:00:35. > :00:41.The starting gun has been fired and the battle
:00:42. > :00:45.so who won day one of the negotiations -
:00:46. > :00:52.The Government unveils how it will turn EU law into British Law
:00:53. > :00:55.but will the "Great Repeal Bill" do anything to reduce the number
:00:56. > :01:03.Ken Livingstone faces a Labour Party disciplinary panel
:01:04. > :01:09.after last year's outburst about jews, Zionism and Hitler -
:01:10. > :01:12.were his words anti-semitic and will he be kicked out
:01:13. > :01:20.Why some politicians still can't grasp the basic principles of
:01:21. > :01:56.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration,
:01:57. > :01:58.back by popular demand, former
:01:59. > :01:59.Pensions Minister and Remain supporter, Ros Altmann,
:02:00. > :02:04.So just 729 days and 12 hours until the UK is due to leave the EU
:02:05. > :02:07.Who's counting? We should have a clock ticking down.
:02:08. > :02:10.Just a divorce settlement and new treaty on Britain's future
:02:11. > :02:12.relationship with the 27 nation block to negotiate
:02:13. > :02:17.But when I spoke to the Prime Minister last night she struck
:02:18. > :02:19.an optimistic note about the outcome of that process.
:02:20. > :02:24.What we're both looking for is that comprehensive free trade agreement
:02:25. > :02:26.which gives that ability to trade freely into the European
:02:27. > :02:30.single market and for them to trade with us.
:02:31. > :02:33.But it can't be exactly the same, can it?
:02:34. > :02:35.It'll be a different relationship but I think it can
:02:36. > :02:37.have the same benefits, in terms of that free
:02:38. > :02:45.That was the Prime Minister. What do you make of it all, Ros? You are a
:02:46. > :02:48.Remainer, you were, or still are? I was a Remainer, of course I accept
:02:49. > :02:52.the result of the referendum and I think the Government is right to see
:02:53. > :03:01.how we can best implement the result of the referendum but I do have
:03:02. > :03:10.serious concerns about the approach, about the dump - attitude we a are
:03:11. > :03:18.going in with. I would like it to be more friendly. She was conciliatory.
:03:19. > :03:22.She was but the tone of the letter conflating economic trade and
:03:23. > :03:26.security is not going down well. I have studried Europe and watched it
:03:27. > :03:30.grow over the last 30 or more years and Europe does best when you talk
:03:31. > :03:34.as friends and when you understand how they think. And it is not the
:03:35. > :03:39.same way we think which is part of the reason, I suspect we are leaving
:03:40. > :03:42.because we have different attitudes. But when the European negotiators,
:03:43. > :03:48.or leading European figures are pretty tough with us, talk of
:03:49. > :03:53.punishment beatings, Mr Juncker. You eat what is on the table or you
:03:54. > :03:56.don't come to the table at all. When that happens we all say - oh, they
:03:57. > :04:00.are being tough, look how difficult it is going to be. When the British
:04:01. > :04:03.Prime Minister points out that security is one of the real things
:04:04. > :04:08.that we bring to the table, people like you throw their hands up in
:04:09. > :04:14.horror. Why? It is surely quite legitimate for us to point out that
:04:15. > :04:18.we are very important, in or out of the EU, to Europe's security. I
:04:19. > :04:23.absolutely agree with that. That's our real strong card but in the
:04:24. > :04:30.letter, this issue of security was mentioned ten times. And economic
:04:31. > :04:35.and security were conflated and pushed together five times. This is
:04:36. > :04:40.going to inflame the people who receive the letter and I fear that
:04:41. > :04:44.we need to go in with an attitude that says - we are your friends, you
:04:45. > :04:48.are your partners, we want to listen and we want to work together. The
:04:49. > :04:51.French foreign ministry has said that they're glad that misses May
:04:52. > :04:56.has put security at the centre of the negotiations. Good. -- that Miss
:04:57. > :05:13.May. Now negotiations haven't been
:05:14. > :05:17.started yet but the argument has. The Prime Minister struck a more
:05:18. > :05:24.emollient tone in her letter yesterday.
:05:25. > :05:26.We now have a broad idea of the British negotiating position
:05:27. > :05:29.and in the month ahead we'll get a better idea of the
:05:30. > :05:31.negotiating position of the remaining 27 countries.
:05:32. > :05:33.Here's JoCo, to tell us what some of the issues are.
:05:34. > :05:36.Arguments have already broken out about key passages from
:05:37. > :05:44.In the letter she says: "We believe it is necessary to agree the terms
:05:45. > :05:47.of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawl from the EU."
:05:48. > :05:54.But the EU Commission's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has
:05:55. > :06:02.which means the UK and the EU should agree the terms of the UK's
:06:03. > :06:04.withdrawal before negotiating any future trade deal.
:06:05. > :06:07.EU Critics have also accused the Prime Minister in her letter
:06:08. > :06:09.of linking future co-operation on security and defence
:06:10. > :06:27.The European Parliament's Brexit co-ordinator Guy Verhofstadt said:
:06:28. > :06:38.The Brexit Secretary David Davis has played down the issue saying:
:06:39. > :06:42.The next big date will be the EU summit at the end of April,
:06:43. > :06:44.where Donald Tusk's negotiating guidelines will be will be discussed
:06:45. > :06:51.Negotiations won't really start in ernest until after the French
:06:52. > :06:54.presidential elections in April and May and then there are elections
:06:55. > :07:08.As we were coming on air, to us to us Turks President of the European
:07:09. > :07:13.Council was speaking in Malta where the European People's Party is
:07:14. > :07:19.having a conference. Yesterday, after receiving the letter from
:07:20. > :07:28.Prime Minister, Theresa May, invoking Article 50 I said that
:07:29. > :07:32.paradoxically there is also something positive in brings it.
:07:33. > :07:39.Brexit has made us the community of 27, more determined and more united
:07:40. > :07:46.than before. I am fully confident of this, especially after our own
:07:47. > :07:49.declaration and and I can say we will remain determined and united
:07:50. > :07:51.until the future. That was Donald Tusk.
:07:52. > :07:52.Earlier I spoke to the MEP Roberto Gaultieri,
:07:53. > :07:55.who is on the European Parliament's negotiating team.
:07:56. > :07:58.I asked him if he thought a deal could be done in two years.
:07:59. > :08:00.It's a challenging task but I think and I can hope
:08:01. > :08:11.The time is not much so we have to start working intensively very
:08:12. > :08:15.soon and I hope that instead of discussing on the different
:08:16. > :08:20.sequencing, we can start discussing substance very soon.
:08:21. > :08:24.First there are open issues connected to a withdrawal agreement.
:08:25. > :08:29.You say it's a challenge but it could be done within two years
:08:30. > :08:33.but a leaked resolution by the European Parliament yesterday
:08:34. > :08:36.said that Britain will not be given a free trade deal by the EU
:08:37. > :08:41.in the next two years, and that any transition arrangement,
:08:42. > :08:44.to cushion the UK's exit after 2019 could last no longer
:08:45. > :09:06.We think that we can conclude quickly and also it depends on,
:09:07. > :09:09.of course, the UK Government, in agreement on the elements,
:09:10. > :09:12.the basic elements of the withdrawal deal, which we are open to discuss
:09:13. > :09:17.also in the framework of the long-term deal.
