in protest. The job of


Government is to protect the interests of British citizens, and


that's exactly what we did -- not to take to the streets. Mr Speaker, on


the day after the executive order was made to ban refugees and


visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries, why did she three


times refused to condemn the ban then? I've made very clear, very


clear, that we believe this policy is divisive and wrong. It's not a


policy that we would introduce. I've also made very clear when asked


about this that this Government has a very different approach to these


issues. On refugees, this Government has a proud record of the support


that we have given to refugees, and long may it continue. Mr Speaker,


the Prime Minister said the United States is responsible for United


States policy on refugees. But surely it is the responsibility of


all of us to defend the 1951 refugee Convention, which commits this


country, the United States, and 142 other states to accept refugees


without regard to their race, religion or country of origin.


President Trump has breached that convention. Why didn't she speak


out? First of all, I've made absolutely clear what the


Goverment's view on this policy is. Secondly, as I've just said, this


Government has a proud record, and this country has a proud record, of


how it welcomes refugees. We have over the last recent years, we've


introduced the very particular scheme to ensure that particularly


vulnerable refugees in Syria can be brought to this country, and


something like 10,000 Syrian refugees have come to this country


since the conflict began. We are also the second biggest bilateral


donor, helping and supporting refugees in the region. That is what


we are doing. I have said that the policy is wrong. We will take a


different view on we will continue to welcome refugees of this country.


Mr Speaker, I also wrote to the Prime Minister on this issue, and I


received a reply this morning. I hold in my hand her piece of paper.


She makes no mention of the refugee Convention, nor condemns the US


actions in this respect. Mr Speaker, last week I also asked the Prime


Minister to assure the House that any United States trade deal, she


would not offer up our National Health Service as a bargaining chip.


She gave no answer when asked in the US she also refused to rule it out,


so let's might ask her a third time, will she will out opening up our


National Health Service to Private US health care companies? Yes or no?


Mr Speaker, I could give a detailed answer to the right honourable


gentleman's question, but I think a simple and straightforward reply is


what is required. The NHS is not for sale, and it never will be. I hope,


Mr Speaker, that includes not having US health care companies coming in


to run any part of our National Health Service. Mr Speaker,


President Trump has torn up international agreements on


refugees. He has threatened to dump international agreements on climate


change. He has praised the use of torture. He has incited hatred


against Muslims, he is directly attacked women's rights. Just what


more does the President Trump have to do before the Prime Minister will


listen to the 1.8 million people who have already called for his state


visit invitation to be withdrawn the right honourable gentleman's


foreign policy is to object to and insult the democratically elected


head of state of our most important ally. Let's just see what he would


have achieved in the last week. Would he have been able to protect


richest citizens from the impact of the executive order? No. -- British


citizens. Would he have been able to lay the foundations of a trade deal?


No. Would he have got a 100% commitment to Nato? No. That's what


Labour has two of this country. Less protection for British citizens,


less prosperous, let's save -- what Labour has to offer. -- less safe.


He can lead a protest, I'm leading a country.


Order, order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, it is inconceivable that


somebody would be prosecuted because of who and what they are. Would my


right honourable friend drawing me and welcoming the posthumous pardon


of some 49,000 men thanks to the Goverment's Bill that was enacted


yesterday, and encourage those who are still alive to come forward so


that there are injustices can be overturned. I'm very happy to join


my honourable friend in welcoming what I believe is an extremely


important change to the law. We made a manifesto commitment to it and we


have now delivered on it. Passing this law has been a long-standing


commitment for the Government. It is momentous, it does take action to


right the wrongs of the past, and like my right honourable friend, I


would certainly encourage those still alive to applied the Home


Office to have their references disregarded. We on these benches


associate ourselves with all the comments thus far on the tragic


deaths in Quebec and on the passing of time DL. The respect for him was


held across the political parties. He served with great distinction for


more than 40 years. The Prime Minister had a very successful


international visit in this last week. To Ireland. And there she


spoke publicly about her commitment, it's very important I think, the


commitment not to have a hard border on these islands. That there should


continue to be free movement of peoples on these islands, and trade


should be protected and enhanced. Given that people will be watching


this not just in Britain but also in Ireland, would she take the


opportunity to explain how she will deliver these sensible and important


outcomes? These are absolutely the outcomes that we want to see. I was


very pleased to meet with the Taoiseach and discuss with him the


joint intent that of his government and mine have two ensure that we


don't see a return to the borders of the past in Northern Ireland. And to


say that of course we focus on the land border that is between Northern


Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, of course the issue of movements


