30/03/2017 Daily Politics


30/03/2017

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

The starting gun has been fired and the battle

:00:35.:00:41.

so who won day one of the negotiations -

:00:42.:00:45.

The Government unveils how it will turn EU law into British Law

:00:46.:00:52.

but will the "Great Repeal Bill" do anything to reduce the number

:00:53.:00:55.

Ken Livingstone faces a Labour Party disciplinary panel

:00:56.:01:03.

after last year's outburst about jews, Zionism and Hitler -

:01:04.:01:09.

were his words anti-semitic and will he be kicked out

:01:10.:01:12.

Why some politicians still can't grasp the basic principles of

:01:13.:01:20.

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

:01:21.:01:56.

back by popular demand, former

:01:57.:01:58.

Pensions Minister and Remain supporter, Ros Altmann,

:01:59.:01:59.

So just 729 days and 12 hours until the UK is due to leave the EU

:02:00.:02:04.

Who's counting? We should have a clock ticking down.

:02:05.:02:07.

Just a divorce settlement and new treaty on Britain's future

:02:08.:02:10.

relationship with the 27 nation block to negotiate

:02:11.:02:12.

But when I spoke to the Prime Minister last night she struck

:02:13.:02:17.

an optimistic note about the outcome of that process.

:02:18.:02:19.

What we're both looking for is that comprehensive free trade agreement

:02:20.:02:24.

which gives that ability to trade freely into the European

:02:25.:02:26.

single market and for them to trade with us.

:02:27.:02:30.

But it can't be exactly the same, can it?

:02:31.:02:33.

It'll be a different relationship but I think it can

:02:34.:02:35.

have the same benefits, in terms of that free

:02:36.:02:37.

That was the Prime Minister. What do you make of it all, Ros? You are a

:02:38.:02:45.

Remainer, you were, or still are? I was a Remainer, of course I accept

:02:46.:02:48.

the result of the referendum and I think the Government is right to see

:02:49.:02:52.

how we can best implement the result of the referendum but I do have

:02:53.:03:01.

serious concerns about the approach, about the dump - attitude we a are

:03:02.:03:10.

going in with. I would like it to be more friendly. She was conciliatory.

:03:11.:03:18.

She was but the tone of the letter conflating economic trade and

:03:19.:03:22.

security is not going down well. I have studried Europe and watched it

:03:23.:03:26.

grow over the last 30 or more years and Europe does best when you talk

:03:27.:03:30.

as friends and when you understand how they think. And it is not the

:03:31.:03:34.

same way we think which is part of the reason, I suspect we are leaving

:03:35.:03:39.

because we have different attitudes. But when the European negotiators,

:03:40.:03:42.

or leading European figures are pretty tough with us, talk of

:03:43.:03:48.

punishment beatings, Mr Juncker. You eat what is on the table or you

:03:49.:03:53.

don't come to the table at all. When that happens we all say - oh, they

:03:54.:03:56.

are being tough, look how difficult it is going to be. When the British

:03:57.:04:00.

Prime Minister points out that security is one of the real things

:04:01.:04:03.

that we bring to the table, people like you throw their hands up in

:04:04.:04:08.

horror. Why? It is surely quite legitimate for us to point out that

:04:09.:04:14.

we are very important, in or out of the EU, to Europe's security. I

:04:15.:04:18.

absolutely agree with that. That's our real strong card but in the

:04:19.:04:23.

letter, this issue of security was mentioned ten times. And economic

:04:24.:04:30.

and security were conflated and pushed together five times. This is

:04:31.:04:35.

going to inflame the people who receive the letter and I fear that

:04:36.:04:40.

we need to go in with an attitude that says - we are your friends, you

:04:41.:04:44.

are your partners, we want to listen and we want to work together. The

:04:45.:04:48.

French foreign ministry has said that they're glad that misses May

:04:49.:04:51.

has put security at the centre of the negotiations. Good. -- that Miss

:04:52.:04:56.

May. Now negotiations haven't been

:04:57.:05:13.

started yet but the argument has. The Prime Minister struck a more

:05:14.:05:17.

emollient tone in her letter yesterday.

:05:18.:05:24.

We now have a broad idea of the British negotiating position

:05:25.:05:26.

and in the month ahead we'll get a better idea of the

:05:27.:05:29.

negotiating position of the remaining 27 countries.

:05:30.:05:31.

Here's JoCo, to tell us what some of the issues are.

:05:32.:05:33.

Arguments have already broken out about key passages from

:05:34.:05:36.

In the letter she says: "We believe it is necessary to agree the terms

:05:37.:05:44.

of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawl from the EU."

:05:45.:05:47.

But the EU Commission's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has

:05:48.:05:54.

which means the UK and the EU should agree the terms of the UK's

:05:55.:06:02.

withdrawal before negotiating any future trade deal.

:06:03.:06:04.

EU Critics have also accused the Prime Minister in her letter

:06:05.:06:07.

of linking future co-operation on security and defence

:06:08.:06:09.

The European Parliament's Brexit co-ordinator Guy Verhofstadt said:

:06:10.:06:27.

The Brexit Secretary David Davis has played down the issue saying:

:06:28.:06:38.

The next big date will be the EU summit at the end of April,

:06:39.:06:42.

where Donald Tusk's negotiating guidelines will be will be discussed

:06:43.:06:44.

Negotiations won't really start in ernest until after the French

:06:45.:06:51.

presidential elections in April and May and then there are elections

:06:52.:06:54.

As we were coming on air, to us to us Turks President of the European

:06:55.:07:08.

Council was speaking in Malta where the European People's Party is

:07:09.:07:13.

having a conference. Yesterday, after receiving the letter from

:07:14.:07:19.

Prime Minister, Theresa May, invoking Article 50 I said that

:07:20.:07:28.

paradoxically there is also something positive in brings it.

:07:29.:07:32.

Brexit has made us the community of 27, more determined and more united

:07:33.:07:39.

than before. I am fully confident of this, especially after our own

:07:40.:07:46.

declaration and and I can say we will remain determined and united

:07:47.:07:49.

until the future. That was Donald Tusk.

:07:50.:07:51.

Earlier I spoke to the MEP Roberto Gaultieri,

:07:52.:07:52.

who is on the European Parliament's negotiating team.

:07:53.:07:55.

I asked him if he thought a deal could be done in two years.

:07:56.:07:58.

It's a challenging task but I think and I can hope

:07:59.:08:00.

The time is not much so we have to start working intensively very

:08:01.:08:11.

soon and I hope that instead of discussing on the different

:08:12.:08:15.

sequencing, we can start discussing substance very soon.

:08:16.:08:20.

First there are open issues connected to a withdrawal agreement.

:08:21.:08:24.

You say it's a challenge but it could be done within two years

:08:25.:08:29.

but a leaked resolution by the European Parliament yesterday

:08:30.:08:33.

said that Britain will not be given a free trade deal by the EU

:08:34.:08:36.

in the next two years, and that any transition arrangement,

:08:37.:08:41.

to cushion the UK's exit after 2019 could last no longer

:08:42.:08:44.