:09:18. > :09:20.Then, of course, to conclude all the details of a comprehensive
:09:21. > :09:22.association free trade agreement, maybe it would take longer than two
:09:23. > :09:33.We think that it might be longer and this is also the role
:09:34. > :09:36.of the transitional agreement, during which we could finalise
:09:37. > :09:42.How much money do you think the UK needs to pay
:09:43. > :09:55.I'm not going to give an exact figure because we rely
:09:56. > :10:02.on the figure that the competent bodies will define.
:10:03. > :10:07.We are not going to ask one single pound more than what is already
:10:08. > :10:11.agreed as a commitment, a liability by the United Kingdom.
:10:12. > :10:19.A row has broken out, as I'm sure you know,
:10:20. > :10:22.because Guy Verhofstadt has said that the Prime Minister linked
:10:23. > :10:26.security and trade in her letter to Donald Tusk and he said
:10:27. > :10:29.that there could be no bargaining between those two elements.
:10:30. > :10:44.I appreciate the tone of the letter but indeed there is one paragraph
:10:45. > :10:49.which I think was not the most happy, let's say, formulation,
:10:50. > :10:55.where it sounds like, "A failure to reach an agreement
:10:56. > :10:58.would mean that co-operation in the fight against crime
:10:59. > :11:09.We would not, we say this in our resolution,
:11:10. > :11:12.have a trade-off between, let's say the role of the UK in the area
:11:13. > :11:14.of security and defence, and some special arrangements
:11:15. > :11:18.We want a comprehensive deal, so no trade-off, no cherry picking.
:11:19. > :11:19.How much power does the European Parliament
:11:20. > :11:21.really have in terms of shaping these negotiations?
:11:22. > :11:23.The European Parliament will have to give its consent...
:11:24. > :11:29....to the divorce agreement at the end.
:11:30. > :11:32.Of course we'll have also to vote on future agreements.
:11:33. > :11:43.That's why we will follow closely all the steps of the negotiation.
:11:44. > :11:46.Will you miss the UK in the way that Donald Tusk expressed yesterday once
:11:47. > :11:48.he'd received the letter from Theresa May?
:11:49. > :12:01.We had a very moving moment with our UK colleagues
:12:02. > :12:10.I considered, since the beginning, a mistake, the Brexit,
:12:11. > :12:22.That's one view from the European Parliament.
:12:23. > :12:25.I'm joined now by the Conservative MP Dominic Raab, who supported
:12:26. > :12:28.Brexit and by Paul Blomfield, Labour's Shadow Brexit minister.
:12:29. > :12:34.Welcome to you both. Was it necessary, Dominic Raab for the
:12:35. > :12:37.Prime Minister to say - if there is no deal, then security cooperation
:12:38. > :12:42.will be weakened? She didn't say that. What she said - we could read
:12:43. > :12:47.it out, it was a long paragraph, she said "We are going on the best deal
:12:48. > :12:52.on trade and on security." We could of course cope if we didn't have the
:12:53. > :12:55.deal on security but, it would make us weaker and we should make our
:12:56. > :12:58.relationship stronger, so we should redouble our efforts. Honestly,
:12:59. > :13:03.no-one could fairly call that a threat. It is a statement of fact. I
:13:04. > :13:06.didn't call it a threat Some have. But I asked, was it necessary for
:13:07. > :13:10.the Prime Minister to say that? Well, I think it is a statement of
:13:11. > :13:17.fact, that we are not saying, as some people have on the Project Fear
:13:18. > :13:20.side that we will fall over a cliff. It says, of course, either side
:13:21. > :13:25.could cope with this but we want to be stronger not weaker. I thought
:13:26. > :13:28.Remainers said we would be weaker without the cooperation we are
:13:29. > :13:36.saying we want an agreement and an agreement on trade. Let me get Paul
:13:37. > :13:40.Blomfield's reaction? This letter has been weeks if not months in
:13:41. > :13:44.preparation, it was carefully constructed and clearly deliberate
:13:45. > :13:48.that in that one paragraph the threat of non-cooperation on
:13:49. > :13:53.security was linked to the opportunity -... Well there wasn't a
:13:54. > :13:56.threat of non-cooperation, it said it would weaken, there is no threat
:13:57. > :13:59.of non-cooperation. Well the implication is there. You are right,
:14:00. > :14:04.of course, Andrew, the wording is careful. But the implication was
:14:05. > :14:10.there. What implication? Well, if we can't do a deal on trade that
:14:11. > :14:14.satifies Britain, we may not do a deal on security. Now I think this
:14:15. > :14:18.is playing games with something that is not just of interest to the rest
:14:19. > :14:22.of Europe but is hugely important to the British people that we cooperate
:14:23. > :14:28.on security. Sure. The two shouldn't be linked. But Downing Street, last
:14:29. > :14:35.night, issued statement, or briefed that whatever is in this document
:14:36. > :14:40.that's gone now, as our Article 50 process, does not refer in anyway to
:14:41. > :14:44.by lateral sharing of intelligence. And it is bilateral sharing of
:14:45. > :14:47.intelligence, Britain between and France, for example, which is by far
:14:48. > :14:51.the most important intelligence sharing. Well, Downing Street need
:14:52. > :15:01.to clarify, exactly what they did mean by that paragraph. Because it
:15:02. > :15:04.was taken to mean an interdependence in the discussions Anti-Terrorism,
:15:05. > :15:10.Crime and Security Act cooperation and trade. "In security terms,
:15:11. > :15:14.fwalure to reach agreement of an overall deal would mean our
:15:15. > :15:18.cooperation against the fight against crime and terrorism would be
:15:19. > :15:21.weakened." That's right. Isn't it a statement of the object Jews It is
:15:22. > :15:26.and of critical importance to the British people that we maintain
:15:27. > :15:30.that. It was unfortunate but I'm sure thoughtfully considered that it
:15:31. > :15:38.was linked in the same car graph on trade. Sho -- a statement of the
:15:39. > :15:46.obvious. When you look at the scale of what
:15:47. > :15:51.hers to be done, the divorce Bill settlement has got to be agreed, and
:15:52. > :15:57.we seem to be pretty far apart on that, and it's very complicated as
:15:58. > :16:00.well. Then we have to agree, and the Prime Minister said to me last
:16:01. > :16:07.night, a comprehensive free trade agreement. Can all that he done by
:16:08. > :16:12.October of 2018 to begin the ratification process? The total
