27/03/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics at the start


of what promises to be an historic week as Britain begins


So what future awaits, both at home and abroad?


One of Theresa May's first acts as Prime Minister was to meet


Scotland's First Minister to try and agree a common


They meet again later today but, as the relationship faces strain,


Should Britain come out of the European customs union?


Theresa May says she wants to be able to strike trade deals


but could be open to some sort of associate membership.


Does Brexit mean time is up for the so-called


Journalist David Goodhart offers some advice for his fellow liberals.


And, political history is often made after an exchange of letters.


As Britain prepares to write to the EU we take a look at some


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


of the programme today, the Conservative MP, Mark Field,


First, the Prime Minister is in Scotland and will hold talks


with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon this afternoon ahead


of the triggering of Article 50 later this week.


It's the first time the two have met since Ms Sturgeon


announced plans for a second referendum on independence.


The Prime Minister will use a speech in the next hour to say she wants


to strengthen the UK rather than allow ties to become


Our Scotland correspondent James Shaw is in Glasgow.


What's the reception going to be like this time? And in fact,


relations between the two women? It's going to be a very interesting


meeting, I think, isn't it this afternoon? Perhaps one metric we


would like at is how long will the meeting take? Because we know that


they have totally different agendas. On the one hand we're going to hear


Theresa May talking about strengthening the United Kingdom,


bringing the Four Nations together to become a force in the wider world


and Ond, we know that Nicola Sturgeon wants to talk about a


second independence referendum. There will be a debate in the


Scottish Parliament tomorrow on exactly that subject and Theresa May


has said that is not on the table at the moment. She won't talk about a


second independence referendum. So how long will the talks actually go


on for? Yes, it could be a very short meeting and a frosty one


between the two of them if neither is prepared to give any ground. Do


we know on the logistics front is there going to be a handshake


outside? Are they going to have joint press conferences? We don't


know those details as yet. I think this has been set-up somewhat at


last minute. So in fact the arrangements still seem to be


underway. Earlier on this way this morning. Perhaps one thing they


might be able to talk about constructively is the repatriation


of powers from Brussels when Brexit happens. We know that Nicola


Sturgeon would like to see powers over agriculture and fisheries


coming back to Scotland and Theresa May might be willing to talk about


that. Not that she will make any specific commitments just now, but


it's something that is likely at least they will be able to discuss


that. James, Shaw, thank you. Joining me now is the SNP's Europe


spokesman, Stephen Gethins. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.


Thank you. Picking up on James Shaw's point about the repatriation


of powers on fishing and farming. Were that to happen, would that


satisfy you and your colleagues in the SNP and would there be no need


for a second independence referendum? Well, the powers that


the Scottish Government were looking for were set out before Chris time


when the First Minister set out a compromise dealment we are 48 hours


before the triggering of Article 50. It is good that the Prime Minister


is travelling to Scotland, it always is, of course, but it is pretty last


minute given that they have had the compromise deal since before


Christmas which set out some of the powers the Scottish Government were


looking for to make the compromise work. If she offers the powers would


you call off a second independence referendum? Amber Rudd and the Home


Secretary said we wouldn't be getting some powers. It will be


interesting to see if there has been a U-turn. The powers would have to


be substantial. The answer is yes, if they are substantial? The


compromise deal the Scottish Government have set out and they


said they will put the independence referendum to one side if the


compromise was met. The ball is firmly in the UK Government's court


especially since that document was more detailed than anything the UK


Government published so far. . That document will have been read by the


Prime Minister and her Government ministers, I'm sure it has, and they


have had time to look at it. Yes. And if there is a compromise, as you


say, if you don't get everything that you ask for, but you get some


of what you asked for, on important areas like fishing and farming,


would that be enough to say there won't be a second independence


referendum? Well, the First Minister has been very clear, if there is a


compromise they could put the referendum for a period of time to


one side and we can try and make that compromise work. However, we


are in a stage where just 48 hours beforehand, they have had the


document for three mounts months. You have made that point? I'm not


optimistic. But I hope I will be proved wrong. She has called your


bluff. She said no to a second independence referendum now? She has


clearly called the bluff of her Conservative colleagues as well.


Ruth Davidson said she should not stand in the way of a second


referendum. It also said that it would do something about a second


independence referendum if there was an overwhelming support for it. Can


you give me an example of a poll that shows a majority of the


Scottish people agree with you that there should be another referendum


before March 2019? There is only one way to find out what the will of the


people is. The Scottish Government was elected on more votes than any


Government has been elected in a constituency... That's not my


question. I want a poll on the basis of basis of what you promised as a


party. It was the SNP who said it was a once-in-a-lifetime poll. A few


of them, you know, look at the Herald, 56% oppose a pre-Brexit


referendum. If you look at the Scottish Daily Mail, 46% oppose a


pre-Brexit referendum. There isn't within, is there? There isn't a poll


that backs up your claim? You're looking at opinion polls there. The


Scottish Government was lcted on a manifesto commitment. Now, here at


Westminster, we've got a Government that is having great difficulty


keeping to any of its manifesto commitments at the moment, be it the


single market, be it over national insurance, you know, manifesto


commitments are there to be tan serious will you and that's what the


First Minister is doing and it is interesting that the Scottish


Government was elected on an increased share of the vote, 47%,


compared to 36% for the Tories and getting us into the mess that we're


in at the moment. What's the point of Theresa May going to visit Nicola


Sturgeon if she hasn't got anything to say? If the implication from


Number Ten it will be a short meeting. She rejected this idea of a


second independence referendum. It isn't exactly a charm offensive, is


it? On the contrary. I think Theresa May made it plain the precious union


is close to her heart. She doesn't like the idea of playing games with


politics and I don't think she would have been there had it not been for


Nicola Sturgeon bouncing the British Government only two weeks ago into


this idea there should be another referendum. It was in the manifesto.


