30/06/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Theresa May passes her first parliamentary test as leader


of a minority government as MPs back the Queen's Speech.


Jeremy Corbyn sacks three frontbenchers and loses a fourth,


after a fifth of Labour MPs defy the party line to back a call


for the UK to remain in the single market.


The Chancellor has said people are weary of pay


freezes and spending cuts, so is the era of austerity


We'll hear from one economist who argues the government


must stick to the plan to eliminate the deficit.


And after a tumultuous week in politics, what is the really big


question MPs are grappling with in parliament?


I noticed yesterday, sir, that a member was allowed


to ask a question in the chamber without wearing a tie.


Now, I have no particular view on that, but have the rules


All that in the next hour, and with me for the whole programme


the joint political editor of the Guardian, Heather Stewart,


and Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent


He is wearing a tie, I see, in Daily Politics' rules.


First today, let's discuss the economic outlook as the Brexit


Before the referendum the OECD, one of the West's leading


economic think-tanks, suggested that a vote to leave


the EU would see the average British household worse off by ?2,200


They warned of a "persistent and rising cost to the economy".


But in recent days Angel Gurria, the secretary-general of the OECD,


appears to have had a change of heart.


"The quality of life, you know, will probably remain to a very great


extent as it is today, because the values


"There may be some things that change.


We do not know to what extent - it's very early."


Michael Gove Heather Stewart, this is a complete U-turn of what he said


earlier? It underlines how incredibly


uncertain these forecasts were. There were so many assumptions


underlying the forecast last year. We had a dire forecast from the


Treasury about the impact of Brexit. You had to make so many assumptions


about what deal you would end up with, how long it would take, it


becomes meaningless. Tiny tweaks to those make a huge difference.


Because it is so difficult to forecast, one can only assume it was


political scaremongering? There was a feeling of that, people ganging up


and saying not to vote for Brexit because it will be a disaster. Liam


Fox, David Davis, all of the Brexiteers, they are getting on with


Brexit right now. Some people will say that the timing is curious. You


could point to rising inflation, wages stagnating, the pound is


static, but lower than it was. That is eating into the costs on imports.


So, in a way, people might say the economic outlook has worsened since


the referendum? Just as they change their mind, yes. Sterling fell quite


shortly after the referendum. It has stayed weak and it will drive up


inflation. Inflation is heading up to 3%. People will start to feel


that. Will people just say they are not going to take any notice? I


don't want to hark back to Michael Gove about experts, but they will


say, can we trust what people are saying? They might look at the


Pledge on the bus about spending a lot more money, and other claims


made by the Leave campaign? All of those are right, but there are


short-term blips when we get over the hurdle into Brexit and start


trading with the world again. It is a longer term, five or year -- five


or ten year view. There might be a view that we don't know what Brexit


is going to look like. Might it be as big a change as people first


thought? Quite, the election result perhaps makes us think we will not


have as an abrupt change as we thought. A lot of noises coming out


of government, Philip Hammond suggesting a transition period, we


might end up with a closer relationship than we thought. I


think that reassures some of the forecast is that we might not be


looking at such an abrupt change. More on that later.


The question for today is what - according to the Guardian -


did David Cameron have to stop George Osborne scrapping


Presumably, this is easy for you, Heather!


Or d) The tradition of the Chancellor living in Number 11?


Well, at the end of the show, Heather, we'll see if Christopher's


been reading your paper and if he can give us


So after weeks of uncertainty, Theresa May has finally


got her Queen's Speech through the Commons.


However, it was an uneasy time for both sides of the House.


The vote on the series of bills the Government wants to become law


was seen as a crucial litmus test for the minority Conservative


government, and following the deal with Northern Ireland's DUP


Labour backbencher Stella Creasy tabled an amendment calling


for women in Northern Ireland to be able to come to England to have


Abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland,


and in the past, women who come to England have had to pay.


The amendment had cross party support,


Ministers that the passage of the Queen's Speech


The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, then made this statement


in the Commons following a question from Conserative backbencher


I know this is a matter of great importance to members on both sides


of the House and an issue which I know my colleagues


on the Treasury bench have been looking for a solution to.


By understanding is that my right honourable friend, the Minister


for Women and Equalities, either has made, or is just


about to make, an announcement by way of a letter to members


of this house, explaining that she intends to intervene


to fund abortions in England for women arriving here


I hope the house will find that a sensible way of dealing


Stella Creasy agreed to drop her amendment,


following Mr Hammond's comments, and it was then the turn


of Labour to get a little hot under the collar.


Chuka Ummuna, a keen supporter of remaining in the EU,


tabled an amendment calling for Britain to stay


within the single market and the customs union.


Officially, Labour high command opposed the move,


arguing that they had already tabled an amendment calling for the "exact


same benefits" as the EU single market and customs union.