:16:13. > :16:15.processes to make years, but you're right, we need to do the lion's
:16:16. > :16:19.share within 18 months. It is feasible with goodwill on all sides,
:16:20. > :16:25.but you are right - it will be a challenge. Could you not see a
:16:26. > :16:28.transitional period, not an implementation period, which is the
:16:29. > :16:34.language of the Government, but a transitional period well, although
:16:35. > :16:40.there may be agreement by the end of the Brexit process, things will
:16:41. > :16:43.remain to be resolved in a transitional period? First, I think
:16:44. > :16:46.it is great news that people are talking not about whether this deal
:16:47. > :16:52.can be done but Hal. The timescale is tight because the EU has imposed
:16:53. > :16:58.that on us, but there we are. It was the Lisbon Treaty that we all voted
:16:59. > :17:11.for. On outside... Article 50 was drafted by a Brit. Under a Brit. But
:17:12. > :17:15.about the transitional point... I am saying this is an EU rule that we
:17:16. > :17:19.have to stick to. It is not anything the UK has chosen, certainly not
:17:20. > :17:23.this Government. In terms of transitional and implementation
:17:24. > :17:27.period, this is my personal view. If we get to the end of the two-year
:17:28. > :17:34.deal, we've sorted out the principles and the lions share of
:17:35. > :17:40.the future is there but we have not dealt with every detail, I think it
:17:41. > :17:45.is interesting that some people were saying we needed an extra year to do
:17:46. > :17:49.that, and I would be quite relaxed. If we only had a very short period,
:17:50. > :17:56.the goodwill on all sides built up, we just need to make sure we don't
:17:57. > :18:01.miss anything. I'm relaxed about it. The European position at the moment
:18:02. > :18:05.is that they don't want to talk about our future relationship with
:18:06. > :18:08.the EU until the matter of the divorce Bill, the divorce
:18:09. > :18:12.settlement, has been agreed. Should the Government agree to that, or
:18:13. > :18:17.should it demand that negotiations take place in parallel? I think
:18:18. > :18:23.making demands of that sort, which would stall the process, would not
:18:24. > :18:27.be helpful. Which demand - ours or theirs? The one that we would make
:18:28. > :18:34.that we would only talk about the future in parallel with talking
:18:35. > :18:38.about the settlement. So it's OK for Mr Barnier to demand that we had to
:18:39. > :18:41.settle the divorce Bill before the future relationship, but it would be
:18:42. > :18:47.wrong for us to demand that we do both at once? I mean, whose side are
:18:48. > :18:50.you one? I am not saying that, Andrew. It is a matter of
:18:51. > :18:54.discussion, and different comets from both sides have suggested there
:18:55. > :18:57.may be spaced a compromise. The important thing is that we don't let
:18:58. > :19:02.the discussion around the divorce Bill get in the way the discussion
:19:03. > :19:07.on the future relationship. The Government at the moment is saying,
:19:08. > :19:11.no, we need to discuss both in parallel, and indeed, the very idea
:19:12. > :19:16.of a divorce Bill, which is controversial on this side of the
:19:17. > :19:20.Channel, we can't agree to that until we see how good the new
:19:21. > :19:25.arrangement is going to be, going forward. I'm trying to find out,
:19:26. > :19:30.does your party agree with that or not? We think we need to get the
:19:31. > :19:33.best settlement, going forward. I think it would make sense, Andrew,
:19:34. > :19:43.if we could have parallel discussions, and I think
:19:44. > :19:47.compromise... You have already compromised on this. Angela Merkel's
:19:48. > :19:52.language has shifted subtly. She has said, we won't settle first but we
:19:53. > :19:56.need the questions to be answered before we go for the dual track. I
:19:57. > :20:01.think it is sadly and gently already been resolved. We shall see. Our
:20:02. > :20:06.words were interesting, and they will not as hardline as the word
:20:07. > :20:14.from Mr Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker. We know you are a
:20:15. > :20:19.backbencher. As a backbencher, can we agree, do you think, from the
:20:20. > :20:23.comments David Davis made on Question Time on Monday night, and
:20:24. > :20:28.the Prime Minister's replies to my questions last night about
:20:29. > :20:33.immigration, that the 100,000 target is dead, never going to happen? In
:20:34. > :20:39.the context of national policy as a whole or Brexit? That even once we
:20:40. > :20:45.have left the EU, we are still not going to get anywhere near net
:20:46. > :20:49.migration of 100,000. I think the Government has been clear. We want
:20:50. > :20:52.to aim for that. Of course, when we get outside of the EU and we've got
:20:53. > :20:56.the controls we want, actually, we'll be able to look at it in the
:20:57. > :21:02.round and make sure we get the advantages of immigration, but also
:21:03. > :21:06.check the costs and strains. I am not particularly wedded to arbitrary
:21:07. > :21:10.targets. So it is dead? One thing that is crucial is that the overall
:21:11. > :21:14.volume of immigration can be reduced, and that we got control,
:21:15. > :21:21.because that's what the public want to see. But neither on Monday night
:21:22. > :21:25.this did Mr Davies, or the Prime Minister last night, mention the
:21:26. > :21:31.target. I did, but they didn't. That is significant. What do you want me
:21:32. > :21:35.to do, postmortem your interviews? I want to know if you think that the
:21:36. > :21:39.target is dead. I will give you this: It is pretty demanding, but
:21:40. > :21:44.the most important thing is, the volume can come down. More
:21:45. > :21:50.importantly than that, the qualitative side, making sure we get
:21:51. > :21:58.the advantages of migration. I want to hear from Roz. Immigration
:21:59. > :22:03.control and the implication of a substantial fall in numbers was put
:22:04. > :22:07.at the very heart of the argument, one of the most significant factors.
:22:08. > :22:13.One of the major reasons, I emphasise just one, why a lot of
:22:14. > :22:17.people voted to leave. You are right, it was. Since then, they have
:22:18. > :22:22.been talking down expectations. David Davis has been in a stony,
:22:23. > :22:26.saying to East European workers, it will take years and years and years,
:22:27. > :22:31.don't worry, there is little changing. Do you think it is dead?