Well, I think, it is interesting. One thing to watch for Theresa May


she is, there are a lot of politicians who try and per port


them to be manikelean. By going today, she is going to say, "Right,


come on, you tell us what you'd like to see in this Brexit." She had the


document for months! It is not about having the documentment two weeks


ago, Nicola Sturgeon bounced us all into the idea. What was the


surprise? What was the surprise? There was a great surprise. It was


in the manifesto. Did you not read it? It is nothing to do with reading


manifestos. We got through a Brexit Bill that had gone through the UK


Parliament, both Houses of Parliament, at which point we were


about to trigger Brexit, it might have well happened had it not been


for Nicola Sturgeon playing politics. What Theresa May is going


to do is say, "Right, you tell us what you'd like. Are you just


playing politics? Or can we add something substantive into that


Brexit letter?" Is Labour's voice clear on this issue or are you just


spectators? Labour's voice has been clear. What is it? About protecting


our constituents jobs and for me personally that means the customs


union and the single market and I have got to be honest, I disagree


with Mark about this idea of Theresa May as a clever tactician because


she... I was saying she was authentic about where she stands on


the union. So where she stands on the United Kingdom might be quite


clear, but what she is doing is effectively cow to youing to Ukip


which caused the SNP to react in the way they have. We are caught between


two nationalisms, neither of which is good for our country. What's


Labour's position on a second independence referendum. Jeremy


Corbyn said it would be fine for the SNP to hold a second referendum? I'm


with Kezia Dugdale on this. And she is the leader of Scottish Labour?


Who said that Scottish people don't want one. So Jeremy Corbyn was


wrong? Look, in the end, it is up to the Scottish people to decide, but


absolutely clearly, Scottish people don't want another referendum. It


was divisive. We experienced that division of our country during the


EU referendum and stirred up in certain parts, there was a lot of


ill feeling in both of those referendums and I don't think we


want to go back there at a time when people are worrying about their


jobs, when wages haven't gone up, these are the issues that politics


should be deciding over, not stirring up division. I agree with


Alison. What this realistically means is wait until the next


Holyrood electionsment if there is a manifesto commitment after then to


go for a further referendum, then fine, the Scottish people will have


spoken. That's after 2021. I am know not sure what you have got against


manifesto commitments. I'm stonished that you're telling us that the UK


Government was so unprepared, given that this was in the manifesto, this


was a compromise, this tripped up Theresa May's Article 50 process.


That's an astonishing thing. Look, this shouldn't have come as a


surprise. Can I just say, Stephen, isn't your whole argument for a


pre-Brexit referendum based on a false assumption? Namely that you


could leave the UK, and stay in the EU which is not guaranteed in fact,


it is very unlikely to happen. Have you spoken to any Spanish


politicians recently? A member was on BBC Scotland last week talking


about it. That's a false assumption that you can leave the UK and stay


in the EU... Look, Jo, on that question, I'd be glad to. Scotland


is a country that's been a member of the European Union for 40 years. It


has met the rules that you need to meet. It is a country whereby I've


EU rights. We are net contributors to the European Union... You will


have to join the queue like any new independent country? There is no


such thing as a queuement Turkey joined the queue before half of the


current members ever did. There is no such thing as a queue.


Scotland... Who has told you in the EU that a promise that Scotland


would automatically remain a member of the EU? Look, Juncker, Michael


Martin, they have said that Scotland's voice needs to be


listened to. That's not the same, is it? Scotland's voice needs to be


listened to. OK. Thank you. I'm so unused to politicians stopping


immediately when I say that. Stephen Gethins, thank you very much. You'll


get him back. Of course! Now, it's time for our daily quiz.


As if helping to take Britain out of the European Union wasn't enough,


Nigel Farage and Aaron Banks, the self-styled "bad boys


of Brexit", have set their sights on assisting another major


constitutional overhaul. A) Advising Nicola Sturgeon over


Scottish indepedence? B) Splitting California


into East California C) Helping Catalonia


to break away from Spain? Or D) Working with the Dalai Lama


to have more autonomy for Tibet? At the end of the show,


Mark and Alison will give Don't worry Alison you've got the


whole show to think about it! BP Theresa May has insisted that Brexit


offers an opportunity for the UK She maintains that leaving the EU


isn't just about a new phase of international diplomacy,


but it would be a "moment of change" to create "a stronger economy


and fairer society". Now, the other parties are also


outlining their vision for the Brexit negotiations


and what the UK might look Both the Lib Dems and the Greens say


they want a referendum on the terms of the deal the Government agrees


with the EU and the public Now, this morning, Ukip


have outlined their That the Government should have full


control over immigration. That the UK should have full


control over our waters, And that there should be no


bill for the divorce. While, finally, the whole


Brexit process should be By coincidence, Labour also have six


tests for the Brexit negotiations. The party says the deal should


ensure a strong and collaborative Perhaps most significantly,


the party wants a deal with the EU to offer the "exact same benefits"