We think that we can conclude quickly and also it depends on,

:08:45.:09:06.

of course, the UK Government, in agreement on the elements,

:09:07.:09:09.

the basic elements of the withdrawal deal, which we are open to discuss

:09:10.:09:12.

also in the framework of the long-term deal.

:09:13.:09:17.

Then, of course, to conclude all the details of a comprehensive

:09:18.:09:20.

association free trade agreement, maybe it would take longer than two

:09:21.:09:22.

We think that it might be longer and this is also the role

:09:23.:09:33.

of the transitional agreement, during which we could finalise

:09:34.:09:36.

How much money do you think the UK needs to pay

:09:37.:09:42.

I'm not going to give an exact figure because we rely

:09:43.:09:55.

on the figure that the competent bodies will define.

:09:56.:10:02.

We are not going to ask one single pound more than what is already

:10:03.:10:07.

agreed as a commitment, a liability by the United Kingdom.

:10:08.:10:11.

A row has broken out, as I'm sure you know,

:10:12.:10:19.

because Guy Verhofstadt has said that the Prime Minister linked

:10:20.:10:22.

security and trade in her letter to Donald Tusk and he said

:10:23.:10:26.

that there could be no bargaining between those two elements.

:10:27.:10:29.

I appreciate the tone of the letter but indeed there is one paragraph

:10:30.:10:44.

which I think was not the most happy, let's say, formulation,

:10:45.:10:49.

where it sounds like, "A failure to reach an agreement

:10:50.:10:55.

would mean that co-operation in the fight against crime

:10:56.:10:58.

We would not, we say this in our resolution,

:10:59.:11:09.

have a trade-off between, let's say the role of the UK in the area

:11:10.:11:12.

of security and defence, and some special arrangements

:11:13.:11:14.

We want a comprehensive deal, so no trade-off, no cherry picking.

:11:15.:11:18.

How much power does the European Parliament

:11:19.:11:19.

really have in terms of shaping these negotiations?

:11:20.:11:21.

The European Parliament will have to give its consent...

:11:22.:11:23.

...to the divorce agreement at the end.

:11:24.:11:29.

Of course we'll have also to vote on future agreements.

:11:30.:11:32.

That's why we will follow closely all the steps of the negotiation.

:11:33.:11:43.

Will you miss the UK in the way that Donald Tusk expressed yesterday once

:11:44.:11:46.

he'd received the letter from Theresa May?

:11:47.:11:48.

We had a very moving moment with our UK colleagues

:11:49.:12:01.

I considered, since the beginning, a mistake, the Brexit,

:12:02.:12:10.

That's one view from the European Parliament.

:12:11.:12:22.

I'm joined now by the Conservative MP Dominic Raab, who supported

:12:23.:12:25.

Brexit and by Paul Blomfield, Labour's Shadow Brexit minister.

:12:26.:12:28.

Welcome to you both. Was it necessary, Dominic Raab for the

:12:29.:12:34.

Prime Minister to say - if there is no deal, then security cooperation

:12:35.:12:37.

will be weakened? She didn't say that. What she said - we could read

:12:38.:12:42.

it out, it was a long paragraph, she said "We are going on the best deal

:12:43.:12:47.

on trade and on security." We could of course cope if we didn't have the

:12:48.:12:52.

deal on security but, it would make us weaker and we should make our

:12:53.:12:55.

relationship stronger, so we should redouble our efforts. Honestly,

:12:56.:12:58.

no-one could fairly call that a threat. It is a statement of fact. I

:12:59.:13:03.

didn't call it a threat Some have. But I asked, was it necessary for

:13:04.:13:06.

the Prime Minister to say that? Well, I think it is a statement of

:13:07.:13:10.

fact, that we are not saying, as some people have on the Project Fear

:13:11.:13:17.

side that we will fall over a cliff. It says, of course, either side

:13:18.:13:20.

could cope with this but we want to be stronger not weaker. I thought

:13:21.:13:25.

Remainers said we would be weaker without the cooperation we are

:13:26.:13:28.

saying we want an agreement and an agreement on trade. Let me get Paul

:13:29.:13:36.

Blomfield's reaction? This letter has been weeks if not months in

:13:37.:13:40.

preparation, it was carefully constructed and clearly deliberate

:13:41.:13:44.

that in that one paragraph the threat of non-cooperation on

:13:45.:13:48.

security was linked to the opportunity -... Well there wasn't a

:13:49.:13:53.

threat of non-cooperation, it said it would weaken, there is no threat

:13:54.:13:56.

of non-cooperation. Well the implication is there. You are right,

:13:57.:13:59.

of course, Andrew, the wording is careful. But the implication was

:14:00.:14:04.

there. What implication? Well, if we can't do a deal on trade that

:14:05.:14:10.

satifies Britain, we may not do a deal on security. Now I think this

:14:11.:14:14.

is playing games with something that is not just of interest to the rest

:14:15.:14:18.

of Europe but is hugely important to the British people that we cooperate

:14:19.:14:22.

on security. Sure. The two shouldn't be linked. But Downing Street, last

:14:23.:14:28.

night, issued statement, or briefed that whatever is in this document

:14:29.:14:35.

that's gone now, as our Article 50 process, does not refer in anyway to

:14:36.:14:40.

by lateral sharing of intelligence. And it is bilateral sharing of

:14:41.:14:44.

intelligence, Britain between and France, for example, which is by far

:14:45.:14:47.

the most important intelligence sharing. Well, Downing Street need

:14:48.:14:51.

to clarify, exactly what they did mean by that paragraph. Because it

:14:52.:15:01.

was taken to mean an interdependence in the discussions Anti-Terrorism,

:15:02.:15:04.

Crime and Security Act cooperation and trade. "In security terms,

:15:05.:15:10.

fwalure to reach agreement of an overall deal would mean our

:15:11.:15:14.

cooperation against the fight against crime and terrorism would be

:15:15.:15:18.

weakened." That's right. Isn't it a statement of the object Jews It is

:15:19.:15:21.

and of critical importance to the British people that we maintain

:15:22.:15:26.

that. It was unfortunate but I'm sure thoughtfully considered that it

:15:27.:15:30.

was linked in the same car graph on trade. Sho -- a statement of the

:15:31.:15:38.

obvious. When you look at the scale of what

:15:39.:15:46.

hers to be done, the divorce Bill settlement has got to be agreed, and

:15:47.:15:51.

we seem to be pretty far apart on that, and it's very complicated as

:15:52.:15:57.

well. Then we have to agree, and the Prime Minister said to me last

:15:58.:16:00.

night, a comprehensive free trade agreement. Can all that he done by

:16:01.:16:07.