:22:32. > :22:37.Yes, and it has been for a long time. It certainly hasn't been
:22:38. > :22:43.achieved, that's for sure! It may be like that Monty Python parrot. I
:22:44. > :22:46.think that having this arbitrary number should never have actually
:22:47. > :22:50.been promised in any case. We have an ageing population and we need
:22:51. > :22:55.immigration. If you have economic growth, and part of the reasons why
:22:56. > :22:57.we have had immigration is because of the economic success we've
:22:58. > :23:01.achieved, and we need these people to come in. With an ageing
:23:02. > :23:07.population and a growing economy, it is imperative that we continue to
:23:08. > :23:12.have immigration. More than half has come outside the EU anyway. You
:23:13. > :23:21.can't put a number on it. If the economy slows down, or if more
:23:22. > :23:25.ageing people keep working... In terms of EU immigration, people have
:23:26. > :23:28.been coming here to work and do the jobs we need done. We will leave it
:23:29. > :23:32.there, but I think we are holding you two hostage. Cos I know you are
:23:33. > :23:34.enjoying it so much! Just when you thought
:23:35. > :23:37.we we were leaving the Europe, or the EU at least, a French
:23:38. > :23:39.word keeps being used Yes, talking about the "acquis"
:23:40. > :23:43.or "acquis communitaire" is de It's the accumulated legislation,
:23:44. > :23:48.legal acts, and court decisions which constitute the body
:23:49. > :23:50.of European Union law. Today the Government is launching
:23:51. > :23:53.a white paper in preparation for a bill that will transfer
:23:54. > :23:55.all that into British law. The perhaps misleadingly titled
:23:56. > :24:02."Great Repeal Bill" White Paper has been published in the last hour
:24:03. > :24:12.by the Brexit Secretary, We have been clear that we want a
:24:13. > :24:15.smooth and orderly exit, and the Great Repeal Bill is integral to
:24:16. > :24:18.that approach. It will provide clarity and certainty for
:24:19. > :24:22.businesses, workers and consumers across the United Kingdom on the day
:24:23. > :24:26.we leave the EU. It will mean that as we exit the EU and seek a new
:24:27. > :24:30.comedy and special partnership with the EU, we will be doing so from a
:24:31. > :24:35.position where we have the same standards and rules. But it will
:24:36. > :24:39.also ensure that we deliver on our promise to end the supremacy of
:24:40. > :24:44.European Union law in the UK as we exit puts our laws will then be made
:24:45. > :24:48.in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and interpreted not by
:24:49. > :24:53.judges in Luxembourg but by judges across the UK. The question is, how
:24:54. > :25:01.is it done and what done? The White Paper on the question of how gives
:25:02. > :25:06.sweeping powers to the executive. Sweeping because it proposes a power
:25:07. > :25:13.to use delegated legislation to correct and thus change primary
:25:14. > :25:15.legislation and also devolved legislation by delegated
:25:16. > :25:22.legislation. Sweeping because of the sheer scale of the exercise. In
:25:23. > :25:27.those circumstances, one might expect some pretty rigorous
:25:28. > :25:32.safeguards to the use of these sweeping powers, but none are found
:25:33. > :25:36.in the White Paper. David Davis and Kia Starmer there in the Commons.
:25:37. > :25:42.Dominic Raab, is this a cut and paste job rather than a Great Repeal
:25:43. > :25:50.Bill? There are two stages. We want to get the applicable laws from the
:25:51. > :25:56.EU into UK law so we have certainty. We can then decide which repatriated
:25:57. > :25:59.laws we want to keep, where there are EU laws that will I, where we
:26:00. > :26:03.want to revise them, repeal them entirely. This does two things.
:26:04. > :26:08.First, make sure that the people watching this show can hold the
:26:09. > :26:16.people that write the laws of the land accountable. Second, it gives
:26:17. > :26:26.us certain click -- certainty. The Henry VIII close... Explain that,
:26:27. > :26:31.because not everyone will know. -- clause. Let's stick on the certainty
:26:32. > :26:33.issue - do you think it will give certainty and ensure a smooth
:26:34. > :26:41.transition incorporating thousands of pieces of EU legislation into UK
:26:42. > :26:45.law in the first instance? Dominic has let the cat out of the bag, if
:26:46. > :26:48.it was not already, that it incorporates the laws into UK law
:26:49. > :26:52.and then they will start taking them apart, which is why they were keen
:26:53. > :26:57.to get out of the EU in the first place. We're talking about important
:26:58. > :27:01.protections in employment, for consumers and for the environment.
:27:02. > :27:08.Which ones do you think he will remove, not him personally, but the
:27:09. > :27:11.Brexiteers? Many of his colleagues have been talking about employment
:27:12. > :27:17.laws because they see them as holding back business. I have
:27:18. > :27:20.already been clear on this. We have fairly difficult challenges in the
:27:21. > :27:29.workplace, with the so-called gig economy. Let's take the quote from
:27:30. > :27:34.Priti Patel, still in the Cabinet, but who last year said the Institute
:27:35. > :27:39.of Directors, are dozens of laws in proposed, with the cost totalling
:27:40. > :27:45.?32 billion. Money that should be invested in jobs and growth is tied
:27:46. > :27:51.up in red tape and appeasing the EU's bureaucracy. We could deliver a
:27:52. > :27:55.?4.3 billion boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs. So you're going
:27:56. > :27:59.to, or would like to, cut in half the burdens of the EU social and
:28:00. > :28:07.employment legislation? You like the Prime Minister has been clear, we
:28:08. > :28:11.will not Whee Kim workers' rights. You can relieve the pressure on
:28:12. > :28:20.small businesses without Di looting right. For example, the Digital
:28:21. > :28:27.economy -- Whee... The cat is not out of the bag. We have said... You
:28:28. > :28:31.said you would look at the laws you like and those you don't. Just put
:28:32. > :28:35.it in the context of what you are saying, and you will keep the ones
:28:36. > :28:39.you like. The ones you may not like could be the social employment
:28:40. > :28:44.legislation, or Priti Patel is wrong. We want to leave the EU but
:28:45. > :28:48.have the laws of the land in a place where we have certainty for
:28:49. > :28:52.businesses and citizens. Of course, as a process of taking back control,
:28:53. > :28:56.we will work out sensibly, Caerphilly, just as everyone would
:28:57. > :29:00.expect, which laws help and which we want to keep, and which ones hinder
:29:01. > :29:13.and which we want to get rid of. You were a work -- carefully. The Prime
:29:14. > :29:16.Minister is right that we must transpose EU law into our own so
:29:17. > :29:21.that we have certainty. Right, you are agreed. Theresa but we need to
:29:22. > :29:27.be mindful that a number of the red tape regulations have been our own,
:29:28. > :29:33.imposed by ourselves, with gold plating. We need to look at that.
:29:34. > :29:37.These Henry VIII powers, I think, Parliament needs again to be mindful
:29:38. > :29:46.that we don't want just one section of the ministerial team to be able
:29:47. > :29:50.to override primary legislation. We have two years, a diplomatic track,
:29:51. > :29:54.and we have to make sure we're just a laws to reflect the deal we
:29:55. > :29:58.strike. So you will go over the heads of Parliament? No, let's be
:29:59. > :30:07.clear. The constitutional committee of the House of Lords have said that
:30:08. > :30:13.it is imperative if you're going to get legal certainty in two years, to
:30:14. > :30:19.have some Henry VIII clauses. This would be pushing through, as some
:30:20. > :30:24.people would argue, pushing through secondary legislation, which would
:30:25. > :30:28.mean it would not be the same level. Excuse me, Dominic Raab, I am
:30:29. > :30:33.talking. I am saying what the clauses are, and they could be used
:30:34. > :30:39.to actually pass legislation without the same level of scrutiny as
:30:40. > :30:44.exists... You said gathering round. I did not. I said pushing through,
:30:45. > :30:47.passing legislation that means you don't have the full scrutiny of
:30:48. > :30:52.Parliament. Is that something you are worried about?