the UK has from the single market It demands the "fair


management of migration", which would mean the end


of free movement. Labour also say the Brexit deal


should defend workers' rights and protections


as well as protecting It should, Labour say,


be a deal that delivers for all regions and nations


of the UK. Speaking in London this morning,


the Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, said his party


would be holding the Government to account on whether any deal


with the EU meets Labour's tests. I don't underestimate


the difficulty of the task the Prime Minister is about


to embark on. On the contrary, I know it is going


to be fiendishly difficult. But the stakes are high


and the Prime Minister's approach Today, I've set out the values that


should drive Britain's response to Brexit and the tests Labour


will set for the final Brexit deal. Failure to meet these tests


will affect how Labour votes Let me be clear - Labour will not


support a deal that fails to reflect core British values and the six


tests I've set out. And I'm joined now by


the Ukip MEP Gerard Batten and the Liberal Democrat MP Alistair


Carmichael. Welcome to both of you. First of


all, Mark Field, the Prime Minister will trigger article 50 on Wednesday


and she has set out what she has called an ambitious timetable to


negotiate both the divorce settlement and a new trade deal with


the EU within two years. Do you agree with the Foreign Secretary


that it would be perfectly OK if the UK exits without a deal? I think


it's far too early to make a judgment on this. We are at the


beginning of the process. But she has said very clearly, Theresa May,


no deal would be better better than a bad deal. And I think that is


right. Both Houses of Parliament have endorsed that, that is the


starting point. I think it's fair to say, many of us on all sides of the


House, in my heart of hearts, I was a Remain person, for emotional and


geopolitical reasons, I wanted to stay in the European Union, I always


felt the comic arguments were more balanced. But equally I think we


have to look at this in a positive and optimistic light. This is high


diplomacy. This is going to be... High-stakes? There are going to be


high-stakes as well. Alison McGovern, Labour wants a


transitional arrangement, so that there is no cliff edge, as you would


call it, if there was no deal. And that would get a bit more time for a


final deal. That there will be those who think that is a license for


negotiations to drag on because Brexit delayed would-be Brexit


denied? I disagree with Mark about what he said about the Prime


Minister saying no deal is better than a bad deal. No deal is an


incredibly bad deal. WTO terms are not good for our country. I


represent people who make things, manufacturing workers. Why wouldn't


WTO rules be a good thing, in your mind? As David Davies explained,


because of the tariffs, which he explained... Which could be quite


low and agreed fairly easily? Could be, but there's a massive risk


implied by that. And these are my constituents' jobs. It is all very


well to say we must be positive. Sure, but let's not kid ourselves


that there is this amazing deal waiting to be had, when all of our


European partners are waiting for us to show any compromise or approach


of working together with them, which so far the British government hasn't


done. We've been too busy in my view kowtowing to, I'm afraid, the Ukip


view of the world not enough offering, as Keir Starmer said,


cooperation. The reason why a transitional deal is important is


because it will keep business going, it will keep people in employment. A


deal could take a long time, up to a decade, so we must make sure that we


have provided a low-risk environment for business to get on with its job.


Today, your party has said that Brexit should be done and dusted


completely by the end of 2019. But we are talking about unpicking 40 or


so years of treaties and agreements that were covering thousands of


different areas - aviation, medical research, university grants... Isn't


the reality, the way that Alison McGovern and Mark Field have


described it, that we're going to be half in the EU and half out for many


more years? What Ukip is saying is that we wouldn't go down the article


50 road anyway. If we try to renegotiate every piece of 170,000


bits of legislation, we would be here till kingdom come. Let me


explain what we should do. Our tests are, for the Government Ahzeemah


they have said they are taking this route, what we would do, if we were


into control, would be to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, as a


first step, not a last step, and then we would put ourselves in


control of the process. So we would in effect still be part of the EU?


No. We would say that we are no longer members of the EU under our


law. We would take emergency action on trade, immigration... What would


that do to the economy in that instance? Well, what you could do in


an afternoon, not two years, is to say to the European Union, we want


to continue in tariff free trade, and so do you because it is in your


interest. You can have three of your four freedoms, goods, services and


capital, but not people. Is Mrs Merkel going to say to the German,


new fracture is, we have got to put tariffs on imports to the UK?


Alistair Carmichael, what is your response? This is just in Lala land.