from Ireland does in effect other places as well, such as port in


Wales. It is an important issue for us, and we have agreed the work we


are going to do together to deliver what I believe will be as


frictionless as possible a border, and also one of the objectives that


I set out in my plan for our negotiating objectives is to retain


the Common travel area. We welcome what the Prime Minister


has had to say on these issues and we welcome the intensifying of


negotiations between the UK government and the devolved


administrations ahead of triggering Article 50. So the Prime Minister is


very helpfully explained that it is perfectly possible for parts of


these islands to be in the single market, without Borders, with free


movement of people and at the same time protect and enhance trade with


one another. This is very, very welcome, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime


Minister give a commitment to work with the Irish government and a


commitment to work with the Scottish government to deliver all of these


things? Or will we just have to get on with it ourselves? First of all,


the Right Honourable gentleman is right, that following the meeting of


the plenary session on Monday morning we did agree to an


intensification of discussion on issues related to the bringing back


of powers from Brussels, and as to where those powers should lie within


the United Kingdom, and to intensify that in the run-up to the triggering


of Article 50 and beyond. On the other question, I'm afraid he really


should listen to the answer that are given because he's trying to imply


something that isn't there. Yes. We are very clear that we want to see a


frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.


I'm also clear that one of the objectives of our negotiation is to


see us frictionless a border as possible between the United Kingdom


and the rest of the European Union. If he is so worried about having a


frictionless border between Scotland and the European Union, he shouldn't


want to see Scotland independent and take it out of the European Union.


Order! We shouldn't have to allow for the reaction to every answer


from the SMB benches before we proceed to the next question. Mrs


Maria Miller. -- SNP. EU nationals provide a vital and expert service


in my hospital in Basingstoke. Along with thousands of others they face


an uncertain future. I know this is something the Prime Minister wants


to give priority to in sorting out, will we be hearing more about it in


the forthcoming White Paper? My right honourable friend makes an


important point. I would like to confirm my intention and expectation


that we will be able to offer that reassurance. I do also want to see


reassurance offered to UK nationals in the EU. I will be working to


ensure this is an issue we can deal with at an early stage in the


negotiations. It was one of the objectives I set out in the plan. It


will be referenced in the White Paper. I can inform my right


honourable friend and the House that that White Paper will be published


tomorrow. Prime Minister, your responses today


have been deeply unsatisfactory. The president of the United States had


-- has advocated torture, misogyny, racial discrimination, sexual


assault, isolationism. The leaders of Canada and Germany responded


robustly but your response was to jump on a plane as soon as possible


to hold his hand. Mr Speaker, doesn't this country deserve our


leader willing to stand up for British values?


Order! I have issued no response and the honourable gentleman not only


shouldn't breach Parliamentary protocol, but he shouldn't tempt me.


The Prime Minister. I will tell you what standing up for British values


is. I had this government introduced the first modern slavery act in this


country. I have ensured that stop and search is reduced because I


don't believe that anybody on the streets of this country should be


stopped and searched because of the colour of their skin. And I ensured


justice for the families of Hillsborough. Despite the fact most


of the country -- countries covered by the Trump ban have total


exclusion of Israeli visitors, shouldn't the protestors be calling


for that banned to be lifted? I thank my right honourable friend for


pointing this out. It is absolutely right that this House should be


aware of the discrimination and the band that exists around the world,


particularly for those who are is really sad isn't -- citizens. We


don't agree with that approach. And it is not an approach we shall be


taking. I wait for the day when the right honourable gentleman opposite


stance up and condemns it, too. Mr Speaker, a constituent of mine


suffered a bleed on the brain in 2012. She has struggled to work


since but was due to disk -- to retire in December. Due to changes


to state pension retirement age, she will not retire until 2022. This has


short-changed 2.2 million women and brought shame to this government.