October of 2018 to begin the ratification process? The total

:16:08.:16:12.

processes to make years, but you're right, we need to do the lion's

:16:13.:16:15.

share within 18 months. It is feasible with goodwill on all sides,

:16:16.:16:19.

but you are right - it will be a challenge. Could you not see a

:16:20.:16:25.

transitional period, not an implementation period, which is the

:16:26.:16:28.

language of the Government, but a transitional period well, although

:16:29.:16:34.

there may be agreement by the end of the Brexit process, things will

:16:35.:16:40.

remain to be resolved in a transitional period? First, I think

:16:41.:16:43.

it is great news that people are talking not about whether this deal

:16:44.:16:46.

can be done but Hal. The timescale is tight because the EU has imposed

:16:47.:16:52.

that on us, but there we are. It was the Lisbon Treaty that we all voted

:16:53.:16:58.

for. On outside... Article 50 was drafted by a Brit. Under a Brit. But

:16:59.:17:11.

about the transitional point... I am saying this is an EU rule that we

:17:12.:17:15.

have to stick to. It is not anything the UK has chosen, certainly not

:17:16.:17:19.

this Government. In terms of transitional and implementation

:17:20.:17:23.

period, this is my personal view. If we get to the end of the two-year

:17:24.:17:27.

deal, we've sorted out the principles and the lions share of

:17:28.:17:34.

the future is there but we have not dealt with every detail, I think it

:17:35.:17:40.

is interesting that some people were saying we needed an extra year to do

:17:41.:17:45.

that, and I would be quite relaxed. If we only had a very short period,

:17:46.:17:49.

the goodwill on all sides built up, we just need to make sure we don't

:17:50.:17:56.

miss anything. I'm relaxed about it. The European position at the moment

:17:57.:18:01.

is that they don't want to talk about our future relationship with

:18:02.:18:05.

the EU until the matter of the divorce Bill, the divorce

:18:06.:18:08.

settlement, has been agreed. Should the Government agree to that, or

:18:09.:18:12.

should it demand that negotiations take place in parallel? I think

:18:13.:18:17.

making demands of that sort, which would stall the process, would not

:18:18.:18:23.

be helpful. Which demand - ours or theirs? The one that we would make

:18:24.:18:27.

that we would only talk about the future in parallel with talking

:18:28.:18:34.

about the settlement. So it's OK for Mr Barnier to demand that we had to

:18:35.:18:38.

settle the divorce Bill before the future relationship, but it would be

:18:39.:18:41.

wrong for us to demand that we do both at once? I mean, whose side are

:18:42.:18:47.

you one? I am not saying that, Andrew. It is a matter of

:18:48.:18:50.

discussion, and different comets from both sides have suggested there

:18:51.:18:54.

may be spaced a compromise. The important thing is that we don't let

:18:55.:18:57.

the discussion around the divorce Bill get in the way the discussion

:18:58.:19:02.

on the future relationship. The Government at the moment is saying,

:19:03.:19:07.

no, we need to discuss both in parallel, and indeed, the very idea

:19:08.:19:11.

of a divorce Bill, which is controversial on this side of the

:19:12.:19:16.

Channel, we can't agree to that until we see how good the new

:19:17.:19:20.

arrangement is going to be, going forward. I'm trying to find out,

:19:21.:19:25.

does your party agree with that or not? We think we need to get the

:19:26.:19:30.

best settlement, going forward. I think it would make sense, Andrew,

:19:31.:19:33.

if we could have parallel discussions, and I think

:19:34.:19:43.

compromise... You have already compromised on this. Angela Merkel's

:19:44.:19:47.

language has shifted subtly. She has said, we won't settle first but we

:19:48.:19:52.

need the questions to be answered before we go for the dual track. I

:19:53.:19:56.

think it is sadly and gently already been resolved. We shall see. Our

:19:57.:20:01.

words were interesting, and they will not as hardline as the word

:20:02.:20:06.

from Mr Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker. We know you are a

:20:07.:20:14.

backbencher. As a backbencher, can we agree, do you think, from the

:20:15.:20:19.

comments David Davis made on Question Time on Monday night, and

:20:20.:20:23.

the Prime Minister's replies to my questions last night about

:20:24.:20:28.

immigration, that the 100,000 target is dead, never going to happen? In

:20:29.:20:33.

the context of national policy as a whole or Brexit? That even once we

:20:34.:20:39.

have left the EU, we are still not going to get anywhere near net

:20:40.:20:45.

migration of 100,000. I think the Government has been clear. We want

:20:46.:20:49.

to aim for that. Of course, when we get outside of the EU and we've got

:20:50.:20:52.

the controls we want, actually, we'll be able to look at it in the

:20:53.:20:56.

round and make sure we get the advantages of immigration, but also

:20:57.:21:02.

check the costs and strains. I am not particularly wedded to arbitrary

:21:03.:21:06.

targets. So it is dead? One thing that is crucial is that the overall

:21:07.:21:10.

volume of immigration can be reduced, and that we got control,

:21:11.:21:14.

because that's what the public want to see. But neither on Monday night

:21:15.:21:21.

this did Mr Davies, or the Prime Minister last night, mention the

:21:22.:21:25.

target. I did, but they didn't. That is significant. What do you want me

:21:26.:21:31.

to do, postmortem your interviews? I want to know if you think that the

:21:32.:21:35.

target is dead. I will give you this: It is pretty demanding, but

:21:36.:21:39.

the most important thing is, the volume can come down. More

:21:40.:21:44.

importantly than that, the qualitative side, making sure we get

:21:45.:21:50.

the advantages of migration. I want to hear from Roz. Immigration

:21:51.:21:58.

control and the implication of a substantial fall in numbers was put

:21:59.:22:03.

at the very heart of the argument, one of the most significant factors.

:22:04.:22:07.

One of the major reasons, I emphasise just one, why a lot of

:22:08.:22:13.

people voted to leave. You are right, it was. Since then, they have

:22:14.:22:17.

been talking down expectations. David Davis has been in a stony,

:22:18.:22:22.

saying to East European workers, it will take years and years and years,

:22:23.:22:26.

don't worry, there is little changing. Do you think it is dead?

:22:27.:22:31.

Yes, and it has been for a long time. It certainly hasn't been

:22:32.:22:37.

achieved, that's for sure! It may be like that Monty Python parrot. I

:22:38.:22:43.

think that having this arbitrary number should never have actually

:22:44.:22:46.

been promised in any case. We have an ageing population and we need

:22:47.:22:50.

immigration. If you have economic growth, and part of the reasons why

:22:51.:22:55.

we have had immigration is because of the economic success we've

:22:56.:22:57.

achieved, and we need these people to come in. With an ageing

:22:58.:23:01.

population and a growing economy, it is imperative that we continue to

:23:02.:23:07.

have immigration. More than half has come outside the EU anyway. You

:23:08.:23:12.

can't put a number on it. If the economy slows down, or if more

:23:13.:23:21.

ageing people keep working... In terms of EU immigration, people have

:23:22.:23:25.

been coming here to work and do the jobs we need done. We will leave it

:23:26.:23:28.

there, but I think we are holding you two hostage. Cos I know you are

:23:29.:23:32.

enjoying it so much! Just when you thought

:23:33.:23:34.

we we were leaving the Europe, or the EU at least, a French

:23:35.:23:37.

word keeps being used Yes, talking about the "acquis"

:23:38.:23:39.

or "acquis communitaire" is de It's the accumulated legislation,

:23:40.:23:43.

legal acts, and court decisions which constitute the body

:23:44.:23:48.

of European Union law. Today the Government is launching

:23:49.:23:50.

a white paper in preparation for a bill that will transfer

:23:51.:23:53.

all that into British law. The perhaps misleadingly titled

:23:54.:23:55.

