01/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Parliament's Brexit Committee says

it can't see a solution

to the negotiation sticking point

of how the Irish border

will work after Brexit.

We'll talk to its chair Hilary Benn.

Do you know your passporting

from your equivalence?

We'll look at the options

for Britain's banking

industry after Brexit.

Whatever happened to

the boundary review?

MPs have already voted to decrease

the number of constituency

seats from 650 to 600,

but a new bill seeks

to up the numbers again.

We'll work out what's going on.

And it's December 1st

and it's beginning to look

a lot like Christmas.

So, what should you get

the political geek

in your life this year?

We'll have the Daily Politics

comprehensive guide.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the duration

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative writer

and founder of the website

UnHerd and Helen Lewis,

Deputy Editor of the New Statesman.

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you for coming in.

Now, in a video posted on Twitter

last night Jeremy Corbyn

launched a fresh assault

on Britain's bankers.

When bankers say the Labour Party

is a threat, they're

right, Mr Corbyn said.

Let's take a look.

Nurses, teachers, shop workers,

builders, well, just about everyone,

is finding it harder to get

by while Morgan Stanley's CEO paid

himself £21.5 million last year.

And UK banks paid £15

billion in bonuses.

Labour is a growing movement

with well over half a million

members and a government in waiting

that will work for the many.

So when they say we are

a threat they are right.

We are a threat to a damaging

and failed system that

is rigged for the few.

Helen, we all know that Jeremy

Corbyn is a socialist and does not

need to persuade his supporters he

is enemy of the banking sector,

would it not be better for him to

reach out to the financial

community?

They have been doing

that. But first Labour has no big

donors any more. They used to have

Sainsbury's and people like that and

they see themselves as a grassroots

membership organisation funded by

small donations.

A vast number.

They

are not in hog with big business to

that sense. Also the Tory party has

thrown away some of its advantage

with big business by supporting

Brexit. People in the business

community see it as a threat and a

big disruption they would rather not

happen. The Tories always seemed to

have that idea that they were sound

and stable with continuity and

labour are reflected that. That has

been eroded by Brexit.

This was a

video that Jeremy Corbyn put out on

Twitter last night and he has been

very effective to use social media

to circumvent journalists. But he is

also cover star, on the front cover

of GQ magazine. Are we beginning to

see the emergence of a coherent,

perhaps convincing, media strategy?

Using social media to motivate

people and there he is on the GQ

cover.

Looking ministerial.

Is this

an effective strategy?

It has been a

phenomenon over the last few years,

one I did not predict, how much

Jeremy Corbyn's personality has

underpinned Labour's success. They

have a very radical agenda. If John

McDonnell had been the leader and

the front man for that, he is a much

more aggressive character, I think

it would have frightened people. But

the guy who makes jam and has an

allotment and who does not seem to

get angry very much is almost the

perfect front person for what is a

radical agenda. The Conservatives

need to get the focus much more on

the policy issues and the dangers of

Labour's economic policies and away

from the personality. It is

interesting how much labour is now

going for a strategy that looks more

Blairite than Momentum.

And the

control they exercise. The editor of

GQ said he had never seen an

operation quite like the media

operation around Jeremy Corbyn. He

will be chuffed with that?

I think

so, but they are also very defensive

of him. His supporters as well feel

very defensive about him. He was

written off completely by the

mainstream media and now they feel

they have to protect him. This is

where the accusations of cult

personality come from because they

feel personally he has come under

intense attack. But Tim is right in

the sense they have built a brand

that is the brand he has got and the

Tory attack that this man is

dangerous, he will take you back to

the 1970s and you think drain covers

and jam and you can put them

together, it did not work at the

last election.

I am struggling to

put that together in my head as

well!

well!

Now it is time for our daily quiz.

Jeremy Corbyn is on the cover

of this month's GQ magazine,

but what make was the suit

he was wearing for the photo shoot?

A) Armani.

B) Pre-mani, otherwise

known as Primark.

C) Dolce and Gabbana.

D) Marks & Spencer.

Do you know the answer?

Yes.

Do not

say so now.

Do not say so now.

At the end of the show

Tim and Helen will give

us the correct answer.

So as it's the first day of December

we thought we'd take a look

at our Brexit advent calender to see

what festive treats will be in store

for us in the coming days.

