23/06/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Theresa May unveils a "fair and serious" offer to EU citizens


which would grant a new "settled status" to migrants who've lived


Police investigating the Grenfell Tower fire say


they are considering a range of criminal charges,


including manslaughter, after cladding and insulation failed


It's exactly a year since Britain voted to leave the European Union.


We're joined by leading lights from the Leave and Remain campaigns


to reflect on that momentous decision and a tumultuous


Jeremy Corbyn has proven that anti-austerity policies are popular!


And things can often get spicy when politicians come


And with me for the duration, two key players from the referendum


campaign which led to the vote exactly a year ago today.


Matthew Elliott was chief executive of Vote Leave


and Lucy Thomas was deputy director of Britain Stronger In Europe.


She is now head of Brexit advice at a PR firm.


So let's just rewind one year and remind ourselves of that moment


during the BBC's coverage when it became clear that Britain had


Well, at 20 minutes to five, we can now say the decision taken


in 1975 by this country to join the Common Market has been reversed


We are absolutely clear now that there is no way


It looks as though the gap's going to be something like 52-48,


so a four-point lead for leaving the EU, and that's the result


of this referendum, which has been preceded by weeks and months


of argument and dispute and all the rest of it.


The British people have spoken and the answer is, we're out.


Matthew Elliott, how did you feel? Elated, very tired as well. It had


been a long campaign. You are not alone, I think! And how do you feel


now? Still elated. I think that we haven't seen Project Fear, the


economy is going well, negotiations have started so we are on track. How


did you feel? The opposite, very sad, emotional, looking at what was


happening to the pound, to the market. I find it astonishing that


Matthew is still elated given that real wages have gone down. We have


had inflation and prices going up. People are already feeling squeezed.


For me, actually being involved in the campaign, I was concerned at


what happened were we to leave and what consequences be, and we still


don't know where we will end up, we barely know what the UK position is,


let alone the final outcome, and so unfortunately I am still pretty


pessimistic, but certainly that night it was a real shock, and let's


not forget that we thought, and lots of people assumed, that we would


win. So I think that that shock was real, both our internal polling,


with Nigel Farage conceding right away, and so it was both a shock and


a disappointment. Where you shocked to win? I wasn't. Ever since David


Cameron came back with his deal and Boris Johnson came on the Leave


side, I thought there was a good chance we would win. I thought --


was never overly confident though. But events have happened, dear boy,


to coin a phrase, and a lot has changed. You say you feel the same


way as you did when the result was announced. What do you make of the


tumultuous year we have had? It's been incredible and internationally


as well, the election of President Trump, and in France, the election


of president macron, so politics seems to be shaken up, and there


seems to be a big push against the establishment, a big push against


the status quo. Did you think it would have that sort of impact? Do


you think some of it stemmed from Brexit? I think it all flowed from


the antiestablishment feeling, which I think can be traced back to the


financial crisis. That led to some of the things Lucy talked about in


terms of lower wages. When we look now, after what has happened, do you


think that things have changed in people's attitude towards Brexit? I


think, in terms of whether they regret voting a certain way, first


of all, it was incredibly divisive, so I think it's unfortunate in what


it has under politics. I think families and friendships were


divided. I suppose that is nature of a referendum. It's unfortunate when,


anecdotally, you hear people saying that they voted to leave but they


didn't realise that prices would go up, or whether they would have


strawberries this week, and we have had a dramatic drop in the number of


people applying to become nurses this country from the EU, something


like 96% down. You do hear people regretting. But what I think is


interesting is that only 22% of people want to stop the Brexit


process, so there is an overwhelming consensus that we do need to get on


with it, and I entirely agree that the decision has been taken and


there is no going back. It should be got on with, but I do think, where


Matthew and I will probably disagree, that's about the terms.


Where is the mandate for what terms, and what happened in the


negotiation? Do you think the mandate has changed? Do you accept


that people are only now realising what they voted for or do you think


that they know full well what Brexit meant? I think they knew full well.


There was a poll when 70% of people wanted Brexit to be enacted, and


there is this term of the re levers, they saw the economy didn't collapse


and they are quite comfortable. So you think many remain those would


want to get on with it and that uncertainty is worse than leaving?


Very much so, they want the government to get on with it and


they like the fact that both Labour and manifesto that Labour and


Conservative manifesto is at in them.


Now, if you're watching the Daily Politics you're


a political junkie, at least we like to think that's the reason,


so you'll undoubtedly be across the full range


But if you caught Question Time last night you'll have seen something


So our quiz for today is: What happened next?


Jeremy Corbyn has proven that anti-austerity policies are popular!


The Tories and the Blairites lost that election.


We have to find ways in which to continue to put more


resources into social care in a way...