Will the Prime Minister look again and support Diana and the millions


of women who deserve fairness in retirement?


The issue of those who are known... To refer the honourable gentleman to


the fact we did commit over ?1 billion to lessen the impact on


those affected, so no one will see their pension age changed by more


than 18 months. But we do have to be realistic and looking at pension


ages, but the fact that people are living longer. If we want a


sustainable pension system, we need to equalise the state pension age


faster and bring forward the rise. I welcome the ?450 million announced


in the Autumn Statement to fund a trial for the pilot of the digital


railway. Given the new fleet of trains on the border and the


economic growth opportunity that exists for our region, does the


Prime Minister agree that the main line represents the most compelling


case for that pilot? My honourable friend is right about what he says


about transport links. I understand digital signalling could increase


capacity by up to 40%. Hence the investment he refers to. I know that


the Department for Transport is looking currently at where those


trials should take place. But we certainly recognise that the great


Eastern and mainline is one of the areas that could benefit. A few


moments ago the Prime Minister tried to claim credit for passing


Stonewall's Alan Turing bill. She didn't. The bill pardons all gay men


found guilty of crimes no longer on the statute book. So when will the


Prime Minister follow the Scottish government and pardon automatically


the living as well as the dead? When I was home Secretary the legislation


was introduced that gives the opportunity for those who are alive


to apply to the Home Office to have those events is no longer on the


statute book expunged from their record. The honourable gentleman


says they are not doing it. My honourable friend and I have both,


in this chamber today, encouraged people to come forward and make that


application. That is a message we should all give. At the White House


my right honourable friend gain some assurances from President Trump


about his commitment to Nato, an achievement welcomed by the


governments the Czech Republic, Latvia and Lithuania. Does my right


honourable friend agree with me that the way to engage with President


Trump and win such agreements is by not insulting our close ally, but by


bringing him close, and not doing as the leader of the is it and demands,


that we reject our closest ally? Would this not leave Britain and our


European partners less safe and less secure? My honourable friend is


absolutely right in the points he makes. We should never forget that


America is our most important ally. It is a long-standing relationship.


American men and women served alongside and died alongside UK men


and women in two world Wars to protect our security and the


security of Europe. If we were not able to have that relationship and


see that commitment to Nato particularly, we would see this


country and Europe less safe. Many were surprised that immediately


after those cosy images with Donald Trump, the Prime Minister chose to


meet with the Turkish president, who has been running an increasingly


repressive regime since last summer. Could the Prime Minister confirm


whether she raised any human rights concerns with President Cardigan?


Will it be the policy of post-Brexit Britain to put arms deals before


human rights abuses? First of all, I think the honourable lady should


recognise that Turkey is an important country in relation to


both our security and the issue of migration into Turkey and


potentially into Europe. Turkey has, and continues to host, 3 million


refugees from Syria. I commended the Turkish government on the welcome


they have given those refugees. And yes, I did raise and I suggest to


the honourable lady she should just have looked at the press conference


I gave after my discussions with President erred again, in which I


made it clear that we had condemned the coup but we also expected the


Turkish government to support its democratic institutions, to support


international human rights and the rule of law. I wholeheartedly


congratulate my right honourable friend in securing 100% for Nato


from the US administration. Cucchietti climb what she is to


persuade our other allies the importance of press -- their


obligations? Can I thank my honourable friend for the work he


does on the Nato Parliamentary assembly. I know he is fully engaged


with that. There are commitments that have been made. At the Nato


Summit in 2014 Oliver Nato allies committed to spending 2% on defence


within a decade. We have seen progress but I agree with President


Trump that many allies need to go further. I can assure my honourable


friend that I and other ministers across government raise our -- the


issue regularly. Last week's London air pollution was


worse than that of Beijing. So will the Prime Minister assure me and my


constituents in Osterley, Brentford and Chiswick, that the hugely


expensive proposal to double the capacity of the M4 as it arrives in


London will be shelled forthwith? -- shelved. The issue of air quality is


one this government takes seriously. Quite a lot of work has been done


since 2011. Over ?2 billion has been committed to enable, for example,


bus operators to upgrade their fleets. But we do recognise that


more needs to be done. We have seen a reduction in nitrous oxide fumes


in recent years but we will be bringing forward proposals to ensure


we can maintain the air quality that we all want to see. As a fellow


Bartra member of Parliament, will my right honourable friend the show her


support for brighter Bircher, the campaign that is part of the 2017


Europe mental health, and give her continued -- commitments to ensure


we have parity between mental health and physical health in this country?