There's a lot going on.

This morning the Exiting the EU

Committee publishes a report arguing

they can't see how the problem

of the Irish border can be solved,

something that perhaps European

Council President Donald Tusk

and the Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar

will talk about when they meet

later today in Dublin.

Next Monday Theresa May will meet EU

Commission President

Jean-Claude Juncker,

where they will discuss

the Prime Minister's revised offer

on the divorce bill,

and then on Wednesday

the European Council

and the European Commission

will then meet behind closed doors

to discuss Mrs May's proposal.

Also on the 6th, Brexit Secretary

David Davis will be in front

of the Exiting the EU committee

to face a grilling over his redacted

impact assessments.

The moment of truth will come

a week later when all EU

leaders meet in Brussels

for the European Council summit.

The meeting lasts for two days

and the Prime Minister will be

hoping that on the second day

they will announce that enough has

been agreed over money,

the Irish border and EU citizens'

rights so that they can

move on to the second

phase of the negotiations

and start talking trade.

Well, new Irish Deputy

Prime Minister and also

Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney

was asked about the Brexit

negotiations this morning.

What the British government has been

asking of the Irish government is

just - trust us, we will solve these

issues with a broad, bold trade

agreement, so that may

not be possible...

Can I play you a clip?

Can I play you a clip...

Sorry to disrupt you...

To finish the point, John...

Yes, carry on?

Sorry, I mean we cannot be

asked here to leap into

the dark.

Well, Parliament's Brexit committee

has a report out today on how

the negotiations have been going.

It says the Committee can't see how

it will be possible to resolve

the issue of having no border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic with

the government's policy of leaving

the single market and customs union.

The Chair of that committee,

Labour's Hilary Benn,

is in Central Lobby.

Thank you very much, good afternoon.

You say in your report that the

proposals for the border are not

tested. Is that not the whole point,

we are in uncharted territory and we

will not know how to solve it?

We

certainly are in uncharted territory

because of the referendum result.

But the decision to leave the

customs union and the single market

is not an inevitable conference

consequence, it is a choice the

government made. On the one hand the

government has rejected that there

should be no border, institutional

arrangements and no infrastructure

and we support that and the Irish

government and everybody supports

that. But we do not see how you can

reconcile that with the other

decision the government has made

about leaving the customs union and

the single market. Therefore we have

called on the government to set out

in more detail how it proposes to

square that circle. What it

published in the summer I'm talking

about technology and a new customs

partnership, was itself in the

government's own words and tested.

Clearly it has thus far not been

sufficient to provide reassurance to

the Irish government.

What do you

propose? What are your solid

proposals for how to take this very

complicated position with the two

sides seem very far apart? What do

you suggest?

The Select Committee

has not proposed a solution, we have

identified the continuing nature of

the problem. What would you suggest?

The Select Committee has not reached

a view on that. Personally as a

Labour politician I would stay in

the customs union, but that is not a

solution the customs union has

reached, the Select Committee has

reached. The Select Committee has

also said today we want to see the

negotiations moved on to phase two

because that may help to provide

part of the answer to this question,

depending on our future trading

relationship, and we what the

government to set out clearly,

assuming the European Council gives

the go-ahead, what seeking a deep

and special partnership actually

means. Michel Barnier will be asking

them what they want. Parliament

needs to know what the government's

plan is.

There were lots of well

sourced reporters earlier in the

week that the mood in Dublin is a

lot of progress has been made on

this issue. Doesn't your Select

Committee report 48 hours late,

behind the curve?

We produced our

report on the basis of information

available to us at the time we

finalised it. But if progress has

been made, I am certain the Select

Committee would welcome that because

we also say we want to move on to

phase two of the negotiations. Some

things will move quite quickly,

particularly when you have a

deadline coming up. But this is

clearly a fundamental problem which

the government has recognised and

the Irish government has recognised

that and what the Irish government

has been saying in recent weeks have

indicated they were not at that

point satisfied a solution could be

found. I hope one can be that gets

us through to phase two, but we will

not see the final answer on the

border until the negotiations are

completed.

Has the intervention of

Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach,

helped progress this argument?

Critics of his say he is

intransigent and has presented a

problem. As he prevented you with a

problem?

