Browse content similar to 30/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
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
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.
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?
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,
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
Welcome to the programme. Should
Donald Trump the retweeting fake
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
No, I said publicly before
I think he should undo the tweets of
the three videos posted by the
deputy leader of Britain First.
is Donald Trump, in your mind,
publicly rebuking one of his closest
allies by two criticising Theresa
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.
was a very personal tweet to the
Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom. Was that wise?
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?
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.
politicians are calling for the
invite to Donald Trump to come to
Britain on a state visit or
otherwise to be withdrawn. What do
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
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?
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.
horrendous is it, in your mind?
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
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
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
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
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...
British government should do this?
Right. And how the empowerment of
Fascist, right-wing groups harms the
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
44 billion is quite a bit. I'd
prefer to stay.
Very expensive to
pay that to go out. I would say it
I like the she says
Can you put a
ball in the box? Thank you.
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
We need the money here.
the bananas seem to be in the lead
at the moment. Let's try another
I'd go bananas. But then
again, what's a banana between
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.
fair is fair.
The dog thinks it's
I'm going to go bananas.
Everybody knows it's ridiculous,
even the government.
Let's go for it. That's it.
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
So it's a bargain?
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
When we leave. We are also
getting money back. I don't know why
this is hard to understand.
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
You have explained
We will be contributing to
that means that net we get money
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
But your bus didn't say,
we only get that after a transition
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
Is your support for
paying what we owe still
In what regard?
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
So you are paying for access
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.
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.
is the original discussion under
That is paying for
access. You are prepared to pay up
to £44 billion for access to trade,
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
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
But you are
saying we only pay it if we get a
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?
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
Why don't we just do
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
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.
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
So one is an agreement to
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.
paying into some organisations and
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?
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.
would you do at that point if the
government says we are going to
continue some sort of jurisdiction
from the European court?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
going to continue to block Brexit,
as your critics would see it?
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.
continue some sort of freedom of
movement, and would you be prepared
to see the European Court of Justice
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
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
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?
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
When you say they
voted for a concept, they voting for
your concept? To like Norway?
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
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.
facing questions into how you handle
the claims against Labour's Carl
Sargent, who was found dead after
being sacked about comments he made
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
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.
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
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.
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
You would halt arms
exports to Saudi Arabia whilst you
carried out that investigation. How
would that help relations with the
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?
think it's very important we show a
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.
you cut diplomatic ties was that
investigation is going on?
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.
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.
important thing is there are
different ways of wedding motions.
The important thing is...
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.
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
What you say when the High
Court ruled the arms were perfectly
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.
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
They are prepared for those
jobs to be put at risk?
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.
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
Nia Griffith, thank you.
Now, to say it's been
an unpredictable year
in British politics is a bit,
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.
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,
of a thumping majority crumbled.
# We'll keep the red
flag flying here...#
CHANTING: No peace!
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
Boris is absolutely behind
the Florence speech and the
line that we have taken.
Is he unsackable?
While our opponents
flirt with a foreign
policy of neutrality...
It sounds as if my
voice isn't on track.
# I'm a survivor, keep on survivor.
We're joined now by Theresa May's
former strategy director
and chief speech writer,
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
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.
revelations did you find out?
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
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
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
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
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
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
You wouldn't have agreed the
first bit of the negotiations and
yet to move on to the next bit?
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.
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?
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.
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!
is, yes. I joined to get change, and
I've done that.
What did you have to
do to get Debretts to change their
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.
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!