He just has to go on for longer if you shout out.


So you might as well keep quiet and let him hear what he has to say.


And at the end of the show Matthew and Lucy will give


Theresa May sat down for dinner with the 27 other EU leaders


in Brussels last night and she made a quote "fair and serious offer"


on the rights of EU citizens currently living here in the UK.


So let's take a look at what she proposed...


The Prime Minister said that, at the point when Brexit happens,


many of the EU citizens living here will be able to get


what she called "settled status" here in the UK.


That means that they would have the same rights


and entitlements as UK citizens in terms of healthcare,


benefits and pensions, according to the government.


However, EU citizens will only be guaranteed to get "settled status"


if they've been living in the UK for five years before


It's thought that the cut-off date could be any time


between March this year, when the Brexit process began,


and the end of the negotiations, which are due in March 2019.


Theresa May also said that the rights of EU citizens


will be enshrined in UK law and therefore enforced


by UK courts, not by the European Court of Justice -


that could be a potential sticking point in the negotiations.


It's not yet clear whether the offer will apply to the children


and spouses of EU citizens living here, but we're expecting


to get more details from the government on Monday.


The offer made by Theresa May last night is dependent on the EU


reciprocating with an equivalent offer for UK citizens currently


living in the EU and it's not yet clear if that will happen.


Let's talk to a familiar face, our Brussels reporter, Adam Fleming.


Adam, how has this offer gone down with other EU leaders?


It's fair to say it's been pretty lukewarm, the response to Theresa


May's fair and serious offer, as she called it. We have seen quite a feud


EU figures arriving this morning at a summit not particularly happy with


this offer. The Austrian Chancellor welcoming the fact it was made, but


saying there was a lot more work to be done. Jean-Claude Juncker, the


president of the European Commission, saying that it just


didn't go far enough. He published Europe minister tweeting that it


wasn't substantial enough. We have just had a tweet from the MEP who


will coordinate the European Parliament response to this saying


that it is just not enough. So a flavour of how this offer is going


down with people. Actually, officials are waiting to see the


detail. They are treating this as the starter rather than the main


course, and they are waiting for Monday, when more details will be


published in Parliament, and negotiations -- negotiators in


Brussels will go through it line by line. So far, we haven't had any


offer of response from the EU in terms of what they may give British


citizens living in other EU countries. Quite the opposite,


actually, sorry to correct you. The EU made its offer a couple of weeks


ago in a big position paper they set out right at the start of their


negotiating stance, when they were sitting it out, and basically be


feeling is that they have been pretty generous. They talked about


things like giving EU nationals who lived in the UK the right to bring


over a spouse or a child lives elsewhere in the EU after Brexit.