I am very happy to endorse the campaign that my friend has referred


to. I think it is important that we continue to raise awareness of the


issues around mental health. And the fact the government has committed to


this parity of esteem between mental health and physical health is


important. There is more to do a mental health. I have set out some


steps we need to take. But I commend all those working to raise awareness


of mental health and provide support to those with mental health


problems. The Association of directors of adult social services


have said that 4.6 billion has been cut from social care budgets since


2010. Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for the pain and


the distress that the Tories have inflicted on poor vulnerable older


people being denied their rightful care? Yes, horror no? This


government has taken a number of steps to increase the funding from


local authorities to provide for social care. I also believe it is


important that we do ensure best practice is being developed and put


into place across the country. There are some parts of the country where


the record on social care, the interaction between hospitals, is


better than others. There is a longer term issue to ensure that we


have a sustainable system for delivering social care for people in


this country. The Labour Party ducked that issue for 13 years.


We're addressing it. Will my right honourable friend join me in


congratulating the academy on the recently received world-class


schools quality mark award, and indicate how awards such as this


drive people excellence? I am happy to join my friend in congratulating


the whole team at Morley Academy. I think it shows the work the trust is


doing in driving up excellence and improving outcomes for pupils. We


are determined to drive up standards in schools to ensure broad children


have good school places, a good school place for every child, so


they can all be at the level we see in the Morley Academy. How will the


thousands of people who've lost their jobs at BHS feel that it may


take years before the case of Philip Green, the disgraced and discredited


businessperson, will have his knighthood possibly withdrawn, taken


away or otherwise? Isn't it remarkable? People lose their jobs,


they suffer all the consequences and this man keeps his billions and his


knighthood. The honourable gentleman has raised


an important issue. This has been raised by many members of this house


in terms of their concern about what happened at BHS and the attitude and


approach Philip Green talk. The issue of whether a knighthood should


be taken away from somebody is a matter for the relevant committee.


They will be looking at this. I understand they have said they are


waiting for the investigations to complete, but this is an issue for


an independent committee. Tonight there will be an historic vote in


this place. A vote that I never thought I would see in my political


lifetime. The British Parliament voted to withdraw from the European


Union under the excellent leadership of the Prime Minister. Would the


Prime Minister be surprised that people on the opposite bench or


demand time to discuss this and debated, namely the Liberal


Democrats, didn't even bother to turn up last night? These benches or


pack, both benches were packed, the DV -- the DUP were here and there


were some Labour members. Isn't that surprising?


Throughout my political career I have fought -- nothing the Liberal


Democrats do ever surprises me. But I will join my honourable friend in


commending the bill that is before the House. This House has a simple


decision. We gave the right of judgment to the British people. They


made their choice, they want to leave the EU. The question every


member must ask themselves as they go through the lobbies tonight is,


do they trust the people? The right honourable gentleman is


here now. Let's here the fellow. Tim Farron.


-- let's hear the fellow. Who'd have guessed it, Mr Speaker?


We are here now... LAUGHTER.


Asking the questions about the future of our country on Brexit that


a strong Leader of the Opposition should be asking.


Order! Order, Mr Knight! I'm very worried about you. You recently


suffered from a bad leg. With all that shedding you will be suffering


from a bad head. Calm yourself, man! The Prime Minister will return...


The Prime Minister will return at some point with a deal with Europe


that our people will have to live with for decades to come. Especially


our young people. 73% of whom voted to remain. Nobody knows what that


deal will look like. But someone, someone will get to agree at. Should


it be her government? Should it be this parliament? Or should it be, as


I believe, the British people? I've already said they will be a


vote on the deal in this Parliament. Calm yourself. You are in a state of


excessive excitement, even by your standards. Nigel Adams. Quite


difficult to follow that! Back in the real world...