The Irish government is

looking after Ireland's interests

and everybody wants to solve this

problem, but it is a problem that

has been put on the Republic of

Ireland by the referendum result and

by the government's decision to

leave the customs union and the

single market. That is why there is

a difficulty. Ireland is

particularly affected by Brexit and

therefore it is appropriate that the

Taoiseach should say we need to look

after the interests of our country

and in the end we have to reach an

agreement not just between the UK

and Ireland because Ireland is part

of the 27 and the issue about the

border is when we leave the European

Union, this will be the external

border of the 27 member states as it

is in all of the other countries.

That is why trying to find a

solution, given the context, given

the Good Friday Agreement and the

fact there are 200 crossings with no

border posts or checking at the

moment, a practical benefit of the

Good Friday Agreement, it is

important we hang onto that, but we

have to find a practical way forward

and that is why we have called on

the government to set out in more

detail how it will solve it. What it

has offered so far has not persuaded

the Irish government or the Select

Committee that you could square the

circle.

Jacob Rees Mogg reported that

today's report Select Committee is

split between those who voted to

remain and those who voted to leave.

It is a bit of a remain tinge.

Well

done for coming up with that! The

vast majority of the report was

agreed by consensus. We work very

hard in the committees, I am sure

Jacob will attest to that, to try

and reach consensus. You look at the

back of the report and you can see

which sections were voted on and

each member of the committee as an

individual decides how they will

cast their vote. We have a job of

work to do as a committee to hold

the government to account, to

scrutinise the process of Brexit. In

the past we have said there should

be a vote for MPs and the government

eventually agreed with that. We call

for a conditional arrangement and

the government is seeking those. We

asked for a white paper on the

negotiating objectives and that was

given. We are seeking to have an

influence on the process and we are

working together as members despite

the different views we held during

the referendum last year.

Thank you

very much indeed.

Thank you very much indeed.

Joining us now is the Conservative

MP and member of the Brexit Select

Committee, Jacob Rees Mogg.

You are an optimist, what is your

solution?

Can I agree with the last

point that Hilary Benn was saying,

he is a really good and patient

chairman and there are areas of

agreement and we do our best to

agree, but the highlight of the

report is inevitably the issues

where we do not agree which is

divided straight down the lines of

how you divided and voted in the

referendum. Select Committee report

are powerful when they are

unanimous, when they are not

unanimous, it is straight party

politics.

What is your solution?

The

solution was set out very clearly by

John Thomson who appeared in front

of the Brexit Select Committee and

he said he could implement the

government's policy on not having

any border, it was manageable, and

if the border was imposed, that was

a matter for the Irish government

and the European Union. There was no

need for any border in terms of UK

Government policy and it is up to

the Republic of Ireland and the

European Union to decide if they

want to impose one.

Do you have confidence the proposed

checks for technical solutions, a

lot of people say that there is no

need, there could be a frictionless

border, are you confident that they

will actually work? There are

feelings in Dublin they could be a

gift to insurgents?

I think most of

it is very straightforward, you can

do customs declarations in the same

way you do a VAT declaration. The

transition becomes a tax point

rather than a checkpoint. People pay

their VAT by sending in a quarterly

return and there is an exemption of

£85,000 for VAT when you do not have

to do this. The government suggested

the exemption for customs should be

£250,000 and then it's a question of

whether people pay their taxes or

not. That solution is very

straightforward. At nontariff

barriers, some things take place on

an all Ireland basis already. So,

animal hygiene is on an Au Ireland

basis already. There's no need to

break it up. The technological

solutions are there -- or Ireland.

We do not want to put tariffs on

anybody, free trade is the

opportunity of Brexit and we should

not be looking to collect vast

customs revenues.

The DUP are

kingmakers of this Parliament. Was

it productive for them to say, to

threaten, that they would remove

their confidence in supply

agreement?

I think the issue that

they correctly raised was we cannot

have a situation when Northern

Ireland is taken away from the

United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is

as much a part of the UK as Somerset

and that is the position of

conservatives and unionists.

Was it

damaging to the government and its

wider agenda that the confidence and

supply agreement we have could

potentially be undermined by the

DUP?