They talked about people who lived in the UK at any point being able to


come to the UK and take up their rights and, crucially, they want it


all to be guaranteed by judges in the European courts of justice. So


they say they have been very clear, they have made their proposal and


they are waiting for the detail of the British side. In terms of where


we go from here, do you think there has been disappointment on the


British side to the fact that there hasn't been universal support from


EU leaders? I think Theresa May may come away from this feeling that her


offer that she thought was there, Sirius, big and generous hasn't been


welcomed with an alloy and joy from the side. Either that or number ten


will have been expecting this because this is what happened in a


negotiation. From my point of view, this isn't really the end of it at


all, it's just the beginning of the beginning, and there will be a lot


more toing and froing about these issues, and it will be fascinating


to see what staff the EU put in their original offer that they are


willing to come from eyes on so they can move to this point. What staff


is in Theresa May's offer that she can up the anti on. At this issue


has to be sorted out right at the start because the EU has said this


is one of the priority issues, along with the Brexit Bill that have to be


sorted before negotiations can move the second phase, talking about the


future of relationships on trade and things like that with the EU and UK


after Brexit. Joining me now is the Conservative


MEP Daniel Hannan. Theresa May made it clear last night


that this offer is conditional on British citizens in the EU getting a


reciprocal deal. Would it have been better just to have made her offer


on a unilateral basis and left it with the EU to come back with a


counter offer? In practice, we have two unilateral offers an citizens


rights, so it's a technicality. I am glad she has done this. During the


referendum campaign, I canvassed more than one EU national and I said


the only change would be that they didn't vote any more in European


elections. I am pleased that this issue can give reassurance to


people. There are many EU nationals who have made their lives there and


who have been in a state of limbo and I hope they will now see there


is no threat to a change in their status. What you say that, but at


the moment it is an offer from the British government but, as said, it


is reliant on what you leaders say and do in response. And many of


them, Jean-Claude Juncker, being one, said it is not sufficient. Mark


Ritter has said that their 1000 questions left unanswered. Let's


hope we don't have to go through them all. But that isn't a


guarantee. People cannot be reassured that their future lives,


workplace and residency is guaranteed. In practice, that was


always guaranteed. The idea that we would start deporting a lot of


people... That makes it sound quite strong. It's an unthinkable


condition. This is the final confirmation of something everybody


connected with new, that we were never going to start taking away the


accrued rights. I would stress the generosity of what is on the table,


in the sense that there are three times as many EU nationals here as


there are Brits in Europe, so rather than treating people as a bargaining


chip we have decided to guarantee and take that off the table before


moving on to other issues, which I think is a very open-handed and


decent gesture. What if it isn't reciprocated? Despite the fact there


was an offer from the EU, or they set out what they would like, if it


is not reciprocated and there is a stumbling block over this issue over


who will guarantee people's rights, the European Court of Justice or


whether it will be British courts, then what happens? The negotiations


fall down. I think we stick to this offer, but I think it would be crazy


to have a bilateral deal overseen by the court of only one side. That is


saying that the captain of one team is also the referee. Imagine if I


said that all future deals would ultimately be arbitrated by the


British Privy Council. That would be ridiculous as it is only one side.


What we should do is what the EU does in its relations with every


other country, which is to have an arbitration mechanism including the


ECJ and representatives of the other side.


In the Evening Standard editorial George Osborne says that any


Europeans living here will be able to remain here and use the public


services they help to pay for, we would not need a complicated


reciprocal arrangement with Europe or provide a role for the European


Court of Justice, I think we should just do it. I think that is what


will happen. Why is it being labelled as a conditional offer? We


will see when the details are published next week but effectively


we have an offer from the EU and the UK. If you want to call that two


unilateral offers rather than a reciprocal one fine. I never thought


of as any chance of us not doing this but it is nice to have it in


black-and-white. You have said that repeatedly on the programme. Is it


wise to make two unilateral offers? Should Theresa May not wait to see


what is going to beat Alan T by other EU leaders because we are


talking about beds abroad as well? The EU has made it clear there will


not move on to talking about things like free-trade deal until this


issue is sorted out so she was right to deal with that shot away. Are you


reassured? On the face of it it seems what many EU citizens wanted.


There are questions but broadly speaking do you welcome this? Yes. I


understand why you would use it as part of the negotiation process. The


fact the EU put it off and on the table several weeks ago which was


very detailed and quite demanding in terms of what it was calling for,


this ECJ point is going to be a sticking point because the EU is


saying we do not trust you on a case-by-case basis to make these


decisions fairly, so the point about how you arbitrate, who is it both


sides will agree to? The EU will be kept cool than over the ECJ and


other issues. It is a critical point because we are talking about


people's rates than they have to be guaranteed by someone. If that is a


sticking point what happens? If it is a year's time and there is no


agreement, who is going to oversee people's rates here and abroad? We


will oversee it. You are right to say this could be a sticking point


in other parts of the talks. If the EU really does... One possibility is


the putting it on the table to take it off later but if it is going to


try to stick to this principle that it gets to be the referee as one of


the two sides are dizzying does not want a deal and that would be sad.


What you propose? Some sort of joint arbitration? Yes. ECJ judges get to


decide if that is fear or not. Whether it is the EU Canada trade


deal or the deal between the EU and others, there is an arbitration


mechanism that takes account of the two sides and it would be


extraordinary if the European Union were to say in the case of Britain


uniquely, unlike in every other day or we have done, we are going to be


judge and jury. It is insulting to say we do not have a functioning


legal process in this country. I hope the 27 governments, who are


much more pragmatic than some of these loud voices and the


commission, would say not to throw the deal out. The 27 do not all


agree. Angela Merkel welcome the offer from Theresa May but other


leaders want more in terms of the rights of spouses, and children.


None of that has been spelt out. We have not seen the detail. Could this


be a case where the 27 start to disagree over whether this offer


should be accepted? It's genuinely is a fair and generous offer. What


it is offering in terms of spouses and children, EU nationals would


have the chance to have exactly the same rights as British nationals


except for voting. It is difficult to see anybody seeing that is not


enough. That is as much as you can realistically... People living here


for five years before this unknown cut-off date will get settled status


and other Biba will be given the opportunity to continue living here


and get the status after five years. What will happen to their rights in


the interim? I assume it will carry on as now. We will have to see the


White Paper. If any EU nationals want to make a long-term commitment


to this country they are very welcome to apply for UK nationality.