"Great Repeal Bill" White Paper has been published in the last hour

:23:56.:24:02.

by the Brexit Secretary, We have been clear that we want a

:24:03.:24:12.

smooth and orderly exit, and the Great Repeal Bill is integral to

:24:13.:24:15.

that approach. It will provide clarity and certainty for

:24:16.:24:18.

businesses, workers and consumers across the United Kingdom on the day

:24:19.:24:22.

we leave the EU. It will mean that as we exit the EU and seek a new

:24:23.:24:26.

comedy and special partnership with the EU, we will be doing so from a

:24:27.:24:30.

position where we have the same standards and rules. But it will

:24:31.:24:35.

also ensure that we deliver on our promise to end the supremacy of

:24:36.:24:39.

European Union law in the UK as we exit puts our laws will then be made

:24:40.:24:44.

in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and interpreted not by

:24:45.:24:48.

judges in Luxembourg but by judges across the UK. The question is, how

:24:49.:24:53.

is it done and what done? The White Paper on the question of how gives

:24:54.:25:01.

sweeping powers to the executive. Sweeping because it proposes a power

:25:02.:25:06.

to use delegated legislation to correct and thus change primary

:25:07.:25:13.

legislation and also devolved legislation by delegated

:25:14.:25:15.

legislation. Sweeping because of the sheer scale of the exercise. In

:25:16.:25:22.

those circumstances, one might expect some pretty rigorous

:25:23.:25:27.

safeguards to the use of these sweeping powers, but none are found

:25:28.:25:32.

in the White Paper. David Davis and Kia Starmer there in the Commons.

:25:33.:25:36.

Dominic Raab, is this a cut and paste job rather than a Great Repeal

:25:37.:25:42.

Bill? There are two stages. We want to get the applicable laws from the

:25:43.:25:50.

EU into UK law so we have certainty. We can then decide which repatriated

:25:51.:25:56.

laws we want to keep, where there are EU laws that will I, where we

:25:57.:25:59.

want to revise them, repeal them entirely. This does two things.

:26:00.:26:03.

First, make sure that the people watching this show can hold the

:26:04.:26:08.

people that write the laws of the land accountable. Second, it gives

:26:09.:26:16.

us certain click -- certainty. The Henry VIII close... Explain that,

:26:17.:26:26.

because not everyone will know. -- clause. Let's stick on the certainty

:26:27.:26:31.

issue - do you think it will give certainty and ensure a smooth

:26:32.:26:33.

transition incorporating thousands of pieces of EU legislation into UK

:26:34.:26:41.

law in the first instance? Dominic has let the cat out of the bag, if

:26:42.:26:45.

it was not already, that it incorporates the laws into UK law

:26:46.:26:48.

and then they will start taking them apart, which is why they were keen

:26:49.:26:52.

to get out of the EU in the first place. We're talking about important

:26:53.:26:57.

protections in employment, for consumers and for the environment.

:26:58.:27:01.

Which ones do you think he will remove, not him personally, but the

:27:02.:27:08.

Brexiteers? Many of his colleagues have been talking about employment

:27:09.:27:11.

laws because they see them as holding back business. I have

:27:12.:27:17.

already been clear on this. We have fairly difficult challenges in the

:27:18.:27:20.

workplace, with the so-called gig economy. Let's take the quote from

:27:21.:27:29.

Priti Patel, still in the Cabinet, but who last year said the Institute

:27:30.:27:34.

of Directors, are dozens of laws in proposed, with the cost totalling

:27:35.:27:39.

?32 billion. Money that should be invested in jobs and growth is tied

:27:40.:27:45.

up in red tape and appeasing the EU's bureaucracy. We could deliver a

:27:46.:27:51.

?4.3 billion boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs. So you're going

:27:52.:27:55.

to, or would like to, cut in half the burdens of the EU social and

:27:56.:27:59.

employment legislation? You like the Prime Minister has been clear, we

:28:00.:28:07.

will not Whee Kim workers' rights. You can relieve the pressure on

:28:08.:28:11.

small businesses without Di looting right. For example, the Digital

:28:12.:28:20.

economy -- Whee... The cat is not out of the bag. We have said... You

:28:21.:28:27.

said you would look at the laws you like and those you don't. Just put

:28:28.:28:31.

it in the context of what you are saying, and you will keep the ones

:28:32.:28:35.

you like. The ones you may not like could be the social employment

:28:36.:28:39.

legislation, or Priti Patel is wrong. We want to leave the EU but

:28:40.:28:44.

have the laws of the land in a place where we have certainty for

:28:45.:28:48.

businesses and citizens. Of course, as a process of taking back control,

:28:49.:28:52.

we will work out sensibly, Caerphilly, just as everyone would

:28:53.:28:56.

expect, which laws help and which we want to keep, and which ones hinder

:28:57.:29:00.

and which we want to get rid of. You were a work -- carefully. The Prime

:29:01.:29:13.

Minister is right that we must transpose EU law into our own so

:29:14.:29:16.

that we have certainty. Right, you are agreed. Theresa but we need to

:29:17.:29:21.

be mindful that a number of the red tape regulations have been our own,

:29:22.:29:27.

imposed by ourselves, with gold plating. We need to look at that.

:29:28.:29:33.

These Henry VIII powers, I think, Parliament needs again to be mindful

:29:34.:29:37.

that we don't want just one section of the ministerial team to be able

:29:38.:29:46.

to override primary legislation. We have two years, a diplomatic track,

:29:47.:29:50.

and we have to make sure we're just a laws to reflect the deal we

:29:51.:29:54.

strike. So you will go over the heads of Parliament? No, let's be

:29:55.:29:58.

clear. The constitutional committee of the House of Lords have said that

:29:59.:30:07.

it is imperative if you're going to get legal certainty in two years, to

:30:08.:30:13.

have some Henry VIII clauses. This would be pushing through, as some

:30:14.:30:19.

people would argue, pushing through secondary legislation, which would

:30:20.:30:24.

mean it would not be the same level. Excuse me, Dominic Raab, I am

:30:25.:30:28.

talking. I am saying what the clauses are, and they could be used

:30:29.:30:33.

to actually pass legislation without the same level of scrutiny as

:30:34.:30:39.

exists... You said gathering round. I did not. I said pushing through,

:30:40.:30:44.

passing legislation that means you don't have the full scrutiny of

:30:45.:30:47.

Parliament. Is that something you are worried about?

:30:48.:30:52.