In one afternoon, Ukip are going to live a farmers and fishermen in my


constituency paying tariffs of up to about 20% to export into the single


market, which is overwhelmingly our biggest single market. Banks and


financial services companies in Mark's constituency, they all depend


on being part of the single market to keep their headquarters here. The


thing is, we are talking about one market, the constituent parts of the


EU that remain have got another 26 that they can look to. Do you think


it will last longer than two years to get this done and dusted? I think


realistically we have to expect that it will. The Government has


absolutely no idea... If that is the case, that it will take longer than


two years, and if Alison McGovern is right that there could be all sorts


of difficulties along the way, wouldn't it be better to cut and run


now? You see, I would not start from here anyway. Sure, but if we enter


into... What you're talking about is how to make a bad situation and make


it worse. Or even make it, the worst possible situation. We've got to try


and negotiate the best deal we possibly can, we've got to look at


the future interest of our industries and jobs right across the


United Kingdom. But just pretending that context problems have some


simple solution that you can fix in an afternoon, almost beggars belief.


It cannot be as easy as you have said, otherwise they would be


looking at it. They don't want to leave anyway, Mrs May does not want


to leave. It is all about delay and delay. All of this stuff about


tariffs, it's a two-way street. They sell us far more than we sell them.


Why would they want to put tariffs on? Let's talk about the tariffs.


Let's talk about the deal that can be done. Labour say they want the


exact same benefits as we currently have as members of the single market


and the customs union - how is that possible, to have the exact same


benefits? I think Keir Starmer is setting the right test. If that is a


test, then the UK is probably going to fail it? It's the right test


because the single market matters to us all. That characterisation, that


we make stuff here and we trade it with people who make stuff in other


countries, that's not how manufacturing works these days. We


have got high value chains with goods made across borders, not


within borders. The idea that you could sort out customs arrangements


for high-value manufacturing like that in an afternoon, that is an


insult to my constituents and their jobs. And I would ask you, next time


you come up with nonsense like that, to think about the impact of that on


people who work in my constituency, who make goods across borders, not


within them, and need a much better attitude from the British


government. What happens if we haven't got an arrangement which is


agreed with the EU, when goods are going to be exported into the EU and


they want to have custom officials at the borders to check the


standards, the regulations of those goods, and maybe the French official


only rocks up on a Monday and Tuesday, and you arrive on a


Wednesday, what will that do to business? First of all, if they have


declined our offer of tariff free trade... I'm not talking about


tariffs, I'm going on Alison McGovern's point, which is the


nontariff barriers, the things like the standardisation that currently


exists as part of the EU, how would you deal with that? Part of the


offer that we can make is that we continue on exactly the same terms


regarding trade. If they refuse that, and we go on WTO, then we


would be in the same position as China, Canada, Australia, New


Zealand and the other countries that import and export with the European


Union. So we will be in a worse position than we are at the moment.


The biggest traders with the EU are countries like China... You're


trying to say that you will put us in a worse position than the one we


are in at the moment as part of the single market is. That's what


matters. Let me just come back to this, Mark Field, about the exact


same benefits. Because Labour have made this statement today but David


Davis made a similar statement, when he said, I want a deal for


frictionless trade, Theresa May said those words, and... It is a nearly


impossible task, isn't it? No, in some sectors, that will work. When


Theresa May spoke about the idea of no deal, it was to get a sense of


clarity and certainty, that that is the baseline. Obviously, there are


going to be sectors and parts of the colour me where we will be expecting


to get considerably more. I think what is interesting, and it is


something which perhaps my Brexiteer friends in the Tory party do not


want to hear too much of, but it is, taking all of this legislation onto


the British statute book, I bet a minuscule ocean of that will have


been appealed within ten years. In other words, we're going to be


taking on quite a lot of that legislation, not least because a lot


of it we were at the forefront of putting into play. And also, and


this is why this will be a long-term negotiation... Be on the two years?


No, we must be out within the two years because we do not want the


next general election to be a proxy second referendum. But we have all


just been saying that it will take longer than that? No, we will be


out. But there will be a lemons which will take longer. And I have a


strong sense that there will be at a killer sectors where it will be in


Britain's interest, and in the EU's interests, on biotechnology and


pharmaceutical is, that we will be at the table, helping to look at the


regulations which can then be incorporated straight into British


law. I think that will get around many of the concerns that you have.


But we are where we are, let's make it work. Alistair Carmichael, you


want another referendum? I want a referendum on the deal when it is


done. But that is really just another referendum? It is not, it is


on the deal. We have had a referendum which said, we are


leaving. It gave us a departure, it did not give us a destination. David


Davis, not that long ago, was proposing exactly the same sort of


thing. So just tell me, for the Liberal Democrats, if you say it is


on the final deal, weaving the public the final say, in your mind,


as a party, what is the ideal relationship with the EU


post-Brexit, if, as you say, it is only on the final deal, you have


accepted that Brexit is going to happen, how will it be any


different? What we are prioritising above everything else is mentorship


of the single market because that is where our economic interests lie,


especially in the globalised economy. We can't turn the clock


back to 1950. You have to be honest with people and say, that does mean


that there have got to be compromises about the way in which


people move across the boundaries. For Gerard Batten to say, you just


can't have that, that's how you end up in the territory where you get no


deal. You lost your only MP at the end of last week, or over the


weekend, and your only elected voice in Parliament, so Ukip MEPs will


soon be made redundant, how do you expect to influence Brexit? You say


that, the important vote on the final deal will not be in


Westminster, it will be the one in Brussels, because they will have the


first vote, and they can reject it, in which case, we are all back to


the drawing board in another two years' time. And that is a good


point at which to stop this discussion.