We love to have people who want to make a success of their British


identity. Do you think that would be an enticement for people and also a


guarantee that they would have enough time to build up settled


status or apply for British citizenship? Some people will be on


the downside of the argument of the referendum campaign who would not be


happy with that. It comes down to people voted for. People thought


they were reducing, some people thought they were reducing the


number of migrants. We saw the number of hate crimes going up. Be


clear, there was a spike... There was not. They said there was a


spike. I am going to let you come back on it. It was related, it came


after the EU referendum, they do not know if it was a direct result or if


those people would have committed those crimes, but there was a spike


and it came down. There is a website where people are invited to logon


and advertise they have been victims hate crimes. There were an extra 31


complaints and 96 hour period. None of which led to an increase in


prosecutions and several of which were complaining about Nigel Farage.


It was people letting off steam. The police press release said it should


not be read as an increase. People are making this ludicrous claim


there was a sudden rise in the heat crimes which bears no relation...


There were more complaints but we broke down those statistics at the


time... 31 people... We will have to look at that again. You accept


claims like that are in century? There is increased animosity towards


EU migrants. I know lots of people anecdotal Lee who have been told to


go home. People walking down the road or on the tube being told, I


voted so you would go home. It may not happen everywhere but it


happens. There were three events held up as proof of as being an in


tolerant country. He is a positive attack tapas bar and the famous


anti-polish graffiti. The tapas bar was a burglary. This opposed


anti-Polish graffiti was by a Pole. Even if they were not actually


recorded as real crimes are you seeing you should dismiss the


feelings of people? It goes without saying that any acts of intolerance


or verbal violence or abuse are reprehensible. I hope we do not have


to say that. It is not the case there has been any demonstrable


increase of these attacks as a result of the referendum. We remain


one of the countries in Europe with the most positive view of


immigration, the most positive view of difference, of multiracial


marriages. It is ludicrous to be beating ourselves up like this when


there are countries that have genuine problems. Or people might


see it is important to be realistic about some of the reactions after


the referendum. In terms of the reactions of EU leaders to this


offer, were you disappointed? Do you think it does not bode well in terms


of the other areas of negotiation and getting a deal? How absurd it


would have been if Theresa May had come out and said all British


citizens living elsewhere in the EU should be adjudicated by British


courts. If she had said that people would have said how rubbish it was.


Why are people allowing the EU to have a say on this? Are you worried


about the future of the negotiations of already EU leaders are making in


your mind unreasonable objections? Doesn't bode ill for the


negotiations ahead? I am not worried. The start of the talks this


week, I was impressed with the dawn from both sides, it seemed to be


constructive and win-win. Some breaking news just as we came


on air, and a man has been charged with terrorism-related murder


and attempted murder after the incident in Finsbury Park


in London where a van was driven Darren Osborne, 47, from Cardiff,


was arrested in the early hours of Monday morning,


after the incident in which one person was killed and nine


others taken to hospital, and today the Crown Prosecution


Service have authorised charges. The Metropolitan Police have said


they will consider manslaughter charges over the fire


at the Grenfell Tower The police have confirmed


that the fire was caused by a faulty fridge freezer and also say


that the cladding on the outside of the building failed


fire safety tests. 79 people are missing or presumed


dead after the blaze destroyed 150 Let's have a listen to what one


of the lead detectives had We are looking at every criminal


offence, from manslaughter onwards. We are looking at every health


and safety and fire safety offence, and we are reviewing every


investigation, every company at the moment involved


in the building and refurbishment Let's get the latest


from our reporter Sarah Smith, We just heard from the lead


detective. One of the things raised by people affected if they feel they


have not had the true numbers of those affected or killed. Very


difficult at this particular stage. Will they be reassured by what we


have heard? We heard those numbers again today, 79 known to be dead or


missing presumed dead, nine formal identifications. She was asked


specifically about the fact people are worried there are many more. She


did not shy away from the fact she feared there would be more but they


have to be extremely careful and cannot go bandying figures around


just because there is pressure on them to admit there are more. They


have not hidden away from the fact. One of the things they were


concerned about was they would be these hidden victims. She said the


terrible reality is we may never find on identified all of those who


died in the fire. One of the concerns is that there are people


who would not naturally get in touch with the abilities, perhaps worried


about immigration status or subletting or concerned they may be


on the wrong side of the law, whom may not come forward, but she said


they have to come forward if they know anybody who was living in those


blocks or visiting, they have to come forward so they can get some


sort of realistic figures. And going through a recovering what is left in


the tower block they said that could take until at least the end of this


year. What about the range of charges the police are considering?