Snoonchts deeply worried T talks about correcting, using secondary

:30:53.:30:58.

legislation, negative resolutions, no debate to correct primary

:30:59.:31:02.

legislation. There is no precedence of that. I accept we are in a

:31:03.:31:05.

completely unprecedented situation and I note... Plenty of... I will

:31:06.:31:11.

come back to you. I know what the Lords are saying, we need some

:31:12.:31:14.

assurance that is no primary legislation affecting important

:31:15.:31:17.

rights for people and protections will be involved and secondly, we

:31:18.:31:23.

could set up an independent body to just oversee what is pushed into

:31:24.:31:26.

secondary legislation. But how long would that take We have had the

:31:27.:31:30.

former clerk of the House of Commons today, and he should know, he is an

:31:31.:31:34.

expert in these things, saying, actually it could take ten years to

:31:35.:31:38.

extricate Britain from EU legislation unless there are some

:31:39.:31:42.

powers the executive has where they'll argue it is for relatively

:31:43.:31:46.

meaner bits of legislation, we will be doing this for ten years. -

:31:47.:31:54.

minor. I this for minor bits that's fine but lets make sure by having

:31:55.:31:58.

proper oversight. Tim Farron has said that - we are going to launch a

:31:59.:32:03.

legislative war, we'll grind the Government's agenda to a stand still

:32:04.:32:08.

unless proper and vigorous safeguards are given over the Great

:32:09.:32:11.

Repeal Bill and the bill is now in the Prime Minister's court. Do you

:32:12.:32:16.

sign up to this? ? Know, it is not our yobbive to make things grind to

:32:17.:32:20.

a halt. It is to make sure there is proper accountability. By all means

:32:21.:32:23.

put some stuff into secondary legislation but make sure there is

:32:24.:32:28.

proper oversight and it is simply not a Government legislation. David

:32:29.:32:34.

Davis said the UK must follow the EU case law up to the point of bricts.

:32:35.:32:38.

Do you accept that? We have to make sure EU law and obligations are met

:32:39.:32:42.

up until the point we leave, we need pragmatism and speed and flexibility

:32:43.:32:47.

to achieve that. Do you think it'll go beyond that European Court of

:32:48.:32:50.

Justice, or you don't want to see... I think there will be an issue

:32:51.:32:54.

around regulatory equivalence, where if we want to export into the EU

:32:55.:32:58.

we'll have to be mindful of their standards which will include the

:32:59.:33:00.

case law but that's something totally different. All right. Thank

:33:01.:33:01.

you both. Now, some of today's younger

:33:02.:33:04.

employees could be working into their 70s before they can

:33:05.:33:11.

claim the state pension. At least, that's one of the ideas

:33:12.:33:14.

being considered by the Government as it looks to make the rising

:33:15.:33:16.

pensions bill more affordable. And while there's no talk

:33:17.:33:19.

of retirement here - JoCo and I long ago abandoned hope

:33:20.:33:21.

of that - not everybody likes the idea of working

:33:22.:33:24.

into their twilight years. ARCHIVE: National Insurance

:33:25.:33:26.

contributions are going to build up a better standard of

:33:27.:33:31.

comfort for the old. Back in the 1940s, not many people

:33:32.:33:34.

lived beyond the age of 70, so they didn't have a

:33:35.:33:37.

very long retirement. Today's 65-year-olds are expected

:33:38.:33:40.

to live into their mid-80s, but this is costly for the public

:33:41.:33:44.

purse, with state pension spending due to go up by ?20 billion

:33:45.:33:47.

over the next 20 years, so the Government is looking at ways

:33:48.:33:50.

to bring down the One proposal is for today's 20-

:33:51.:33:53.

somethings to wait until they're in their 70s

:33:54.:34:04.

before they qualify for the state pension,

:34:05.:34:06.

and as you can imagine,

:34:07.:34:07.

that's going to have big implications you do a physical

:34:08.:34:10.

job, like these guys. I don't have a personal pension,

:34:11.:34:12.

so I'll be relying on the state pension, and I don't

:34:13.:34:16.

think that I'll be able to work till I'm 70 in this

:34:17.:34:18.

physical environment. And in the future, that's

:34:19.:34:21.

going to be a softer So, what are your pension

:34:22.:34:28.

plans for the future? I haven't really thought that far

:34:29.:34:35.

ahead yet, but I need to. But, yeah, got to definitely

:34:36.:34:38.

think about retiring, and I don't really want to be

:34:39.:34:46.

working until I'm 70, definitely Meanwhile, a review

:34:47.:34:48.

by former CBI boss John Cridland recommends

:34:49.:34:52.

that a state pension That's seven years earlier

:34:53.:34:53.

than currently planned. The age changes,

:34:54.:34:58.

together with the removal of the triple lock, which

:34:59.:35:05.

uprates pensions by inflation, earnings,

:35:06.:35:09.

or 2.5%, could result I believe the most

:35:10.:35:14.

this one generation of pensioners can bear

:35:15.:35:17.

is being asked to wait The Government may need to save more

:35:18.:35:21.

money because of the problems of an ageing society

:35:22.:35:25.

on public expenditure. If they should save more

:35:26.:35:27.

money, don't go to the state pension age, look

:35:28.:35:29.

at the indexation arrangements What about those people

:35:30.:35:31.

doing physical jobs - Can they really be

:35:32.:35:36.

expected to work into In hard manual jobs

:35:37.:35:41.

in your mid-60s is a really tough thing to ask, but people can

:35:42.:35:48.

re-skill to do other jobs. Someone on a construction

:35:49.:35:52.

site has very valuable skills

:35:53.:35:53.

in the retail sector. When we go to a DIY store,

:35:54.:35:58.

we talk to someone who has done the role that they are then

:35:59.:36:03.

helping us to do. I'm not saying that it's easy,

:36:04.:36:05.

but it is possible to re-skill The first state pension

:36:06.:36:08.

came in in 1909. You would take your pension book

:36:09.:36:15.

to the post office, cash it in Back then, though,

:36:16.:36:18.

you had to be 70 to qualify, and we could be

:36:19.:36:21.

going back to that. The Government is due

:36:22.:36:23.

to make its response to the state And who better to discuss

:36:24.:36:26.

all of that with than Ros Altmann, So Ros, the state pension age for

:36:27.:36:46.

men is 65 at the moment. It is between 60 and 65 for wi. It is to

:36:47.:36:51.

rise for 66 for both -- for wi. It is to rise to 66 for both by 2020

:36:52.:36:58.

and due it reach 48 for both by 2046. Is that enough for should it

:36:59.:37:02.

go higher? I actually think that we need n my view, to get away from

:37:03.:37:07.

this idea that there is one magic age which you keep pushing up, that

:37:08.:37:12.

everybody has to live by. The problem we've got is we have vast

:37:13.:37:15.

differences in life expectancy across the country. And some people

:37:16.:37:21.

have a life expectancy, 15 or 20 years less than others in our

:37:22.:37:25.

country. Some people have very hard, physical labour jobs, some people

:37:26.:37:29.

started work at 15 and contributed to National Insurance and could be

:37:30.:37:34.

contributing for well over 50 years, taking one-quarter of their salary

:37:35.:37:38.

and yet, unless they live long enough to reach this ever-rising

:37:39.:37:42.

