13/07/2017 Daily Politics

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

The first of eight bills paving the way for Brexit is published but

Labour are already saying they'll vote against it.

Is this the start of a long legislative battle

Theresa May describes her reaction to the general election result,

will displaying emotion help dispel her robotic image?

Jeremy Corbyn's in Brussels for a date with the EU's chief

Would the Labour leader strike a better deal

And Teutonic delight over Brexit, yes, why the Germans are looking

forward to calling their jam "marmalade".

Don't say that we don't cover the big stories here on the Daily

Politics! All that in the next hour

and with us for the duration today, the man who helped Ed Miliband lose

the 2015 General Election, when he also lost his

own seat as an MP. But as losing the is

the new winning I suppose Douglas Alexander,

welcome to the programme. First this morning,

the government is publishing the first of eight bills that

will pave the way for Britain's departure from the European Union,

that's less than 21 months a way now and there's lots of legislative

work to do before then. The European Union Bill,

known as the Repeal Bill, is a key part of the government's

Brexit strategy. It will repeal the 1972

European Communities Act which took Britain into the EU and remove

the supremacy of Brussels law. Brexit Secretary David Davis said

the Bill "is one of the most that has ever passed

through Parliament". He has asked MPs across the house

to work together to deliver it. The Labour party say they'll vote

against the legislation unless there The bill is not expected to be

debated in the Commons or the Lords until the autumn. Labour's Shadow

Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, says in its current form, the Bill gives

ministers "sweeping delegated powers" which would allow the

government to alter legislation with "minimal parliamentary scrutiny."

The bill is not expected to be debated until the autumn, but will

need to be passed by the time the UK leaves the EU - scheduled for March

2019. And I'm joined now by David Jones - who was until recently a

minister in the Department for Exiting the EU. Douglas Alexander,

an essential part of this process is the so-called repeal Bill, and they

are now threatening to vote against it having said they would vote for

it. They accept the principle that Britain will leave the European

Union but they are not convinced by David Davis's reckoning that this is

one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before the

parliament in decades. They are doing their job to make sure they

scrutinise this bill, make sure it is the best possible bill given the

circumstances. Not trying to frustrate the Brexit process, they

may not have the numbers, but if I voted this build them, what would

happen? It is ultimately in the hands of the government, the Labour

Party leadership has taken quite a lot of heat in recent months for not

seeking to circumvent or to deny the vote that was cast on the 23rd of

June last year, at the same time as saying, there are significant

changes which can and should be made to the bill, the Henry VIII powers,

the way that devolution is treated, there is significant principles

embedded in this legislation which deserve to be scrutinised by

Parliament. Makes it a lot more difficult, if you face war from the

Labour Party, given it is a hung parliament. It does, the point is

that the Labour Party supported the notification of withdrawal bill, the

legislation that led to triggering Article 50, having done that, I

think they have a duty to act positively towards this bill. Their

job... Their job is to scrutinise it, they don't need to accept...

They may accept the principle. The Labour spokesman this morning said

they do, it is then their job, the bits they don't like, they are

entitled to vote against it. I'm not sure if Keir Starmer sounds like he

is accepting the principal at the moment but moving beyond that, yes,

we accepted must be scrutinised, one of the most positive things recently

was the House of Lords Constitution committee report which suggested a

way forward in terms of scrutiny. I think that is a really good basis

for going forward, having joined committees on both houses scrutinise

in the legislation before its cause is put forward. I think that is a

really good basis for discussion. The shadow Brexit Minister has put

the government on notice, that's a quote, leader of the Liberal

Democrats says the repeal Bill will " be hell", you must be pleased you

are not in the department any longer. There are complications not

being in the Department, I think the Commons of -- comments of Tim Farron

are ridiculous, to suggest the process will be held. Politicians on

all sides will have to do scrutinise this, Conservative colleagues will

want to do that as well, but to talk in terms of these effectively

wrecking it, that is irresponsible. Should Labour vote against the

second reading, I can see why in committee, separate committee, down

on the floor of the house, lots of amendment is... But should they vote

against the second reading? I think that largely depends upon what kind

of commitment is the minister is given in the course of the second

reading debate, I think it is regrettable that it was not

published in draft so there could be pre-legislative scrutiny, a lot of

these issues could have been resolved if there was a

pre-legislative draft produced, that will have to happen now in the

course of the passage of the bill. The government is ready to listen on

Brexit, David Davis says MPs must work together, the Prime Minister

keeps on asking the Labour Party for ideas and so on(!) but where are as

the government given concessions on this? -- where has the government.