LAUGHTER. In December 2015, my constituency


suffered some terrible flooding, particularly the town of Tadcaster.


The damage was made worse when the bridge collapsed. Thankfully the


Briton -- bridge will be reopened this week. Willie Prime Minister


thank all those involved in the restoration of the bridge? Would you


join me in thanking the residents of Tadcaster who have had a terrible


year? 5-macro I am very happy to join my honourable friend both in


commending and in thanking all those who have worked so hard to see the


restoration of the bridge at Tadcaster, but also the people of


Tadcaster who have had to put up with this disruption and


inconvenience for such a long period of time. I'm sure they will all


welcome the return of the bridge. We commend all those involved.


The News revealed yesterday that Toshiba is reviewing its investment


in the Moorside nuclear-power plant. Not only does it put a cloud over


jobs in Cumbria, but also over the future of our energy and security.


What does he do personally to make sure the deal stays on track? I can


assure the honourable gentleman that in relation to a number of deals and


potential deals around the nuclear industry, both I and the Business


Secretary are involved in these and are very keen to ensure that these


jobs are brought to the United Kingdom, and we do see these deals


keeping on track. So I can assure him that the government's commitment


is there. This week, the Danish drug firm


invested 115 million in the UK, in order to further research into type


two diabetes. With the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the


investment, welcoming those academics and scientists, many from


the EU and around the world, who will appreciate that the surety she


spoke of earlier? But also work with me to ensure that new treatments get


to patients as quickly as possible? This is an issue that I do recognise


particularly, personally, although I am a type one diabetic rather than


Type II. Any investment in research for diabetes is to be welcomed. We


do need to ensure that where there are new solution is found, where


there is support for diabetics found, that we see that getting to


people as quickly as possible. There is a significant number of people


who suffer from type two diabetes in this country, and the figures show


there is a great risk that number will increase significantly in


coming years. We need to do all we can to prevent people becoming Type


II diabetics in the first place, but also to support those who are, so


that we see that people suffer from fewer complications in future and


are able to manage their lives. Today's is world hijab day. I wonder


if the Prime Minister would join me in recognising the right of Muslim


Women's Network the hijab without fear, if they wish? And the right of


all women everywhere to wear what they want, when they want. Willie


Prime Minister also commit to standing up for the right to refuge


for men, women and children wherever they may be, regardless of their


religion? First of all, on the second point of the honourable lady


races, it is absolutely the case that this country welcomes refugees


to the United Kingdom. And we do so regardless of their religion. There


is no question of discriminating on the religion. On the issue that she


raises about the wearing of the hijab, I am absolutely in line with


her. What a woman wears is a woman's choice.


The Russian armed forces regularly carry out large-scale exercises,


including with nuclear capable equipments, on the borders of


eastern Europe. Would my right honourable friend I agree with me


that the American commitment to Nato is absolutely pivotal in protecting


the countries of eastern Europe from going the same way as already has


happened to eastern Ukraine? I absolutely agree with my honourable


friend. I think the commitment that President Trump has given, 100%


commitment to Nato, is crucial in ensuring we can provide for the


security of this country and others in Europe, and particularly for


those in eastern Europe on the borders with Russia. I know that my


honourable friend earlier referred to the fact that the Czech republic,


the Latvian government, the little winning government, had welcomed


that 100% commitment. -- Lithuanian government. We have played our part.