state pension age, they may get absolutely... They may never get

:37:43.:37:47.

anything back. That seems to me to be inflexible in a way that isn't

:37:48.:37:52.

socially enwhich tab. But -- equitable? How would you have a

:37:53.:37:56.

variable pension age? How would you do it? A number of ways. My favoured

:37:57.:38:02.

option would be to have a band of ages which recognises different life

:38:03.:38:05.

expectancy and different job experience. So, for example, if you

:38:06.:38:10.

have contributed to national insurance for 50 or more years, you

:38:11.:38:16.

started work at 15 or 16, then from 65 or 66 you can start it get some

:38:17.:38:21.

state pension. Possibly if you are seriously unwell, in the same way as

:38:22.:38:25.

the private pension system recognises that, there could be some

:38:26.:38:28.

recognition. The problem we've got at the moment is - if you're healthy

:38:29.:38:35.

and wealthy enough to live to the actual state pension starting age,

:38:36.:38:38.

and you don't take it, you can get a lot more. But if you are unhealthy

:38:39.:38:45.

or not wealthy enough to wait, it's tough luck. Until you reach that

:38:46.:38:50.

age, 67, 68, whatever it is going to be, or even more, you get not a

:38:51.:38:55.

penny and that seems to me, not to reflect the flexibility that we need

:38:56.:38:59.

and probably should accommodate in our system. Can I check one issue of

:39:00.:39:04.

principle with you. All the projections are based on the

:39:05.:39:08.

assumption that longevity is rising and people are living longer and

:39:09.:39:14.

they are doing the kind of jobs that is not manual labour where it is

:39:15.:39:18.

really difficult to carry on after you are 60, never mind 65. But I

:39:19.:39:23.

also see reports that today's younger generation is in many ways

:39:24.:39:27.

less healthy than their parents. Are we sure people are going to keep on

:39:28.:39:32.

living longer? And that's the other reason why I think continually

:39:33.:39:35.

planning to increase and push the age up is not the right way to

:39:36.:39:40.

manage state - or not the best way to manage state pension policy. In

:39:41.:39:43.

fact, life expectancy has fallen in the last two or three years. And we

:39:44.:39:49.

haven't fully understood why yet. What we do need, though, and I think

:39:50.:39:53.

what is more powerful in controlling the costs of state pension in our

:39:54.:39:56.

ageing population is perhaps to look at the way in which the state

:39:57.:40:01.

pension increases each year. Let me come on to that. The other big issue

:40:02.:40:05.

is the triple lock, everybody calls t the Government is committed to it,

:40:06.:40:10.

I think the Labour opposition is committed to T so state pensions go

:40:11.:40:16.

up -- committed to it. State pensions go up by CPI, or average

:40:17.:40:21.

earnings or two-and-a-half %, whichever is the higher. That's

:40:22.:40:25.

right. It's expensive. You get signs the Government is trying to find

:40:26.:40:29.

ways of getting out of this, at least for the next election and so

:40:30.:40:39.

on. Should we keep it, adjust it or drop it? To be honest, I would be in

:40:40.:40:44.

favour of keeping it until 2020. They have to do that. We have

:40:45.:40:47.

committed to do so. But after that, looking at it differently because

:40:48.:40:50.

the 2.5% doesn't make any sense from an economic or social perspective.

:40:51.:40:53.

It is just a random number, picked from the air in a way. But also, I

:40:54.:40:59.

think what Labour hasn't necessarily understood and what pensioners

:41:00.:41:02.

generally need to realise is that the triple lock is a bit of a trick.

:41:03.:41:06.

It doesn't cover the whole of the state pension and indeed the triple

:41:07.:41:12.

lock does not protect properly, the poorest and the oldest pensioners,

:41:13.:41:16.

who are the very groups you would most want to protect. They don't get

:41:17.:41:23.

the triple lock. They don't? The Pension Credit, the means-tested

:41:24.:41:26.

benefit for all the pensioners who don't have enough income from their

:41:27.:41:30.

state pension. From the state pension alone. Is not triple locked.

:41:31.:41:36.

Only the basic state pension in the old state system is protected to

:41:37.:41:40.

around ?120 a week. The new state pension is fully protected up to

:41:41.:41:44.

?160 but only available to the youngest pensioners, so it is the

:41:45.:41:49.

wrong way around. So you are saying there are 1.6 million pensioners. I

:41:50.:41:54.

mean pensioners are much better off, on average, than they used to be 20

:41:55.:42:02.

or 30 years ago On average but... My but is coming but 1.6 million

:42:03.:42:07.

pensioners, one in seven are still living in poverty and you are saying

:42:08.:42:12.

the triple lock, that many people would most benefit from the triple

:42:13.:42:14.

lock, they are actually not. They don't. Absolutely. I think we need

:42:15.:42:21.

to reconsider this idea. The 2.5% adds hugely to the forecast

:42:22.:42:24.

long-term costs of delivering the state pension. It adds billions of

:42:25.:42:29.

pounds. If we just love to a double lock, that would take the pressure

:42:30.:42:33.

off the rises in state pension age and will also be fairer if we can

:42:34.:42:38.

apply it properly... To the poorer pensioners. Yes. All right. We'll

:42:39.:42:42.

leave it there. A lot to be discussed in the years ahead before

:42:43.:42:46.

the parties decide on manifesto for 2020. Only another 30 years of work.

:42:47.:42:53.

Now, the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is appearing

:42:54.:42:55.

in front of a Labour Party disciplinary panel to answer

:42:56.:42:58.

allegations that he's brought the party into disrepute.

:42:59.:42:59.

Mr Livingstone is currently suspended from the party

:43:00.:43:02.

after a series of interviews last year in which he suggested -

:43:03.:43:05.

amongst other things - that Adolf Hitler supported Zionism

:43:06.:43:07.

before his appointment as Chancellor of Germany in 1933.

:43:08.:43:12.

Here's a clip of Mr Livingstone's appearance on the Daily Politics

:43:13.:43:15.

last April, when he was asked about those comments

:43:16.:43:17.

If I was to criticise the South African Government you wouldn't say

:43:18.:43:36.

I was racist, you would say I was critical of that Government.

:43:37.:43:41.

Blurring these things undermines the importance of anti-Semitism. A real

:43:42.:43:47.

anti-Semite doesn't hate the Jews in Israel they hate them in Stoke

:43:48.:43:54.

Newington or Islington. It is a physical loathing.

:43:55.:43:56.

And this morning, our cameras caught up with Mr Livingstone as he entered

:43:57.:43:59.

that disciplinary hearing, and he was asked again

:44:00.:44:01.

I simply said back in 1933, Hitler's Government signed a deal

:44:02.:44:05.

with the Zionist movement which would mean that Germany's Jewish

:44:06.:44:07.

community were moved to what is now Israel.

:44:08.:44:10.

That's very different to saying that Hitler supported

:44:11.:44:12.

The SS set up training camps so that German Jews,

:44:13.:44:24.

who were going to go there, could be trained to cope with a very

:44:25.:44:28.

different sort of country when they got there.