They have said they are looking at the full range of charges, health


and safety violations up to manslaughter. It takes a much larger


burden of Polly on my crew. They have seized documents from several


premises although it will not be specific about what premises there


are at the moment but we know their investigation continues with them


looking at all of these details. Looking at how the fire started. And


how it spread so quickly. It started because of this thread. It spread,


the fear from last week has been is it because of the cladding and


installation and they have carried out tests and said already in the


tests they have carried out the cladding and insulation failed all


of them. Communities and Local Government


Secretary Sajid Javid has written to MPs to update them


on the Government's response In the letter, he confirmed that 600


buildings had cladding that was being tested,


and so far 11 high-rise buildings in eight local authority areas had


been found to have failed those safety tests, including


buildings in Camden, This is what he had to say


in the Commons yesterday afternoon. I think it's clear that any changes


in the wake of this tragedy shouldn't just be technical


or to legislation. What happened at Grenfell Tower also


showed us all that we need We all need to rethink our approach


to social housing, and we need to reflect on the way that


successive governments have engaged with and responded


to social tenants. We don't yet know for sure


whether this disaster could have been avoided if the people


who called Grenfell Tower their home had been listened to,


but we do know that, for far too long, their voices


fell on deaf ears. So, if nothing else,


let the legacy of Grenfell be that such voices will never,


ever be ignored again. To discuss this further,


I'm joined by Russell Curtis, an architect who works for local


authorities, and from Hammersmith I'm joined


by the local Labour MP and Shadow Housing Minister,


Andy Slaughter. Welcome to both of you. Andy


Slaughter, what do you think now of the government's reaction and


response, listening to Sajid Javid, I have a letter to MPs and it is


comprehensive. Do you feel reassured that all action will be taken to


prevent another Grenfell Tower happening? The challenges for the


government keep growing, and I don't know whether they are up to them.


They were very slow in spotting that disaster relief was not happening.


That took a week longer than it should have done. We now have the


issue of cladding, and there were confused messages on that yesterday,


and just this morning, and this particularly concerns me, there is a


serious issue in a separate dashboard in a separate tower in


Shepherd's Bush last year and we learned it is down to goods


manufactured by a company, and a year on from that, we have still not


had a product recall of the tumble dryers which caused that, and 5.5


million were manufactured. These are serious challenges the government


has known about and I have seen little sign that they are taking it


as seriously as they should. Let's look at the cladding issue, which


has been talked about a lot, that could have contributed to the fire


spreading and the excellent. Police say that the Grenfell cladding


failed safety tests. Does that imply that there was not a safety test


done before that cladding was put on? There is a lot of confusion


around what these safety tests involved. The building regulations


are I think it's fairly clear, they are out of date, but that the


benchmark that we use as architects and industry professionals, to


assess the performance of a building against, and that covers all sorts


of things, fire, though more performance, all sorts of things.


But I think there is a lack of clarity in building regulations as


they stand over performance in particular circumstances. Would you


agree with Camden council, who have taken the action of removing


cladding panels from buildings they think are combustible from buildings


in their area? I think it's probably a sensible precaution. I don't think


that tall buildings are inherently unsafe and I'm not necessarily sure


that I agree with the previous comment about... Obviously, that is


an issue to look into, but there five in tall buildings frequently.


It isn't rare. The issue how quickly it spreads. If it is a concrete


faced or brick faced building, you simply don't see the spread of a


fire from one dwelling to another. It just doesn't happen because of


the way the buildings are designed. As soon as you wrap an existing


building in a new skin, effectively, which these buildings were not


intended to receive when they were originally designed in the 60s and


70s, that becomes a problem. To pick up on your earlier point about the


fridge freezer, Andy Slaughter, an investigation is being made into


that particular model, the business department is looking into that. To


come back, if we have still got Andy Slaughter... No, it looks as if we


might have lost him. Staying with you, of course, there are lots of


factors that can be contributory, but it does shine a spotlight on


fire safety precautions. Putting the cladding to one side, what about


sprinklers and fire extinguishers and alarms? If there are buildings


without these precautions, are they at risk? One of the problems is that


the reconfiguration of an existing building. Goldings from the 60s and


70s, tower blocks like this, are inherently safe. -- buildings from


the 60s and 70s. I think there is a question over if you take a building


like that and you wrap it in a new cladding to improve thermal and


acoustic performance and all that sort of thing. The problem is, are


you fundamentally changing the design of that building and, if you


do that, should you be required to install sprinklers and updated fire


alarm systems and all of that sort of thing? At the moment, building


regulations don't necessarily make that explicit. Andy Slaughter, I


think we have you back. The number of buildings that are being looked


at across the country, we could be talking about thousands of people in


tower blocks across the UK. Would you be suggesting that they all be


evacuated and rehoused whilst tests are carried out on the cladding?


Look, let's get this into perspective. There is nothing


inherently unsafe about either white goods or tower blocks but, if I


lived in a tower block which had cladding that was thought to be


dangerous, or I had a model of fridge or tumble dryer which had


been found to cause fires, I would not feel comfortable, so we have it


more seriously. This is a national emergency and disaster. The


particular model of tumble dryer that has caused many fires,


including the very serious tower block fire last year, the advice


until a couple of months ago was that he would continue to use those.