This party is the main party of

government, the unionist bid is

essential. There is no majority

within the Conservative Party, let

alone in the DUP, to break up the

United Kingdom, to meet the

requirements of the Prime Minister

of Ireland. I think what the DUP

said is pretty standard conservative

policy.

Tim, based on what we have

seen so far on Brexit negotiations

progressing, as Britain got up to

the job of finding a solution for

this vexing issue?

These

negotiations are very hard, what

they have revealed more than

anything else is how fragile and

insecure and organisation the EU is.

A competent institution would not be

so difficult in these negotiations.

It is so worried about losing other

members it is having to be so

difficult with the UK. And the Irish

border issue. It is much easier to

solve this issue if trade talks are

happening concurrently with other

issues. Because the EU is so

obsessed with the money issue,

because the budget position of the

EU is so weak, we are in difficult

positions where the Irish government

is playing politics. Sinn Fein tries

to run a harder line on this issue

and the Prime Minister of Ireland

feels they have to play the game

too. It's a principal game we have

to take from this. I think this can

be solved. There is every

possibility that towards the end of

negotiations, one country, remember

how the EU Canada agreement was

almost held to ransom? There a poll

Maka cup possibility one country can

do that again. We had to prepare for

no deal -- there is a possibility

one country can do that again.

You

are flanked by optimists on all

sides, it sounds straightforward, do

you share their optimism?

Not about

the idea of the deal if you want to

stay outside of the customs union.

The simple solution is to stay in

the customs union, I do not believe

that leave voters in the country

believe they voted on the basis that

they wanted to unlock the wonderful

potential of trade deals.

95% of

economic growth is outside of the

European Union.

And the trading

block is right next to us, Australia

is quite far away. But the point is

I think it is one of those

situations where people in Britain

would think, why are we having this

enormous row about something that is

an obsession for the Tory party and

that nobody cares about?

This charge

has been levelled at you repeatedly

over the last few years. Is the

obsession of a particular wing of

the Tory party impeding the finding

of an easy and pragmatic solution?

The customs union is a protectionist

racket

The customs union is a protectionist

racket, and it puts up the prices of

food, clothing and footwear. These

hit the poorest in our country the

most because the largest portion of

their spending goes on food,

clothing and footwear, compared to

the richer in society.

And the

poorest people in the world, Africa.

It discriminates against imports

from some of the poorest countries

in the world. It impoverishes the

poorest. To get out the customs

union will be an advantage for

Brexit and will be good for the

people in this country but also help

poor countries elsewhere in the

world. The customs union is a

disgrace and a blot on the

reputation of the EU. And it has got

a reputation.

I think this is a

munificent and charitable

organisation

-- I do not think this is in the

mind of most leave voters. You will

hear a lot about respecting the

referendum but we need to hear more

about what drove the referendum. I

think it was economics and

immigration, not free trade.

We set

our own tariffs, this is really

important. In the WTO, you register

your tariffs with the WTO. We could

put zero on food, zero on clothing

and Sarah and footwear. I tell you

what, we will get you guys together

to talk about it -- zero on

footwear.

Damian Green has been in

use a former college at detective

told the BBC today that he was

shocked by the amount of pornography

viewed on the computer from his

office many years ago. Damian Green

denies the allegations, Evening

Standard say that friends of David

Davis say he may resign over this

issue. Can I ask, what explains the

timing of this investigation into

Damian Green?

I think the real

scandal here goes back to what

happened when Damian Green's office

was searched, a political enquiry by

the police. It was outrageous and

unconstitutional that an opposition

member of Parliament had his offices

raided that information stolen from

the convenience of the then

government...

That may be the real

scandal...

It is...

But right now...

Patients, I am coming to your

question.

It is a scandal from some

years ago. What explains the timing

of it now? Many people say that

Damian Green has been targeted

because of his closeness to a Prime

Minister that is currently weak.

The

point of origin is really important

because as a general principle of

law, evidence from illegal searches

is not permissible.

The police behaved disgracefully,

they raided an opposition minister's

offices and the House of Commons.

It's a real scandal and now police,

or ex-police, using information

obtained improperly to damage a

politician. What we should be asking

about is the politicisation of the

police force under the last Labour

government, not about Damian Green.

It's a police force under this

government revealing confidential

information...