:44:29.:44:34.

We're joined by Mike Catts from the Jewish Labour movement. And

:44:35.:44:44.

Jonathan Rosenhead, who is giving evidence

:44:45.:44:45.

We heard the first clip. I take it it is all right that it is all right

:44:46.:45:03.

to hate Jews in Israel, as long as you don't hate them anywhere else in

:45:04.:45:08.

the world. Anti-Semitism has had hatred at its heart but it isn't

:45:09.:45:12.

expressed at hatred, it is discrimination, it is not wanting to

:45:13.:45:17.

live next to them or the rest of things. A whole range of things. He

:45:18.:45:22.

said it is OK to hate them in Israel. No I think he was pointing

:45:23.:45:25.

out that talking about Israel and Jews is inappropriate much this is

:45:26.:45:28.

about Jews, it has nothing to do with Israel. He didn't say that, I

:45:29.:45:31.

have to say. What I actually said, though, we have to listen to what he

:45:32.:45:36.

said because he is defending himself against claims of anti-Semitism. He

:45:37.:45:40.

said "You are only a real anti-Semite if you hate all Jews,

:45:41.:45:46.

not just those in Israel." So you can hate Jews in Israel and still...

:45:47.:45:51.

You are reading that in. It is up to you, it is not in the words. What

:45:52.:45:53.

else would you read into it? Criticism of Israel is not criticism

:45:54.:46:05.

of Jews, and it is not anti-Semitic. What do you think? I think the

:46:06.:46:11.

reputational damage of his comments on the Labour Party... That is what

:46:12.:46:17.

is really at stake here. He came in last year to defend an MP after

:46:18.:46:21.

comments she made. She immediately put her hand up and said, what I

:46:22.:46:25.

have done is wrong, and she is a shining example of how you can go on

:46:26.:46:30.

a journey of education and realise why doing something is anti-Semitic.

:46:31.:46:37.

Is Ken Livingstone anti-Semitic? Very hard to understand someone who

:46:38.:46:42.

turns victimhood into Calabria late -- collaboration. I was a GLA

:46:43.:46:53.

candidate and he was on radio London telling people that Hitler

:46:54.:46:56.

supporting Zionism was a very matter-of-fact thing. When we go out

:46:57.:47:01.

on the doorstep in Jewish areas, a question we get asked is why he has

:47:02.:47:06.

not been expelled yet. That is why the NEC has referred this to the

:47:07.:47:12.

panel. What is the point of making all these comments? He wasn't asked

:47:13.:47:19.

about Hitler or Zionism, or in fact anything to do with the pre-2nd

:47:20.:47:24.

World War period, so why make these comments? One may wonder why he made

:47:25.:47:29.

that the tour. Well, I am asking you. Everything he said is factually

:47:30.:47:35.

correct. Will come onto that in a second. Hitler and the Nazis

:47:36.:47:41.

negotiated for many years and got concessions from the Zionist

:47:42.:47:45.

movement. Both movements wanted to get the Jews out of Germany. Do you

:47:46.:47:51.

think it is offensive to talk about Adolf Hitler and not as and Zionism

:47:52.:47:57.

in the same breath all these years after 6 million Jews died in the

:47:58.:48:03.

Holocaust? The Holocaust was one of the major seminal events of our

:48:04.:48:07.

political experience. It is a conference reference by all people

:48:08.:48:12.

in political discussion, the same as apartheid, to say that you cannot

:48:13.:48:18.

talk about Israel in the same breath as Nazism is a restriction of free

:48:19.:48:24.

expression. The Holocaust educational trust is an independent

:48:25.:48:28.

body that has done a lot of work in education. It points out when

:48:29.:48:32.

commenting on Mr Livingstone's comments that he is throwing around

:48:33.:48:36.

the Holocaust like political confetti, and that deliberate misuse

:48:37.:48:39.

of the Holocaust is anti-Semitic as he has a duty of care. He is high

:48:40.:48:44.

profile and has done some important job, so he should have a better

:48:45.:48:47.

sense not to say these things he thinks he can justify them on narrow

:48:48.:48:54.

academic grounds. Either I think that in dispute, but that is by the

:48:55.:48:58.

way. He should have better sense than to repeat some of this stuff

:48:59.:49:03.

this morning. I don't know how he thinks that we'll win over the panel

:49:04.:49:07.

or repair his reputational damage with the Jewish community. The fact

:49:08.:49:11.

that Ken Livingstone says, when we're talking about Zionism and not

:49:12.:49:15.

as in, 6 million Jews were murdered on the orders of Adolf Hitler, and

:49:16.:49:20.

he makes a connection between that and the existence of the state of

:49:21.:49:25.

Israel, is that helpful on the doorstep for the Labour Party? I

:49:26.:49:28.

think the Labour Party should be grown-up enough to have a serious

:49:29.:49:34.

discussion, instead of having red lines and saying you cannot discuss

:49:35.:49:42.

this. The Jewish labour movement has many members. On the question of

:49:43.:49:50.

Jewish people identifying with Israel, researchers found that 91%

:49:51.:49:55.

of them do. You are kidding yourself if you think this is inoffensive. We

:49:56.:49:59.

have had comments from the Labour Party and across the Jewish

:50:00.:50:06.

community, Chief Rabbis, trusts, and lots of people have said this is

:50:07.:50:09.

offensive, in a very common-sense way. It has been said that it is

:50:10.:50:18.

biased and that this panel is being held in secret - what do you say to

:50:19.:50:24.

that? I must say, I find this attitude very puzzling. Ken

:50:25.:50:28.

Livingstone must be aware that his remarks were gratuitously offensive.

:50:29.:50:31.

If he did not intend that at the time, he knew afterwards and he kept

:50:32.:50:36.

repeating them. This issue is about the reputation of the Labour Party,

:50:37.:50:41.

and how it has impacted on it, his remarks. He came out to defend

:50:42.:50:47.

remarks by an MP who herself said she had been anti-Semitic by trying

:50:48.:50:53.

to say they were not anti-Semitic. Things like, everything Hitler did

:50:54.:50:56.

in Germany was legal. That is not about Israel, that is about

:50:57.:51:03.

anti-Semitism, so I think it is very difficult to quite understand what

:51:04.:51:08.

his idea of anti-Semitism truly is. Do you think he is anti-Semitic?

:51:09.:51:13.

What he has done has certainly come across that way. But the decision

:51:14.:51:21.

that needs to be made by the panel is, what impact did it have on the

:51:22.:51:25.

Labour Party? Did it bring the party into dispute before the May oral

:51:26.:51:30.

election? Does he have anything to apologise for? No. The people who

:51:31.:51:38.

have attacked him and Jeremy Corbyn have brought much more offence and

:51:39.:51:44.

disrepute on the party than he has. You may join me canvassing in

:51:45.:51:48.