We know that the Government intends to take us out


Theresa May said she was open to some sort of associate arrangement.


This is what she had to say in January.


I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements.


But I also want the referee trade with Europe and cross-border trade


there to be as frictionless as possible. That means I do not want


Britain to be part of the common commercial policy and I do not want


us to be bound by the common external tariff. These are the


elements of the customs union that prevent us from striking our own


competence of trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to


have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach


a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the


customs union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it,


I hold no preconceived position. We're joined now by Henry Newman


of the Open Europe think-tank which has launched a report today


calling for the UK to pursue a fully independent trade policy


outside the customs union. Welcome to the programme just for


you, Theresa May does not go far enough, does she? Her clean break


isn't hard enough for you, you don't even want associate membership with


the customs union, is that correct? We're convinced having look at the


evidence that we need to be clear that we need to get out of the


customs union entirely. Right. That's the best way to maximise the


opportunities from leaving the European Union. Under your plan, we


leave the customs union with the rest in 2019? Yes. There is a


possibility of a transition and that's a separate question. We


should be out of the customs union enturl. No half-way in, half-way


out. No deal. No Turkish-style deal. Is there a logic to that plan? There


is a logic to all the plans. But it is too soon to say we should write


off having at least the short-term being full members of the customs


union and indeed then aspiring to the sort of arrangement that Theresa


May made clear in that clip we have just heard. The reason I say that,


actually a transition deal will be incredibly difficult to negotiate


over the short time period and it may well be that we need to have an


off-the-shelf option. The obvious off-the-shelf option doesn't apply


to services in the way it does to goods, but it is to have a customs


union arrangement and the thing about the customs union above all,


you know, it could be very, very difficult along the lines that Jo


pointed out earlier on in the programme, if you have a situation


where there is a concern about the country of origin, on goods, this


could be pretty nightmarish for many of our exporters if we don't get it


right which is one of the reasons that Theresa May has left open the


option as part of the negotiation. Right, hang on. Hang on. There is


one thing on trade deals we need to get. Politicians love trade deals.


Bureaucrats love them and civil servants love them. Get on and do


trade and one of the things we have seen with the Trump administration


in many ways has been the idea of a can do attitude. You can't do the


trade deals until we've left the EU? There is never a country that we


haven't done a trade deal with. Half in, half out, what's wrong with


that? We all it the worst of all worlds. Why? You are unable to take


the opportunities that leaving would entail. It is not just about signing


trade deals. They are important, but using them can be too bureaucratic


for business. If you have leave, you are able to reset your tariffs


externally with the WTO, we would be able to lower all our tariffs, not


just the tariffs through a trade deal. We are concerned that a second


torial trade deal would be legally challengeable. Happens if you come


out of the customs union in the way you're describing? Would there have


to be any agreement between the EU and the UK? Well, let's say first of


all there will be some costs of us leaving. How big are the cost? There


was a leaked report over the weekend reported by the Sunday Times which


points at costs up to 24%. Those figures were produced as we see it


by the Treasury before the referendum last year. But if they


are lower at 20%, they are huge costs? It is lookly to be very low.


Can I say one thing? We do a great deal of trade with countries which


we are not in a Free Trade Agreement with, let alone the customs union.


The single biggest trading partner the UK is the US. The problem is who


this hits and where? We already know that the parts of the country that


voted leave. Leave in the north of England will be hardest hit by


Brexit. Why? Because it is those areas that are dependant on


manufacturing. Now people will tell you that manufacturing is a


relatively small part of our economy, but actually a lot of the


service sector in the north as well depends on the manufacturing


industry to sell into it. So what I regret very much is this idea that


what's good for Britain is good for everybody, everywhere because people


aren't thinking through the fact that saying yes, there will be costs


to this as though there will be costs, but on the whole, people will


gain. That's not true. Some people will bear the burden and others will


not. So that's not fair. You agree there will be costs. You haven't


agreed what the costs will be, but you don't agree with 24%? Do you


accept outside the customs union will mean more paperwork for


exporters like British manufacturers. Possibly. So it won't


be frictionless. So Theresa May isn't in your mind going to have


frictionless trade? Not perfectly frictionless trade. Let's take a


step back and look broadly. We have efficient trade with our non-EU


partners. We are starting from a very positive base. Sure. We need to


make sure our systems are as good as they possibly can be so goods can


travel freely. I'm sure everybody in Parliament and ministers will be


paying attention to this. You have conceded that there are going to be


costs. That it won't be frictionless. You have said there


will be opportunities and there shouldn't be a second torial deal


for the car industry and people working in various manufacturing


outputs in your constituency. Leaving the customs union will


challenge companies with complex supply chains is what you say in


your report? Yes. You are talking about the car industry being hit


which is worth ?72 billion a year and employs 170,000 people. Is it


worth it? I think to take a step back again, the decision was taken


to leave the EU. If we're going to leave the EU, we need to be clear


what that actually means. You think staying in the single market,


staying in the customs union is the same as not having left in the first


place. I accept there will be costs. Even Nigel Farage said we could be


like Norway in the mid-. Referendum. That's outside the customs union. So


he said we could be like... Turkey. And these countries, you know,


operate within, they have a way of operating with the single market


which I'm assuming you would call half in, half out and that's the


worst of all possible worlds. People were told trading arrangements would


be Bradley the same. Here we are afterwards saying we need to rip it


all up and start again. I'm not saying that at all. And go after


some notions... So the EU has good customs co-operation with


Switzerland and Canada. The new Canada trade deal... But that was


with the EU. The EU already has systems in place. There are


precedents. I'm optimistic this can be achieved. When we look then at


Northern Ireland, do you also accept there would have to be a customs


border? There would have to be some degree of border. We think that


border could be minimised. There will have to be a border for goods.