These are retired

police officers, so it is not.

And

Davis Dave -- and David Davies, if

he leaves, is it a credible threat

that he should resign?

Why should he

resign?

But if he did... I'm not

asking if he showed that if he did,

would it damage the government?

I've

heard no rumours about him

resigning, he said very important

member of this government and has

great support across the country. I

could not see any reason for him to

resign.

It's on the front of the

Evening Standard... Not for the

first time in a few months, it will

be interesting reading!

They are

very odd views, and likes freezer

bags...

Jacob Rees-Mogg, thank you

very much for coming in.

Now, MPs will today debate an issue

which affects all of them -

parliamentary constituency

boundaries.

You could be forgiven for thinking

the matter had been settled.

Parliament voted in 2011 to reduce

the number of MPs and equalise

the electorates to about 74,000

people per constituency.

The new system should have been used

for the 2015 general election

but the coalition

government couldn't agree.

Today a private member's Bill

sponsored by the Labour backbencher

Afzal Khan seeks to reverse

the government's plans to reduce

the size of the House

from 650 MPs to 600.

Instead the bill would aim to

equalise the size of constituencies

based on population.

Emma is in central lobby for us.

That's right, under the current

government plans, it could lead to a

real scramble for seats, if the

number of MPs is reduced by 50. But

I'm here with a man who says, don't

do that. Keep the number of MPs the

same they change the constituencies

so they have roughly the same number

of voters. Labour's Afzal Khan has

the second reading of his Private

members bill in the Commons today

and Mark Harper also joins me, the

minister in charge of the coalition

when these original government plans

were written up. Let me ask the

original intention of the government

plans was to save money. We cut the

number of MPs here, and I'm the

country will still take over, why

not just do that?

My feeling is that

currently the government does not

have a majority. There are people

from all sorts of parties, including

their own sites, unhappy with the

change. The government say they want

to save money but what they are

actually trying to do is reduce MPs

in Parliament but keep their own

executive power at the same level

with the number of voters that they

have. In reality, there are 260

unelected peers in the House of

Lords. That costs 136 million. Are

they going with this? It doesn't add

up. I'm tried to build consensus

where we can bring all the different

parties together so we can have

necessary changes.

And Mike Harper,

that this damage democracy? Why

isn't this a sensible suggestion?

The root cause of why we brought

forward these proposals in the first

place and the present law to reduce

the number of MPs is simple. We want

constituencies to be broadly equal

size, plus or so constituents are

equally represented across the

country. We thought it was sensible

in the wake of the expenses scandal

to reduce the number of MPs, the

House of Commons is one of the

largest parliaments. The cost of the

House of Lords has come down, I was

a minister who wanted to bring

forward proposals to elect the other

place but they never went through.

We have a boundary commission that

is going to report next October, and

Parliament will be able to vote on

specific proposals. The problem with

this bill, we kick it into the long

grass again. It's the second or

third time the Labour Party has

tried to push this into the future

because they don't want to equalise

the sizes of those constituencies in

practice. It is an important

principle that voters, wherever they

are in the country, are equally

represented in parliament.

It was

the original plans would benefit

Conservatives more.

Is this about

Labour trying to protect it?

It's

not true, the bottom line is, we

have people from across, including

the Conservative Party, it isn't

simply about the Labour Party, I

think it's much fairer. There's the

idea, of course, we are against that

but the point is there's a real life

outside that by having this

variation which is 7.5%, it allows

us to adapt and keep communities

together. Do not forget that we are

here to serve the community and if

we break it up, that's the people

who lose out and we want to protect

it.

Do people outside this house

really care? Even about what a

constituency is or how big it is,

making sure that the people do the

job? Does it matter to voters

whether we reduce or keep the same

number?

It's important that voters

outside feel equally represented.

Some constituencies only have 40,000

in -- 40,000 voters.

Why not change

the shape?

You need to keep them

broadly equal in size, and Afzal 's

bill this morning widens things out

a bit. But we also thought it was

right to reduce numbers of

Parliament. We thought it was

sensible, and it was one of the most

popular policies that the coalition

brought forward and if the answer to

the question you are asking is,

let's have more members of

Parliament, I do not think it is the

right question.

How much money would

be saved?