The government has a huge amount to answer for. There has been


complacency. This will continue to be raised on a daily basis in


Parliament until we get some action. In terms of the action, do you think


people should be rehoused if they are found, some of the cladding on


buildings, to have a combustible element? You can understand that


people will not feel safe to sleep at night following what happened at


Grenfell Tower, but are you saying that they should be re-homed across


the country? I commend the action that councils like Camden, and I


think and others are taking, which is not waiting but going ahead and


making those buildings safe. You can't rely on this postcode lottery


where individual councils, depending on their means and inclination, do


this. For every single tower block that we have, government is to


identify whether there is a risk and, if there is, that has to be


made safe, or we will have other events like Grenfell. Do you think


this is the point at which people should be moved out of their homes


because they are worried about what might happen, and because they don't


know the veracity of goods that might be in their tower blocks? I


don't. I think they're obviously needs to be a rigorous regime of


testing. Fires are very constipated things. There has been a lot of talk


about the cladding. -- very complicated things. That is only one


part of a larger assembly of components. I don't think that it is


healthy to focus on a particular product when it may be that they're


different configurations of that which might be particularly safe. I


think we need to take a rational assessment of it without panicking


and evacuating blocks. And we are also looking at private blocks which


may have some sort of cladding around their building and they may


be high-rise in some of it may be combustible. We don't know whether


or not that material was found that white. If we are talking about the


voices of residence in tower blocks, Andy Slaughter, we heard Sajid Javid


saying they will never be ignored. But residents were presented on


bodies and committees that were in charge of looking after buildings


like Grenfell Tower, weren't they? Social housing as a type of tenure


and social tenants have been sidelined, and this is a political


issue, because I have experienced this over 30 years in trying to


champion the rights of council and housing association tenants, and


they have been downgraded. We have not only had no building, we have


had estates demolished and sold off. If this is a sea change in


Conservative policy towards social tenants and they are now prepared to


build council and housing association houses to relieve the


appalling conditions in overcrowded areas, I welcome it. But I will


believe it when I see it because, for 30 years, there has been studied


neglect by Conservative governments and councils. Lucy Thomas, what


would you like to see happen? First of all, people have to be listened


to. If you take a step back and look at the number of people who have


been saying for a long time, we are not happy, do not have sprinklers


and fire extinguishers, do not spend a bit more money on a slightly more


expensive cladding and so on, that feels like a number of decisions


were taken either to ignore people, to put people to the back of the


queue, oh, they are complaining a bit too much, let's not listen to


them, so both in terms of retrospective decisions, but also


now in terms of the government response, our people feeling like


they are being looked after properly? Why wasn't the Army sent


down straightaway getting things sorted out, people being given


provisions and so on? It feels like it been pretty chaotic. Andy, I


think some of those in Labour have been very quick to point fingers


about what this government has done, but actually there are previous


reports and lessons that could have been learned pre-2010 from Labour


governments. There are lots and lots of questions to be answered. Do you


agree that social housing and the tenants that live in them have been


sidelined over decades? I want to see the full force of the law used


against contractors and officials if they are found to be negligent. I


think too often people get let off. This is one of those issues where


the public want the government to actually really use the full force


of the law to make sure that people are held accountable. In terms of


the guidelines you would come under as an architect doing government


contracts, in your experience, do they have less oversight? Is less


money spent? Are they less safe, broadly speaking, in the way that


Andy Slaughter has outlined? I actually think that is very true. We


have seen a move towards forms of procurement in recent years where I


think people would be surprised how little involvement architects and


other professionals have once a project start on site. This is a


product of the way in which we procure public buildings these days,


and I think it sidelines construction professionals and


communities. I think that is a real shame, this top-down approach to


estate regeneration and refurbishment. It's a tragedy.