300 troops will be going to Lithuania and Estonia later this


year. In 2015, my constituent was lured to


her death to Pakistan where she was brutally raped and murdered. Willie


Prime Minister join me in reiterating the commitment of this


House and this country, that we will not tolerate violence against women,


and to encourage the Pakistani government to continue in its


efforts for justice for our British girl? Yes, can I say to the


honourable lady that obviously she has raised a very tragic case that


has taken place. Our deepest sympathies are with Samir's husband


following her tragic death last year. We don't interfere in the


legal processes of another country. But the Foreign Office, I understand


from the Foreign Office the Pakistani police have charged two


people with murder. The Foreign Office are provided assistance to


Samir's husband and will continue to do so. I understand the Home


Secretary will be meeting the honourable lady soon to discuss this


issue. Prime Minister's Questions comes to


an end. It has ended earlier this week. It is meant to finish at


12:30pm but it normally finishes at 12:45pm, so there we are! As


everybody thought, Mr Corbyn decided to go on the whole business of Mr


Trump and the ban on certain Muslim majority countries and the refugee


banned for 120 days and so on. And he asked the Prime Minister several


questions. The Prime Minister did tell us some things that we hadn't


known for sure yet. Clearly she thought the policy was wrong and


divisive. But she said she had no advance notice. There had been


stories doing the rounds that the president had tipped her off while


in Washington, but she said she had no advance notice of the policy that


he was going to come out with. He may have mentioned something in


general terms, but she had no advance notice of Howard would


affect the British, what it was going to be and so on. And she said


that she was proud of this country's attitude to refugees, and under no


circumstances would Britain adopt policies that Mr Trump has adopted


for the united states. Then Jeremy Corbyn moved onto another issue, the


possibility that we may do a bilateral trade deal. The


transatlantic trade deal which involved the EU and the US is now


dead in the water. But there is now a possibility that Britain could do


a bilateral deal with the United States. Jeremy Corbyn wanted to know


if the NHS could be at risk and become a bargaining chip, so that


big American companies can become again and getting involved. The


Prime Minister said there was no way the NHS would become such a


bargaining chip in any sort of trade deal. Mr Corbyn finished by asking


why she not called off the state visit of Mr Trump and cited the 1.7,


I think it is 1.7 but perhaps it has risen since, by 1.7 million people


who have signed the Parliamentary petition. There is another


Parliamentary petition to say that he is welcome here, that is growing


as well but it hasn't got 1.7 billion. We'll look at some of these


things. What are our viewers saying? They are saying it was a strong


performance by Theresa May, less so by Jeremy Corbyn. A viewer says,


when will we stop trying to hit headlines rather than sensible


debate? Helen Manning says that for the second week running Jeremy


Corbyn hits the canvas and Theresa May looks like a towering figure.


Ian White we said that Mrs May seemed to be ready by Jeremy


Corbyn's questions, easy questions to respond to. Joseph Riley pledge


inches x-rays, in my opinion the Prime Minister was right when people


voted for him, don't keep labelling Donald Trump. Just like the UK voted


for Brexit Comey you have got to go with the vote and you can't change


it. We have a statement from Buckingham Palace to the Daily


Politics. We know the Queen watches this programme! In fact, it has gone


12:30pm, perhaps she has just bought herself a gym, probably to see


herself through the second half of the programme! -- poured herself a


Jin. So appalled with what she saw in the first bit! Buckingham Palace


said only two US presidents have made state visits to the UK. Obama


in 2011 and Bush, which would be Bush the second, in 2003. They say


that at least since 1954, but they think ever. Probably because before


then American presidents didn't come here. FDR never came to Britain. I


think Woodrow Wilson might have done. Mr Reagan's visited the UK in


1982 had many of the features of the state visit, like addressing


Parliament and a banquet at Windsor Castle, but was a state visit. I


think Buckingham Palace have a very narrow and particular view of what a


state visit is. Obviously this is the Queen's view, we know that. That


is what she thinks. She has only ever given... I'm pretty sure Mr


Reagan thought it was a state visit. There is a debate about exactly what


it is. I remember about the time of the Chinese premier coming here,


there was a lot of chat behind-the-scenes. The thing he


wanted above all else for the pictures of himself with Kate


Middleton. That's what he wanted for the audience at home, said the chap


behind-the-scenes. However, a debate about what exactly constitutes a


state visit. I'm pretty sure that all of these presidents thought it


was a state visit. I think they went back to the White House and said,


wow, that was a great state visit! The Queen has slapped them down!


Exactly, like Theresa May exactly slapped down... Who is the Queen,


you could say? Didn't want that point of beer with David Cameron in


the Cotswolds Pub! They wanted the images of him with Kate Middleton


and at the doctor who sat with the Daleks -- the Doctor Who sat. When


Mr Reagan came here with Nancy. I'm not a name-dropper, but Princess


Diana told me that all Nancy wanted was pictures with the two boys.