That's not the same as a border for people. We see don't see any reason


why the free movement of people that long predates European or Irish


succession. One of the reasons that Ireland joined in 1973 at the height


of the troubles was a recognition of the Inter dependence between the two


economies. A special deal will have to be done. We're going to have to


stop it there. So, it's going to be a big week


here in Westminster. Today marks the deadline


for a new Northern Ireland power-sharing executive


to be formed. The prospect of a second Scottish


independence referendum could be back on the cards tomorrow


as members of the Scottish Parliament vote on a new


independence referendum. The debate was suspended last


Wednesday in the wake The Prime Minister will trigger


Article 50 on Wednesday by sending a letter to the European Council


formally declaring the UK's intention to leave


the European Union. The Government is expected


publish a White Paper on the Great Repeal Bill


on Thursday, laying out a plan to ensure EU law no longer applies


in the UK after Brexit. The House of Commons will rise


on Thursday for Easter recess, but the House of Lords will continue


working until next week. On Friday, the NHS will set


out its plans for the next And the Green Party will begin


their Spring Conference in Liverpool, which will continue


over the weekend. We're joined now by Tom Newton Dunn


of The Sun and by the political Welcome both of you. Tom, we have


been talking about it, actually, Northern Ireland. If a new power


sharing deal is not agreed today, which looks highly likely, what


happens next? New elections? No, I don't think so. I think the honest


answer is not very much at all which is rather common for Northern


Ireland politics. Not a load happens quickly. As I understand it James


Brokenshire won't go straight to new elections which is within his right


to order. The law actually says there has to be new elections within


a reasonable period of time. So I'm told he will use that reasonable


period of time to carry on talking to try and create a deal. It appears


the Government's tactics in this is to try and deny Sinn Fein the oxygen


of drama and mellow drama even that they are trying to create with


Brexit and Article 50 this week and it is in Sinn Fein's interests who


want a united Ireland to try and create the impression so the


Government say, that everything is chaotic and everything is up in the


air and they need to start considering dramatic new


constitutional arrangements such as a referendum on uniting Ireland. The


Government will do everything they can to avoid that. Jane, tomorrow


SNPs will vote on a motion allowing the Scottish Government to open


negotiations with Westminster on the timing of a fresh independence


referendum. It's going to pass, do you think? It is. I mean the SNP


together with the Greens have a majority over the other parties,


Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems. Obviously this debate was happening


last Wednesday when the terror attack happened. It has been delayed


until tomorrow. And it is a fore gone conclusion, I think it will


pass and the pressure is on for Wednesday and Theresa May. Not the


best timing for the Prime Minister, bearing in mind that's the day she


is triggering Article 50? Theresa May loves to be in control and loves


having everything her own way. When this happened two weeks ago, when


Nicola Sturgeon announced she wanted a second referendum, this completely


blew Theresa May off course and it is right on the eve of her


triggering Article 50. She is not going to like it, but she has to


stand her ground. Time will be taken up, of course, with her writing that


letter to the EU council. Will we learn anything new in the letter?


Will the EU learn anything new bearing in mind she set out what she


wants to achieve in the Lancaster House speech? I'm told there might


be a few bits new. Some new language certainly and perhaps a little bit


more detail on what the Government would like to see from Brexit, but


substantially, no. We have to the greater part the strategy as laid


out in Lancaster House on single market, customs union, security


co-operation, etcetera. What will be interesting is, I think, actually


how the EU respondment far less so the actual letter albeit, its


historical importance. From 12.30 onwards on Wednesday, the ball goes


from London to Brussels and it's the moment of maximum danger really for


Theresa May as you know, you and Jane have been saying, she likes


control. On Wednesday, she loses control. Suddenly, it is for someone


else to respond to all this and the Government is therefore hostage or a


victim potentially of what the rest of the 27 then come up and have to


respond to her. The focus Jane will move on to the Great Repeal Bill


which in your mind does that give MPs an opportunity to voice any


concerns that they might have or try and oppose the progress of Brexit?