However, 101 MPs, including many Labour ones, voted


for Chuka Umuna's proposal, leading to Jeremy Corbyn sacking


three of his shadow ministers - Ruth Cadbury, Catherine West


Deputy leader Tom Watson said he was "disappointed"


at the amendment, and accused Mr Ummuna of trying


We've been joined in the studio by the Conservative MP


Peter Bottomley, who backed Stella Creasy's amendment


on abortion funding for women from Northern Ireland.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. You co-sign the amendment. The party


whips must have been furious with you? I don't think so, I think many


of them know it is going to come, it is just when or how. I explained


even if the amendment was called and passed, it would not be a


constitutional threat to the Government, it would be adding on


something we would end up doing. The Supreme Court had this judgment, by


the narrowest of margins, they said the Government could lawfully not


have to pay, which would be their policy. The senior Northern Ireland


judge said it should go ahead. The woman on the Supreme Court said it


should go ahead. The others were nudging Government parliament. We


have been nudged. The Government had not said it was something there were


going to do at this particular time. You could have gone theory, risked


the legislative programme? Some could say that, I don't think this


is a constitutional issue, it is a straightforward issue of


constitutional rights and equality. Why should women who have the money


get an abortion, and others can't? I understand that, but at this stage


of the game, where Theresa May's Government is weak, with a hung


parliament, party whips would not look kindly on you? I don't look at


it like that at all. It is a sign of Government strength, being able to


do in one day what would have taken two months. If the climb-down, which


is how it has been viewed, Philip Hammond making that statement in


response to your question, it is a sign of things to come. We will see


backbenchers like your good self flexing muscles? It maybe your


professional duty to put that question, it is my opportunity to


say that I disagree. This has not been a U-turn, it has been a move


forward. We are doing now to UK residents in England what is


happening to other UK residents in England. I am not disputing your


viewpoint, I am talking about the strategic view within Parliament


when Theresa May has a hung parliament and is relying on the


loyalty of backbenchers. That is why it is a risk? The reason I don't see


it the way you do, and I'm not arguing with people that try to make


it appear differently, even if there was a Conservative majority of 50 I


think the amendment would have been passed because there are well over


50 people in the Conservative Party that believe you should make this


change. It is a very simple thing of Parliament are saying to Government,


now is the time, don't wait. We did that over front seat belts, a long


time ago. There was cross-party unity and I think the same thing can


apply to this. If I follow your logic, will Dallimore issues like


this where you and your colleagues on the Tory benches will support


Labour amendments, opposition party amendments, because you think they


are sensible changes, even if it risks Theresa May being defeated?


You need to get away from the idea that any Government defeat is a


constitutional issue. This would have been a constitutional issue,


wouldn't it? You say that, I see it differently. Each party wants to


reduce the stakes on fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops.


Poor people come in poor areas, are losing a fortune. That has been put


back to autumn. It may be in autumn. If conservatives put down an


amendment or a notion, other parties will support us and it will become


government policy. That seems completely reasonable. That is what


Parliament are for. People arguing for a National Health Service,


old-age pensioners, people pushing for votes for women, they were


pushing for some thing that will always happen in the end. It was how


soon it would happen. You are going to flex your muscles, you are


looking forward to this? This was not flexing muscles. Does it expose


how weak Theresa May's position is? And how strong backbenchers are, on


both sides of the house. It is so ironic that it is exactly the


opposite of her intention when she went into the general election. She


called it so she could have a great big personal mandate, a big


majority, and could go on with her legislative programme very easily.


It is quite the reverse. She has to listen very closely to different


groups of backbenchers. Peter Bottomley is valiantly trying to


state in his mind... Successfully! Is he convincingly? No, it shows how


powerful backbenchers like Peter are going to be in the next few months.


Fixed odds betting terminals, I am sure the Labour whips are getting on


with that now. Had it gone to a vote, the day after day the DUP did


the deal, it would have been testing early on. You have to remember that


they are dealing with a Taoiseach that is gay. I think abortion will


become like our law quite fast in the north. It is not about flexing


muscles, it is to improve well-being. But you have a greater


chance of getting your way? I would not agree with that. But it is true,


isn't it? I will give an example. I went to see Theresa May about a man


who had been wrongly prosecuted. She was the only person that paid it


attention. I think that is the kind of person she is. She reacts to what


is right and my job is to help her. I am sure she will take your


generosity and keep that in mind. You mentioned one area later in the


autumn that you might be pushing a proposal that you are in favour of.


What other areas are you going to be presenting or supporting? The whole


issue is living within our means. The idea you can spend money you


haven't got, it doesn't last forever. The BBC can't do it, I


can't do it and Government can't do it. Making sure we have the right


balance between tax, spending and growth. You would not support


getting rid of the 1% cap on public sector pay? The Government will come


forward with proposals on that. What do you think? I think we should wait


and see what the experts say. You must have a view? Do you have large


numbers of people on low pay, or smaller amounts of people on higher


pay. If you go for the second, you need a great deal of investment. On


the railways, we are trying to do it, being resisted, with Labour


support, by Aslef. Why should a 23-year-old teacher on ?23,000 a


year be held to ransom by train drivers? You can't just give a


simple answer, saying I want more pay. I want better service. If you


have fewer people doing it, and like the House of Commons, why don't we


have 600 MPs instead of 650? What amends would you like to see brought


forward in the House of Commons that would have your support? It's a


constitutional way of putting it. This change to poor women isn't a


law change. What else? It is a government doing, a range of thing,


I would like to see people put money into the A27 so my constituencies


can get from one place to another easily. You may have a chance of


getting that. If you lobby, a raft of things that are coming. Let us go


back to the deal with the DUP. I mean, do you share Heidi Allen your


fellow backbencher's view, she said it was a distasteful way of using


fun, is she right? I wouldn't have put it that way, I don't think she


is right. Anyone who has tried to get from the centre of Belfast to


the airport, will know you have to spend the money to change that, I


think that helping with that makes as much sense as it does in helping


with the A27. If you start looking to see whether you can improve other


services in Northern Ireland, either infrastructure or in other ways,


that is worthwhile. Her point is you didn't need to have this deal. The


Queen's Speech was passed. Had the DUP abstained, it would have pass.


Did you need to do that deal I don't want to comment on the media it is


better to say hidely made her speech, I made my speech earlier on,


I am sorry mine wasn't as interesting. You can't set the


rules. Do you not agree she has a point, it wasn't necessary do that


deal and spend that 1 billion, you said you didn't watt to lose control


of finances? I disagree with the point she made about the deal with


the DUP, the alternative was Jeremy Corbyn trying to do a deal with the


DUP which would have been more awkward. You have to look for the


aleternity. I am here because you couldn't do any better. We have the


DUP because they couldn't find anyone better. Do you think if this


carries on it will be difficult for Theresa May to govern in the way she


wants? There is a sort of feeling of instable about it, at the moment,


and perhaps that will ease, perhaps we will go away for the summer in a


couple of weeks' time and everything will calm down, at the moment there


is a feeling that Number Ten is being buffeted. I go into Number Ten


and I find it calm, she is good natured, resilient and I think she


will succeed. My job is to help her. Thank you.


Let's talk now about the splits in Labour over Brexit which led


to the sacking of three frontbenchers last night,


We did ask the Labour Party for an interview, but no-one


from their front bench team was available.


We also approached Labour MPs who backed Chuka Umunna's amendment


calling for the UK to remain in the single market,


but sadly couldn't find anyone who could talk to us.


Welcome. Did you back the amendment by Chuka Umunna your colleague? No,


I didn't back it. I think there is a bit of a phoney war going on here,


because we are talking about the single market, and some of these


other big irsures round free movement. Those are not goington to


be resolved for many year, the real deal is what the transition should


be about, I have proposed we should do a deal base odd the UK going into


the economic area as a stepping stone to final exit. That buys time


to have the discussion about the single market. I so am frustrated by


the debate, it is based on among think. Are you frustrated with Chuka


Umunna and his amendment, do you think that was unhelpful? I think


that the front bench's amendment was a step in the right direction,


talking about the exact same benefits but the problem with both


that amendment and Chuka's amendment is it is not putting the transition


deal front and centre, and that is why I felt fine supporting the front


bench proposal, and it was a step in the right direction, but we need to


really be talking about the transition deal. I did put my own


amendment down on that but it wasn't selected by the speaker. So was


chuck's amendment unhelpful because it exposed splits within Labour? I


think that a lot of colleagues feel passionately about us retaining


membership of the single market. Are they wrong? I don't think it is


possible to retain full membership of the single market unless you are


a member of the European Union. So again, I think that all of our


amendments, whether it is front bench or backbench should be


pointing in the direction of the transition deal, and moving into the


European Economic Area, rather than putting the cart before the horse.


Right. In these discussions. That was Chuka Umunna I think buzzing you


to have a quick word. When we are... This is busy, it is my constituency


office. I assume he is not coming in for case work for me. We will wait


and see, I presume not. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn was right to sack the


three frontbenches who defieded the party whip? I suppose I am quite old


fashioned on this stuff and if you have a front bench amendment and a


backbench amendment, and you are whipped in a certain way and you


don't follow the whip, then I think there is only one conclusion that


can be drawn from that, so yes, I, it is very #2k3wre9able but I think


it has to be done. What it has done is it has -- regrettable. Gt it


exposed the diLama for Labour which they haven't quite solved, how can


you satisfy Leave voters in seats like Doncaster while keeping


remainers in London and Cambridge onboard, because they think you are


going to go out and support policies is and amendments to stay within the


single market. I think the answer is the transition deal. Because... That


doesn't solve the, it does not bridge the gap between those two


positions and that is a dilemma for Labour. But in fact I absolutely


think it does, by definition a transition deal is about building a


bridge rather than jumping off a cliff, and we need a deal which gets


us from where we are now into the final state of our relationship with


the EU, post-Brexit and that deal has got to be something that doesn't


wreck the British economy, the European Economic Area is a known


quantity, a well-known package, it has existed for many year, we can


drop in, it gives bids and the economy... I understand your


position, I am talking about a bridge between people who want to


remain in the single market and in many people's minds that means


staying in the EU and those who want to leave and leave the single


market, and the customs union, your transitional deal will still be


leaving the EU? It will be, we have to leave the EU, and that was a


Labour Party manifesto commitment, and so people are going to have to


take their own view on supporting the Labour Party or not based on the


fact that we had a referendum, the Leave side won and we have to move


forward. Now we have to get the right Brexit and the critical


element there is the transition deal. I believe that can build a


bridge, between those millions of people who voted Remain but have


accepted that we should leave, I think they are being called Relevers


which is an awful term and those who voted Leave. That constitutes the


vast majority of the country. Stay with us, I mean e to you think that


there are remain voters who will feel betrayed by what they are


hearing and the vote last night? They will by a mazed one in five


Labour MPs, voted this amendment. They will feel that Labour's a


pro-EU party and will be surprised so few backed it. Why do they think


that Labour is a pro-EU party, they did say in their manifesto, no that


many people will read it, where they said they would end freedom of


movement, which means you are going to leave the single market at the


very least and Jeremy Corbyn gave the EU seven out of ten during the


referendum, so, why should they have assumed that Labour would campaign


hard to remain? I don't think they have said they are going to campaign


hard to remain, I don't think they are in crazy place, they have said


there has been a democratic vote, we are going to leave. That, we have


heard the advice of voters who say they have issues about immigration.


But we would like a close trading relationship and a liberal


immigration system probably, you will end up with, I don't think it


is a mad place they have got themselves into. Jeremy Corbyn's


true views being expressed here, many people would say he was


suspicious of the EU, saw it really more of a capitalist entity run by


banker, it wasn't something he supported, that is why he was luke


warm during the campaign this is the line he will take. I don't want to


be critical of Chuka Umunna, but ringing round, they weren't that


bothered by this, they thought it was a low number and didn't do too


bad. Before you go I know you are in demand Steven, but is your sort of


intricate explanation of a transitional deal just a ruse to


delay leaving all together? No, it is a stepping stone and it is one


that, we have to get rid of this fantasy we are going to get the


single market deal and the free movement deal done and ratified by


27 member states by March 2019. It is a pipe dream. That is why I am


trying to say to people let's get real on Brexit and have a sensible


approach. On the, I think Labour is a pro European party in itself, but


we are Democrats and we accept the result of the referendum with great


regret, we have to leave the European Union, now we have to do it


in a way that doesn't wreck the British economy and which protects


our communities because if we get it wrong it will be disastrous. Thank


you very much. You wanted to say briefly? I don't think that many


Labour voters thought they were vote Fognini for a party that would


battle to remain, there was a party that said we want to revisit Brexit,


the Liberal Democrats and they didn't so do so well.


The Chancellor Philip Hammond has said people are weary


of years of austerity, and he's pushed back the date


by which he hopes to eliminate the deficit to 2025.


Our next guest, the economist Andrew Lilico, argues that


while a bit of fiscal loosening is OK, there's still a long way


to go to get the nation's books under control.


Ten years ago, Britain's banks started going bust.


One by one, they were bailed out until much of the banking


Similar bailouts happened in other countries, such as Spain,


In those countries, bailing out the banks lead,


within four or five years, to governments going bust,


followed by huge recessions, mass unemployment, very large,


very rapid austerity programmes and voters


In the UK, we avoided that because we acted


We cut spending so the economy could grow faster, and we raised


When other countries faltered, growth in the UK kept steadily on.


Unemployment fell, and our government stayed


accountable to you, the voters, instead of to EU or IMF lenders.


Spending cuts and tax rises were more gradual than elsewhere,


but precisely because our austerity programme was so gradual,


Perhaps the general election shows voters are running out of patience.


The deficit is down to a normal below 3% of GDP level,


so there's no need to press authority much further for now.


The economy may slow, as we leave the EU and as interest rates rise.


Yet debts, 80% odd of GDP, that needs to be 40% by the time


of the next big recession, otherwise we will quickly turn


So although for the moment we don't need a lot more authority,


we can't stop all together, and once Brexit is done,


What makes you think that austerity is stopping all together? I didn't


say it was stopping all together. You warned about it. I think we


shouldn't stop it all together. I don't think we can afford do that.


But that isn't a proposition I think is on the take, slowing it may be


but not step toing it, are you not putting up a straw man in that


sense? There are people who want to claim that the austerity programme


was a mistake, and we should decide, accept it was a mistake and move


away from it. I think you would find by and large there was abandonment


if the Labour Party were to have won the last election, I think there is


a constituency for that point of view. You sympathise with the fact


that people are fed up with austerity, seven yearses of pay


restraint in the public sector, people who have acted heroically in


ecent events think the Government has said we have been living within


our means, they certainly have and maybe others haven't. I think it is


true, it is true that people have ran out of patience a bit. But once


one should bear in mind it is not only the public sector, the private


sector has had poor pay growth. But it has outstripped the public


sector. It all comes out in the wash. Was the difference that marked


beforehand, the graphs I have looked at shows that public sector pay did


outstrip private sector counterparts but up to 2014 that changed around,


go you think that justifies the public sector and Labour calling for


that pay cap to be lifted. I think the pay cut was always a


relatively crude measure. I would have personally preferred more


targeted ways of putting things. As I say, I think the form of austerity


we have had up to now has, by and large, come to the end of the road.


I think we will have another go at it when we have got Brexit out of


the way. The form that we have, I would expect over the next few years


we will have a deficit somewhere between 2% and 3% of GDP each year.


I think with the abandonment of the social care measures, the Winter


Fuel Payments restrictions and so on, the DUP deal and the general


election result, it means the Chancellor will not meet his target


of reducing the deficit to below 1% of GDP and we should expect the more


realistic 2% or 3% of GDP to be the main thing that happens. That is


normal. It is an uncomfortably high level, but it is a normal level for


a developed economy. With inflation now at 2.9% and wages not really


growing much at all, certainly they have been cut in real terms, does


that give more justification to slowing down austerity


significantly? Poor real wage growth has been a long-term issue. More so


now, because inflation is rising? Absolutely, and interest rates might


go up as well. It is possible that households find that through a


combination of rising inflation for now, although that might go away


fairly quickly, some slowing at the time of Brexit and rising interest


rates, households will find themselves more pressed. That, as


much as anything, is an argument for not raising taxes more. I think it


would be a mistake to think that the idea here is, instead of having


further spending cuts, we want additional tax rises. Are the


Conservatives getting ready to end austerity? It looks like it. The


language from Philip Hammond, after the election, rather than before the


election when might have been a vote winner, we have moved on from that.


Our readers are concerned about tax rises. What about this posse of MPs


that are supposed to have gone to Downing Street, Tory MPs, saying


please remove the 1% pay cut? Well, we think that is true. We understand


that is the case. You will see more of that, the left of the party


flexing its muscles. To take on your point that they didn't bother this


before the election because perhaps they didn't feel they had to, that


will lend itself to the argument that the Tories imposed austerity


for ideological reasons, rather than out of necessity? There is certainly


a question about the balance between spending cuts and tax rises. Where


those cuts fell. Your average public sector worker feels they have been


at the sharp end of this for a very long time. I think it is less about


whether it was a political project in the first place and more about


how long you carry it on and who has to suffer to balance the books.


Higher earners have had it capped, it is now 1% across all workers. Do


you think it is ideological? That has been yard and from Labour, it is


an ideological attempt to shrink the state, rather than being necessary


to bring public finances on track? Absolutely not. I think it was


imperative that we didn't end up going the way you saw in Spain,


Ireland and Cyprus. Having taken on banking sector commitments, they


were bankrupted by them. We needed to make sure the economy could grow


fast enough over the next few years, that households could service debts


and banks did not need to impose additional burdens on us. The


evidence very strongly shows if you get public spending down, it allows


the economy to grow a little bit faster. Are you disappointed it is


still about 50 billion? To me, the priority was getting public spending


down. If I have his appointment, it is because we haven't gone to the


levels of public spending reduction that George Osborne had in mind. It


is about shrinking the state? Shaking the state to allow the


economy to grow faster. No doubt about that and I make no apologies


for it. Doesn't it feel like popular consent for that strategy is not


there at the moment? That is why MPs are going to see Theresa May.


Absolutely, we didn't win. When they see a disaster like Granville, they


want the state to step in, they don't want think it has withdrawn,


the argument has been lost? Well, we did get the most seats, the


Conservatives. But I think it is definitely the case that people have


run out of patience. I think it is surprising how long people have kept


patients for this. The historical evidence is what you achieve in the


first three years is all you achieve. I was advocating in 2010


that we had to move faster because people would run out of patience


faster. I think the British public have been remarkably patient and we


need to move on. On the flip side of what Andrew is saying, Labour did


better than expected on an anti-austerities message, very


firmly. If they can't deliver that, or it might be very difficult to get


rid of austerity altogether, which is perhaps what they were


suggesting, rather than slowing down, are there problems down the


line? Well, first they would have to win a general election, which might


be a way off. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which looks at these


things, certainly had doubts about some of the tax-raising measures


that Labour had in its manifesto. They were meant to bring in large


amounts of money, they probably would not bring inasmuch as they


hoped. I think they face some big challenges. We were away off that.


Do you have confidence the Conservatives will stay the course


on their equipment commitment to eliminating the deficit and reducing


debt? I think they have always talked a tougher game on that than


they have delivered. I think what has happened is that they have


wanted deficit reduction to continue at a steady pace that did not


threaten the political accessibility of it, but was enough that we didn't


get ourselves into economic trouble. I think that has been remarkably


successful. People shouldn't underestimate, it is all very well


criticising and saying things might have been better here, only across


the Channel on countries on the continent, things have been much


worse. Many people would not make a direct comparison between the UK and


Cyprus or Greece? I think Spain and Ireland are very good comparisons in


this situation. On the DUP, ?1 billion was found beneath the sofa.


Amazingly, there was more money spare? And hundreds billions --


millions more to keep it on track. It does stick in the crore for


workers that are stuck on a low increase. And Winter Fuel Payments


and triple locks will remain for pensions.


Let's talk now to our Brussels reporter Adam Fleming,


who's got the details of the latest negotiating position papers


Adam, we never give you a day off, do we, on this? Tell us about the


latest position papers. Is there anything new, or is it reinforcing


their position on things like the European Court of Justice


arbitrating over decisions? Guess what? It is immensely technical and


complicated! Basically what happened is that Michel Barnier's team


yesterday published six documents they sent to the member state


earlier this week, that were made public for the first time on their


website. They are very technical. What it boils down to is a big list


of all of the things that the EU and UK will have to cooperate on around,


before and after the actual date of Brexit. Thing is continuing, like


what about European arrest warrant that are still outstanding, what


about court cases in the European Court of Justice that have not


concluded yet, what about goods that have gone on the market just before


Brexit date and will still be on sale after Brexit date? Colleagues


at The Financial Times got excited about what that means for the import


and export of bull sperm yesterday. This idea that the Brexit deal will


be overseen by a new joint committee, a UK and EU joint


committee, that will hammer out disputes that arise as a result of


the deal. If they cannot be solved that the committee they will be


moved onto the European Court of Justice. Officials here are saying


yet again that they want the ECJ to have a role overseeing the rights of


EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit. Still plenty of stuff for


the two mentor tussle over when they have their next set of face-to-face


talks in Brussels on the 17th of July. A lot of material to get stuck


into. They have obviously been very busy and keeping you busy going


through those documents. I am sure you have done that with a fine tooth


comb. When you look at the UK response, because this is the EU's


position, are we expecting a similar response in terms of producing


papers, answering each one of the stages that the EU have set out?


I'll be honest, I don't actually know. When you look at what happened


the previous round of negotiations, when they kicked off with the thorny


issue about citizen rights, what happens to EU citizens in the UK and


people from the UK living on the continent after Brexit, commission


published their position paper, which was the broad outlines of what


they wanted to see addressed. David Davis published his much longer


paper, with his response. People are saying it goes both ways. Does this


prove the EU has been quicker off the mark? They have more grasp of


the detail and they are happy to publish their position and the UK as


being more secretive? What is it simply that this is how you


negotiate? One side has to go first and put their position, the other


side adds to that position and hopefully everybody meets in the


middle eventually. Thank you for that. For more coverage of the


Brexit negotiations, Adam Fleming has recorded a brand-new coffin


You can subscribe to the podcast on the BBC website or via


Now we're often told that membership of the European Union's single


market depends on the obeying the four freedoms - of goods,


The government has said the UK will be leaving the single market,


because to stay in would require the continuation of


But on this programme yesterday, the Labour peer Peter Hain argued


that it would be possible to control immigration while staying


Let's hear what he had to say to Andrew.


The point that I'm making is to stay in the single market does not mean


There are ways of enforcing control, as for example Belgium has done.


that was Peter Hain, yesterday. Catherine Barnard, professor of


European Union law at the University of Cambridge joins me now. Welcome


to the Daily Politics. Broadly speaking, is it possible to limit


freedom of movement and remain in the single market? Absolutely. We


have always had that possibility. There are two main ways. The first


way is that there are what are called derogations, exceptions to


the rule of free movement on the grounds of public policy, public


security and public health. The UK has used them, but not very often


because they are quite tricky to use. The second way, the way that


Peter Hain was talking about yesterday, is that people can come


to the UK to look for work. The treaty and the relevant secondary


legislation envisages that. They have only got a short period of


time, possibly up to six months. Then they have got to go, they have


to leave the country, unless they have a reasonable prospect of


showing that they have work in the pipeline. What Peter Hain was saying


yesterday was that Belgium has been very proactive in removing people


that do not satisfy those conditions. The UK, less so. The


problem is, the UK is also not showing the data that it has been


removing people. I will let you put your earpiece back in. Can you hear


me? You can hold it there, they are not very reliable. Let's stick with


the Belgian example. Peter Hain said thousands had been asked to leave or


deported because they were deemed a burden on the economy. I think it is


2000, in total. Is it an owner is processed, bureaucratic process, to


do that, to actually try to expel someone? Absolutely. In fact, it is


quite difficult to go down that route because there are also issues


about human rights. There is a further problem of identifying those


individuals. We don't have a record of who is coming into the country,


and thus have not satisfy the criteria of looking for work. They


don't put their heads above the parapet. Does it mean that there is


some scope for extending this area of limited freedom of movement


whilst in the single market? It's just that no one has ever tried very


hard beyond the technicalities that you have outlined? I think that's


right. In reality, certainly the research I have been doing, it has


shown that most EU migrants come here because they want work. They


will do all sorts of work in order to be able to stay and to pay for


living here. What is interesting is that, were we to go down the EEA


route, this is doing a Norway, what some people have mooted, that would


mean staying in the single market, in respect of the Norway route there


is an additional way of limiting free movement. That is in respect of


a so-called emergency break. The emergency break says if there are


really serious economic problems or regional problems, the state can


limit migration. That is what the tiny state of Lichtenstein has done.