Those were her eggs act words as we lunched in Kensington Palace. He


wanted the dance with Diana, presumably -- her exact words. She


said, they wanted pictures with the two boys, but she said, it's not


going to happen. What constitutes a state visit? What about addressing


the joint session of Parliament? Would you like to see that? I think


that's in the gift of Parliament. I'm not sure it is in the gift of


the Government. It is something that Parliament has extended to other


leaders. In my time here we have had the Pope and President Obama, the


Canadian Prime Minister. I think we go the point again, this is the man


who is the democratically elected leader of one of our closest


friends. If Parliament has extended that the crust previously... It is a


matter for Parliament. It is not automatic for a visiting president


to do it -- extended that request. Many people think it should not be


automatic. I think people felt Mr Obama, the first black president,


hugely hissed significant historically -- hugely significant.


At the time of Mr Reagan, there was a feeling that the special


relationship was very special, so they did that. But it doesn't happen


automatically. It shouldn't be automatic, should it? I don't think


these things should be automatic, but it is a matter for Parliament. I


support the state visit, that's all of our interests. If Parliament


wishes to, I can't say I have a particularly strong view either way


whether he comes and addresses Parliament or not. It is important


that we recognise he is a democratically elected leader and he


should be afforded the same visit as his predecessor had been. If he is


coming here, is no doubt he will sometimes whether the state visit


goes ahead or not, it may be in his interests that he doesn't address a


joint session of Parliament. I think if he is here, he should do it. Both


houses earlier this week, on also writes, act the special motion -- on


all sides, backed the special motion calling his policies discriminatory,


divisive and counter-productive. To be honest, the detail of the state


visit is getting away from what is really important and really at


stake, which is aspect of what he has announced, and the way that they


contravene so many deeply held values. We had a robust discussion


about that in the first half of this programme.


Are we going to place those value judgments on every leader that comes


here? There are plenty of leaders who have come here over the years


whose domestic policies none of's support. We have to be very careful.


Let's not get carried away with the detail. A lot of what Mr Corbyn


Broad up, we already had quite a -- quite an extended discussion about.


We didn't do much on the state visit. Mr Corbyn citing the 1.7


million said they should cancel the state visit. Is that Labour policy


to cancel the state visit? I'm not a totally sure either. Jeremy Corbyn


has decided to take a strong line on this. As he brandished the F Theresa


May that he received in reply from her, in a fairly clear attempt to


make the comparison about Chamberlain waving a letter around,


he has chosen to push our instead on the question of policy. Will she


condemn what in his view is a violation of the Geneva Convention?


I am not precisely clear what they are trying to achieve. It's


interesting that John has just said he thinks Trump should...


It wasn't clear in the interviews I've heard with Jeremy Corbyn. We


are trying to clarify that with the party today. In the world of real


politic, you could take the view that Mrs May rushed to quickly into


a state visit. We know that state visit our limited, and I can't think


of any time when it happened in the first year. You can take that view.


But it is not -- is it not just in the world of real politic the die is


cast, and we can't withdraw an invitation that has been given and


accepted? Corbyn actually used the words, withdraw the invitation, in


his question. These are all different ways of raising the same


questions as a way of trying to highlight what is really important,


which is as Laura Kuenssberg has said, the policy and the criticisms


of what he is trying to sign into law through the executive order. For


my money, that is the most important concern at stake. And that's where


are really the Prime Minister has been slow. She has been weak. She


has said it's divisive and wrong, finally. And both Houses have been


stronger than the Prime Minister. Usain that the fact you didn't as an


opposition complain about the Chinese President's visit, for


example, are you saying you're comfortable with every Chinese


policy then? No. Why wasn't there a petition, why weren't there marches


in the streets and why wasn't Jeremy Corbyn demanding that his invitation


be withdrawn? I don't understand why the one person who has a


democratically elected mandate and shares our values, that we pull this


particular instance output we were completely silent when it came to


others whose domestic policies none bus would ever have any truck with.


I find this whole thing bizarre and hypocritical.