Yes. I mean they have, MPs who are against Brexit anyway have been,


have had plenty of opportunity and they will take it again on Thursday


when the White Paper is published. It is unfortunate that the Henry


eighth powers, we talked about control, Theresa May still has


control in Parliament. She has these Henry VIII powers that she can take


back regulations and laws from Brussels and introduce them into


British law. That is where she still has control and there will be a huge


fuss over whether that's going to be allowed and whether Theresa May will


be allowed to do that. Thank you very much. Have a good week. Thank


you. Thank you. Now, we're used to stark


divisions in politics. Labour and Conservative,


left-wing and right-wing, But with electoral upsets


in democracies across the world recently exposing fundamental


divides in how people view themselves, is it time


for a new way of thinking? The writer David Goodhart thinks


he's found the answer. The familiar divide in British


politics between left and right has been partly eclipsed in the past


generation or so by increasingly significant value divides,


between the people that I call the people from anywhere


and the people from somewhere. The people from anywhere tend to be


highly-educated and mobile, They have achieved identities based


on educational and career success, that makes them pretty


comfortable, well, anywhere. Somewheres tend to be more rooted,


less well-educated. They value familiarity and security,


and they have what's called more ascribed identities,


that means identities based more around groups and places,


which often means that their sense of themselves can be more easily


discomfited by rapid change. 40 years ago, British


common sense was basically Then, over the last generation


and more, anywhere common We anywheres care about the world


but can be blinded by We've often run things


in our own interests and called it Take freedom of


movement, for example. If you're a commercial lawyer,


you can go and work in Paris or Berlin for a couple of years,


you're not competing for your job If you work in a food


factory, you are. All of this has alienated a lot


of people, and I don't mean bigots and xenophobes,


I mean people I call decent populists, people who value national


sovereignty and are wary Many of them stopped voting


in national elections but took their chance in the Brexit


referendum to say, enough, your anyway version of openness


is not working for us. Not surprisingly, the Leave victory


left many anywheres wondering what kind of country


they really lived in. Finding a new settlement


between the two tribes, one that reconciles anywheres


and somewheres into a common national story, is the task for


politics for the next generation. What is your remedy for bringing the


two sides together? Well, I think the group I call anywheres, the


people who have dominated our politics and indeed policy for the


last generation and more, need to take more account of the priorities


and intuitions of the people I call somewheres, more than 50% of the


population. Anywheres are 20% to 25% of the population. Either way, I


have invented these labels but I have not invented the box, they are


there in the surveys. But how should they take account of it? Well, the


Brexit vote represents one shift, it shifts us back in a certain


direction, but we don't want to have the instability. If people feel that


their voices are not heard in day-to-day politics, then you get


these... People lash out, and you might describe at least some of the


people who voted Brexit is doing that, frustrated that they felt


their voices were not heard in day-to-day politics. In order to


overcome that instability, we need to bring those voices into... Turn


rolls into responsible politicians. But are you saying the passage of


progress should in some way be slowed down, if you look at some of


the issues that people tribute to your somewhere thesis, people not


feeling part of what's going on in terms of politics, that somehow in


terms of globalisation, for instance, that you should slow down


the passage of change and time? I think that's a very, very narrow


definition of progress. You're implying that what anywheres think


is in itself automatically a good thing. But just look at what has


happened in the last generation or two, in terms of the policy areas


that are so important. The way in which we have massively expanded


higher education, and largely ignored, at least until recently,


vocational and technical training, closed down all the polytechnics and


turned them into universities in 1992. Look at the so-called


knowledge economy, the very phrase, it's fine for highly educated


people, meanwhile we have acquired this hourglass labour market, and


all of those meddling jobs that gave lots of people status and decent


income so shrunk. Well, you've been in power under a Tory government and


a coalition government, so, to some extent, you are the presenter,


representing your constituency, as, no doubt, the anywheres, can you do


something about all of this? There was a certain amount of controversy


when Theresa May said at the party conference, said that the sense of


rootless people and rootless companies, using the international


tax system to ensure they did not pay too much tax... Occupy London


took place in my constituency five or six years ago, and I remember


saying then, it struck me that there were a lot of middle-class,


instinctively Tory voting people, who felt the rules of global


capitalism were skewed against them. It a slightly prodrug provocative


thesis, obviously, but in many ways, I think Theresa May's agenda is a


recognition that the whole Tony Blair, a little bit is is over, and


there is a sense of... That's the .4 Labour, you have been the losers.


Even if the Conservatives, as Mark said, had not taken enough into


account the views of those sorts of people, it is Labour that is nowhere


in the polls with the answers, it seems? In one sense, David's


analysis, I agree about the impact of low wages for a long time.


Constituents who voted leave, most of them voted remain but a


significant number of them did Vote Leave, and they say things like, to


get rid of David Cameron, or to get money for the NHS. People did want


to kick back against what they thought was an unfair system. But in


another way, I profoundly disagree with this analysis, firstly because


it is just mad to separate people into two groups. I'm sure your


analysis is not quite as stark as that, but I probably used to count


as a somewhere somebody who was born and grew up in my constituency and


represent all my family, and then I went to university, I became an


anywhere. I would urge you to read my book. Like I say, I did not just


invented these categories. They are there in the data. Everybody is an


individual and we all have combinations of anywhere and


somewhere, and there is a whole group of in between is. Isn't the


problem that for far too long, people in politics have gone, but at


the data, there is this interesting different groups, let's try and


marshal these different groups? Instead of saying, most people are


individuals, most people by and large want money in their pocket.


Obviously, at people can be donated by people from a certain kind of


background, including people from somewhere backgrounds who have been


very upwardly mobile. We have national social contracts and we


have disregarded them, particularly employers. We had 8000 construction


apprenticeships last year. We are meant to be building millions of


houses, what has been going on? And on that, we will leave it hanging.