We have not seen it published yet. They could have given concessions

incorporated in the bill and we have no indication that is the case. So

far it has not been published, clearly, the government have made

clear that they are happy and anxious to discuss the way forward

with other parties, the Prime Minister could not have been

clearer. This issue of the Henry VIII powers, which means that you

can alter legislation, by a statutory instrument, other than

legislation, you can see why people will be wary of that. On the other

hand, we have only until March 2019 to get all of this stuff onto the

British legal framework. Surely, there is no other way of doing this,

it is massive. My sense is that there is difficulty in incorporating

many thousands of statutory instruments onto the statute book,

so that we move beyond March 29, has the government in this bill given

adequate assurance that there will not be a continuing capability for a

very significant piece of legislation to be amended by

statutory instruments. -- March 2019. Thereby enabling, if you like,

not taking back control by Parliament but a loss of

parliamentary scrutiny. Because these editor, rather than... Yes,

indeed. What you say -- because being executive. -- because the

executive. They cannot be exercised in definitely, I return to the

questions on the House of Lords Constitution committee,

pre-legislative scrutiny, power should be exercised only on certain

terms. I'm glad you brought that up, for the second time, the Lords

report, on this, because they said the repeal Bill will involve massive

transfer of legislative competence from parliaments to government. It

could potentially... They have said that it will. That is why the

scrutiny process is so important. The suggestion by the House of Lords

committee has said there should be joint scrutiny, before it came

through, and they suggested constraining the powers, by applying

it only to the extent necessary to correct the British statute book and

also to ensure that any thing which was agreed during negotiation

process could also be incorporated. I think the government would be

willing to listen to those proposals. The head of the National

Audit Office, impartial, highly respected civil servant, has said

that the Brexit strategy is in danger of falling apart like a

chocolate orange. I would have thought a chocolate orange was a

particularly well engineered confectionery item. He was comparing

it to a cricket bat! Rather more sturdy than a chocolate orange.

Having been in the Department, I can confirm that the Department for

exiting the European Union is right across Whitehall on this. I did not

recognise criticisms remade, it did not reflect any thing I was aware of

when I was there. Douglas Alexander, the Labour Party says it wants to

now incorporate the European Charter of fundamental rights is. Into UK

law. -- European Charter of fundamental rights. Not Straw 's

book, but the European Charter, yet this was the charter which Labour

said in power would have no more significance than reading the Beano

comic, and would not involve Britain, and now we are writing it

into UK law. -- Strasbourg. Why is that? That has been included as a

request from the Labour Party, because first of all, it has taken

on greatest trick forehand significance, in terms of implement

rights, there may have been -- that may have been exhibited, but the

policy concern is to make sure we do not see a degradation of employment

and is and human rights as a consequence of it being written in.

Surely if Parliament say that this government were eroding workers'

rights, then Labour, they would say it is an outrage, we will reverse

that, and get elected on that basis, why do you need... Why do you

need... MPs were elected to this Parliament on a mandate not have a

Great Repeal Bill but a bill that would guarantee all of those human,

social and employment rights... Why do we need a European Charter to do

that? Are we not capable... We already have the jurisdiction of the

European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg, and we remained

under their jurisdiction. It has been said that will not change, the

Tories have said that, Parliament becomes sovereign in these matters,

we collect Parliament, why do we need a European Charter? You have

had Philip Hammond, increasingly influential Chancellor of the

Exchequer, threatening the spectre of a north Atlantic Singapore,

implement rights would be reduced. That would be a matter... If the

country voted to go that way, fine, in the unlikely event, I would

suggest, if it doesn't, you can stop that. But the country has voted for

Labour MPs to go that way. Why give all of this power to lawyers, do you

trust politicians? Parliament is the forum in which these matters will be

decided. The Charter of fundamental rights is in effect a signposting

measure, referring to underlying rights which will not be affected in

any way, they will remain. There have been repeated assurances that

there will be no degradation of workers' rights. You think it would

be wrong to include this? It is unnecessary for the reasons given.

We will see, we will see whether or not it is a red line. Don't go away,

we are sticking with Europe, for a change(!)

Now, it wasn't a prominent feature of the Brexit debate in the run

up to the referendum, and most of us had probably never

Yet Britain's membership of Euratom, the EU-wide agency that governs

the transportation of radioactive materials needed in nuclear energy,

research and medicine, has become one of the first major

tests for the government's plans for EU withdrawal amongst MPs.

Let's talk to our Assistant Political Editor, Norman Smith.