Actually we should be engaging with residence from the outset, with


construction professionals like architects and others, to establish


what is needed and to make sure that the ambitions for each project carry


on through until it is finished. Now, it's a year since the Britain


voted to leave the EU. And what a difference


a year makes, or does it? Our two guests of the day,


Matthew Elliott from Vote Leave and Lucy Thomas from


Britain Stronger in Europe, have made two films giving


us their take on the 12 months Let's take a look,


starting with Matthew. A vote to leave will push our


economy into a recession. The most significant


event of the past year Forget Gina Miller's court case


or the passage of Article 50. Frankly, you can even forget


the general election. What's most significant is the fact


that the economy didn't go downhill, which is why 70% of voters


still want Brexit to go ahead. This is why I'm confident that


Brexit will go ahead as planned. Gerard Lyons was Boris Johnson's


chief economist when he Brexit is in the long-term best


interests of the economy. Project Fear was driven more


by politics than economic analysis. Hence we didn't have the financial


armageddon or economic collapse that In fact, the economy has held up


very well over the last year and the underlying picture,


despite the current It's true to say that the election


increased uncertainty. But, now the Brexit negotiations


are under way, people will quickly see that a win-win deal


is on the table and that the Government is committed to a full,


clean and open Brexit, which will be good for


the economy and for jobs. The Legatum Institute,


where I now work, set up a special trade commission


after the referendum. There are real opportunities


for Britain as we go We can become a global


trading partner. We can drive job creation and we can


build a strong economy. But we can actually only do this


if we leave the single market and customs union and take hold


of that global trading role. Some people, who want


Britain to stay in the EU, have used the recent election


to suggest we should stay in the single market,


but they conveniently forget that they told voters


in the referendum campaign that a vote to leave was a vote to leave


the single market. Personally, I agree


with Lucy Thomas, who is a leading light of the Remain campaign,


who talked during the referendum about the downsides of staying part


of the single market, like Norway. If we were to follow


the Norwegian EEA model, that wouldn't have a mandate and it


wouldn't achieve the things the Leave campaign say


they want to achieve, so we wouldn't be able to stop free


movement of people - Norway accepts that -


we'd still have to accept most EU rules with no say over them


at all and we'd still have to pay into the EU budget, so it's far


worse than the deal we have now. Both the Labour and Conservative


manifestos committed their MPs to a full Brexit of leaving


the single market and leaving the customs union, so it has


the overwhelming support So now it's up to the


Government to deliver. What excites me is that Brexit


is about more than treaties. It's about the kind of country


we want to live in. The general election


was certainly a bump in the road, So that was Matthew's


take, and now for Lucy. A year ago today, I was with other


Remain campaigners in a room just up there when we found out Britain had


voted to leave the EU. We always knew it would be close


but our campaign data showed us So, a year on from that


vote, where are we? Brexit talks have begun


and the clock is ticking. But the UK's position and the final


outcome are far from clear. Although people voted to leave


there was never a detailed plan And people voted Leave


for many different reasons. In fact, during the referendum,


leave campaigners revelled in the fact that they


didn't have a blueprint. One senior Brexit campaigner told me


all he had to do was get people enthused about voting to leave,


about Britain's brighter The finer details of what that


actually looks like, that is down to the politicians


to sort out. In that hastily convened government


after the referendum the new Prime Minister


and her colleagues decided amongst themselves what


Brexit would look like. Earlier this year Theresa May


spelt out their plan. We would be leaving both the single


market and the customs union. So where does that


leave plans for Brexit? Well, now the parliamentary


arithmetic matters. The government may need


to change its approach to guarantee Even some of the Conservatives'


own backbenchers are saying the general election changed


everything. The inconclusive result


from the general election actually was an instruction from the British


people to say, you know Actually, you've got


to sort this out. And that means that actually that's


down to backbench members of Parliament to be asking questions


of the government, to be listening to our constituents all the way


through this process. Leaving the EU was about


Parliamentary sovereignty. Taking back control means taking


back control into Parliament. So actually backbench MPs have


to step up to the plate and make sure we get the most effective most


sensible Brexit There is also the question


of how to avoid a Brexit Many in the business community


feel their voices have not been heard over the past year


and there is real pressure We have settled down


from the relative shock of the referendum result but one


could argue another shock in terms That gives business an opportunity,


an emboldened opportunity, to perhaps realign the debate


on Brexit and by that I mean I think just working with government,


encouraging government, pushing it if necessary,


to move away from what I think we would call a harder ideological


line to a smoother Brexit. So, a year on from the referendum


and we have started walking towards the exit door,


but the terms are Lizzie and Matthew, thank you. Do


you think that is true, the terms are all to play for? I do not think


they are. The conservative and Labour manifestos made it clear


there was to be clean and Phil Brexit and those who wanted to fudge


things and stay in the single market saw their vote share fall. It'll 5%


of voters voted for the two parties who support Brexit, leaving the


single market than the customs union. No. I have the Labour


manifesto here. Nowhere does it say we will leave the single market. It


says we will scrap the Conservatives' White Paper and


emphasise retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs


union. That is trying to retain as free as possible access. The


Conservatives want exactly the same benefits. You are saying 85% wanted


to leave the single market, that is not actually reading... It is


important to see what people voted for. What about that? If Lucy is


disputing the fact that the 85% of people who voted for Labour and


Conservatives were not looking to leave the single market and the


customs union? Elsewhere it says we will end freedom of movement. You


cannot be a member of the single market and not accept freedom of


movement so it is quite clear. John McDonnell the shadow, -- and flower


has also been clear. They said they would leave the single market.