In politics, the pen is mightier than the sword.


Theresa May certainly thinks so - she says that the letter triggering


Article 50 will be "one of the most important documents"


Our Ellie takes a look at some of the other contenders for


# I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter...


Theresa May has plenty of practice writing important correspondence.


One of her first job as PM was to pen four handwritten letters


of last resort to the commanders of Britain's nuclear submarines.


We don't know exactly what they say, obviously, but basically,


they contain orders on what to do if the Government has


been "incapacitated" because Britain has been destroyed.


And sticking with nuclear Armageddon, it's those important


letters that saved the world during the Cuban missile crisis.


The Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, sent


a telegram to the US offering to dismantle its Cuban missile bases


if President Kennedy lifted its naval blockade


on the island and promised not to invade Cuba.


Then, he sent a second letter demanding the dismantling


President Kennedy agreed publicly to the first letter,


As with so many things in this life, less is more.


When Labour lost the 2010 election, the then Chief Secretary


to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, left a note to his successor that


Mr Byrne meant it as a joke, but felt the weight of his words


when they were repeatedly used to beat Labour over the head


"Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money..."


It's more than a decade since Prince Charles' black spider


memos, so-called not because they were about creepy


crawlies, but because of his handwriting skills.


The letters he wrote privately to Labour ministers were published


after a series of court cases and concerns by some


critics that he was trying to influence government policy -


This year sees the 100th anniversary of the Balfour declaration.


Boris Johnson showed Israel's Prime Minister,


Binyamin Netanyahu, around the room where it was written.


The letter was the first significant declaration by a world power


in favour of a Jewish national home in Palestine.


We're joined now by the historian Kate Williams.


Do you agree that the letter that will be sent trigger in Article 50


will go down as the greatest in history, as Theresa May implies? I


think it certainly will. Whether or not it's the greatest, I think we


will see how final it was. A lot of the letters we were talking about in


that VT, they change history Mr Love about four declaration, there was no


going back after that, there was going to be an independent state for


the Jewish people. Whether not Theresa May's letter will be able to


be altered, which is of course what the Remains I'd want... But if the


Ukip conditions are kept to, then it will be the most historic I think in


recent British history. And they are still powerful, letters, aren't


they? If you think we are operating in a digital age, politically,


letters would still hold that much influence and sway? They do, and


it's fascinating to read them. You can read the Kennedy-Khrushchev


letters, and it is fascinating to think these two men, with so many


lives hanging in the balance, are communicating with each other in


this very polite way, dear Mr President... Although we think of


the huge networks of power, sometimes it does come down to the


communication between two individuals, in that case two men.


Do you think letter will go down as one of the most important in


history? You have touched on something, we live in this world of


tweeting and texting and actually, letters are now few and far between.


Can you remember how to write?! Scrawling away, spiderlike! One of


the interesting things about history, whether it is political


history or whatever, it is going to be so difficult to piece it together


in the way that we were able to in the past from those primary sources.


So much of it now is now done electronic live. So it will be an


important letter from that regard. I have been to the cue archives, which


are unbelievable, it is an amazing look back into history. In the


future, people will be scouring over tweets and interpreting the language


of a particular WhatsApp message or whatever. Food for thought! Letters


obviously get people into trouble, and they are written there and


remain for ever so. We touched on the Liam Byrne debtor at the time,


when he said, there is no money left. It was left as a joke but he


has said he regrets writing it! He really does. Sometimes a joke can


fall flat! It was pretty disastrous and an easy thing for David Cameron


to use in the campaign. I think we know now that all e-mails are not


private, any of our e-mails could be used. Of course we saw even texts,


with the example of the Surrey sweetheart deal being talked about


by Mr Corbyn, for example. But we still sometimes think there is


intimacy in a letter, a little note that you leave on the desk after you


go, by gentlemen's agreement, which of course was not the case. But


there is formality as well. They are intimate, but also terribly


official? Yes. And I think they do mean more. For example, the Prince


Charles letters, they do mean more than an e-mail because somebody has


taken the effort to put pen to paper. I think that even though we


are in a digital world, the biggest and most important things


politically happen through letters. Any letters that you have written,


that you regret? None that I regret. I would take Kate's point on board,


some of them you can reread with any mail, which you cannot with a


letter. I like the idea of a letter, handwritten in particular. I found


some rate letters from constituents, or famously a gentleman who once


wrote to me, after a media appearance, telling me that


unfortunately my top was too low, which was a particularly helpful


letter! Fashion advice! From angry of Tunbridge Wells! Next time I will


have to talk about the style of writing, I am always fascinated by


the way that people write these letters. Thank you for coming in.


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


The question was - what is Nigel Farage


a) Advising Nicola Sturgeon over Scottish Indepedence?


b) Splitting California into East California


c) Helping Catalonia to break from Spain?


Or d) working with the Dalai Lama to have more autonomy for Tibet?


I think it might be the Catalunian option. And what do you think? Anger


to go with California, because Nigel Farage seems to be obsessed with


America. And you would be right! California it is! You win the prize!


I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big


Do join me then. Bye-bye.


Download Subtitles