what's it all about, Norman? One of Theresa May's key red lines, namely,

getting out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice

because this European regulator, comes under the jurisprudence of the

European Court of Justice. As we know, Theresa May has said clearly,

part of Brexit is insuring it is British courts that decide, and for

that reason, she believes we have to leave Euratom and set up our own

agency which would come under the authority of which is courts, why

this matters is because one, there are all sorts of potential,

practical implications in terms of the nuclear industry in Britain, in

terms of retaining jobs here, but above all, concerns about what the

impact might be on the import of medical isotopes, used for scans and

treatments and cancer medicine. The fear is that if we leave, that could

be compromised. to do the question is how far will

she risk this in order to stick by her red line of ending the authority

of the European Court of Justice? Does she faced a potential rebellion

on her own backbenchers on this issue? She absolutely does. There

was a Westminster debate yesterday and I was struck by the range and

number of Tory MPs who have deep worries about what this is going to

mean and, interestingly, even some Eurosceptics said we are going to

have to find a solution to this because this is a problem that will

crop up again and again and again. Take, for example, the issue of EU

nationals. Who was going to enforce their rights? The European Court or

British courts? That conflict will come up repeatedly. His suggestion

is you should come up with a tribunal system where you had a

British judges sitting alongside European judges but this sort of

tension, trying to resolve which court has authority, is going to be

central to the whole Brexit process and we are now seeing the sharp end

of it with the debate over Euratom. It's quite a good example of

something which has never been high profile but is incredibly

complicated to resolve whichever way we go and incredibly complicated

within the time table because the Article 50 deal, although it doesn't

get implemented if it's done until March 2019, will have to be done

around November 2018 for ratification. They must be thinking

in Whitehall, to get all this done by then will be hard. That's spot

on. What is interesting if we cut the government's positional paper on

a Euratom and they are proposing a transitional phase. It seems to me

Brexit is now moving into transition time because all of these

difficulties are piling up and as Michel Barnier said yesterday, the

clock is ticking because he basically once this sorted by next

autumn. We have this hulking repeal bill about to be published, all

sorts of problems and difficulties ahead on that if it can be passed at

all and then behind that, seven other bits of Brexit legislation

and, frankly, no one believes it's going to be possible to do it in

that time frame, so the only by the Government can do it is to buy

themselves some time. Use. Talking about a transitional period. The

difficulty of that is its like sort of throwing a match into the Tory

backbenchers, because Tory backbenchers, talking transition,

you're basically trying to scupper Brexit by talking further off, like

the CBI talking about this unending process of transition, but that

seems to be what the Government will have to do if it's to get any of

this through. Thank you for that, fashion wishing -- fascinating

stuff. David Jones is still with us,

and we are also joined The Royal College of radiologists is

warning today that leaving Euratom would impact on the impact of

radioisotopes, the chief executive of the industry Association said the

transportation of medicalised isotopes could be affected. Are they

right? It certainly does. Of course, what we have to do is put our own

arrangements in place to replace that, but what we are overlooking is

the fact we have no option but to leave the Euratom treaty because it

was so closely bound up with EU treaties, legally, that giving

notice under Article 50 to leave the EU treaties have the effect of

leaving Euratom so what we are now doing is putting in place a bill,

coming through in this session of Parliament, and... Can you do that

in this Parliament? I believe we have no option but to do so. What do

you say to transition, transition, transition? I think there will be a

transition period. Implement says you have agreed it but cannot do it

in the time. Transition implies that there will remain things that have

to be resolved over a period of time after March 2019. That's a different

thing. That is a fair comment but we will seek to come to the agreement

with the EU negotiations which are going on at the moment and put in

place the fermentation period. OK, Ed Vaizey, at PMQs, Damian Green

accused even Jock colleagues of scaremongering, because you said

Euratom would be a risk to the treaties. Are you scaremongering?

No, I didn't know the lady who heads the Royal College of radiologists

and I was on a programme of her this morning, the first time I had met

are. I was rung up by a newspaper asking for a quote about this and I

said absolutely not. I said I'm not going to give you a quote about

isotopes because don't know about this issue. I have the joint

European tourists, nuclear research facility, that's where I come from,

but when I met this lady this morning she showed me the treaty

which said medicalised isotopes are covered and it's a tariff issue, I

gather, and she is concerned so she has raised these concerns and wants

answers from the Government. I come at it from the European research

angle where Britain is that the way and received hundreds of millions of

pounds worth of investment and created thousands of jobs on the

back of it. The Prime Minister included the UK's intention to leave

Euratom in a letter back in March. It seems a long time ago now fulfil

nothing much has happened since then, nothing I could think of, but

it was back in March. Didn't they see this isn't it too late? Yes, I

raised it during the Article 50 debate, but the clear message from

the Government and I supported them on this, was you couldn't exercise

Article 50 without coming out of the Euratom, it had to be a clean

Article 50 if you like. If they had tried it, they would be subject to

legal action and because it ended up in the European Court of Justice for

months on end. Having said that, none of us have seen the legal

advice or have a precis of it. The Iraq plenty of people who say the

opposite but we are where we are and we defined a way forward. What is

coming out in your discussion with David is, please let's not be so

ideological about Brexit that anything with a word European is

bad. If it means we sustain trade in aviation for example, the European

Court of Justice has a role, please don't say we can't have it because

it's got the word European. This point about transition, and it was

raised in the debate yesterday by David, don't be frightened of

transition don't think transition is a Trojan horse to stop a Brexit.

Think of it as making sure we get a Brexit which does not cost jobs and

investment in this country. I think that's a very fair. As you

mentioned, Bill Cash yesterday came up with a suggestion which I think

were very sensible. Example, you could have a joint panel of British

and EU judges and in fact there are precedents for this. The Canadian EU

free trade treaty which was concluded recently, made fraught

panel of three, one from each side and an independent. You will need a

lot of judges and properly another panel on people's rights. The legal

profession is going to be the fastest-growing profession in

Britain at this rate. Speaking as a lawyer, that's not a bad thing.

