30/06/2017 Daily Politics

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,