14/07/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

She's been Prime Minister for a year, and what a year it's been.

So what does the next 12 months have in store for Theresa May?

And can the Government do all the things it wants to do?

Train drivers on Southern Rail vote for fresh strikes

Meanwhile, the Transport Secretary accuses Labour of colluding

with the unions to bring misery to passengers.

Jeremy Corbyn is as likely to be seen addressing big

rallies, as he is wondering through the corridors of power.

But do street protests really bring about political change?

And, as the French President welcomes his American

counterpart on Bastille Day, we speak to a leading French

politician about the rise of Emmanuel Macron, Brexit

and the future of Anglo-French relations.

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

a double act to rival May and Corbyn, Barnier and Davis,

That's Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator,

and Anoosh Chakelian, from The New Statesman -

So, it's the end of the week in which Theresa May celebrated,

if that's the right word, her first twelve months

It hasn't exactly gone to plan, understatement of the year. Nothing

has gone to plan for her for the last four or five months. But she's

still here which is more than people thought on election night. We all

know that she is going to resign, unlike Gordon Brown who we thought

would hang on, everyone knows she will walk the plank at some point

but nobody knows who will succeed her. Until the party makes up its

mind, she will stay. She is like an undead Prime Minister, it's very

strange. When do you think the walking the plank will be? If we

take that view. She's given herself a few years. I think she might be

right. We don't know the exact deadline. Her weakness is keeping

her in place. No Conservative MP wants to destabilise things when

Jeremy Corbyn is at a high, partly because of Theresa May's weakness.

Would it be better to admin that it was a mistake to call an election? I

don't think anybody thinks it was the right decision. She might have

meant that if things went a planet might have been a good decision but

it was obviously the biggest self-inflicted wound in the history

of the Conservative Party. She has probably inflicted more damage on

party then anybody since Tony Blair. What have we learnt about politics

in the last few months? That you shouldn't take anything for granted.

As soon as you start attacking someone, personal attacks like in

the campaign, the public can react differently and it might backfire.

Should there have been more of a mea culpa? She said that she shared a

tear, which for her is a big deal and then she claimed that she

immediately thought of the message that the electorate had sent. There

was no sense of that. It was a staged mea culpa. A lesser Prime

Minister would have quit and walk away as David Cameron did after the

Brexit foe. She is sticking with it because she feels a sense of duty to

the party and she deserves credit for that. Sense of duty is

important. She is the great survivor. Of course, her decision to

stand for the leadership in the first place was quite brave. Nobody

wanted to inherit a Brexit negotiations. But she had felt for a

while that she could become leader. Brexit negotiations, if we go back

to Lancaster house and that speech, is it going to continue to be a

template? I think so. The Lancaster house speech was a very persuasive

template. Only 12 weeks ago, we were looking at the local election

results and everything she did seem to have been vindicated. We have

learned how quickly politics can shift and certainties vanish. What

does it say about support? That it is very soft and flaky on both

sides? And things can change. It's almost as though the Conservatives

prospects have flipped over and reflect what Labour was suffering

before the election. It could flick over again. Is she human now? She is

never going to be a great raconteur with her emotions on her sleeve. The

public see her for what she is, someone who works very hard with a

huge sense of duty but finds it hard to say, come and be my friend. Other

politicians do that. It doesn't matter because she won't be standing

for election again. So, Theresa May's second year

in Downing Street is now underway. If you believe Jeremy Corbyn -

then the government is clapped out and he'll have her job

before Christmas. But allies of the Prime Minister

say that she can carry on for years. So, if you'll excuse the

naval metaphor, let's take a look at what's in the offing

for Theresa May's government A top priority is of course

to sail the ship of state Face-to-face talks between

the Brexit Secretary David Davis and the EU's Chief Negotiator

will resume this Monday. Yesterday, the government

introduced the Repeal Bill, this will overturn the 1972

legislation that took the UK into the Common Market and also

convert EU law into UK law. The opposition parties are keen

to amend and oppose the bill - the Liberal Democrat leader

Tim Farron even said that the passage of the bill

will be "hell" for the government. And there are seven other bills

related to Brexit on the horizon - in particular, the Customs Bill,

the Immigration Bill In the autumn, the Chancellor Philip

Hammond will present his He'll be under pressure to yield

to calls for him to end the 1% cap But the government's

economic strategy got a boost from the independent Office

for Budget Responsibility yesterday. The fiscal watchdog suggested

that ending austerity and increasing spending could pose a "significant

risk" to the public finances. And in the Queen's Speech we got

a sense of the other priorities of the government -

including a consultation on social care, an industrial strategy

to boost growth and a review Joining me now is Conservative MP,

Kwasi Kwarteng, who is Parliamentary Private Secretary

to the Chancellor Philip Hammond. And from Middlesbrough we are joined

by Shadow Transport Secretary Andy McDonald. Hell for the government?

Parliamentary guerrilla warfare. What are you going to do about it?

Tim Farron has his own agenda and he was the leader of a campaign that

didn't do very well. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour

Party are committed to Brexit. I think we can get a decent majority

for repealing the European Community zag across the house. It'll be

difficult but I think we can do that. I think Tim Farron is not

reflecting the mood of the House of Commons. He has 12 MPs, he resigned

because he did so badly and I don't think he's in a position to talk

about guerrilla warfare. I think we will be able to get things through.

The fact that he is promising it, against a backdrop of the Article 50

legislation, knowing that there are a group of Conservative MPs looking

to oppose a bill like a rip your bill at least with amendments to it.

That might make life very difficult and water down the bill. Do you

accept that? We had about nine votes over the Article 50 legislation.

I've never seen anything like it. If you look at the division nose and

saw the Conservative rebels, there were very few of them. The

majorities we secured were much more safe than people anticipated. I

agree that the situation now is more difficult but I'd be such prize to

see the number of rebels that I've read about. I don't think it would

be as many as 15. The party is quite united and determined to see us

through this process. But not without amendments, changes,

frustration in the Bills. You only have to look at the opposition.

Labour have promised to amend it. We've got the Liberal Democrats and

the SNP saying similar things. 15 MPs is not a massive number. The

odds are stacked against you. I don't think it is as high as 15 and

I've given the reasons why. You assume that the opposition is united

but we know that there are Labour MPs who voted for Brexit and people

like Caroline Flint who don't want freedom of movement and are

representing constituencies where the majority voted to leave. I don't

think it's as simple as you suggest. Let's ask Andy McDonald on the

Labour side, welcome to the programme, talking on the repeal

bill specifically, you are asking for a whole range of concessions.

The government probably won't give you everything that you want. In all

likelihood, are you just going to vote against the repeal Bill? I

think we'll be voting for our amendments but I think the principle

of the repeal bill is accepted but it's up on what terms and what comes

afterwards. We've set out very clearly, embracing David Davis's own

words of the exact same benefits and making sure that we are still

parties to important European organisations that have served as

well and it's absolutely imperative that we do not throw the baby out

with the bath water and we don't throw away 40 years of benefits. Are

those red lines? For Labour. If you listen to Keir Starmer, who is

shadowing on the Brexit side for Labour, they want to see the

incorporation of the European Charter of fundamental rights, that

means that you can't vote for the repeal bill as it stands. We will

see. I think we've got to have pragmatic and sensible approach to

this. What does that mean? Theresa May obviously recognises the

weakness of her own position and is trying to reach out to other parties

to help her out. That, for me, signals that there is some sense

that there is going to be some element of compromise. On what,

though? That's too early for me to say. The bill was published

yesterday. But we've heard Keir Starmer on the European Charter of

fundamental rights. Is that a red line for Keir Starmer and Labour? He

will make that clear. I'm not going to step into his shoes and say that

or not. We need pragmatic views on what can be achieved so we don't

leave the European Union and the impact of it making our people much

worse off. We've got to give people the chance to make some progress on

these hugely important areas for hours. To start shouting the odds at

this stage, I'm afraid, that's where the Tories got into difficulties in

the first place by having such an intransigence of view with their

European partners, rather than saying let's negotiate. Let's put

that to Kwasi. We don't know exactly the areas that they are going to try

and change and amend but they are obviously going to try and do it. If

we look at the European Charter of fundamental rights, would you have

way on that? That's way above my pay grade. Let's look at the actual bill

and see what the amendments are. The fact is, to say that the opposition

is completely united is false. We saw Chuka Umunna put down an

amendment and 49 Labour MPs voted in favour of that. A large portion of

the party didn't. Before you move on, I want a savoury clearly that

you've got a very simplified picture of the parliamentary arithmetic and

there are splits on the Labour side and I think the Conservative Party

is more united than you have assumed and I think we'll be able to get

something out of it. Let's talk about the Labour dilemma. It is true

that Caroline Flint is very keen to emphasise to you and other Labour

colleagues that the party must stick with what it promised which is

leaving the single market because you promised to end freedom of

movement and leave PE you in the way that her constituents would like to

see. That is at complete odds with the constituents of Keir Starmer or

Jeremy Kyle Britain or -- or Jeremy Kyle been all Emily Thornberry. How

can you satisfy both? The vote was very close. The discussion has two B

about securing the benefits of the single market is as David Davies

pointed out. If it comes to freedom of movement, we accept that goes if

you leave the single market. What comes in its place? It is the

ability to look at migration and have a policy that serves the

economy in our interests. We can do that very sensibly. It doesn't mean

pulling up the drawbridge. It means having an active immigration policy

where people are welcomed into our country to help as in the areas

where we need their skills and abilities. A very sensible attitude.

I will bring in Andy McDonald. How difficult is this going to be for

both parties to pull off? The problems are similar, all of them

have MPs who represent constituents who would rather stay in for

financial or cultural reasons and they have constituents who voted to

leave. Kwasi talk about Labour being divided. It is divide on Brexit,

but, what it is united in, is make things as difficult as possible for

a very weak Government and the Tories shown underest mate that. Is

the Repeal Bill going to be the place where that opposition is going

to come to the fore, the fight against the Conservatives and in

some people's minds the fight against Brexit. It is an opportunity

for Labour to try to make common cause of Tory rebel, it doesn't

matter if it is about the EU or parking fine, anything, you would

take a chance to inflict a defeat, or think of something nobody thought

of before, the provision of abortion for women in Northern Ireland, you

take something like that and try and get a concession, the repeal bill is

misnamed. It is not the great any more. It is taking regulation and

making it into British law. It's the great regulation bill if you like.

Because there is so much it creates opportunities to embarrass is

Government. Before we move on, what is more important do you and your

Labour colleague, getting rid of this Conservative Government, or

seeing through the Brexit negotiations? Well, both. They are

both important. But... You might use the Brexit negotiation to get rid of

this Government? Well, I mean, Theresa May thought she was going to

have this massive mandate for her to do as she wish, and that is not

going to happen. She knows that, that is why she is in difficulty.

Not bringing anything to the floor of the House of Commons because she

knows she have the Dell's own job to progress anything. We will be acting

in the best interests of country and making sure we get the best possible

bill we can and it addresses the needs of our people. For goodness'

sake, what else should we do? Let us move on to the economy, Philip

Hammond will give his autumn budget, if you are going to listen to some

of the voices inside the Cabinet, and other Tory backbenchers, who are

asking for the 1% public sector pay cap to be lifted, is that something

you can support. Certainly we won't rewrite the budget half way through

the year, there will be a budgetary event as you suggested. We have had

discussion about pay cap. I don't have any idea what will be in the

budget. It was important the Government held the line. Deficit

reduction is important, people understand that, we have done a

long, very well in that, over the last seven year, it has gone from 50

billion to 50 billion. That is important, and the idea that if a

Labour Government came in, we would see further progress on this, is not

correct. It is fanciful. The IFS have said that Labour's plans would

cost ?100 billion more, would add to the deficit. ?100 billion oh the

course of a five year Parliament. That is a lot of money, a lot of

debt. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggested that

fatigue and increased spending could post a significant risk to the

public finance, does that not mow blow a hole your economic argument?

At least we set out with some, in some detail what our spending plans

w and where the money would come from, we heard nothing from the Tory

party, and look, they missed their target, they have done since 2010

and they keep putting them back. I am asking about your economic

argument, because if the Office for Budget Responsibility is saying that

spending to, if you like, mitigate the effects of austerity and

increasing spending are going to pose a significant risk particularly

with some the uncertainties round Brexit, is that a responsible

economic argument for Labour to be putting forward? Well is it really

responsible to have a plan where by our nurses are going, working flat

out, an not having sufficient money to get through the week, where

families are ?1400 a year worse off, as a result of austerity, while

giving the tax breaks to the very very richest in our society. There

is something morally bankrupt about that and there has to be a better

distribution of the wealth of nation. Let me put that to Kwasi.

Morally bankrupt he say, isn't the proof in the pudding the result of

the election, because you are not listening, to the public, when it

comes to things like pay, and cost of living and look at rates of

inflation, hitting 3%, squeeze on people's pay now, you know, it is a

big cut, the average pay is about 1.8% pay rise, 3% inflation, people

can't afford, things in the way they could. You need to change your

policy S Three things to that. If you look at the economic management

we have had since 2010. We have reduced the deficit by two thirds. I

am talking about now. It is is a broader debate. If we don't have a

decent economy, people will suffer far more, than if we have a well run

economy, that is self evident. That is self evident. People are

saying... If we look at the alternative, we have the record

numbers of. Employment, the lowest unemployment rate 40 year, we have

reduced the deficit by two-third and we have over the last seven years on

the compounded annual basis we have grown faster than every other

country in Europe. How do you... I am establishing with you, I

understand that. This is a God record. We accept that there are

difficulties in terms of rising living costs, but, what I would say

is the alternative f you go down a Labour route you will increase the

debt, you will increase you could increase inflation, and you could

increase interest rates and that would be very damaging to people on

lower incomes. Andy McDonald? That is ludicrous, more pain to inflict

on the most vulnerable and worse off in society. I will challenge Kwasi

to come to my constituency and come into some of the territories where

people are really suffering on this Tory regime. They are having the

toughest of times and yet we sit back and think this all in the

garden is Rosie, it isn't. For many millions in the country and for him

to suggest this is a success story, I would hate to see what failure

would look like, this has been a miserable time for thousands and

millions of people, right across this land and it is about time the

Tories woke up to that. There is a huge outpouring and embracing of

Labour's message to say we can order society in a totally different way

and we cannot simply go on pandering to the richest in oat who can afford

to pay a little more. A quick response, we were told you are not

deaf as a government. Frazer will know the richest 1% are paying more

as a proportion of tax. Is that making nurses feel better or

teachers feel better about the cost of living? Something I have accepted

the cost of living is an issue, we have address it with regards to the

personal allowance, we more than doubled that. The wait you pay tax

is higher now, than was ever the case in the past. Thank you both

very much. Briefly, is this where the argument is going to be putting

Brexit to one side slightly, looking at the economic tussle between the

two parties? Yes it will be about fairness. The Tories have a strong

story to tell. Look at whose incomes have gone up, whose have gone done.

It is richest whose incomes have fallen the most. The Conservatives

have been progressive. Those at the bottom have been protected. Is that

how you see? It The argument for austerity has been dropped. She

didn't make it a priority so it is difficult for them to bring it back

to the top of the agenda again. Thank owe both P

Yesterday Jeremy Corbyn met the EU's Brexit negotiator in Brussels

and to get into his good books he gave him an Arsenal shirt.

So our question for today is, what was written on the back?

or d) Seumas, I'm not sure this is a great idea.

At the end of the show Fraser and Anoosh

With we are saying goodbye to Kwasi Kwarteng.

Train drivers on Southern Rail have voted for fresh

strikes over the summer, after rejecting a pay

Govia Thameslink had offered staff a four-year pay deal worth nearly

But the drivers' union Aslef has announced three days of strikes

at the start of August, after its members voted

Meanwhile, the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, has announced

a ?13 million fine for the train company for the disruption

And in the Commons yesterday, he also took aim at the Labour Party.

Let's be clear about what's been done today, I have, for months,

said the problems on this railway are not purely down to industrial

But, I'm also very clear, Mr Speaker, and so is Chris Gibb's

report, that the prime responsibility for the trouble

on that network in the last few months has come from trade unions,

fighting the battles of 30 years ago, and still they get support

from the Labour Party, and the reality is it is

the Labour Party and the unions colluding to bring trouble

Well, Andy McDonald is still with us - he was opposite Chris Grayling

And from Tunbridge Wells we're joined by Conservative MP

Huw Merriman, who represents the Bexhill and Battle

We did ask Aslef - the train drivers' union -

if anyone was available for interview, but no one was.

Delighted you are here. We heard Chris Grayling saying Labour was

colluded with the union over this industrial action, do you support

the industrial action? That is not true. And if Chris Grayling has any

evidence of this terrible lie he is trying to perpetuate, let him come

forward with it. He makes it up. It is not true there has been that sort

of discussion with the trade unions at all. Do you support the

industrial action though? Well, I support passengers in their bid to

have a railway that is safe, and secure and accessible. You do

support the industrial action It find it staggering that the Tories

are prepared to compromise on safety when it is clear we need a second

member of crew on that, every train, who is critically trained in safety.

We have seen evidence of it, look at the Watford issue months ago, driver

incapacitated, who led the passengers safely away from that

train? It was the guard. And these people are talking about taking

guards off trains and having them depart stations without that safety

critical person onboard. It is plain. It is a dangerous game. I

want and answer, do you support the industrial actionsome I do support

the industrial action, because it is standing up for passengers, for

safety, for accessibility, these are things that we all should be

standing up for, instead of compromising on it and putting

people at risk. I wish Tories would wake up and realise that is what the

people want, and it isn't beyond the wit to Rossiter a train to make sure

that it is properly staffed, in terms of not only driver, which they

can't do because they didn't recruit enough or assess what was available,

and making sure that second critical person is onboard. Right. It is is a

simple matter. You don't care about passenger safety Hugh merry man? I

do. I commute from East Sussex to Parliament, so of course I care

about my safety and my constituent, this strike is about a rejection of

a pay rise, this is not a strike based on the technology, that is the

overtime ban, so for Andy McDonald to talk about whether it is morally

wrong for people to be given big pay rises versus 1% for nurses and not

condemn a strike with a 23% pay rise has been reject is hypocrisy. It

isn't just about safety it is about pay rise, why should Aslef go on

strike when they have rejected a 24% pay rise taking salaries from

?39,000 to 60,000? Well, you have to get the detail of that, this

franchise... That is a massive pay rise. Hang on, hang on, it

predicated on the basis that people work their overtime, days off, do we

sensibly want to have a railway system that is run where people are

working six and seven days a week? This is crazy. As far, hang on, let

us be clear about what was being offered, because as I understand it,

the pay offer would have taken the base salary, from 39,000 to just

over 60,000, for the existing 35 hour week, four days a week.

Well, you are going to have to have Aslef come on and give you their

details. It is not a seven day week, which is what you said? The basis if

you are running a railway on overtime, how mad is that? You

should have enough people properly employed to do the proper working

week and not rely on people to turn up. Chris Gibbs said so, if you, the

Gibb report says a so. Let us go back to Hugh, because there was

overwhelming support for rejecting that pay rise, so if there was

overwhelming support for it, the grievances must be big. We have to

be clear, this rejection has been on pay, the overtime ban that is in

place is about the technology, so this is purely about pay. And it

can't be right when pay is only going up by 1.8% that a 24% pay rise

can be rejected. I would urge the drivers to think about my

constituents, commuters who are not earning like like this doing more

than 35 hours a week and can't get to work and are losing their jobs

for their commute, or not seeing their families. Families. It is

fair. Andy McDonald needs to think about all worker, that may belong to

a use one that subsidises the Labour Party.

What about the company? Do they not take responsibility for the

appalling service that they have put out on a daily basis? They have just

been penalised by ?13 million, their share under the contract for

cancellations. What's been made clear under the independent report

is the primary cause of the appalling performance has actually

been the unions. The ?13 million is a small proportion of the blame, the

big proportion lies with the unions for going on strike where they can't

justify it. The new technology has been deemed safe. Its on-board on

13% of the network and has for decades. The unions reject that and

have rejected it continuously. I hosted a debate not long ago where

the whole safety argument was challenged. By the unions

continually in the way that Andy Macdonald has stated. Until that is

resolved, those actions are going to continue. I was one of the people

there. At that stage, the unions were demanding that the independent

rail safety regulator gave his opinion. I was keen for that as

well. He did so and he said it has been used for decades and is safe

across the country and safe on Southern rail. As soon as that came

out, it was deemed to be a whitewash. There is always just

another excuse as to why the strike is going on. There's no logic in

this. It leads me to believe that that is collusion between the unions

and labour. Andy Macdonald has rejected that. They are messing

around with my constituents lives and it is incredibly shellfish. The

report did find that union action was the primary cause for the

network failure. The unions have called it a slap on the wrist. Do

you accept that? Who paid him? Who paid Chris Gibb? GTR. He supposed to

be independent. How are you independent if you are doing a

report into an organisation that was paying you? You quoted from the

reporter said it was a thing earlier. There are lots of good

things in the report. Except for the things you don't agree with. I

really do think. Let's have an honest think about this. The ?13.4

million fine, isn't it remarkable that a good deal of that is recycled

into doing what we've been asking all along. More people on trains.

Why don't the government just wake up and make sure there is a guard on

every train and get this strike over. People are talking about the

page offer rejected, this is about safety and security and access

ability. They want the best railway in the world and it is about time we

had sensible conversations about it. It is also about pay. To be clear.

Hugh Merriman, what made the government take so long to act on

this? I've been through the contract with the transport select committee

and it is quite a technical clause. Southern said it was down to the

fault of industrial action. The government has demonstrated that

some of the causes were Southern. I'm critical of both sides. My

problem with the Labour Party position is that it is completely

one-sided. They are showing they are not a government in waiting because

they are sticking up for well-paid individuals rather than passengers

who rely on the trains to get to work and to see their families.

Thank you very much. The Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, recently said a million people take to the streets

to change the Government, and endorsed a so-called

"Day of Rage" in London. Well, as you might have noticed,

the Government is still in place. So do protests and placard-waving

really change anything? We'll discuss that in a moment,

but first, let's have a look at a few of the more memorable

demonstrations from recent years. # Welcome to the future

of your world...# Police in capitals across Europe

have taken no chances, turning out in force to keep

a tight rein on demonstrations against alleged corporate greed

and government cuts. A protest today in the city,

marketed as a day of rage at the Government,

slightly underwhelmed. # My friends, my dear,

my love, my God... Angela Merkel chose liberal

Hamburg, the gateway It's a decision

she may be regretting. # There'll be trouble

when the kidz come out.# We're joined now by Matthew Bolton

from Citizens UK - that's a group that helps community

groups organise to bring He's published a new book

called How to Resist. And Jamie Kelsey-Fry

is a contributing editor at New Internationalist magazine,

and a supporter of various protests including

the anti-capitalist Occupy Matthew, you described the recent

day of rage in tended to shut down London as indulgent and useless.

Why? For two reasons. Firstly, it gives protest a bad name. Firstly

because it is ineffective, there is no power analysis, 300 activists are

not going to bring down the government. By its own stated aims,

it's an effective. It's also opportunistic. We are working around

North Kensington, residents associations, at that time, talking

about the fire at Grenfell Tower, what the people wanted was to know

who died and who survived and have safe accommodation and to have their

voices heard. They felt that cause had been hijacked by external

activists. In that sense, you are not helping the campaign, some of

them that you support because you don't achieve your stated aim to

bring down the government. Many protests happened in the past that I

fear have put people off the cause rather than getting them to support.

But loads of protests have changed the course of history. Mass

mobilisations. You can't cut, purely a outraged about tax avoidance. The

occupier movement globally changed the dialogue about inequality.

That's incredibly valuable. What do you think about changing the

narrative, even if you can't point to specific policies and governments

haven't been brought down but you change the political debate? I'm

absolutely in favour of protest. There's lots of things people are

angry about. I do agree that changing the narrative is important

but hopefully we are making a tangible difference to people's

lives. Think about the living wage campaign, the great benefit is

something specific and tangible to address to each employer. Do you pay

?9 75 in London? Can you create a political consensus around the need

for higher wage? What are they as impactful and as big in terms of

just doing them, seeing them? Just a volume of people? Does it have the

power? I think you need both. Seeing the women's march in January when 21

million people marched worldwide. A fantastic demonstration of

solidarity, raising awareness, what do you do after the March? How do

you turn that motivation into something tangible to get your

employer to put best practice into practice. That is how people can

make a difference. Isn't it to go for something achievable? If you

say, let's get rid of the government, get rid of Donald Trump,

those things don't happen because of a March. But getting votes for women

did happen. Let's change the dialogue about 1% and the 99%. That

did happen. If you're looking at a couple of people with placards,

notoriously, that is ineffective. So what is the point? Because there are

types of protests that do. In 2013, people went down to West Sussex and

we managed to controversial eyes fracking over the period of five

days whereas before people believed David Cameron when he said it is

safe when it is not. Doesn't that underline the argument that it is

better to go for I particular policy objective? They are both important.

What we would like the viewers to come away from this segment with is,

we've got to go out and do something. Globally, there is a

historical total distrust in politics -- distrust. You can't just

about every five years and that is you done, we want people to be

political everyday. There are so many ways of doing that. We are

looking at government after governments that just fail is. How

did you feel about Jamie's move when he sat outside St Paul's Cathedral

during the occupied protests? Was it worthwhile? The occupier movement

was exactly the right motive and moment but I feel it was missing a

certain method. Within the energy created there, it was front-page

news for weeks but because the stated aims of the protest remained

quite broad, an end to inequality, we do want that. But everybody is

responsible for that and no one is responsible. How can we target that

to a specific decision-makers and that is what the book offers a

method for. But putting your money where your mouth is is important.

Rather than just waiting for election. Isn't he and others who go

out on big marches with big stated aims, like Occupy, bringing those to

the attention of politicians? For many people. Occupy is mainly

movement. Absolute rubbish. You weren't there. You may say that

about it isn't true. The 1%, for example. You think that the share of

income going up and up, in fact, income and equality is at a 30 year

low. What is wrong with the middle-class protesting? There is

nothing wrong but if you want a revolution, you want middle-class

guys to go to hamburg, jetsetting around bringing down capitalism,

that is not particularly practical. There are many more practical ways

you can support things. You are out of touch with what was said, mate.

Who were the majority of people involved? There is a play about Cap

NICE occupier, about one homeless guy who woke up on the steps of

Saint Pauls. In the play, he talks about the composite of the people

living there. He said it was like being in prison. There was every

class of this society there. That is what was extraordinary. We couldn't

turn away people who are homeless or had alcohol issues, we had to

embrace them. There is nothing wrong with middle-class activists but the

question is, do we have someone who is directly affected by the issue at

the heart of protest? That was the issue after Grenfell Tower. The

living wage campaign was the voice of children of people earning less

than the living wage. Look at Jeremy Corbyn's fans and momentum. Look at

his rallies. They were accused of being middle class. Look how the

visuals affected his popularity. In a way, it is irrelevant. The

mainstream media underestimated it, we didn't. We were there all the

time. He was speaking about the many and not the few. Where have you

heard that before? The 99% and the 1%. If Jeremy Corbyn became Prime

Minister and didn't enact some parts of his manifesto, for example

getting rid of Jewish and fees. -- tuition fees. Would you go out and

protest? Absolutely. The manifesto is important. But it is important to

have local community to force politics to grow up in the 21st

century and stop representing the one present. One of the risks here

and the reason for writing the book is a million more 80-21 -year-olds

floated in 2017 and they did in 2015. There's a real problem that

cynicism and rage may be the product rather than channelling that

interaction. It's about democracy not being something you just watch

on television. Thank you very much. Now, it's Bastille Day and,

as always in Paris, the President oversees Europe's oldest military

parade along the Champs Elysee. Merriman.

Donald Trump is in Paris for a two day visit. It is hard to believe it

is just over a year since Emmanuel Macron launched his movement. He is

President and his party has a majority on the French National

Assembly. Let us take a look back. # Does it almost feel that

nothing changed at all? # Does it almost feel that

you've been here before # Now how am I going to be

an optimist about this? I'm joined now by Alexandre Holroyd,

he's a member of the French National Assembly

for the Northern Europe region. Congratulations and welcome to the

daily politics, it sin credible a party that didn't really exist a few

years ago, is now in charge of France, with your President Emmanuel

Macron, but that also meanses that expectations are going to be very

high, how are you going to manage them? They are very high, and I

think that the substance is the change, the fact we have done this

incredible thing of building a party from scratch in a year, and of

winning over the presidency and the National Assembly in a year speaks

volume about how much the French want change, so we have a sense of

responsibility. We know we don't have a choice and we are going to

get to work. We got cracking the day after the election, I was in Paris

by 9.00 the day after and we have passed our first law, which is the

liberalisation of the labour market. Yes, you could argue, that there was

a low turn out, relatively low in the Parliamentary election, that

there is disenchantment. You say there is a big mandate for change,

and for Emmanuel Macron that is true. How do you deal with that that

exists because there was a low turn out in the Parliamentary election?

So there was a low turn out in the Parliamentary election, although,

for a lot of other countries including the UK that would be quite

high, what is clear is that there's been a lack of explanation of what

policy makers are doing in past years or decades and one of the

first decisions that Emmanuel Macron took was to go in front of Congress,

which both Houses of Parliament to explain what the vision, the

direction of travel is, that is very important. Have do a better job.

Press December sores have tried to reform France and the labour laws

there and have failed. In part because of the strength of the

union, and also Parliamentary opposition, in the past, how are you

going to deal with that fight that will come? We will deal with that

fight. There were two main big difference, the first is that we

have been elected on a mandate that outlined what we were doing n detail

of the procedure, we won both elections on that programme which

never changed, from the moment we launched the movement to the moment

we got in office. That is different to what we did before. So there is a

difference of procedure, the second thing is we want to talk to the

unions, there has never been... That is a novel thing. Politics talking

to unions. It is in France. We have had over 60 meets between the Prime

Minister and the union, we are negotiating every step with the

union, sop of the unions who have been opposed to past reform, today

are supporting the reforms or at least working with Government to go

in the right direction. Let us talk about Trump, because you have beaten

the UK to it, you have got the American President in town for those

Bastille Day celebration, is Emmanuel Macron embracing Donald

Trump? Natural is not the way I would put it. 100 years ago, if I

remember it was the 6th April 1917, the Americans entered the First

World War and they sent troops which died in battlefield in northern

France. This was 100 years ago and this 14th July, like every 14th July

we have foreign troops which march alongside French troops. This year

it is the American troops in memory of this alliance that was again,

sort of rekindled in the Second World War, it was only natural we

would receive the head of state. We have lots of common naturalties with

the US, working on terrorism, global security, Emmanuel Macron has been

clear on the difference, for instance on the Paris accord and

with this discourse of between long-standing allies and allies that

will remain far after Emmanuel Macron subpoena President and far

after Donald Trump, we have to keep in mind what we have in common

rather than what separates us. We will come on to Brexit in a moment,

what do you think of Emmanuel Macron, and his chances of success?

I think he is coming across as Trumpesque, his mask is slipping as

this liberal darling, at least in the UK, because we have seen him

making France speeches from Versailles, not talking to the

press, saying his thoughts are too complex. Comparing himself to

Jupiter. That will make people's opinions of him change. People in

this country who love centrists, a bit confused by some of the

symbolism he is giving off. Do you think he is coming off as a bit

grand. He has new politicians of course, who have never been in

elected office. It looks and feel different. Does he look and feel

that different when you see him in Versailles. I think he does. The

French need this drama, they need this direction, in a country which

is, really doesn't know where to go, you have somebody who created a

party out of his own momentum. It is an incredible thing to watch, the

creation from nothing, of a party not just won the presidency but went

on to take the Parliament as well. And I think, right now, where

leadership is nowhere, and in Britain we are lacking leadership

too, France has managed to produce someone who has won the confidence

of the country. I would allow him to be big headed. He is sat next to

Trump, thumbs up, and he fetes away with it. He made his comment about

the Paris Agreement, he said Macron, I want to make the planet great

again, mocking a parody of Donald Trump saying he wants to make

America great again. He made that video addressing the American people

about the terrible President, but look at him now, he is Trump's new

best friend. What about Brexit, what does Emmanuel Macron... He doesn't

compare himself to Jupiter, that is the press who cap pairs him to be

Jupiter. Thank you for that point of orrer. Would he object to that

comparison. What he did in front of Parliament is what has been lacking

in France, which is give a direction and sense of where the vision is

going. It's form of the constitution, it is addressing both

Houses of Parliament to show where we are going, that is what the

French want to here, a description of what is going ho happen and the

reasons why we are doing the reforms which is sometimes quite hard. Is he

a fan of Brexit? I don't think he is a fan or a non-fan of Brexit. He is

a pro European, we campaign on a very pro European platform. We

support the Commission's effort to have a common European position an

we will stick by it, which is to support the European Commission in

its effort to negotiate with the UK. It is is a question I am often

asked, what I often answer is Brexit is not as much of an issue in France

as it is here. Accept he wants to push for closer cooperation between

the Euro-zone, he is talking about Democratic Convention, what are

they? So this is the way we developed the national programme,

which is the association of citizens talking, because we think what

Europe needs now is to bring back citizens into the vision of what

Europe should come. We would have to understand what they expect from

Europe, what they desire Europe to be, which is what we have lost track

of, and associated that with professionals, to come up with a

sort of more constitutional vision of what it is rather than sort of,

sort of grass root vision. We have to let you go. Happy Bastille Day.

Time now to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, what was written on the back of the Arsenal

shirt Jeremy Corbyn gave Michel Barnier yesterday?

or d) Seumas, I'm not sure this is a great idea.

It has to be Seamus. That is the funniest line. It the funniest but

not the right answer. Barnier? I am afraid it was just plain old

Barnier. Do you think he was pleased to receive the shirt? He gave Jeremy

Corbyn a poster. Who did better? That was a lovely shirt.

So our relationship with Brussels once more dominated the news agenda,

let's take a look at the week in 60 seconds.

Theresa May marked her one year in office by welcoming the Spanish king

and Queen, and she finally admitted that the election had cause her some

grief. Yes, a little tear. Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn hot-footed it to

Brussels, where he gave an Arsenal shirt to the EU Brexit negotiator

Michel Barnier. Emily Thornberry and Damian Green deputised at Prime

Minister's Questions. The first secretary didn't get the Prime

Minister's memo, you are supposed to be building consensus, men, and if

we... The Brexit secretary, David Davis, unveiled the Government's

Repeal Bill and called on other parties to support it, but Labour,

the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have threatened to veto it. More

bridge building required. Speaking of which Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson had a message for the EU over divorce payments And I think

go whistle is an entirely appropriate expression.

Well, that was the week in 60 seconds, Barnier has said the clock

is ticking, do you expect much progress next week. It doesn't look

like David Davis and his colleagues are being... Boris Johnson said the

negotiators can go whistle about the divorce bill they have to pay. I

don't know if they will get far unless they agree to pay some of the

bill. It is going to be down to money? I have spoken to a number of

Tory MPs, who are beginning to feel that we could pay, to get the sort

of access and continuing relationship with things like

Europol and so on and so forth I think it is about money. This is a

typical street stall haggle. The EU saying we want this money and Boris

is saying you will not get any. There will be something between the

two. That will continue once we left? No, I think it will be a one

off payment and might be bigger than we would have liked but to get out

the EU is the ultimate objective. It wouldn't be a failure if we end up

paying more than we expected. Do you see that or do you think payments

for certain things will continue, aside from the sort of divorce bill?

That would be the sensible thing to do, like Frazer said, I don't see

any evidence of that happening. Theresa May has gone in for the

hardest exit she possibly can, why would she begin softening it now.

She sees it as a negotiating stance, talking of which, Jeremy Corbyn,

there with Michelle barn yes, Nicola Sturgeon, they are having their own

meetings, do they make a difference? They do, any opportunity the SNP

gets to put a spoke in the wheels it will take, and a Labour

administration, in Wales, SNP in Edinburgh, if they get a thing on

this, it will be one more rod for Theresa May's back. The transition

period, there is debate Liam Fox implying it could be a few months,

others saying two years. This is another example of minister making

it up as they go along, Labour keeps accusing the Cabinet of doing. It

looks like they are doing that, I think that don't have a queue

excited line on this. There is a long hot summer to go ahead.

Thank you for being my guests of the day. Andrew will be back on Sunday

on BBC One at 11 with the Sunday Politics and guests will include the

international Trade Secretary Liam Fox. Bye.