Several people have said it could include staying in the single


market. The Labour position is a movable feast and they want to


detain as free as possible trade with the EU and it is on a spectrum.


My problem with the conservative position as they have a load of red


lines, for example must end eg see jurisdiction, which gives you all


sorts of things around the European Arrest Warrant. They have said we


will leave the customs union and the single market. Then you look at


things like Northern Ireland and think what should we do? On the


front benches you have quoted, Barry Gardner on this programme the Labour


frontbencher said if there were to be a reformed membership of the


single market, he did not think that would happen, but if they were to


change the rules completely then they might consider it. To be clear


it says on the Labour manifesto that they will be leaving the single


market and they will end freedom of movement. It does not say leave the


single market. By ending freedom of movement you have to leave the


single market. Pierced armour is beginning to talk about perhaps


there is an arrangement of talking within the customs union, isn't that


sensible? At the same time he talks about having free trade of the the


EU. You cannot set up these new free trade deals if you are part of the


customs union. As King for a mandate on Brexit as they went into the


general election they lost their majority. They have lost that


mandate, haven't they? The election in some ways was not about Brexit,


it was about other issues like public services and so-called


austerity, it was not really a Brexit election. That is how it was


built and that is how Theresa May wanted it to be viewed. Have they


not lost the mandate for the Brexit she outlined? I do not think so.


People voted for the Labour Party which pretty much wanted a clean


full Brexit. You say the Parliamentary arithmetic has changed


so what are you expecting those MPs to do, to vote down every piece of


Brexit legislation that comes into the House of Commons? No. I think


they will scrutinise it. The exact positions we are yet to see. It is


not one Big Bang. You have a separate thing on the customs union


because the government said it is so complicated we have to give it


proper Parliamentary time for scrutiny so there will be a whole


load of discussion about that customs union. Things like a border


between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, how do you get


around that? It is positive that will be a lot of time to scrutinise


these things rather than having one single possession of we must do


this. I genuinely do not know why might the numbers are. Nicky Morgan,


a remain campaigner... As were many Tory MPs... Exactly. I think 185


last time. It is probably gone down a little bit given the changes. It


is all to play for. We are yet to see what there is a majority for. No


deal is better than a bad deal is out the window. Particularly because


of the DUP and others. Transitional deal is very interesting. That was


not mentioned at all in the Queen's Speech. The length of that than the


terms will be interesting. Do you think no deal is better than a bad


deal has gone? I do not think so. You cannot go in seeing your --


unless you say you are prepared to walk away if you do not get the deal


you want. Since the election I am pleased with the more constructive


consensual torn from both sides. Do you think no deal is better than a


bad deal? Yes. You think it would be better to come out of the cannot get


the deal we want and go onto World Trade Organisation deals? Yes. You


would not go into a negotiation... Why do you think it is better to


leave without a deal than have a bad deal? If the EU said the bill for


leaving is not 100 billion euros, it is 200 billion... You would pay 100


billion? No, but of it was 200 billion I would walk away. What


should it be? You have to look at the whole range, from the bill to


freedom of movement to the role of the City of London to the trade


deal... You would be prepared to pay a reasonably high price to get


exactly the same sort of benefits David Davis talked about when we


leave the single market? Yes. You cannot put a figure on it. It does


not sound like your viewers are that far apart. Even friction and border


trade. He wants the same thing as you. He is saying we have to leave


single market. Is that not what the referendum said? People voted on


remaining or leaving the EU. People claiming they knew precisely what


everything got person voted for a... I have the gift for Matthew Elliott,


a reminder of what people voted for, a bus seeing ?350 million a week,


because that is what you and your colleagues still people who did get


back into this country for the NHS and other priorities, so making


assumptions... Have we seen the 350 million? Are you going to put that


in the bin? What has happened to the claim? Many people voted on the


basis they might get ?350 million for the NHS. Everyone involved,


myself, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, have been clear when we get the


Brexit dividend from leaving we would like to see more money for the


NHS. Is that something you are going to lobby government for? Yes. You


might get that money going to the NHS. We have seen a drop in the


number of people applying to be nurses here. Perhaps we should be it


once we have left the EU and it is done and dusted how much extra money


there has been for the NHS. I would suggest there will be less not more


with the economy going how it is going.


Now it's time for the answer to our quiz.


Let's remind ourselves of Question Time last night.


The question was - what happened next?


David Dimbleby rightly asked him to leave the audience.


Because he just has to go on for longer if you shout out.


So you might as well keep quiet and hear what he has to say.


Do we want more instability in this country?


I think you ought to leave, you know.


The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.


Andrew will be back on Sunday on BBC One at 11am


And I'll be back here on BBC Two on Monday at midday


A defenceless man killed in cold blood by your hand.


Download Subtitles