LAUGHTER I knew you had a vested interest!

You see this as a dripping roast, don't you? Even the boat leave

campaign directly, they treated the Tory party keeps making huge

misjudgements over what the referendum was about and claims the

role of the European Court is not a significant problem -- though to

leave. -- vote leave. What we need to do now

is make sure we have arrangements and implementation and transitional

arrangements, coupled with the dispute resolution system which is

acceptable. It's not beyond the wit of man. It's quite complicated,

isn't it? Our negotiating strategy is a mess. Secondly, the prior

decision by Theresa May that the European Court of Justice would have

no further relevance after Article 50 was concluded has a whole series

of consequences which were not anticipated at the time. Take David

Davis' word for it. He was surprised a red line was drawn on it. I would

echo the point that frankly, whether it's the European arrest warrant, or

Euratom, there are common-sense solutions which could emerge that

our intention with a dim dogmatic approach which said the ECJ is a red

line, one of the consequences is if it gives way to a growth industry of

new regulatory bodies and judicial oversight, there will be fastly more

bureaucracy for lawyers in Britain, hardly the deregulatory initiative

the Brexiteers were hoping for. The suggestion is the Prime Minister was

being dogmatic but the cases Article 50 provides, as soon as the two

years have expired, we cease to be subject to the European treaties.

Part of that is being subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice. What we have to do now is put in new arrangements for

resolving disputes. Do you believe this can be done by March 2019? I

don't know but in any case, there will be a period after that where

these matters are talked about. I agree with you but there is a purely

British conceit of this conversation as we get to decide whether we are

in the Euratom or not. I agree with that. We have 27 other governments

which will decide what the deal will be. The realpolitik of this is a

prime ministers not in a strong position. She's in a week position

with her own party, and she could well have to give way on this. Isn't

that the case? I think a lot of this stems from the rhetoric which happen

before the election, no deed is better than a bad deal. And we are

going to trade of the world. I would love Britain to trade with the world

because this idea we are going to spring fully formed after leaving

the European Union and everything is going to be fine is clearly not the

case. It's going to be hard pounding in difficult. What a year and four

from the payment minister before the election and I hope she does it now,

to reach out to people who are very nervous about leaving the EU, access

to be voted for Brexit, but there are complex issues. You can't simply

pretend it's all going to be sorted by March 2019, they won't be some

mess and fuzziness around the edges and you've got to dial down the

rhetoric so that's where I think the new position should change the way

the primaries to approach as it. That may be watching us to do. Stay

with us. We are going to talk a bit more about the Prime Minister.

Now stay with us because Theresa May has given an interview

She became Prime Minister a year ago today.

Here's what she had to say to Emma Barnett.

I felt I suppose devastated really because, as I say,

I knew the campaign wasn't going perfectly but still

the messages I was getting from people I was speaking to,

but also the comments we were getting back from a lot

of people that were being passed on to me, were that we were going

And then you obviously have to just brush yourself down?

You've been through that experience, but I was there as leader

of the party and Prime Minister and I had a responsibility then to,

as we went through the night, to determine what we were going

And we're also joined now by Tom Newton Dunn,

who interviewed Theresa May in today's Sun.

That rhymes. He interviewed her yesterday. He joins us now. Eddie

Daisy, is this an attempt to project a more human Theresa May -- Eddie

Daisy? I think she is human. I was listening to the interview this

morning and I think she is, one of the reasons... Did you just say you

think she is human? She is human. Quick recovery. I felt, listening to

the radio this morning, she walked on water before the selection. One

of the reasons people liked was she is understated and gets on with the

job. I think it is perhaps a frustration for her that the modern

political scene requires to put it bluntly a lot of demoting in public

and she is uncomfortable with that. In private, she is not. I think that

I'm giving her my full support. I have said that consistency. I will

support her for as long as she wants to remain Prime Minister but, as I

said earlier, on an issue like Europe, I would like to see her

reach out more and understand the dilemmas and difficulties that the

people who don't support the hard Brexit want, but in her manifesto in

the election, there was a lot of policies in the driven by her about

helping people who don't get a great deal out of life. There was a lot of

comment about that, the actual policies were quite hard to

understand that some stage. Would not be true to say the people

thought they liked, but that's because they didn't know her. The

moment they got to know her during the election campaign they decided

they didn't really like her. It's hard to analyse. One thing is very

clear, it wasn't the best campaign and frankly the manifesto itself was

very disappointing. She was the campaign and she was the manifesto.

I think to personalise it to that extent is unfair. She did that. All

the election proposal at the start of a campaign, the word Conservative

was in 6-point type. It was May, she was missing in action, the

Chancellor. Other Cabinet ministers were nowhere to be seen. She

personalised it. I concede it was not the best of

campaigns but the manifesto was what caused us the biggest problems, and

I think that anybody campaigning during that election would be able

to say that the day after the manifesto was published, things

changed. You interviewed the Prime Minister for your paper, did you go

to Downing Street? In her study at number ten, yes. How did you find

her, was she different, is she trying to be different? She was,

your initial analysis is absolutely rights, although you might not

necessarily believe it, you read all those tightly constructive words

from her, she was straining at the bit to be different. Not answer the

same question with the same phraseology 15 times in a row, a

favourite trick. Talk in a human language. And also admit humility,

but blatantly, where she went wrong in the campaign, whether it was over

the manifesto, slightly more accurate description of what went

wrong, having a manifesto she completely failed to sell, did not

add up to this hard Brexit campaign that she had done. There was an

essential untrue with the campaign. You saw with the interview,

admitting that she cried, I did not feel brave enough to put that to

her, six foot tall, hairy bottomed male political editor, saying, did

you weep, Prime Minister, that was beyond me, I slightly kick myself!

She is trying desperately hard to be different. It comes incredible

difficulty with her because she is so shy. Did she not also, at least

implicitly, maybe even more than that, to you, admit that she is

unlikely, she will not be leading the Conservative Party into the next

election? That came across strongly, repeatedly I asked her, leaving ten

to fight another general election as party leader? EU intends to be here

in two years' time? One you time? She refused to put any date on it,

she made it clear she would not be around in 2022, kept on coming up

with the phrase, I want to do the job for a few years, there is a job

to do the Fry few more years, a few more years, throughout the

transcript. She wants to see Brexit through, it is the mess that she has

got us into and she wants to get us out of it but after then she will

move off. That is the mood of the backbenches, they don't want her to

go now, there is no consensus on who would replace her, but they don't

think she should fight another election. Maybe if she survives that

long, completing the Article 50 talks would be a natural time to go,

that is the mood I picked up, is that accurate? I said that I was a

supporter of her as long as she wants to be prime Minster, sounds a

bit pompous for me to keep saying that but received wisdom... It does,

actually! LAUGHTER. All nodding sagely at that. No

disagreement here! Hairy bottomed pomposity. I don't think we need to

revisit that! LAUGHTER The truth is, in Westminster, she

would see two years seen through Brexit and then depart, that is the

mood in the team as well. Good or bad news for Labour that Theresa May

stays? I cannot see how she could fight another general election, no

slight on his journalism, but the dogs in the street knows you will

not, there will be an alternative leader of the Conservative Party who

fights the next general election. One more reason she will stay for a

couple of years, which Conservative MPs will not tell you, they are

terrified of what would happen... She has managed to put this plaster

over two wings of the party, badly represented by David and Ed here, if

she goes, they are terrified of what they may do to each other, club each

other to pieces! Paving the way for another snap election. Which they

fear they would lose. Open civil war to the country, presented to the

country -- presenting this open civil war to the country would be so

detrimental, they would lose. Tough job, she brought it on herself, what

in a sense she is being asked to do a form of penance, to deliver Brexit

as best she can, to the satisfaction of the majority in the house, but

will get none of the benefits of it because when she has done that, she

is expected to go. That is quite tough, in the tough world of

politics. I disagree, if you are somebody as ambitious as she is, to

become Prime Minister, she knows if she goes now, her legacy... She

could secure an Article 50 conclusion which would give her a

different place. I think that her legacy of taking Britain out of the

European Union on successful terms would be great. And then I think

that is the time she would consider it, going after that. Can I just

say... Very briefly, before we move on. I am a number one member of the

David Davis Fanclub, the argument that we would ever... Davy Jones fan

club. The notion that we would ever fight between each other. We have

this sick inducing unanimity breaking out... Quite distasteful(!)

LAUGHTER We are not continuing! LAUGHTER

We are not here to help you get along! LAUGHTER

But we do. Very nice(!) Now, Jeremy Corbyn is in Brussels

today, along with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon,

remember her, and Welsh First

Minister Carwyn Jones. They've all been meeting

with the European Commission's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier

for private talks ahead of the second round of formal

negotiations in Brussels next week. Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour would

avoid the "megaphone diplomacy" this is what he had to say when he

arrived. We're representing 13 million people

that voted Labour in the general election and these are crucial

negotiations for our country and we are here to ensure

that we defend jobs and living standards and try and discover

exactly what the views of the European Union are today

on the whole process. Let's speak now to our

old friend Adam Fleming, Formerly of this parish, now living

the high life, hope for us all, indeed! Do we have a clear idea of

what his message will be, do we have any idea what the response will be

from Michel Barnier? Jeremy Corbyn is here on a twofold mission, number

one, he wants to sell Michel Barnier a briefing on his labour flavoured

version of Brexit, which Labour say would put far more emphasis on

protecting jobs, on the economy, they say they would make unilateral

offers EU citizens living in the UK to protect their rights from Day 1,

with no negotiations and no quibbles about it at all. I imagine that

would be quite popular with Michel Barnier from the European side, that

is just the sort of thing the year once the UK to offer European

citizens living in the UK. The second part Jeremy Corbyn's mission,

revealed in the Labour press release issued to go alongside this visit,

they talk about labour being the government in waiting, so this is as

much about getting Intel about the "Brexit" negotiations as making

Jeremy Corbyn look Prime Minister Arial. Somebody who can strike the

world stage, or at least the stage here in Brussels. In terms of what

Michel Barnier will think of all of this, EU officials have made it

clear, when asked about this, they are happy to welcome Jeremy Corbyn

here for a meeting but it was Jeremy Corbyn's invitation, he was the one

that asked for the meeting, not the other way around. The next sentence

is always, the EU Commission will negotiate with the British

government. There will be no Brexit negotiations over lunch in that

building between Michel Barnier and Jeremy Corbyn today. I assumed that

will be Michel Barnier's message to the Scottish First Minister, and the

Welsh First Minister. Yes, Nicola Sturgeon flew in first thing this

morning, in the building for less than an hour and then flew back out

again, very short meeting. She tweeted to say she had a good

conversation with Michel Barnier, I understand she was doing her

Scottish flavoured version of Brexit which involves keeping Scotland with

excellent access to the single market, the stuff she has been

talking about all through the Brexit process, I don't know whether they

had much time to discuss the details, does not look likely. Her

big contribution today will be when she arrives back in Glasgow airport

shortly, she will give her verdict on the Great Repeal Bill, published

in London a short while ago. The fact is, Michel Barnier's door is

always open, he has made a big thing about speaking to people from all

sectors of the economy, all sorts of different places to find out what

they think about Brexit but he is very clear again that the only Prime

Ministers and presidents and leaders that he takes instruction from our

leaders of the 27 EU countries. It will be interesting, given that he

is seeing Jeremy Corbyn, Nicola Sturgeon, Carwyn Jones...

is seeing Jeremy Corbyn, Nicola Sturgeon, Carwyn I have forgotten

his name... Carwyn Jones... I should have known it was Jones, Neil is the

Welsh First Minister. Can he avoid the temptation to play politics,

because they are more cordial than the government. -- he is the Welsh

First Minister. Jeremy Corbyn has tried to up the cordiality for his

meeting with Michel Barnier by giving him an Arsenal shirt! Jeremy

Corbyn represents where Arsenal has their stadium, in Islington, north

London, we think it is because Michel Barnier is French and the

manager of Arsenal is French, you and I totally across all the details

of football, as you know. What's Arsenal(!) a well-known football

team. Very well. It may well be they have similar viewpoint in private,

in terms of how Brexit is going forward, Michel Barnier is not going

to do any public statements about how these meetings have gone. You

probably will not reveal anything about whether he feels that Jeremy

Corbyn or Nicola Sturgeon are easier to deal with than David Davis, did a

press conference yesterday setting out all the things he wants to deal

with looking forward to the next round of talks, darting with David

Davis on Monday. I suspect the reason Michel Barnier does not want

to make a big song and dance out of the meeting, the simple diplomatic

reason that he is Intel cut is David Davis from Britain. -- --

interlocutor. I will be over to join you in Brussels soon, to test your

expenses account to the very limit(!) LAUGHTER

It seems right that they should go to see Michel Barnier, nothing wrong

with that. There is nothing wrong with it but it is equally right

there is a understanding on the part of Michel Barnier that the British

interlocutor is David Davis. Particularly with Jeremy Corbyn, if

there was a snap election, Jeremy Corbyn could be the next Prime

Minister and Labour would have to do the negotiation. It is in that

spirit that he has gone, from the point of view of Michel Barnier,

implicit acknowledgement that Parliament will have a more

significant role in shaping Brexit negotiations and the Brexit

negotiating brief Ben may have been the case if as many people

anticipated, the Conservatives have come back with a big majority. With

a big majority. The war in Syria has been

going on for over six years, and the advance of so-called

Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, has had major

implications for us in the UK. But now that IS is being driven out,

we've been asking two With many other factions

still fighting, it seems defeating VOICEOVER: Two key cities once under

Islamic State control. Now Mosul in Iraq has been liberated

and Raqqa in Syria is also We've reached a significant

step in the dismantling of the so-called IS caliphate,

but what comes next? The Syrian conflict is an alphabet

soup of different groups Just because one element might start

to be resolved that doesn't mean we're anywhere

near fixing this mess. There are so many things going

on and they're all interlinked. It's been six-and-a-half

years of war. There are multiple external

influences and actors and powers getting involved carving off bits

of territory, There are different rules

in different sets of governments been put in place of the regime

of Bashar al-Assad. They're not going to go

anywhere any time soon. Broadly speaking, the parts of Syria

shown here in red are under the control of the government forces

of President Assad. In green are areas dominated

by a number of different anti-government rebel factions

who oppose the Assad regime. And in the North, a large area

known as Rojava in yellow is under the control

of the Kurdish-led Syrian who have been leading the fight

to push back IS along with supportive airstrikes

from the US-led coalition. There is not one side

aligned to another. It's shifting alliances,

so there's a lot to play for still and where the United States

is particularly involved is in this rollback of Islamic State territory

and the key there is two-fold. One is, of course, to try to defeat

extremist Sunni actors, but the second one is to stop

the regime of Bashar al-Assad IS out in the east is in retreat

and has now lost more than half But some warn, although IS may be

defeated militarily, in terms of its control of certain

areas, the group could continue In my opinion we're not even

seeing the fall of Isis. We're seeing the pushback of one

aspect of what Isis is. But in the way we are diminishing

its statehood presence, its claims to statehood,

we're not doing anything to resolve the fact that it

remains an insurgency, it remains a terrorist

movement and in fact, all of the underlying structural

problems of Syrian society and of Iraqi society that allowed

and led to the creation of all of this mess in the first

place all still remain. Elsewhere, other fault lines

are becoming more prominent. In the North, the Kurds

are under attack at the hands of their long-standing enemy Turkey

and this is where it America is arming the Syrian Kurds

to help them fight IS, even though Turkey is America's main

NATO ally in the region. You've got the counter Isis

coalition going this way and the interests of Turkey

going that way and of course And what you've had of course

is this sort of piecemeal arrangement whereby Turkey has taken

a little is of territory arrangement whereby Turkey has taken

a little bit of territory in the north of the country

to prevent the creation of a continuous Kurdish bloc,

but they are also very frustrated about the fact the Kurds

are becoming one of the biggest They're being empowered in a way

which will give them some kind of political strength

after the conflict is gone. So far, British MPs have voted not

to put boots on the ground in Syria, but for the UK to be part

of the coalition, which carries out So what of the UK's

role going forward? I think where you will see more UK

activity is at a time when people sit down and go,

"It's time to talk. "Let's try to work out a track

whereby we can have the regime, "we can the Kurds, we can

have the opposition in their various "different stripes actually having

a realistic discussion The United Kingdom can have

some influence there. The message really has to be

this is a war of decades and will probably live with us

in some form for the A major concern will be

whether areas of Syria and Iraq will remain a breeding ground

for potential terrorists even after the fall

of so-called Islamic State. Back in 2013 MPs voted against

committing ground troops to Syria - a result secured after Labour

decided to oppose military action - our guest of the day

Douglas Alexander was Shadow Foreign Secretary

at the time. The Conservative MP,

Nadhim Zahawi voted in favour of military action and joins

as now. If the House had voted the other way

in 2013 to sanction it, do you think it would've much difference? I think

the vote at the time was essentially if you remember, Barack Obama the

Red Line would be if President Assad used chemical weapons and he did and

his action had consequences because he then used it again and only when

President Trump decided to take action with a cruise missile attack

and a warning two weeks ago, if you recall, the State Department

delivered to Russia and other allies to say we got intelligence they are

going to use chemical weapons are going if they do we were lacked a

game, with the support of the UK and others, which has made resident

Assad stop and think about stopping using chemical weapons so his

actions have consequences. I don't know what would have happened if we

had acted then. We stop the Americans. A la vote. Precisely. --

our vote. I remember that weekend in Washington was fascinating. Barack

Obama didn't have support in Congress because of our vote and on

the Saturday in the Rose Garden he said we are not proceeding with

this. Looking back now, do you regret that 2013 vote? Let's start

with the facts force your introduction was not accurate. It

wasn't troops on the ground. I felt when I saw that, that was wrong and

you are quite right, it was air strikes. Truthfully, at the

conclusion that evening in the House of Commons, David Cameron in his

summation said I've got the message, Britain will not be taking part in

military action, so the consequence was precluding ground truth but that

was never on the order paper. There was a range of different options we

said the evidence should precede the decision, there should be a vote at

the UN Security Council, but we would not be mandated by the

decision of the Security Council. It would surface the opposition of the

Russians and, as it turned out, it was defeated as was the Conservative

motion that night, and we are now in the realm of counterfactual history.

I would say none of us on any side of the House of Commons can feel any

pride in what happened over the last seven and a half years and the human

suffering, but in not dissimilar circumstances there was a vote in

favour of air strikes in Libya in 2011 where Labour support of the

Government and a few of us look back on that vote with any pride either.

So I think exactly had has been said, we have learned over the

decades that military intervention has consequences. A lack of military

intervention has consequences as well. Labour had an amendment

calling for impelling evidence President Assad was responsible for

the chemical attacks. There's no doubt he did, is there? Not now but

there was at the time. Previously, people said weapons inspectors were

not given sufficient time, we were keen to ensure the evidence informed

decision. The truth is the vote took place in the long shadow of the vote

of Iraq and its to David Cameron 's discredit that when he received

phone call from Barack Obama saying I'm going to take military action

next weekend, will you join me? David Cameron didn't have the

presence of mind to say, listen, there are pros as I need to go

through in Parliament. If you need to go next weekend you have my

diplomatic support, I need longer time to be able to persuade people.

This was pre-the vote. Immediately before it. We saw Barack Obama's

timetable, I need to strike within one week, against David Cameron's

timetable for legitimacy, I need to take this to House of Commons. What

was wrong with that? If he had said we need to take this to the UN, get

the weapons inspectors report, if we had had that, I believe there would

have been a majority House of Commons for air strikes being taken

forward. His point on Libya intervention, and the Foreign

Affairs Committee did a comprehensive report and it isn't

about understanding the consequences of intervention, and not simply knee

jerking and intervening and not knowing what to do afterwards. If

you look at Iraq for example, 1982, when John Major persuaded George

Bush senior to take action to but in a no-fly zone, he brought in the

Royal Marines and I had a Civil War. If you had a snapshot of

intervention, you would have thought of the failing intervention because

the two Kurdish parties went at each other but that took about a year

until they realised it's no good and they should come together, they

formed a parliament, coalition Government and now they are onto

their 24th Government. Embryonic democracy with all the values that

we try and go out and talk about and asking countries to buy into, has

developed so intervention does work. You have got to go in with very

clear ideas about what the eventual outcome would be. John Major said we

will not be nation-building, put troops on the ground but just

protect them so he can't use helicopter... No, no. He did put

troops on the ground and created a safe haven. He put in the Royal

Marines. One of the weaknesses of the ceasefire, I was out there at

the time in the first Gulf War, was that the Americans with British

support, allowed helicopters to fly and they went in and took out the

Marsh Arabs who Saddam Hussein had hated and built a huge canal so they

no longer had water. It's about intervention. We intervened and

occupied Iraq. It was a mess. We intervened but did not occupy Libya

and it was a mess. We have not intervened to any great extent or

occupied Syria, it's a mess. What policy conclusion can you draw? The

policy conclusion I draw is that we need to because shares in saying the

vote in 2013, if it had gone the other way, would have resulted in

Syria turning into Scandinavia because we had 100,000 international

troops on the ground for a decade in Iraq and it was engulfed in

sectarian conflict and for every independent region of physics done,

you've had problems. It seems the public tolerance and a waste, for a

significant number of ground troops in Middle Eastern countries has gone

but, on the other hand, the reality of the conflict leads to huge human

suffering and potential security threats for us and that's why we

will have to find alternatives to the kinds of invasions we saw in

2003. Thank you for that. It's a really important subject to be

discussing. We have to move on to an even more important subject.

Now - have we Brits been dictating what fruit spread should be

Well, one German MEP thinks so and hopes Brexit will be

an opportunity to reclaim the Teutonic tradition when it

Jackob von Weizsacker joins us now from Brussels.

Welcome to the programme. I'm going to put up on the screen, a little

marmalade, and on this toast, I have got what we call marmalade in the

UK, made with oranges but on the other piece of toast we have

strawberry jam, which is not made with oranges. The clue is in the

name. Are you saying, Germany, after Brexit, both could be caught

marmalade? Well it turns out that the pure linguistic exercise.

Week one of marmalade on and the other is marmalade. It's a problem

when you start writing them because they look the same and so it was

agreed a long time ago and it was a victory for Britain at the time that

what we call Orange marmaladen would be called marmalade and the rest of

it would have to be called confiture. I did ask a

tongue-in-cheek question is whether Germans would be allowed to call

their jam marmaladen again after Brexit, to sweeten the bitter

aftertaste of Britain's leading EU? Now, clearly, it is a

tongue-in-cheek question so to my great surprise, the Daily Telegraph

and the Daily Mail made a story out of it than angry German asking for

his marmalade back and in fact it was just a bit of a joke. It was an

odd experience with the British press. I think you have learned the

hard way, when it comes to European things, you can't joke with the

Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph on that. You said allowing marmalade

to be called marmaladen again could help sweeten the bitter aftertaste

Brexit for many EU citizens. That's quite an important policy you come

across there, isn't it? Quite, quite. Does it take the EU to do

this? After all, on champagne, only sparkling wine from the Champagne

region can because champagne and that is secured by the Treaty of

Versailles. In 1919. Country have another international treaty to

protect marmalade? -- couldn't we have? I'm not certain whether we

should go back to having to deserve the science that things. -- having

treaties of Versailles and such things. More importantly, discussing

Brexit, is whether in fact Britain is going to leave both the single

market and the customs union which would have a major disadvantage for

Britain and major disadvantages for the EU 27 remaining or whether we

can think of a better way of a divorce settlement and that of

course a serious matter which is currently under discussion and

unfortunately, it turns out in order to have such an arrangement, like

the single market, we need to reach compromises. And I need to stop you

because we have run out of time but I hope you'll come back and speak to

us on other issues, also. A pleasure to talk to you. I will be back after

question Time. Very late.