Lichtenstein is smaller than the Isle of Wight, it is very concerned


about migration. Therefore, it is trying to invoke these rules to say,


actually, we don't want to be inundated with migrants. Theresa May


says we are leaving the single market. Exploring the options


outside the single market, but still finding ways to limit freedom of


movement, in Lichtenstein, people may say that is not compatible. I


mean, it's not a parable to the UK. Would that work, having an emergency


break? The clue is in the title, it is an emergency break, it would not


be forever? That's right. The reality is that politics trumps law


at that point. It depends what we need. There are some sectors in the


UK that are really dependent on migrant workers. It is in the UK's


interest to encourage them to come. If we don't go down the EEA route,


and that is what Labour and the Conservatives appear to be saying,


the question is, what are the alternatives now? There is much talk


about the free trade agreement, but most free trade agreements don't


cover movement of persons. So, that is an issue for the UK going


forward. It may be that they decide to have a more section steel, where


we say that in areas like the NHS and care sector it would be possible


to have more relaxed rules. If there is no deal at all, we fall back on


WTO rules, World Trade Organisation, and those rules cover migration --


they don't cover migration at all. It would be domestic migration rule


that applies. That means visas and expense, which is quite demanding


for employers. Wight If we rook at Switzerland and


membership of the European free trade area, what scope is there


within that organise to limit freedom of movement, and then a


bilateral agreement on freedom of movement? That seems to be another


possibility. It's a permutation of what we have discussed before, so


you have free trade agreement which focussed on goods, but in respect of


persons you have a bilateral arrangement, a deal, and that is


what Switzerland has done, but as you know they have had a referendum


that wanted to restrict migrant, and the problem is with these bilateral


deals in the Swiss case they come as a package and as a package, that


means that if they breach one, of the deals then all of the other


deals cease to apply as well. The EU doesn't like the Swiss arrangement


because it is complicated to work with. Thank you. Christopher hope,


has the Government come to a conclusion, bearing in minds its


restated its commitment, even if you did a number of the things that


Catherine suggested, it would be difficult to see how you would bring


down net migration from 250,000 to 100,000. Yes, quite, I was taken


back to two years then, talk of emergency breaks and David Cameron,


and it was so hard and you are messing round the edge, 2,000 being


thrown out of Belgium isn't apmle of a dent. The ship has sailed. We are


leaving the European and the single market. Businesses put a lot of


pressure on the Government, and perhaps people like Philip Hammond


are sympathetic to their argument we need numbers of skilled migrant


workers. Even David Davis has talked about the need for continued


migration, we might end up with a liberal system, but I think Labour,


Labour and Tories both accept the idea people felt some kind of


control was necessary, when, politicians on all sides think


voters don't want freedom, sort of unfettered movement, so we might end


up with a liberal regime but we have control over it. We don't know what


system we are going to get. I think it will be bespoke. I think we will


have our own one for farm labourers. Seasonal workers that will be


different to the European Economic Area.


You might remember distant cries of relief earlier this year


when parliamentary clerks were told they no longer had to wear


The Speaker, John Bercow, said it would help convey


to the public a marginally less stuffy image of the chamber.


Parliamentary tradition looks set to take another knock,


as MPs are no longer required to wear a tie - as long as members


Not everyone is happy with the Speaker's decision, however.


Sir, I'm not really one to talk about dress sense,


but I noticed yesterday, sir, that a member was allowed


to ask a question in the chamber without wearing a tie.


Now, I have no particular view on that, but have the rules


It seems to me that as long as a member arrives in the House


in what might be thought to be business-like attire,


the question of whether that member is wearing a tie is not absolutely


front and centre stage, so am I minded not to call a member


simply because that member is not wearing a tie?