Finchley and Golders Green and other areas. London has the largest Jewish

:51:49.:51:53.

population in the country, and where we live, we know that there are lots

:51:54.:51:58.

of Jewish voters. Tell me they don't ask why Ken hasn't been dispelled

:51:59.:52:09.

from the party. Frankly, honestly, we have the mainstream Jewish

:52:10.:52:12.

opinion on our side in this case. We have to leave it there. Thank you

:52:13.:52:17.

for coming in. I knew we would not get through the

:52:18.:52:20.

morning without mentioning Hitler, and we didn't!

:52:21.:52:23.

Now, back to our main story - the triggering of Article 50.

:52:24.:52:26.

After her statement in the House, the Prime Minister then took

:52:27.:52:29.

questions from MPs for three and a half hours.

:52:30.:52:31.

She told journalists last night that she only had an apple and a few

:52:32.:52:34.

nuts to sustain her before that marathon session in the Commons.

:52:35.:52:37.

The Article 50 process is now underway, and in accordance with the

:52:38.:52:45.

wishes of the British people, the United Kingdom is leaving the

:52:46.:52:48.

This is an historic moment from which there can be no

:52:49.:52:51.

The Prime Minister says that no deal is better than a

:52:52.:52:59.

But the reality is, no deal IS is a bad deal.

:53:00.:53:12.

What we on these benches have become accustomed

:53:13.:53:15.

to the views of members on the other side of the House being incapable of

:53:16.:53:19.

understanding that the people of Scotland voted to remain in the

:53:20.:53:21.

The substance of the deal that we achieve, and I'm

:53:22.:53:27.

interested in the outcomes of this deal, will be the best possible deal

:53:28.:53:30.

for the people of the whole of the United Kingdom.

:53:31.:53:35.

And I especially welcome that we want a special

:53:36.:53:37.

relationship with the EU based on friendship,

:53:38.:53:40.

trade and many other collaborations, once we are an

:53:41.:53:42.

This day, of all days, the Liberal Democrats

:53:43.:53:48.

will not roll over as the official opposition have done.

:53:49.:53:51.

Our children and our grandchildren will judge all of us

:53:52.:53:58.

I am determined that I will look my children

:53:59.:54:02.

say that I did everything to prevent this calamity

:54:03.:54:07.

that the Prime Minister has today chosen.

:54:08.:54:11.

It's never been more true - the devil will be in the

:54:12.:54:14.

As that detail emerges, will the Prime Minister ensure that

:54:15.:54:23.

everyone in her teens stop the practice which has been

:54:24.:54:26.

so prevalent of claiming that every awkward

:54:27.:54:28.

question is evidence of a desire to overturn the will of the British

:54:29.:54:31.

Because nothing will more surely destroy that unity of purpose

:54:32.:54:34.

It was pretty lively in the Commons yesterday. Theresa May has now

:54:35.:54:46.

delivered her Article 50 letter to politicians.

:54:47.:54:49.

but politicians don't always follow through when they ask

:54:50.:54:51.

the public a question, and the public give them an answer

:54:52.:54:54.

That's a dilemma that's facing councillors in the Isle of Wight,

:54:55.:54:57.

who are putting an even more weighty decision to a public vote.

:54:58.:55:00.

When the Isle of Wight Council invited the public to vote for the

:55:01.:55:05.

name of their chain ferry, officers stated that a certain

:55:06.:55:08.

name, Floaty McFloatface, would not be accepted.

:55:09.:55:12.

And you guessed it, a petition was sooned signed by more than 1000

:55:13.:55:15.

people, calling for it to be named just that.

:55:16.:55:18.

This week the council leader slapped down his officials

:55:19.:55:20.

and said if this name was the most popular,

:55:21.:55:23.

This was all the fault, of course of Boaty McBoatface, the

:55:24.:55:31.

name suggested by a public poll for a polar research ship which was

:55:32.:55:36.

blocked by ministers and given to this sub instead.

:55:37.:55:38.

We just don't know what's good for us.

:55:39.:55:40.

Strictly viewers voted John Segreant back on the

:55:41.:55:42.

competition, week after week, until he bowed out voluntarily.

:55:43.:55:44.

Lawmakers overturned a public vote to name a

:55:45.:55:49.

And in Austin, Texas, people tried unsuccessfully

:55:50.:55:59.

to name the city's waste management service, after Limp Bizkit front

:56:00.:56:01.

Some people at first thought this man was a joke

:56:02.:56:07.

Voters have until the end of next week to make suggestions for the

:56:08.:56:16.

floating bridge, before the top six names also go to the polls,

:56:17.:56:20.

and as the BBC remains impartial, we will just say that we do not

:56:21.:56:24.

favour Floaty McFloatface above any of the other names available.

:56:25.:56:28.

And we can speak now to Sally Perry, the journalist

:56:29.:56:30.

who broke the story of this attempted democratic outrage.

:56:31.:56:36.

She writes for the local news website 'On the Wight'.

:56:37.:56:41.

That's a good name. Hello. It's going to be called Floaty

:56:42.:56:51.

McFloatface, isn't it? Oti I guess, you've seen the number of people who

:56:52.:56:54.

have signed a petition so far, and it's over 2000. It is known locally

:56:55.:57:02.

as Floaty anyway, so calling it Floaty McFloatface is well-suited.

:57:03.:57:12.

Maybe it will just be shortened. Whether it would stand the test of

:57:13.:57:16.

time, I don't know, but at the moment, everybody seems very happy

:57:17.:57:20.

about it and it is putting a smile on lots of faces, just even the

:57:21.:57:23.

thought of it. Once you see it on the side of the floating bridge, I

:57:24.:57:27.

think it could become a tourist attraction. I'm sure it will! Whose

:57:28.:57:32.

bright idea was it to ask the public what this bridge should be named?

:57:33.:57:37.

One of the councillors raised it in a meeting a couple of weeks ago, and

:57:38.:57:41.

then a press release came out on the council last week with that little

:57:42.:57:45.

Bthe bottom, and you know what happens when you tell people that

:57:46.:57:51.

they can't do something! -- with that little veto. Did you do this to

:57:52.:58:04.

get -- did they do this to get publicity? He is not a councillor

:58:05.:58:11.

who is shy of media attention, so you could be right! Is it a nice

:58:12.:58:18.

bridge? It is brilliant, such fun to ride on, a real novelty. It is a

:58:19.:58:26.

lifeline for a lot of people. I live in the south of the island, so it is

:58:27.:58:30.

a novelty when I go on it. When visitors come to the island to see

:58:31.:58:34.

us, we always take them on the floating bridge. Sally Perry, thank

:58:35.:58:40.

you for that. I look forward to seeing Floaty next time I am in the

:58:41.:58:44.

Isle of Wight. Have you ever vetoed a name, Roz? The last time I heard

:58:45.:58:50.

about it was when I was in primary school and we were asked to come up

:58:51.:58:55.

with names the teams, and a teacher said about one suggestion, you can

:58:56.:58:58.

have whatever you want, but not that! Lets ask the viewers what we

:58:59.:59:04.

should be called. Time to end this programme!

:59:05.:59:05.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

:59:06.:59:12.

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

:59:13.:59:36.

Marine Le Pen has her eyes on the French presidency.

:59:37.:59:40.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS