30/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Immigration falls by 80,000 in

the year following the referendum,

with a sharp fall in the number

coming from the EU.

Are we already seeing

the Brexit effect?

Donald Trump takes aim at

Theresa May after the Prime Minister

criticised the President

for re-tweeting anti-Muslim

videos from a British

far-right political party.

The Queen is due to roll out the

carpet for the President next year -

should he be dis-invited?

Theresa May called on the Saudis

to ease their blockade of Yemen,

but should the UK be selling arms

to the controversial Arab Kingdom?

And we take our balls to find out

whether you think a 40-odd billion

Brexit divorce bill is bananas...

Oh, I'd go bananas!

Not paying all that out.

We need it in this country.

We need it for our

hospitals and that.

All that in the next hour.

With us for the whole

of the programme today

is the Political Editor

of the Sunday Times and prolific

chronicler of these unpredictable

political times, Tim Shipman.

Welcome to the programme.

First today, there's been a sharp

fall in net migration in the first

set of figures that take in the full

year following the EU referendum.

Net migration has fallen by 106,000,

from 336,000 to 230,000

in the year ending June 2017 -

the largest annual

decrease recorded.

The Government has a target

of reducing net migration

to less than 100,000 -

so the current level is still more

than twice that figure.

Statistically it is significant, the

drop. Over three quarters of the

decrease in net migration can be

accounted for by EU citizens, is it

politically significant?

I think so.

I think a lot of Brexiteers felt

voting to leave the EU would allow

them to bring in new tougher rules

which would allow us to control who

comes here. What appears to be

happening, a political effect where

people decide not to come here

instead. They think the government

will be drilling down into and to

check is what sort of people are

trying to come here? The Visa regime

they will tell us about next year

will be trying to encourage people

with high-tech qualifications to

keep coming. They need to keep

filling posts in the health service

and need qualified people. There

will be a concern if it's those sort

of people deciding they'd no longer

want to come here, because of what

they feel is a perceived sense that

they are not welcome any more.

What

about the figures for non-EU

nationals coming to the country?

With the prospective new trade

deals, as we understand it from the

government being made, if the

presumption those numbers may go up?

I think that is possible, and

certainly if you're looking at

countries like Australia, New

Zealand, Canada, they will want to

have a more liberal regime so that

people who have been treated less

well than members of the EU until

now will have a presumption may have

the same kind of rights to come

here. It is certainly the case if

you start getting a load of people

in from the subcontinent, for

example, to fill jobs that people

from Poland on Hungary are no longer

coming here to do, it's not clear

that what the people of Sunderland

were voting for.

And the target is

to 100,000 for net migration.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today is, where

have Mrs and Miss gone missing?

Is it...

In the classroom, at Wimbledon,

in the law courts,

or in the council chamber?

At the end of the show Tim

will hopefully give us

the correct answer.

Now, the extraordinary diplomatic

storm has developed over tweets

from US President Donald Trump.

Yesterday, he retweeted three

videos by Jayda Fransen -

deputy leader of the far-right group

Britain First - which campaigns

against what it calls the "rapid

growth of militant Islam".

The videos purported to show

Muslims attacking Christians

or destroying Christian icons.

But the veracity of all three

has been questioned,

with the Dutch Embassy in America

saying one video allegedly showing

an immigrant offender actually

showed a man who was actually born

in the Netherlands.

Theresa May's spokesman said

it was "wrong" for the President

to have done this, as Britain First

seeks to "divide communities"

while peddling lies

and stoking tensions.

And the spokesman said British

people "overwhelmingly reject"

the prejudiced rhetoric

of the far-right.

Sajid Javid, the only

Muslim cabinet minister,

said the President

"endorsed the views of a vile,

hate-filled racist organisation that

hates me and people like me".

Well, Donald Trump's Press

Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders,

was asked about the President

retweeting videos whose

circumstances he knew nothing about.

Whether it's a real video,

the threat is real,

and that is what the President

is talking about, that is

what the President is focused on,

dealing with those real threats,

and those are real, no

matter how you look at it.

So it doesn't matter

that the video is fake?

Look, I'm not talking

about the nature of the video.

I think you're focusing

on the wrong thing.

The threat is real.

Well, last night Donald Trump

responded by tweeting

at Theresa May:

It's not the first time he's weighed

into British politics,

and after the London Bridge attack,

he criticised Sadiq Khan on Twitter

for allegedly telling people

in London there was

"no reason to be alarmed" -

a remark the London Mayor says

was taken out of context.

And after the attempted terror

attack on the tube at Parsons Green

station, he tweeted -

without any corroborating evidence -

that the people responsible had been

"in the sights of Scotland Yard".

Well, the Home Secretary

Amber Rudd has

been speaking in the House

of Commons on this

matter this morning...

We have been very clear.

President Donald Trump

was wrong to re-tweet videos

posted by the far group,

Britain First.

We have said so clearly in this

House, and the Prime Minister has

said so clearly online.

We will continue to speak freely

and frankly when it takes place.

Let's talk to Drew Liquerman,

he's in Dundee and he's the chairman

of Republicans Overseas

in Scotland.

Welcome to the programme. Should

Donald Trump the retweeting fake

news?

Should he be retweeting fake

news? I think he retweeted something

from a well-known journalist.

Something she tweeted with a

verified check mark. I'm not

defending him but I don't think he

was willingly tweeting fake news...

Should he be retweeting something

that hasn't been verified, and in

fact was contradicted by the Dutch

embassy?

No, I said publicly before

I think he should undo the tweets of

the three videos posted by the

deputy leader of Britain First.

Why

is Donald Trump, in your mind,

publicly rebuking one of his closest

allies by two criticising Theresa

May?

I'm not sure... I don't think

he should involve himself with

inside, internal UK affairs. The

same way I criticised Barack Obama

for trying to intervene in the

Brexit referendum. I think Trump 's

best thing out of UK affairs.

This

was a very personal tweet to the

Prime Minister of the United

Kingdom. Was that wise?

It wasn't

wise I think Trump was trying to

bring up serious concerns about

radicals and he went about in the

wrong way, which serves to hurt his

cause. Those ways the US and UK

could work together, and could come

across better than the weight did.

He went about it the wrong way. He

had no idea what that account was

that he retweeted. I think it was a

failure on Twitter yesterday, is how

I would put it.

What point is he

trying to make?

I think Trump is

trying to make the point that

radicals are a serious threat. The

point about the UK was the UK

admitting Brits who went to fight

for Islamic State in Syria back into

the country. Trying to make the

point of unfettered immigration,

whether it is Islamic terror or MS

13. I think he did not make the

point well. If anything, he served

to hurt the point.

You think he's

done more harm than good?

Exactly. I

think Trump wanted to bring up great

points and went about it the wrong

way. He retweeted paper, didn't know

who they were or what

organisation... Virtually nobody in

America has heard of Britain First.

I have been very involved in UK

politics, I've lived in the UK and

have never even heard of Jayda

Fransen, the leader...

You are not

the President of the United States.

You have said it has done more harm

than good and it might, to some

extent, have put pressure on if not

risked the so-called special

relationship between the United

Kingdom and the United States. The

Muslim cabinet minister here in the

UK says the President of the United

States has endorsed the views of a

vile hate filled organisation, a

group you and the president happened

heard of, a group that hates me and

people like me. Do you think Donald

Trump is a racist?

No, I don't think

Donald Trump is a racist. It is a

term everyone would like to throw

around. He retweeted the video to

try and bring up a serious concern.

He retweeted... Here they follows 45

people on Twitter. One of the

journalists he followed retweeted is

a man with a blue checkmark, he saw

the blue checkmark, and retweeted

thinking it's certified news, which

it wasn't. I think it's a very big

misunderstanding. I think another

part of the misunderstanding is

people in the US... Britain First is

a very small fringe group. It is a

group where a lot of people in the

US don't realise the gravity or

seriousness of the group.

British

politicians are calling for the

invite to Donald Trump to come to

Britain on a state visit or

otherwise to be withdrawn. What do

you say?

No, I think that's a bit

too far. Retweeting three tweets...

I've called an Trump to undo the

retweet. Look at some of the people

the UK have invited to come to UK on

state visits, Middle Eastern

leaders, Chinese leaders who have

been grotesque people you cannot

compare to. That being said, if

Jeremy Corbyn was Prime Minister of

the UK, he has referred to people of

Hamas and Hezbollah as friends.

Killing innocent Jewish people, but

I wouldn't say don't invite them to

the US.

We're joined now by former

US assistant secretary

of State, James Rubin.

Welcome to the programme. Let's pick

up on that state visit. Do you think

the invite should be withdrawn?

I

think it's a pretty dramatic step to

withdraw the invite. I think what

clearly from the time this

invitation was first put forward, I

had the feeling that Theresa May was

making perhaps too much of a

personal relationship between the

president and the Prime Minister and

now she is paying the price for

that. They thought that Donald Trump

would be all impressed by going to

see the Queen and staying at

Buckingham Palace and that would

make it more likely that he would do

something on trade or something on a

trade agreement. That's not going to

happen. Donald Trump is going to

make decisions based on what he

thinks is right or wrong, not

because he gets to sleep in

Buckingham Palace. I think they have

over personalised it. I think to

cancel the visit would be again to

over personalise the relationship.

It doesn't mean the British should

have to agree with this horrendous

behaviour of our President.

How

horrendous is it, in your mind?

I

was not a fan of the President

during the campaign. Pretty much

everything that I worried about,

feared about, the individual, not

just the policies but the

individual's behaviour, the

bragging, the lying, all that, has

come to fruition. On the specifics,

it's a real problem. The problem is,

terrorism is going to be resolved

through a process within the Islamic

community. There are a billion

Muslims in the world. Moderate

Muslim leaders have to be the one to

do this. Donald Trump does this kind

of thing, makes their job much

harder.

This is a diplomatic

nightmare, isn't it?

Very well put.

For the Prime Minister. Because she,

in some peoples minds rather

hastily, offered this state visit to

Donald Trump. Do you think she can

really cancel it purpose -- ASBO

that further?

I don't think the

British government wants to escalate

the matter by cancelling the trip.

It is supposed at the next year, we

don't know when. The problem Downing

Street has had if they

understandably thought we needed to

get alongside the new US president.

She didn't have to offer the state

visit?

No, and not straight out of

the box. The problem has been made

try to treat Donald Trump like any

other politician and he's not like

any other politician. You hear

accounts of Theresa May on the

telephone with Donald Trump, and he

bamboozles her all the time, sort of

blusters his way through the call.

Theresa May find it difficult to get

to talking points across,

apparently, and we are seeing it

again. The guy can go on twitter and

change the whole terms of the debate

with one to beat.

What do you think

would be an appropriate response

from the British government? Theresa

May has tweeted. There has been

criticism from Downing Street, is it

enough?

This issue of moderate Islam, the

leaders of the moderate Islamic

community. What I would do is to

take the issue of empowering

extremist and fascist right-wing

groups, who are attacking Islam, and

do some sort of report that shows

the American president all of the

steps we are doing here...

The

British government should do this?

Right. And how the empowerment of

Fascist, right-wing groups harms the

cause.

Do you think that would stop

Donald Trump tweeting?

I don't think

there is anything the British

government could do to mean that.

His chief of staff can't get him to

stop tweeting! One thing that they

could do, and this is probably in

the journalist world, and you never

supposed to tell journalists what to

do, so let me suggest something. I

don't think he rebuked her. If you

read the tweet, within the context

of tweet language, it wasn't a slam

on Theresa May. He said he disagrees

with her, focus on this problem. He

didn't say, Theresa May, wrong

again! He didn't do all the things

he does when he wants to slam

people.

I think it's extraordinary

when one leader is tweeting at

another. He didn't use the word sad,

so I suppose...

He is from you knock

fashionable New York. He likes this

sort of thing. I am saying that you

are going to have to get used to

this. This is going to happen over

and over again, big, strong, public

disagreements.

Isn't that the for

all the rhetoric and the words,

unless action is taken, like

withdrawing the invite or

alternative rebukes from Theresa

May, then the British government is

just going to have to live with it?

This is the case for some good

old-fashioned diplomacy, politeness

in public and blazing rows in

private. I think somebody should be

making clear that this is

unacceptable and the damage they are

doing to the position of Earth as a

leader at a time when she is

vulnerable. If he cares about that

relationship, then...

Of other

countries in Europe, just knowing

what I do of Mr Trump, he likes the

British. He likes this country. He

respects the reason why they gave

him the visit is because they knew

he'd like it.

But it will not change

his behaviour?

Is chief of staff

can't get him to stop tweeting.

Nobody can do that. He has been

tweaking things that are repulsive

for a long time.

Should the British

government be grateful that Donald

Trump likes the British and the

government?

No, but be aware of it,

try and deploy it, and remember that

the relationship between the US and

UK isn't just Donald Trump. It isn't

just Donald Trump and Theresa May.

There are deep and serious ties in

the intelligence community, in the

military sphere. If you want to

improve relations with the United

States, forget Donald Trump and get

back in the game of international

affairs, get your defence

capabilities built up and again be

the ally of the United States that

you had been for decades and

decades. That is how to do a better

job with the United States.

Thank

you.

Now, it's been widely reported

that the UK and the EU might be

near to agreeing a Brexit divorce

settlement at the cost

of between 40-50 billion euros -

that's about £44 billion.

The EU says negotiations can't move

onto trade talks until that,

and the issue of the Irish border

and citizen rights are resolved.

But never mind the Eurocrats.

What did the British public

make of the figures that

are being talked about?

Here's Lizzie with our

not-so-scientific moodbox.

This week, there were reports that

the government had decided to update

of their divorce bill offered to the

EU to about £44 billion. Boris

Johnson says, we will offer a fair

deal. Senior backbencher Robert

Halfon said the British public

wouldn't stand for that, in fact,

they would go bananas. We've come to

Eltham, one of the only London areas

to vote Leave, to find out what

people here really think.

I'd go

bananas! I'm not paying all of that

out. We need it in this country for

our hospitals and fat. Iron if it

means getting up, I think yes.

It's

disgusting. I don't see why we

should pay them a penny. We should

walk away and say enough is enough.

I am probably a bit biased as an EU

citizen. I would pay for the

I think

44 billion is quite a bit. I'd

prefer to stay.

Very expensive to

pay that to go out. I would say it

is bananas.

I like the she says

bananas.

Go bananas.

Can you put a

ball in the box? Thank you.

We

promised it so we should pay

something. To me, this is a fair

amount. I voted Leave and I knew

what I was voting for.

Go bananas, I

think.

We need the money here.

Well,

the bananas seem to be in the lead

at the moment. Let's try another

spot.

Go bananas.

Why?

It just

would.

I'd go bananas. But then

again, what's a banana between

friends?

I want to be out of it,

love. Oche however much you have to

pay its all right? Yet, we did all

right before we even started.

Go

fair is fair.

The dog thinks it's

fair.

I'm going to go bananas.

Everybody knows it's ridiculous,

even the government.

Go bananas.

Let's go for it. That's it.

You are

wanting us up!

My name is Elizabeth.

You do realise you got your

microphone upside down, don't you?

Well, the people else have spoken,

and they are definitely going

bananas. It's freezing. We are off

to get a hot chocolate.

Well done for braving the cold.

We're joined now by the former Work

and Pensions Secretary,

Iain Duncan Smith, who campaigned

to leave the EU.

Your Conservative colleague Robert

Halfon MP was right, wasn't he, when

he said that voters will go bananas

about the size of the Brexit Bill.

Can you justify it?

The reality is

that we have to put it into

perspective. The main point is that,

whatever they agree, and I don't

want to have to pay a penny more

than we have a legal bind, and

that's exactly it, I'd like to look

at what they agree at the end of the

day and decide if it has a legal

purpose but, notwithstanding, in the

course of the negotiations they come

up with a figure, and it is spread

over 40 years. At the same time, if

we hadn't left the EU over 40 years,

the net effect of that would have

been a contribution of hours of 400

billion. If you net that out, we are

still better off by 360 billion,

which allows us to spend that on

things like health and all the other

issues.

So it's a bargain?

Leaving

the EU is a bargain, and £360

billion is the net positive effect

of leaving the EU to the UK as and

when it happens. It isn't money we

suddenly plucking out of the budget.

It's coming out at the same time as

money coming back in.

When are we

going to start seeing the Brexit

dividend, that money coming back

that was promised during the

campaign?

When we leave. We are also

getting money back. I don't know why

this is hard to understand.

It isn't

hard.

Hold on, every year, we put

net a staggering amount of let's say

that the figure is £10 billion that

we contribute to the EU budget net.

Over 40 years, that becomes 400

billion that we have put into the EU

budget. In the same period, we will

be getting...

You have explained

that.

We will be contributing to

that means that net we get money

back.

We will not start get money

back for four to five years. It's

not when we leave.

When we no longer

contribute, that's why we get the

money back.

But your bus didn't say,

we only get that after a transition

period.

I would hope we get out

tomorrow, but the reality is that

what they will finally agree is a

settlement, the date we leave if the

data we no longer make contributions

to the EU budget.

Right, but the

government has caved in, hasn't it?

You've talked about what we hope

legally, but the House of Lords

committee says that we don't as a

matter of law oh anything, so you

have caved in.

I want to see what

they have agreed and why they've

agreed. The government thinks that

they do owe something, and that is

why there may be legal obligations

as regards to pensions and other

things. All I'm saying is let's get

this in perspective. Whatever the

final agreement, and remember that

20 billion of that is over the

implantation period. If there is no

implementation period, it would only

be about 20 billion let's be clear,

the reality is that what they agree

beyond the Inca meditation period is

about legality.

Is your support for

paying what we owe still

conditional?

In what regard?

On the

trade terms?

Completely. It's the

government 's position.

But I am

asking about you.

My government has

made it clear that, unless they get

a free trade arrangement, this money

is irrelevant, because the money is

off the table, and that is the key

point.

So you are paying for access

to trade.

No, because there is no

deal. The point is that the deal is

that the EU wants to know what our

commitment is in the future, and we

are arguing quite rightly, as the EU

has accepted, that nothing is agreed

until everything is agreed.

To use

your word...

If there is no

agreement, we would go to WTO and

not accept any binding requirement.

You told us it is absolutely hinged

on a free trade arrangement.

Which

is the original discussion under

Article 50.

That is paying for

access. You are prepared to pay up

to £44 billion for access to trade,

single market.

We are not paying

anything for access. What I'm saying

is that the two elements are part of

Article 50. Article 50 says all of

these elements have to be agreed at

the same time for the

I don't

understand what we are paying for.

We are not paying for something.

What the government is negotiating

is whether or not we have a legal

obligation with the commitments we

have made to make payments over a

period of time, such as things like

obligations to British citizens who

happen to work for the EU who get a

pension requirement.

But you are

saying we only pay it if we get a

trade deal.

If we get a deal... If

we don't get an arrangement and an

agreement, we leave under WTO, there

is no agreement to pay any money to

the EU. That is what this is about.

I think most people think, when you

say it is hinged on a deal, trade

being an important part of that,

which do some people will feel like

paying for access, which is

essentially a tariff, wouldn't it

just be better to pay the tariff and

trade with the EU on WTO terms?

I'd

be happy to do that, but the reality

is that their agreement under

Article 50, we have to agree all of

those things if the EU to do it. If

not, we will go to WTO and there

will not be an interim phase and we

will leave.

Why don't we just do

that now?

I'm not the government. I

am simply saying what their position

is. I have said all along that going

to the WTO, as the head of the WTO

said the other day, it's not a

nightmare or a problem, it's wholly

reasonable. I simply said the

government wants to get a free trade

arrangement and, if that is a decent

operable one that gives us good

access to financial services, on

balance, it may be a good thing to

do, in which case we are prepared to

accept it providing we don't go into

horse trading.

How does it look to

you, in terms of support from people

like Iain Duncan Smith for the

government? Does it look as if this

is buying or paying for access with

eagerness to get the Brexit date and

they will pay however much? Iron the

government has got itself in a

pickle because it keeps talking

about legal obligations.

What is

going on is political arrangement.

Up until 2020, they have a budget

predicated on us staying in. If we

want a transition period, which the

government has decided that we do,

because we are not ready to leave at

this point, there would be chaos,

they are buying time and they are

buying goodwill, and you can dress

it up as legal niceties and all of

the rest of it, but at the end of

the day they want our money and we

are prepared to grease the wheels to

get what we want.

You have to

separate these two out. There two

elements to this, and you have

elided them together. It's right

that implementation -- that an Inca

meditation period, the UK Government

has agreed to pay what it would

normally paid were it's still a

member. Separate that, because it

may well go down as the basis. It

says, we are happy to take it to

2020 because that was an obligation.

What comes next need a legal base,

which is to say the remaining money

is over 40 years, they need a legal

foundation or we can't pay them.

With things like pensions, is the

case.

So one is an agreement to

pay...

The issue is that they need

our money and we are finding ways to

provide it to them. Some of that is

the pensions money, which has a

legal basis, and some of that

frankly is goodwill money.

And

paying into some organisations and

institutions.

Where we remain a

member of certain things, like the

universities and science programmes,

we will pay a simple entry fee.

Let's look at what else you might

agree to do during an Inca

meditation period. Are you prepared

to see overseen by the jurisdiction

of the European Court of Justice

over those two years and be on?

No,

not at all. When we leave, we leave,

and the key element is leaving the

European Court of Justice. To me and

most people, it is the Court of

Justice which defines being a member

of the European Union, and by the

way this would set a historical

precedent, you'd have to go back to

the time when the British were in

China when you'd have a happy moment

when a foreign court ruled over the

courts of another country.

What

would you do at that point if the

government says we are going to

continue some sort of jurisdiction

from the European court?

I'm

fundamentally opposed, and I'm not

alone. The Prime Minister is opposed

to it as well because, in her

Lancaster house speech, she said

clearly that one of our red lines is

no longer being under the authority

of the European Court of Justice.

On Donald Trump, what do you think

the government should do about the

invite to Donald Trump?

Inviting the

head of the United States, the

President of the United States, of

course it has to go ahead. His

tweets, he tweets on everything at

the moment. I know there is a storm

about on the organisation he tweets

is an outrageous and appalling

organisation but I wouldn't centre

too much on that. I would centre on

the fact when it comes to the visit,

we are inviting the head of state of

a number one ally of hours and at of

whom we do the greatest level of

trade beyond the European Union.

The

British government just has to put

up with it?

They made their

complaints about and is right for us

to say it is unacceptable for him to

insinuate that the UK doesn't do

enough about Islamic terrorism. That

is a matter that should be done

behind closed doors and in

discussion with the Americans. But

there is a serious criticism about

Europe generally having a very poor

record, the Belgians another's, an

extremism and terrorism but this is

not the way to make it.

Thank you,

Iain Duncan Smith.

Now - take back control -

that was the oft repeated mantra

of the Vote Leave campaign.

But where should that control be

returned to after Brexit?

Westminster or the devolved

parliaments in Wales,

Scotland and Northern Ireland?

MPs will be debating this on Monday

as The Withdrawal Bill

continue its passage

through the Commons.

That's likely to cause ructions,

so to smooth the way,

First Secretary of State,

Damian Green, is meeting

the Scottish government this

afternoon and this morning has been

speaking to the First Minister

of Wales, Carwyn Jones,

who joins us now from Cardiff.

How did that meeting go?

It was a

positive meeting. We made some

progress, in terms of looking at

frameworks in areas like agriculture

and fisheries. But no progress in

terms of the amendments we put down

for the Withdrawal Bill that would

protect the people of Wales.

You

have concerns about what would

happen to the Welsh economy when

Britain leads the EU. Spell out for

us what those are.

Two thirds of our

exports go to the European single

market. 90% of our food and drink

exports go there. 70% of trade go

there. Whether it is a tariff

barrier nontariff barrier, if it

restricts our ability to send those

markets, is bad for Wales.

Are you

going to continue to block Brexit,

as your critics would see it?

No. We

put forward some positive proposals

as to what direction Brexit should

look like. We want the softest

Brexit. I don't accept when people

say the vote last year was the

hardest possible Brexit, that's

nonsense, they are putting their own

spin on it. People voted to leave

the EU and we are. There are ways to

do it that are less damaging than

others. We said it is hugely

important the UK has full access to

the single market. We wouldn't leave

the customs union and have put

forward what we think is a

reasonable and balanced position on

fair movement of people.

You would

continue some sort of freedom of

movement, and would you be prepared

to see the European Court of Justice

having oversight?

I have no problem

with that. The European Court of

Human Rights. Have oversight in

Britain, regardless of what happens.

What we suggest is this, similar to

what Norway does: Freedom movement

to go to a job and a short window

either side to look for a job, but

not an absolute freedom of movement.

That's what we think the regulations

say.

That is not Brexit, is it, in

the way that certainly the Prime

Minister has outlined, and nor the

majority of people in Wales voted

for?

People voted to leave the EU,

they didn't say how they wanted to

leave the EU.

If you don't, if you

continue with freedom of movement

and you want to have similar access

to the single market, then you

haven't left the EU, have you?

Well

you have, because Norway is not in

the EU and has those things. It

doesn't have full access to the

single market that that's his

choice. The reality is we can leave

the EU and still have full and

effective access in the single

market, which is important to us. We

can have a modified version of

freedom of movement and yet still

not be members of the EU and still

saddest -- satisfy the EU

referendum. They were asked to vote

on the concept and people are now

interpreting it in different ways.

We put forward ways we think are

pure common-sense.

When you say they

voted for a concept, they voting for

your concept? To like Norway?

Well,

it was mentioned. There were those

in the Leave campaign that mentioned

Norway as an example of what the UK

should do. So people did say Norway

is the model if the UK leads the EU.

It should be a surprise. The reality

is we don't know. People voted to

leave the EU. There will be

different views on how that is done.

To my mind, we have to do it in a

common-sense way that represents the

best outcome for Wales and Britain.

Would you withhold consent to the

deal that's done?

First of all, we

need to remove the problem that

exists, where powers that would

return to Wales under the current

bill would get sidetracked to

Whitehall with the decision as to

whether we get that decision or not.

We cannot accept that. If that

decision is done with, no problem.

If it is not, will you withhold

consent?

We're not going to prove it

now. What the UK Government is

asking us to do is to go to the

assembly are they there are powers

coming to us, would you agree to

those powers going to London

instead? And at some point they may

give us those powers back. No UK

Government, no Prime Minister would

ever stand up in Parliament and do

that and I'm not prepared to do that

in the Welsh Parliament. Who would

do that? There's a different way of

doing it. We understand what the UK

Government is trying to do, create

certainty, we understand that. I

think we can create that certainty

through agreement and not in

position. We have the scenario now,

for example, in areas devolved such

as farming and fisheries, the Welsh

would be restrained in what they

could do but the other ministers

could do what they wanted.

You are

facing questions into how you handle

the claims against Labour's Carl

Sargent, who was found dead after

being sacked about comments he made

about women.

Howdy respond to that?

His funeral is tomorrow. There is a

time and place the questions and

answers but today is not that time,

I don't think it would be right.

Thank you for joining us, Colin

Jones. What is your view about what

we decide on how the Prime Minister

would respond?

All these sort of

different groups that have a view

and Welsh and Scottish governments

are quite powerful and have an

ability to put a spanner in the

works, along with some of the MPs

who supported remain who are trying

to steer things in the direction of

a soft Brexit. I was very

interested, when you asked him the

question, are you going to block

this deal? In the same way as you

ask MPs who supported remain whether

ultimately they would vote down any

deal Theresa May doesn't Europe,

they are in a difficult position.

They don't want answer the question.

The alternative to the deal Theresa

May does is not better deal but no

deal at all and going to WTO rules.

Hard to see the Welsh or Scottish

oil remain MPs ever voting for that.

Let's leave it there.

Theresa May is currently

touring the Middle East

and yesterday she held meetings

with Crown Prince Mohammed bin

Salman, the de facto

leader of Saudi Arabia.

The Prime Minister has faced

criticism for not being tougher

on the Kingdom for its continued

involvement in the

civil war in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia has imposed a blockade

on Yemen's borders, causing huge

shortages with 2.5 million people

currently not having access to clean

water and around 7 million

being totally dependent

on food assistance.

What's more, the Saudi government

is leading a coalition supporting

the Yemeni government

against Iranian backed Houthi

rebels, and there have been reports

of thousands of civilian casualties.

Britain is a major exporter

of arms to the Kingdom.

Speaking yesterday, Mrs May said

would be speaking to Saudi Arabia

about the situation in Yemen.

I'm very concerned about

the humanitarian crisis that

has developed in Yemen,

particularly most recently.

That's why the strong message I'll

be giving to Saudi Arabia tonight

is that we want to see Hodeida port

opened for humanitarian

and commercial access.

That's important.

I think the international

community is concerned

about the humanitarian

crisis in Yemen.

That access for commercial

and humanitarian goods is important

through Hodeida port.

We're joined now by the Shadow

Defence Secretary, Nia Griffith.

Welcome to the programme. Would

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, be

visiting Saudi Arabia if he was the

Prime Minister?

He would be trying

to influence the Saudi government. I

think it is very, very important

that we have a proper, competitive

and independent UN led investigation

into what exactly is happening in

Yemen at the moment, and in

particular we want them to lift that

blockade, so that humanitarian aid

can get in through the ports.

Worked

the best way to do that be to visit

the country and hold talks?

Certainly it is one way forward. We

have also said we should suspend

arms sales to Saudi Arabia, pending

that UN investigation. Again, I

think it is very important that we

have a responsible relationship with

Saudi Arabia. They're not just an

export partner for us but also a

coalition partner in the Middle

East. We need to be frank with our

partners like that and say when we

want to call them out and don't

accept...

You would halt arms

exports to Saudi Arabia whilst you

carried out that investigation. How

would that help relations with the

country?

I think it's very, very

important we play with Saudi Arabia

what is not acceptable. Whilst we

are having an investigation, where

they could have been breaches of

international humanitarian law, it's

very important that we show that we

take very seriously.

By holding arms

exporter and cutting any ties?

I

think it's very important we show a

clear message...

How do you do that?

By halting the arms export. We have

a very clear licensing system in

this country and responsible

employers, responsible companies

understand why we have that.

Would

you cut diplomatic ties was that

investigation is going on?

What we

need to look at is what kind of

response we get from Saudi Arabia.

It's very important we keep channels

of communication open but that we

make it very clear what we do not

accept in their behaviour.

Your

party isn't united on this issue,

though, or this policy that you have

just spoken on. More than 100 Labour

MPs abstained when it was put

forward in the Commons.

The

important thing is there are

different ways of wedding motions.

The important thing is...

You are

the Shadow Defence Secretary that

you haven't got the support of 100

Labour MPs on it.

It is very

important we take very seriously

what's happening in Yemen and we

deal with the issue in Yemen, but

that we do recognise that in the

broader the delays, Saudi Arabia has

been a very important coalition

partner. So it is very important we

keep those channels of communication

open and we can call out Saudi

Arabia for what we understand and

see that it's doing wrong.

Would

that not, as you just said, you see

them as an important coalition

partner, would that not risk the

relationship with Saudi Arabia and

lose influence in the region? Not

even during party supports the line.

I think it's important to stand up

for what's right.

So those 100

Labour MPs are wrong? Empty gesture

politics is what John Woodcock said

at the time.

What you have to look

at is the actual wording of the

resolution. It wasn't something that

perhaps was universally easy to get

behind. Because it referenced the

coalition and what we want to be

very clear about is that we keep the

dialogue open with Saudi Arabia but

we call them out where there are

things that are totally

unacceptable. So we want a proper

investigation, to see exactly what

happened, to see what breaches of

law there have been and pending that

investigation, the result of that

investigation, we have said we would

want to see arms sales suspended to

Saudi.

What you say when the High

Court ruled the arms were perfectly

legal?

Sales can be legal but the

question we are asking is whether it

is a sale we want to make when we

are seeing something happening in

Yemen which is shocking people in

this country. I think the crisis

that is in Yemen at the moment is

one of the worst things we've seen,

and people are really concerned

about that. So they are very, very

concerned that we should be doing

anything which, if you like, shores

up that. An investigation will

reveal exactly what is going on.

That is why we are calling for it,

and then we can see where we proceed

from there. It is important we are

prepared to speak up to those allies

that we sometimes think I'm not

doing the right thing.

By halting

arms exports to Saudi Arabia do you

accept you would be putting at risk

thousands of jobs, many of them in

Labour held areas?

As I said, the

talks I've had with the companies,

they do understand why we want to

have a responsible arms export

company.

They are prepared for those

jobs to be put at risk?

They

understand why we have proper

licensing and they do understand

that sometimes it is necessary to

call out specific countries on

specific actions they are taking.

Do

you think, Tim Shipman, Theresa May

will revise the relationship with

Saudi Arabia and Roback on contact?

I don't think there is any prospect

of that, thankfully. There is a

close security relationship with

Saudi Arabia which Theresa May, been

a silent Home Secretary for six

years knows all about. There's a lot

of intelligence exchange. Theresa

May hasn't done a lot in foreign

affairs. One of the things she did

do last December is go to the golf

Corporation cars, the first female

leader ever to address it, and she

sees cooperation with Saudi Arabia

as a sort of a key cornerstone of

her foreign policy. They have some

hope the new Crown Prince is

liberalising things and is someone

they can do business with. I don't

think there's any prospect of them

doing what the Labour Party wants at

this point.

,

Nia Griffith, thank you.

Now, to say it's been

an unpredictable year

in British politics is a bit,

well, predictable.

Our guest of the day, Tim Shipman,

has written this weighty

tome taking the reader

through Theresa May's tumultuous

12 months or so.

But don't worry, if time's

short - here's most of

what happened in two minutes.

The Article 50 process

is now under way and,

in accordance with the wishes

of the British people,

the United Kingdom is leaving

the European Union.

Today, as we face this

critical election for our

country, I launch my manifesto

for Britain's future.

General election.

You're joking!

Not another one?!

You have just announced

a significant change to what was

offered in your manifesto,

saying there will now be

the possibility of

a cap on social care.

That was not in the plans

that were announced

just four days ago.

That doesn't look so strong

and stable, Prime Minister, does it?

Nothing has changed.

Nothing has changed.

And what we are saying

is, the Conservatives

are the largest party.

Note they don't have an overall

majority at this stage.

At counts across the country,

Conservative dreams

of a thumping majority crumbled.

# We'll keep the red

flag flying here...#

CHANTING: No peace!

No justice!

CHANTING: May must go! May must go!

I'm not hearing any whistling,

just the clock ticking.

# I'm a survivor, I'm not

going to give up...#

Today, we have reached an agreement

with the Conservative Party

on support for government in

Parliament.

Boris is absolutely behind

the Florence speech and the

line that we have taken.

Is he unsackable?

SHE LAUGHS.

While our opponents

flirt with a foreign

policy of neutrality...

It sounds as if my

voice isn't on track.

SHE COUGHS.

# I'm a survivor, keep on survivor.

We're joined now by Theresa May's

former strategy director

and chief speech writer,

Chris Wilkins.

He was so important,

there's a whole appendix devoted

to him in Tim's book.

I have that book it, weighing down

the table. Where did you find time

to write it?

If Theresa May and

Margaret Thatcher can get by on four

hour sleep, why should journalists

be different!

You spoke to over 100

people when you are writing this,

explaining how the referendum

plunged Britain into a year of

mayhem. What are the key moments?

The first part of the book is about

the debates in the cabinet up until

the declaration of Article 50, the

timing of it and how they did it,

then about the general election and

then the leadership that followed

it, and how Theresa May finally got

herself en route to delivering some

of that Brexit stuff.

What juicy

revelations did you find out?

Having

interviewed over 100 people, and ask

every single Tory who was in charge

of the election campaign, not one of

them was able to give me a straight

answer. That was an interesting

moment. You have a whole campaign

throughout the last autumn

portraying Theresa May in a

particular way but, when they came

to the election campaign, they

portrayed her in a different way,

and it didn't work so well.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and

she blew it in terms of the election

and the majority. Should she have

called it? Was she right to call it?

Absolutely, I think she was right to

call it. I counselled her to call it

and I think there were several

reasons for doing so. It didn't work

out how we wanted and there were

missteps along the way and some bad

decisions made in terms of campaign

strategy and the communication

strategy behind it, which was quite

updated -- outdated. The underlying

reasons for calling the election

were sound, in terms of getting a

mandate for change and physically

putting back the Brexit timetable so

we didn't have it in 2020 -- an

election in 2020.

Who do you blame

for what went wrong?

We all have to

take the blame. There were hundreds

of things. Underpinned by probably

two things. The campaign strategy

which the campaign team decided

would pitch the Conservative Party

and the Prime Minister as the status

quo in an election that I think was

about change, and the communication

strategy, which was outdated, in my

view. In modern campaigns, you have

to speak to people's emotions and

feelings and we thought, if you came

up with a feud phrases, it would

convince them that I don't think it

worked.

Who was to blame in your

mind for deciding it should be a

presidential style election, when

many would argue actually get

exposed weaknesses of Theresa May?

There were two camps in the election

campaign, the Timothy Amber Rudd

Theresa May...

Seen as the brains.

-- the Timothy campaign. Some

research found that Theresa May was

a popular figure in should be put at

the heart of the campaign. I think

they didn't mind that, they thought

she was a transformational leader,

and she was put at the heart of it.

500 pages of reasons to blame one

person or another. I think Nick

would acknowledge that the manifesto

he wrote was a problem and, if you

look at the internal polling, things

got off a cliff halfway through the

campaign but, after that had

happened, the Prime Minister herself

was unable to raise the game and

deal with the TB exchanges that she

had, and I think people who looked

at her and had seen somebody who was

a different kind of Conservative,

portraying herself a strong and

stable, they looked at her and said,

you don't seem to like being at the

heart of all of this. Ultimately,

there were problems with the

strategy and the personnel, and the

person in a position to be able to

make decisions about who was doing

those jobs, that was the Prime

Minister herself. You can't blame

Lynton Crosby for it. If you don't

like the campaign, don't hire him.

Let's talk about the manifesto. You

talked about nick Timothy being

behind the social care policy. How

big a mistake was that?

We went into

the election thinking was about

change and we needed a mandate to

deliver bad and we set out to

deliver a manifesto to give us that

mandate. I don't see the point of

having an election and not putting

things in that. I think there were a

couple of things. First, it was

clearly a big policy, we didn't

communicate around the policy, and

that was because the campaign team

decided they didn't want to

concentrate on policy. The broader

problem with the manifesto actually,

to be fair, was what wasn't in it

rather than what was. I was

surprised when I saw it that there

were things I thought would appear

that would have been more retail

friendly, that were not there. In my

view, it was the absence of certain

things, rather than the particular

fact that one policy was in there.

Would that have delivered a

different result?

I think, it's not

all about the manifesto, but the

manifesto was a symptom of the wider

problem. We went into the campaign

and research which delivered a

strategy that was all about change

and the big changes we wanted to

bring to the country in the context

of the referendum. As soon as the

election campaign was called, we

stretched strategy completely and

became the candidate of the status

quo. -- we switched strategy board

so the manifesto was a halfway house

with some big ideas but not many,

and it stemmed back to the original

decision. I think that was

fundamentally bad thing.

Did it also

showed that people didn't know

Theresa May? If they thought she'd

be up to handle and carried the sort

of campaign that had been designed

for her by Lynton Crosby and others,

did the people around her

overestimate her?

I think some of

them perhaps, but what they had

successfully done at the Home Office

was run a strategy where she kept

her head down and appeared once in a

while and did big set piece things,

and everybody I talked to said that

she and her team delivered these big

set piece speeches really

effectively. She isn't so good at

adapting to changing circumstances

and events that move quicker than

those decision maces --

decision-making processes move. She

likes to take her time. When events

happen that need an instinctive

response, it isn't always clear

there is one.

Do you think the

Brexit strategy has been successful

so far?

I think where we are at the

end of this year with the strategy

is about where we thought we would

be. A lot has been written about it,

but actually we are pretty much on

track to where we thought we'd be

when we sat down and talked about it

first off when we were in Downing

Street.

You wouldn't have agreed the

first bit of the negotiations and

yet to move on to the next bit?

It

would be the key time to try and

agree the things that are on the

table, and we look forward to a

positive response from the EU this

week, and to forget that, if I look

back to the conversations we I think

this was about the timetable.

Thank

you.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was where have Mrs

and Miss gone missing?

Is it...

In the classroom, at Wimbledon,

in the law courts,

or in the council chamber?

So, Tim, what's the correct answer?

I'll have a D please, Bob.

That is

correct, yes.

Yes, Debretts - the authority

on etiquette and behaviour -

has changed their advice on how

female councillors should be

addressed after Deneice

Florence-Jukes, a councillor

in East Staffordshire, objected

to the way in which she and other

women were referred to.

The convention of referring

to female councillors

as Mrs or Miss - but never

using Mr for men dates

back to at least 1907.

Well, we can speak now

to Councillor Deneice Florence-Jukes

who's in our Derby studio.

This is quite an achievement for

someone who is new to politics!

It

is, yes. I joined to get change, and

I've done that.

What did you have to

do to get Debretts to change their

advice?

I have been lobbying

Debretts for quite a few weeks now,

appealing to them that it's an

outdated practice and good they look

at it, and yesterday we heard the

fantastic news that they have

addressed it and abandoned it, which

is great. It's only taken 110 years!

It only took you a few weeks to put

the pressure on. I gather that is

Staffordshire borough council are

voting on your motion in a few days.

I presume you expect it to pass.

I

would hope so. There has been a bit

of resistance to some change in some

quarters but I hope, once they hear

my argument in full in chamber on

Monday, I will be able to convince

them that it is the right move.

Where is the resistance coming from?

From ladies that like being called

Mrs. I am battling against the very

people I'm trying to assist, really.

What do you say to them?

I say, go

with the programme. It's completely

outdated, it's not necessary at all,

and it isn't helping the cause of

equality and diversity. If we look

at our chamber, it lacks diversity,

and I'm hoping that it's a way of

addressing that and encouraging more

people to come into the council, so

that we better reflect the borough

and the people we serve.

You are no

stranger to titles, having

previously been with the military

and police. How are they doing

equality of title?

We've had our

first ever Metropolitan Police

female commissioner in Cressida

Dick, the London Fire Brigade have

Danny cotton. I first joined the

WPC, it changed to police officer,

so we've seen that change, and it's

positive. It shows that, if you get

rid of those...

I have to stop you because we are

running out of time.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

You can have a rest now!

Bye-bye.