We've been joined from his constituency in south london


by the MP at the centre of this story, Tom Brake,


and in the studio by Lucy Hume from Debretts, the authority


Welcome to both of you. So, Tom, were you intending to cause such a


furore or did you for get to put your tie on? I didn't forget to us


my tie on, nor did I expect to to cause a furore, I heard the speaker


indicate he wanted to relax the rules a bit so I acted on it. Well,


so you were quick off the mark. It was the Conservative MP Peter Bone


as you know who raised your decision to attend the Commons not wearing a


tie. He couldn't join us today unfortunately but he aBubes every


time you remove a tradition you make our Parliament look more like a


County Council, does he have a point? Well, no, I don't think he


does, every time you do things like not require the clerks to wear wigs


Parliament becomes a bit more acceptable. The I think the nation


will be relieved if Peter Bone in particular is no longer required to


wear a tie, because he does choose some horrendous... I wouldn't use


the word horrendous necessarily, but they are noticeable any way, maybe


even garish, Lucy, do you think this downgrades the standing of our UK


Parliament? I think it is an interesting clarification on the


guidelines, because, as we know Parliament tends to be a bastion of


tradition and protocol but it could be seen as reflecting a wider


relaxation in office wear and it is in that sense it does certainly


reflect the UK more widely. Do you think it adds to a modernising


element of the Parliament, and we are no longer in the 19th sent, so


weren't ties really just the next in line to go? Possibly so, although I


think it will be a divisive decision. Not that it necessarily is


a decision, John Bercow said business-like attire is required and


it should be a question of respect. It will be interesting to see how it


is interpreted. Will you still be dressed appropriately Tom break, how


do you understand the statement business-like attire. I won't be


going in in my running shorts and running vest, business attire or


smart casual, who know, but, given that for instance in the chamber


people are rightly in my view allowed to bring in very young


babies, doesn't seem to be that revolutionary members shouldn't have


to wear a tie. It is divisive do you think this move? No, it is


common-sense, it was noticeable we have a few young MPs in the new


intake. It is a very stuffy place, Parliament, and a number of those


new MPs have remarked on the fact it is a stuffy old fashioned place,


lots of people in the real world don't wear ties and they are


perfectly smart. It is not a bar. It is Parliament. What next, flip-flops


and shorts? How far will the Liberal Democrats go. It a workplace end a


lot of people in smart workplaces don't wear ties. They put a tie on.


Do you want to loosen your tie, we don't have strict rules. I can't


work with out one. I think, it is the idea that it is televised.


People do see MPs in the chamber doesn't that make a difference? He


is not suggesting they are going to wander round in casual gear or


pyjamas, they have to be smart, it is the 21st century I am not sure


being smart means wearing a tie. As Christopher said it is part of the


uniform, is it important to retain that? It is an interesting word


uniform, at school many of us became used to wearing ties and it does, it


marks a kind of cutting off point from the between the professional


and personal, so, I do think it still represents that elevated level


of formality and a buttons up and keeping covered, an extra layer over


who we really are, whether that is good or bad remains to be seen. It


has been very hot so it was probably very uncomfortable, how far are you


prepared to go? I take your point you are not going to wear short, but


top button, will that stay done up, will there be a certain level of


suit that you would wear or is it going to be China knows and loafs.


-- chinos. I think business-like means a suit and a shirt, but, for


those who want, who want it, with a tie or without a tie. In, some times


in the chamber, particularly when the air conditioning isn't working


very well or at all, if you are there for two or three hours trying


to speak in a debate, it can get incredibly stuffy, and not having to


wear a tie would just make things a bit more relaxed for people and I


don't think it makes it less professional. Right, well Lucy and


Tom thank you for marking our cards or ties and it applies to the Press


Gallery, you don't have to wear them there? I think on the websites...


But Not pointing the finger there are you?


Just time now for our micro-sized summary of the political week.


The PM set out her proposals for EU citizens living


in the UK after Brexit, with those who'd been


here at least five years being offered settled status.


EU officials were lukewarm to the idea.


Back home, Theresa May concluded another negotiation,


The Parliamentary support of their ten MPs in key votes


But it worked, because the Queen's Speech, the legislative programme


for this parliament, was voted through in the Commons -


but only after a concession was made on abortion rights and Labour sacked


few front benchers for their position on Brexit.


Lots of Tories signalled they wanted an end to the public sector


pay cap, but it hasn't happened - yet.


And listeners of Radio 2 had the option to turn up


the volume on the quiet man, Iain Duncan Smith, as he pretended


I think you can have too much fun, that was funnier watching to it than


listening, I suppose him and Ed Miliband have been game. If we


reflect on the week past how do you think Theresa May has done? She


survived only. It has been a rocky week, I think as I say she will hope


to stagger on to the Parliamentary recess in the summer and hope for


calmer times in the autumn. Does that mean for Jeremy Corbyn it is


going to be more difficult, despite that good result, for Labour in the


election, to really make a mark on what will happen in Parliament? The


bubble may have been burst by the vote yesterday. I would urge Theresa


May not to go walking in Snowdonia, stay at ground level, have a think,


a cup of tea and have a nice holiday by the sea where it is... Where it


is not dangerous for her. I don't want to make hostage to fortune, if


you were going to look ahead post the summer, how do you think things


will go in terms of the prospect of another election or the prospect of


rebellions that will make it difficult for Theresa May, and also


on the Labour side. It will be hand-to-hand fighting over every


vote. We have only been back a few days and we have already seen that,


and there are talks going across party line, are there Tories that


Labour can work with, how can they work together, Peter Bottomley was


talking about different issues he wants to make progress on. It will


be a headache, tough for Theresa May. A war of attrition. Labour MPs


are not pairing up with Tory ones, you will, it is not very nice. I


I think her leadership is not safe yet.


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


The question was what - according to the Guardian -


did David Cameron have to stop George Osborne scrapping


Was it the Autumn Statement, HS2, pennies and 2ps or


the tradition of the Chancellor living in Number 11?


Probably pennies. He is right. Well done you got the answer there.


Thanks to Heather, Christopher and all my guests.


Andrew will be back on Sunday on BBC One at 11


And I'll be back here on BBC Two on Monday at the earlier time


of 11am with more Daily Politics, which starts early to


but how has it changed the way we see


I don't think we know the scale of the television revolution,


Download Subtitles