£66 million over

Parliament, you can argue it is not

the largest sum in the wild but it

isn't a trivial sum of money. It can

then be spent on public services.

Your plans wouldn't do that?

But it

would make sure we maintain the

balance. We need to make sure that

the member of Parliament is here --

members of Parliament here can hold

them to account, you can try and

reduce MPs to a smaller number and

this is where the relationship

breaks down. This is why they do not

have it. It isn't just the Labour

Party but all parties are saying it

is not right and MPs onside to say

this. What I am saying is sensible.

It does have support. We can still

go ahead. We are quite happy with

it. When the review went against us,

we did not block it. We took it

through. I do not think it is fair

to say that we do not want it

reviewed. We do. We want to maintain

that.

Where you will see what

happens with your plans in the House

of Commons today. Thank you to both

of you. The current government

proposals to reduce numbers of MPs

could take effect if this goes ahead

by the next election in 2022 unless

Labour plans derailed this...

Thank

you very much indeed.

The impetus behind boundary changes

was partly to do with costs to

Parliament. It arose after the

expenses scandal, MPs were despised

even more than perhaps they are now.

Is the urgency behind this issue,

has it gone?

I think there are

bigger issues at the moment. £66

million is a lot of money but

compared to the sums that the

government had to deal with, it is

relatively small. I'm very

sympathetic to the Labour argument,

in some respects, that the real

Robin is the House of Lords. Outside

of the people's Republic of China,

is the biggest legislative body in

the world. Costs are beginning to be

controlled but it is unelected Lords

and people turning up and not

working particularly hard, many do

but many don't, but that is the real

affront to the

Isn't the issue with boundary

changes?

And when MPs potentially

lose their seats, they will resist

any changes that could put them out

of a job?

At the moment when the DUP

came in, the boundary changes were

dead as a dodo because the DUP would

be affected by it. The boundary

changes only create obvious losers.

Structurally Labour has got a small

advantage and the idea of a

reduction would not be one that

finds favour with Labour. Who is

left to vote for it? There is a

problem. It is mad in 2017 were to

have hereditary peers and people who

can clock in once every couple of

months and treated as a gentleman's

club. Lots of peers worked very hard

and their influence is useful and we

could just have them and not the

other guys.

This bill will not get

through.

It speaks about the big

problem which is there really very

little domestic legislation because

people are desperately trying to

hang bits and pieces where they can

and get through private members

bills because Brexit has crowded

everything out.

It is a shame

because after Grenfell in particular

there was something of a chat about

a big impact on housing. There was a

possibility for Labour and the

Tories to get together on building

Council houses. The Communities

Secretary was open to that

possibility, Sajiv Javid. My concern

about Theresa May is she is not a

bold thinker and she has not been

able to see opportunities out of a

tragedy like Grenfell to say let's

fix something so these people did

not die in vain.

On the issue of

making Parliament feel more

accountable, why is there not more

of a momentum behind reforming the

House of Lords? Clearly it stirs

passions on both sides of the House

and people on both sides of the

divide say there is a problem, but

people are not talking about the

House of Lords.

Weirdly housing is

another very good example of this,

something that creates a lot of

specific users, but a disparate

group of winners and that is very

hard to deal with in politics. If

you build more houses, lots of

people would have their back garden

overlooked by a tower block and

there would not like that, but the

people who would win from that

currently do not have a vote through

the planning system. Actual physical

human beings would be rejected out

of the laws, but the improvement of

democracy is harder to quantify.

Maybe the improvement of democracy

is what we talk about but nobody

else.

Now, Chief EU Brexit negotiator

Michel Barnier says British banks

will lose their coveted "passporting

rights" when Britain leaves the EU.

These passports allow banks to serve

clients across the EU

without the need for licences

in individual countries.

So, should we be concerned

that powerful banks may

move their headquarters outside

London?

Or is this all a fuss over nothing?

Emma Vardy has been looking

at the options for Britain's

financial services'

industry after Brexit.

It's a massive money spinner

for the UK, the banking industry

and the City of London has long been

the envy of other countries,

and it's underpinned by passporting.

It's been particularly important

in wholesale and commercial banking,

in allowing a bank to be registered

in one country in the EU

but to provide its services

to corporates, in particular,

and financial institutions

in another country in the EU

without having to set up permanently

and be locally regulated

in that other country.