Just before you go, Woodrow Wilson was the first-ever US president to


visit Europe, including the UK, in 1918. Andy was over for the Treaty


of Versailles as well. The Senate in the end didn't sign. Buckingham


Palace was not able to give us a formal definition of the state


visit. I think we can make it up! Definitely there is a call for a


Friday film on the daily politics. I have just checked Jeremy Corbyn's


letter to Theresa May. It does say that he has written to Theresa May


to the man she withdraw the invitation of a state visit. The


Labour Party stands unequivocally with those demonstrating and calling


for that. The policy is very clear. Sure we leave it there? We could


talk for hours. Now, the European Capital of Culture


is a title bestowed by the EU on one lucky city for a year,


during which time it has to organise cultural events


with a strong European dimension, and in return hopes for a boost


in status and visitors. It's credited with making a big


difference in Glasgow, The UK government has


just asked cities to bid for the title in 2023 -


which, the observant among you will notice,


is after we will have left the EU. But undeterred, Truro is among those


throwing its hat into the ring. Before we ask whether that's wise,


what does Cornwall's Well, it's the UK's most


southerly city, and in fact, It's home to a rather splendid


gothic revival cathedral, one of only three in the country


boasting three spires. There are some famous names related


to Truro, including William Golding and Professor John Curtis. We are


joined by Julian German, Cornwall county council's Cabinet member for


culture. Assuming the UK leads the EU, what do you think the realistic


possibility of true being made European city of culture in 2023?


Good afternoon. I think there is a really good chance. The government


have said they want to be continued -- continue to be outward looking


that they want to work with EU partners and continue to play a role


in some programmes. The CMS have opened bidding. That signals a level


of confidence from government this will happen. Other places are


looking at bidding. The government guidance says the UK is currently


still a full member of the EU, therefore the application process


will run as normal. There are a lot of good reasons we would want to be


involved. I'm going to give you the advice the culture Department has


given to bidding cities like true. We are committed for the UK to host


the title in 2023, however bidding cities should be aware that the


European capital... It goes on, the UK government bears no


responsibility for the Finance and investment made by the cities and


councils. In other words, it could be money down the drain. They have


basically written a disclaimer. We recognise there is a risk but we


recognise it is good value for money in any case. It brings a focus to


Truro and count -- Cornwall. The wider region is involved, as with


Marseille province last year. And what we want to do is get across


what is happening in Cornwall and Truro, and the fact we are on the


daily politics today talking about Truro and Cornwall shows that that


is working. It may kill off your bid altogether! You are spending just


more than ?500,000. I use sure people in Truro would agree it is a


good way of spending that money? -- are you sure? We go through the


process. The ?500,000 is for a full bid. What we have signed off is the


full budget that will come back tuck Cornwall Council Cabinet before


October, when the bid is put forward. That will take considerably


less. That will take a son to the short list. We have spent investment


in culture in Cornwall. The cultivator project, St Ives, Rob


Ford creative business growth. That is extent -- expensively that is


part of our strategy. It ties very much with that. And indeed with the


government strategy around the culture White Paper and the


industrial strategy. John Healey, can you imagine


Jean-Claude Juncker commented cut the ribbon when it is announced it


is going to be Truro as the European city of Culture once we have left,


bearing in mind if you look at the website of the European commission


it says eligible cities have to come from member states, candidate


countries? We won't be any those. I can imagine it, actually. Istanbul


has been City of Culture. They are a country that wants to join the EU. I


think Jean-Claude Juncker will will be interested in those three spires.


I say, go Truro. I think Theresa May hast to add a 13th point to plan for


negotiating Brexit. Very timely as we have just announced more funding


for Cornwall. I am from Hull, UK City of Culture. It has been a huge


value. Thank you and goodbye. In guess the year, the answer was 1983.


If you can press that Red Button... Well done. That is a great


name. The One O'Clock News is starting


over on BBC One now. Jo and I will be here at noon


tomorrow, with all the big To be in the Lords,


you have to be punctual... Sometimes you really do literally


have to slam the door What right do they have to tell


me about my fashion sense? Can you now control


your bad language? Yes, I will. Otherwise you'll be,


you know, drummed out.


Download Subtitles