:30:53. > :30:58.Snoonchts deeply worried T talks about correcting, using secondary
:30:59. > :31:02.legislation, negative resolutions, no debate to correct primary
:31:03. > :31:05.legislation. There is no precedence of that. I accept we are in a
:31:06. > :31:11.completely unprecedented situation and I note... Plenty of... I will
:31:12. > :31:14.come back to you. I know what the Lords are saying, we need some
:31:15. > :31:17.assurance that is no primary legislation affecting important
:31:18. > :31:23.rights for people and protections will be involved and secondly, we
:31:24. > :31:26.could set up an independent body to just oversee what is pushed into
:31:27. > :31:30.secondary legislation. But how long would that take We have had the
:31:31. > :31:34.former clerk of the House of Commons today, and he should know, he is an
:31:35. > :31:38.expert in these things, saying, actually it could take ten years to
:31:39. > :31:42.extricate Britain from EU legislation unless there are some
:31:43. > :31:46.powers the executive has where they'll argue it is for relatively
:31:47. > :31:54.meaner bits of legislation, we will be doing this for ten years. -
:31:55. > :31:58.minor. I this for minor bits that's fine but lets make sure by having
:31:59. > :32:03.proper oversight. Tim Farron has said that - we are going to launch a
:32:04. > :32:08.legislative war, we'll grind the Government's agenda to a stand still
:32:09. > :32:11.unless proper and vigorous safeguards are given over the Great
:32:12. > :32:16.Repeal Bill and the bill is now in the Prime Minister's court. Do you
:32:17. > :32:20.sign up to this? ? Know, it is not our yobbive to make things grind to
:32:21. > :32:23.a halt. It is to make sure there is proper accountability. By all means
:32:24. > :32:28.put some stuff into secondary legislation but make sure there is
:32:29. > :32:34.proper oversight and it is simply not a Government legislation. David
:32:35. > :32:38.Davis said the UK must follow the EU case law up to the point of bricts.
:32:39. > :32:42.Do you accept that? We have to make sure EU law and obligations are met
:32:43. > :32:47.up until the point we leave, we need pragmatism and speed and flexibility
:32:48. > :32:50.to achieve that. Do you think it'll go beyond that European Court of
:32:51. > :32:54.Justice, or you don't want to see... I think there will be an issue
:32:55. > :32:58.around regulatory equivalence, where if we want to export into the EU
:32:59. > :33:00.we'll have to be mindful of their standards which will include the
:33:01. > :33:01.case law but that's something totally different. All right. Thank
:33:02. > :33:04.you both. Now, some of today's younger
:33:05. > :33:11.employees could be working into their 70s before they can
:33:12. > :33:14.claim the state pension. At least, that's one of the ideas
:33:15. > :33:16.being considered by the Government as it looks to make the rising
:33:17. > :33:19.pensions bill more affordable. And while there's no talk
:33:20. > :33:21.of retirement here - JoCo and I long ago abandoned hope
:33:22. > :33:24.of that - not everybody likes the idea of working
:33:25. > :33:26.into their twilight years. ARCHIVE: National Insurance
:33:27. > :33:31.contributions are going to build up a better standard of
:33:32. > :33:34.comfort for the old. Back in the 1940s, not many people
:33:35. > :33:37.lived beyond the age of 70, so they didn't have a
:33:38. > :33:40.very long retirement. Today's 65-year-olds are expected
:33:41. > :33:44.to live into their mid-80s, but this is costly for the public
:33:45. > :33:47.purse, with state pension spending due to go up by ?20 billion
:33:48. > :33:50.over the next 20 years, so the Government is looking at ways
:33:51. > :33:53.to bring down the One proposal is for today's 20-
:33:54. > :34:04.somethings to wait until they're in their 70s
:34:05. > :34:06.before they qualify for the state pension,
:34:07. > :34:07.and as you can imagine,
:34:08. > :34:10.that's going to have big implications you do a physical
:34:11. > :34:12.job, like these guys. I don't have a personal pension,
:34:13. > :34:16.so I'll be relying on the state pension, and I don't
:34:17. > :34:18.think that I'll be able to work till I'm 70 in this
:34:19. > :34:21.physical environment. And in the future, that's
:34:22. > :34:28.going to be a softer So, what are your pension
:34:29. > :34:35.plans for the future? I haven't really thought that far
:34:36. > :34:38.ahead yet, but I need to. But, yeah, got to definitely
:34:39. > :34:46.think about retiring, and I don't really want to be
:34:47. > :34:48.working until I'm 70, definitely Meanwhile, a review
:34:49. > :34:52.by former CBI boss John Cridland recommends
:34:53. > :34:53.that a state pension That's seven years earlier
:34:54. > :34:58.than currently planned. The age changes,
:34:59. > :35:05.together with the removal of the triple lock, which
:35:06. > :35:09.uprates pensions by inflation, earnings,
:35:10. > :35:14.or 2.5%, could result I believe the most
:35:15. > :35:17.this one generation of pensioners can bear
:35:18. > :35:21.is being asked to wait The Government may need to save more
:35:22. > :35:25.money because of the problems of an ageing society
:35:26. > :35:27.on public expenditure. If they should save more
:35:28. > :35:29.money, don't go to the state pension age, look
:35:30. > :35:31.at the indexation arrangements What about those people
:35:32. > :35:36.doing physical jobs - Can they really be
:35:37. > :35:41.expected to work into In hard manual jobs
:35:42. > :35:48.in your mid-60s is a really tough thing to ask, but people can
:35:49. > :35:52.re-skill to do other jobs. Someone on a construction
:35:53. > :35:53.site has very valuable skills
:35:54. > :35:58.in the retail sector. When we go to a DIY store,
:35:59. > :36:03.we talk to someone who has done the role that they are then
:36:04. > :36:05.helping us to do. I'm not saying that it's easy,
:36:06. > :36:08.but it is possible to re-skill The first state pension
:36:09. > :36:15.came in in 1909. You would take your pension book
:36:16. > :36:18.to the post office, cash it in Back then, though,
:36:19. > :36:21.you had to be 70 to qualify, and we could be
:36:22. > :36:23.going back to that. The Government is due
:36:24. > :36:26.to make its response to the state And who better to discuss
:36:27. > :36:46.all of that with than Ros Altmann, So Ros, the state pension age for
:36:47. > :36:51.men is 65 at the moment. It is between 60 and 65 for wi. It is to
:36:52. > :36:58.rise for 66 for both -- for wi. It is to rise to 66 for both by 2020
:36:59. > :37:02.and due it reach 48 for both by 2046. Is that enough for should it
:37:03. > :37:07.go higher? I actually think that we need n my view, to get away from
:37:08. > :37:12.this idea that there is one magic age which you keep pushing up, that
:37:13. > :37:15.everybody has to live by. The problem we've got is we have vast
:37:16. > :37:21.differences in life expectancy across the country. And some people
:37:22. > :37:25.have a life expectancy, 15 or 20 years less than others in our
:37:26. > :37:29.country. Some people have very hard, physical labour jobs, some people
:37:30. > :37:34.started work at 15 and contributed to National Insurance and could be
:37:35. > :37:38.contributing for well over 50 years, taking one-quarter of their salary
:37:39. > :37:42.and yet, unless they live long enough to reach this ever-rising
:37:43. > :37:47.state pension age, they may get absolutely... They may never get
:37:48. > :37:52.anything back. That seems to me to be inflexible in a way that isn't
:37:53. > :37:56.socially enwhich tab. But -- equitable? How would you have a
:37:57. > :38:02.variable pension age? How would you do it? A number of ways. My favoured
:38:03. > :38:05.option would be to have a band of ages which recognises different life
:38:06. > :38:10.expectancy and different job experience. So, for example, if you
:38:11. > :38:16.have contributed to national insurance for 50 or more years, you
:38:17. > :38:21.started work at 15 or 16, then from 65 or 66 you can start it get some
:38:22. > :38:25.state pension. Possibly if you are seriously unwell, in the same way as
:38:26. > :38:28.the private pension system recognises that, there could be some
:38:29. > :38:35.recognition. The problem we've got at the moment is - if you're healthy
:38:36. > :38:38.and wealthy enough to live to the actual state pension starting age,
:38:39. > :38:45.and you don't take it, you can get a lot more. But if you are unhealthy
:38:46. > :38:50.or not wealthy enough to wait, it's tough luck. Until you reach that
:38:51. > :38:55.age, 67, 68, whatever it is going to be, or even more, you get not a
:38:56. > :38:59.penny and that seems to me, not to reflect the flexibility that we need
:39:00. > :39:04.and probably should accommodate in our system. Can I check one issue of
:39:05. > :39:08.principle with you. All the projections are based on the
:39:09. > :39:14.assumption that longevity is rising and people are living longer and
:39:15. > :39:18.they are doing the kind of jobs that is not manual labour where it is
:39:19. > :39:23.really difficult to carry on after you are 60, never mind 65. But I
:39:24. > :39:27.also see reports that today's younger generation is in many ways
:39:28. > :39:32.less healthy than their parents. Are we sure people are going to keep on
:39:33. > :39:35.living longer? And that's the other reason why I think continually
:39:36. > :39:40.planning to increase and push the age up is not the right way to
:39:41. > :39:43.manage state - or not the best way to manage state pension policy. In
:39:44. > :39:49.fact, life expectancy has fallen in the last two or three years. And we
:39:50. > :39:53.haven't fully understood why yet. What we do need, though, and I think
:39:54. > :39:56.what is more powerful in controlling the costs of state pension in our
:39:57. > :40:01.ageing population is perhaps to look at the way in which the state
:40:02. > :40:05.pension increases each year. Let me come on to that. The other big issue
:40:06. > :40:10.is the triple lock, everybody calls t the Government is committed to it,
:40:11. > :40:16.I think the Labour opposition is committed to T so state pensions go
:40:17. > :40:21.up -- committed to it. State pensions go up by CPI, or average
:40:22. > :40:25.earnings or two-and-a-half %, whichever is the higher. That's
:40:26. > :40:29.right. It's expensive. You get signs the Government is trying to find
:40:30. > :40:39.ways of getting out of this, at least for the next election and so
:40:40. > :40:44.on. Should we keep it, adjust it or drop it? To be honest, I would be in
:40:45. > :40:47.favour of keeping it until 2020. They have to do that. We have
:40:48. > :40:50.committed to do so. But after that, looking at it differently because
:40:51. > :40:53.the 2.5% doesn't make any sense from an economic or social perspective.
:40:54. > :40:59.It is just a random number, picked from the air in a way. But also, I
:41:00. > :41:02.think what Labour hasn't necessarily understood and what pensioners
:41:03. > :41:06.generally need to realise is that the triple lock is a bit of a trick.
:41:07. > :41:12.It doesn't cover the whole of the state pension and indeed the triple
:41:13. > :41:16.lock does not protect properly, the poorest and the oldest pensioners,
:41:17. > :41:23.who are the very groups you would most want to protect. They don't get
:41:24. > :41:26.the triple lock. They don't? The Pension Credit, the means-tested
:41:27. > :41:30.benefit for all the pensioners who don't have enough income from their
:41:31. > :41:36.state pension. From the state pension alone. Is not triple locked.
:41:37. > :41:40.Only the basic state pension in the old state system is protected to
:41:41. > :41:44.around ?120 a week. The new state pension is fully protected up to
:41:45. > :41:49.?160 but only available to the youngest pensioners, so it is the
:41:50. > :41:54.wrong way around. So you are saying there are 1.6 million pensioners. I
:41:55. > :42:02.mean pensioners are much better off, on average, than they used to be 20
:42:03. > :42:07.or 30 years ago On average but... My but is coming but 1.6 million
:42:08. > :42:12.pensioners, one in seven are still living in poverty and you are saying
:42:13. > :42:14.the triple lock, that many people would most benefit from the triple
:42:15. > :42:21.lock, they are actually not. They don't. Absolutely. I think we need
:42:22. > :42:24.to reconsider this idea. The 2.5% adds hugely to the forecast
:42:25. > :42:29.long-term costs of delivering the state pension. It adds billions of
:42:30. > :42:33.pounds. If we just love to a double lock, that would take the pressure
:42:34. > :42:38.off the rises in state pension age and will also be fairer if we can
:42:39. > :42:42.apply it properly... To the poorer pensioners. Yes. All right. We'll
:42:43. > :42:46.leave it there. A lot to be discussed in the years ahead before
:42:47. > :42:53.the parties decide on manifesto for 2020. Only another 30 years of work.
:42:54. > :42:55.Now, the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is appearing
:42:56. > :42:58.in front of a Labour Party disciplinary panel to answer
:42:59. > :42:59.allegations that he's brought the party into disrepute.
:43:00. > :43:02.Mr Livingstone is currently suspended from the party
:43:03. > :43:05.after a series of interviews last year in which he suggested -
:43:06. > :43:07.amongst other things - that Adolf Hitler supported Zionism
:43:08. > :43:12.before his appointment as Chancellor of Germany in 1933.
:43:13. > :43:15.Here's a clip of Mr Livingstone's appearance on the Daily Politics
:43:16. > :43:17.last April, when he was asked about those comments
:43:18. > :43:36.If I was to criticise the South African Government you wouldn't say
:43:37. > :43:41.I was racist, you would say I was critical of that Government.
:43:42. > :43:47.Blurring these things undermines the importance of anti-Semitism. A real
:43:48. > :43:54.anti-Semite doesn't hate the Jews in Israel they hate them in Stoke
:43:55. > :43:56.Newington or Islington. It is a physical loathing.
:43:57. > :43:59.And this morning, our cameras caught up with Mr Livingstone as he entered
:44:00. > :44:01.that disciplinary hearing, and he was asked again
:44:02. > :44:05.I simply said back in 1933, Hitler's Government signed a deal
:44:06. > :44:07.with the Zionist movement which would mean that Germany's Jewish
:44:08. > :44:10.community were moved to what is now Israel.
:44:11. > :44:12.That's very different to saying that Hitler supported
:44:13. > :44:24.The SS set up training camps so that German Jews,
:44:25. > :44:28.who were going to go there, could be trained to cope with a very
:44:29. > :44:34.different sort of country when they got there.
:44:35. > :44:44.We're joined by Mike Catts from the Jewish Labour movement. And
:44:45. > :44:45.Jonathan Rosenhead, who is giving evidence
:44:46. > :45:03.We heard the first clip. I take it it is all right that it is all right
:45:04. > :45:08.to hate Jews in Israel, as long as you don't hate them anywhere else in
:45:09. > :45:12.the world. Anti-Semitism has had hatred at its heart but it isn't
:45:13. > :45:17.expressed at hatred, it is discrimination, it is not wanting to
:45:18. > :45:22.live next to them or the rest of things. A whole range of things. He
:45:23. > :45:25.said it is OK to hate them in Israel. No I think he was pointing
:45:26. > :45:28.out that talking about Israel and Jews is inappropriate much this is
:45:29. > :45:31.about Jews, it has nothing to do with Israel. He didn't say that, I
:45:32. > :45:36.have to say. What I actually said, though, we have to listen to what he
:45:37. > :45:40.said because he is defending himself against claims of anti-Semitism. He
:45:41. > :45:46.said "You are only a real anti-Semite if you hate all Jews,
:45:47. > :45:51.not just those in Israel." So you can hate Jews in Israel and still...
:45:52. > :45:53.You are reading that in. It is up to you, it is not in the words. What
:45:54. > :46:05.else would you read into it? Criticism of Israel is not criticism
:46:06. > :46:11.of Jews, and it is not anti-Semitic. What do you think? I think the
:46:12. > :46:17.reputational damage of his comments on the Labour Party... That is what
:46:18. > :46:21.is really at stake here. He came in last year to defend an MP after
:46:22. > :46:25.comments she made. She immediately put her hand up and said, what I
:46:26. > :46:30.have done is wrong, and she is a shining example of how you can go on
:46:31. > :46:37.a journey of education and realise why doing something is anti-Semitic.
:46:38. > :46:42.Is Ken Livingstone anti-Semitic? Very hard to understand someone who
:46:43. > :46:53.turns victimhood into Calabria late -- collaboration. I was a GLA
:46:54. > :46:56.candidate and he was on radio London telling people that Hitler
:46:57. > :47:01.supporting Zionism was a very matter-of-fact thing. When we go out
:47:02. > :47:06.on the doorstep in Jewish areas, a question we get asked is why he has
:47:07. > :47:12.not been expelled yet. That is why the NEC has referred this to the
:47:13. > :47:19.panel. What is the point of making all these comments? He wasn't asked
:47:20. > :47:24.about Hitler or Zionism, or in fact anything to do with the pre-2nd
:47:25. > :47:29.World War period, so why make these comments? One may wonder why he made
:47:30. > :47:35.that the tour. Well, I am asking you. Everything he said is factually
:47:36. > :47:41.correct. Will come onto that in a second. Hitler and the Nazis
:47:42. > :47:45.negotiated for many years and got concessions from the Zionist
:47:46. > :47:51.movement. Both movements wanted to get the Jews out of Germany. Do you
:47:52. > :47:57.think it is offensive to talk about Adolf Hitler and not as and Zionism
:47:58. > :48:03.in the same breath all these years after 6 million Jews died in the
:48:04. > :48:07.Holocaust? The Holocaust was one of the major seminal events of our
:48:08. > :48:12.political experience. It is a conference reference by all people
:48:13. > :48:18.in political discussion, the same as apartheid, to say that you cannot
:48:19. > :48:24.talk about Israel in the same breath as Nazism is a restriction of free
:48:25. > :48:28.expression. The Holocaust educational trust is an independent
:48:29. > :48:32.body that has done a lot of work in education. It points out when
:48:33. > :48:36.commenting on Mr Livingstone's comments that he is throwing around
:48:37. > :48:39.the Holocaust like political confetti, and that deliberate misuse
:48:40. > :48:44.of the Holocaust is anti-Semitic as he has a duty of care. He is high
:48:45. > :48:47.profile and has done some important job, so he should have a better
:48:48. > :48:54.sense not to say these things he thinks he can justify them on narrow
:48:55. > :48:58.academic grounds. Either I think that in dispute, but that is by the
:48:59. > :49:03.way. He should have better sense than to repeat some of this stuff
:49:04. > :49:07.this morning. I don't know how he thinks that we'll win over the panel
:49:08. > :49:11.or repair his reputational damage with the Jewish community. The fact
:49:12. > :49:15.that Ken Livingstone says, when we're talking about Zionism and not
:49:16. > :49:20.as in, 6 million Jews were murdered on the orders of Adolf Hitler, and
:49:21. > :49:25.he makes a connection between that and the existence of the state of
:49:26. > :49:28.Israel, is that helpful on the doorstep for the Labour Party? I
:49:29. > :49:34.think the Labour Party should be grown-up enough to have a serious
:49:35. > :49:42.discussion, instead of having red lines and saying you cannot discuss
:49:43. > :49:50.this. The Jewish labour movement has many members. On the question of
:49:51. > :49:55.Jewish people identifying with Israel, researchers found that 91%
:49:56. > :49:59.of them do. You are kidding yourself if you think this is inoffensive. We
:50:00. > :50:06.have had comments from the Labour Party and across the Jewish
:50:07. > :50:09.community, Chief Rabbis, trusts, and lots of people have said this is
:50:10. > :50:18.offensive, in a very common-sense way. It has been said that it is
:50:19. > :50:24.biased and that this panel is being held in secret - what do you say to
:50:25. > :50:28.that? I must say, I find this attitude very puzzling. Ken
:50:29. > :50:31.Livingstone must be aware that his remarks were gratuitously offensive.
:50:32. > :50:36.If he did not intend that at the time, he knew afterwards and he kept
:50:37. > :50:41.repeating them. This issue is about the reputation of the Labour Party,
:50:42. > :50:47.and how it has impacted on it, his remarks. He came out to defend
:50:48. > :50:53.remarks by an MP who herself said she had been anti-Semitic by trying
:50:54. > :50:56.to say they were not anti-Semitic. Things like, everything Hitler did
:50:57. > :51:03.in Germany was legal. That is not about Israel, that is about
:51:04. > :51:08.anti-Semitism, so I think it is very difficult to quite understand what
:51:09. > :51:13.his idea of anti-Semitism truly is. Do you think he is anti-Semitic?
:51:14. > :51:21.What he has done has certainly come across that way. But the decision
:51:22. > :51:25.that needs to be made by the panel is, what impact did it have on the
:51:26. > :51:30.Labour Party? Did it bring the party into dispute before the May oral
:51:31. > :51:38.election? Does he have anything to apologise for? No. The people who
:51:39. > :51:44.have attacked him and Jeremy Corbyn have brought much more offence and
:51:45. > :51:48.disrepute on the party than he has. You may join me canvassing in
:51:49. > :51:53.Finchley and Golders Green and other areas. London has the largest Jewish
:51:54. > :51:58.population in the country, and where we live, we know that there are lots
:51:59. > :52:09.of Jewish voters. Tell me they don't ask why Ken hasn't been dispelled
:52:10. > :52:12.from the party. Frankly, honestly, we have the mainstream Jewish
:52:13. > :52:17.opinion on our side in this case. We have to leave it there. Thank you
:52:18. > :52:20.for coming in. I knew we would not get through the
:52:21. > :52:23.morning without mentioning Hitler, and we didn't!
:52:24. > :52:26.Now, back to our main story - the triggering of Article 50.
:52:27. > :52:29.After her statement in the House, the Prime Minister then took
:52:30. > :52:31.questions from MPs for three and a half hours.
:52:32. > :52:34.She told journalists last night that she only had an apple and a few
:52:35. > :52:37.nuts to sustain her before that marathon session in the Commons.
:52:38. > :52:45.The Article 50 process is now underway, and in accordance with the
:52:46. > :52:48.wishes of the British people, the United Kingdom is leaving the
:52:49. > :52:51.This is an historic moment from which there can be no
:52:52. > :52:59.The Prime Minister says that no deal is better than a
:53:00. > :53:12.But the reality is, no deal IS is a bad deal.
:53:13. > :53:15.What we on these benches have become accustomed
:53:16. > :53:19.to the views of members on the other side of the House being incapable of
:53:20. > :53:21.understanding that the people of Scotland voted to remain in the
:53:22. > :53:27.The substance of the deal that we achieve, and I'm
:53:28. > :53:30.interested in the outcomes of this deal, will be the best possible deal
:53:31. > :53:35.for the people of the whole of the United Kingdom.
:53:36. > :53:37.And I especially welcome that we want a special
:53:38. > :53:40.relationship with the EU based on friendship,
:53:41. > :53:42.trade and many other collaborations, once we are an
:53:43. > :53:48.This day, of all days, the Liberal Democrats
:53:49. > :53:51.will not roll over as the official opposition have done.
:53:52. > :53:58.Our children and our grandchildren will judge all of us
:53:59. > :54:02.I am determined that I will look my children
:54:03. > :54:07.say that I did everything to prevent this calamity
:54:08. > :54:11.that the Prime Minister has today chosen.
:54:12. > :54:14.It's never been more true - the devil will be in the
:54:15. > :54:23.As that detail emerges, will the Prime Minister ensure that
:54:24. > :54:26.everyone in her teens stop the practice which has been
:54:27. > :54:28.so prevalent of claiming that every awkward
:54:29. > :54:31.question is evidence of a desire to overturn the will of the British
:54:32. > :54:34.Because nothing will more surely destroy that unity of purpose
:54:35. > :54:46.It was pretty lively in the Commons yesterday. Theresa May has now
:54:47. > :54:49.delivered her Article 50 letter to politicians.
:54:50. > :54:51.but politicians don't always follow through when they ask
:54:52. > :54:54.the public a question, and the public give them an answer
:54:55. > :54:57.That's a dilemma that's facing councillors in the Isle of Wight,
:54:58. > :55:00.who are putting an even more weighty decision to a public vote.
:55:01. > :55:05.When the Isle of Wight Council invited the public to vote for the
:55:06. > :55:08.name of their chain ferry, officers stated that a certain
:55:09. > :55:12.name, Floaty McFloatface, would not be accepted.
:55:13. > :55:15.And you guessed it, a petition was sooned signed by more than 1000
:55:16. > :55:18.people, calling for it to be named just that.
:55:19. > :55:20.This week the council leader slapped down his officials
:55:21. > :55:23.and said if this name was the most popular,
:55:24. > :55:31.This was all the fault, of course of Boaty McBoatface, the
:55:32. > :55:36.name suggested by a public poll for a polar research ship which was
:55:37. > :55:38.blocked by ministers and given to this sub instead.
:55:39. > :55:40.We just don't know what's good for us.
:55:41. > :55:42.Strictly viewers voted John Segreant back on the
:55:43. > :55:44.competition, week after week, until he bowed out voluntarily.
:55:45. > :55:49.Lawmakers overturned a public vote to name a
:55:50. > :55:59.And in Austin, Texas, people tried unsuccessfully
:56:00. > :56:01.to name the city's waste management service, after Limp Bizkit front
:56:02. > :56:07.Some people at first thought this man was a joke
:56:08. > :56:16.Voters have until the end of next week to make suggestions for the
:56:17. > :56:20.floating bridge, before the top six names also go to the polls,
:56:21. > :56:24.and as the BBC remains impartial, we will just say that we do not
:56:25. > :56:28.favour Floaty McFloatface above any of the other names available.
:56:29. > :56:30.And we can speak now to Sally Perry, the journalist
:56:31. > :56:36.who broke the story of this attempted democratic outrage.
:56:37. > :56:41.She writes for the local news website 'On the Wight'.
:56:42. > :56:51.That's a good name. Hello. It's going to be called Floaty
:56:52. > :56:54.McFloatface, isn't it? Oti I guess, you've seen the number of people who
:56:55. > :57:02.have signed a petition so far, and it's over 2000. It is known locally
:57:03. > :57:12.as Floaty anyway, so calling it Floaty McFloatface is well-suited.
:57:13. > :57:16.Maybe it will just be shortened. Whether it would stand the test of
:57:17. > :57:20.time, I don't know, but at the moment, everybody seems very happy
:57:21. > :57:23.about it and it is putting a smile on lots of faces, just even the
:57:24. > :57:27.thought of it. Once you see it on the side of the floating bridge, I
:57:28. > :57:32.think it could become a tourist attraction. I'm sure it will! Whose
:57:33. > :57:37.bright idea was it to ask the public what this bridge should be named?
:57:38. > :57:41.One of the councillors raised it in a meeting a couple of weeks ago, and
:57:42. > :57:45.then a press release came out on the council last week with that little
:57:46. > :57:51.Bthe bottom, and you know what happens when you tell people that
:57:52. > :58:04.they can't do something! -- with that little veto. Did you do this to
:58:05. > :58:11.get -- did they do this to get publicity? He is not a councillor
:58:12. > :58:18.who is shy of media attention, so you could be right! Is it a nice
:58:19. > :58:26.bridge? It is brilliant, such fun to ride on, a real novelty. It is a
:58:27. > :58:30.lifeline for a lot of people. I live in the south of the island, so it is
:58:31. > :58:34.a novelty when I go on it. When visitors come to the island to see
:58:35. > :58:40.us, we always take them on the floating bridge. Sally Perry, thank
:58:41. > :58:44.you for that. I look forward to seeing Floaty next time I am in the
:58:45. > :58:50.Isle of Wight. Have you ever vetoed a name, Roz? The last time I heard
:58:51. > :58:55.about it was when I was in primary school and we were asked to come up
:58:56. > :58:58.with names the teams, and a teacher said about one suggestion, you can
:58:59. > :59:04.have whatever you want, but not that! Lets ask the viewers what we
:59:05. > :59:05.should be called. Time to end this programme!
:59:06. > :59:12.The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
:59:13. > :59:36.I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big
:59:37. > :59:40.Marine Le Pen has her eyes on the French presidency.