The loss of passporting has been

a serious concern for the city.

More than 5000 British firms rely

on these rights to bring in some

£9 billion of revenue every year.

And the taxes generated here,

say bankers, help to pay

for our public services.

Any damage to the sector

could have a serious effect

on the overall British economy.

But some believe that there

are incentives for the UK and the EU

to find a post Brexit solution that

works for both sides.

European firms will continue

to want to access the services that

London provides and I think,

from a political point of view,

that the EU will actually

want to have some form of influence

and dialogue with the UK about how

those services are regulated

because they will be systemically

important to their economies,

despite the fact we will

be outside of the EU.

Speaking to the Treasury Select

Committee last month,

the Chancellor Philip Hammond said

that after we lose the UK's

passporting rights, some form

of what is called enhanced

equivalence will be sought instead.

Most people in the sector accept

that passporting will not be

the future route but some form

of enhanced equivalence

within a framework that recognises

international standards and that

gives businesses appropriate levels

of certainty is going

to be the way forward.

This word "Equivalence" is what some

are hoping will save the day.

The idea that if the UK

continues to adopt the same

standards as the EU,

than the European regulator may

continue to allow UK-based financial

firms to keep operating the way

that they do now.

The problem is, at the moment

there is no certainty

as to what the EU may agree to.

Some companies are already

hedging their bets.

There's no question that the large

wholesale banks in London

are making their contingency plans.

If they don't know what is going

to happen in March 2019,

they will be forced to start

relocating their operations

into continental Europe.

Many have already taken premises,

and are in the process of beginning

to transfer people and hire locally,

that will begin in January 2018

in order to be certain to be up

and running by March 2019.

Until then, when talks

do move on to trade,

the city will be watching closely...

Emma Vardy reporting.

Well to discuss banking after Brexit

we're joined by the head

of Bloomberg Economics,

Stephanie Flanders.

Thank you for coming in. Is it fair

to say that the response to Brexit

so far from the banking sector has

not been as apocalyptic as some doom

mongers fear?

There are quite a lot

of the big leaders of the banks and

the big American banks who have

based themselves in London. I have

had conversations with them over the

course of this year where the

initial numbers they had for how

many people would end leaving, are

dialling down in terms of the

initial phase. But firstly they are

not waiting to find out about the

transition or fingers crossed for

the negotiations. They are still

making their plans now, particularly

for the disaster scenario where you

do not have a clear path out and a

transition. They are doing things

now, they are moving people now,

they are not waiting for the

negotiations. On the initial day

after Brexit, assuming it is not a

real cliff edge situation, that

there is a deal, I think you might

find that we will still find London

is the dominant financial centre of

Europe for quite some time. Whether

that is the case in ten or 20 years

when regulations have changed and

when banks have adapted, I am not so

sure. The initial day one change may

not be so dramatic.

Is that not what

businesses do anyway? The negative

impact of the UK's vote to leave the

EU is materially less. It looks to

have stabilised activity. That may

be sufficient for the GDP to avoid a

modest contraction.

They were

talking about the economy and not

necessarily the financial system.

There are fundamental changes for

the financial systems, especially

legal organisation to continue to

operate. The short-term impact of

the referendum was not what

economists thought. But if you look

at the growth rate now and how it

has slowed, it has had a significant

dent.

And how seriously do people in

the financial sector take the

possibility of a no deal?

The bag of

England flagged up early this week

in a report and there is this legal

certainty question. Apart from where

people are based there are about $26

trillion worth about outstanding

derivative contracts and half of

which are due to run on past 2019.

If we do not know what regulations

will be there to enforce those

contracts, you could find financial

institutions in impossible

situations. Things like that are

more of a short-term concern than

the long-term future.

As a Brexit

supporter you must acknowledge that

there will be huge upsets in the

financial sector and it is bad news

for the Chancellor of the extract.

Businesses dislike uncertainty and

this is the moment where uncertainty

is at the peak because trade talks

have not even begun. Overall there

are so many positive signs. You have

Deutsche Bank reconfirming that

London will be the principal place

where they do business. London has

so many advantages in terms of its

cultural richness, its

infrastructure, as well as the

conglomeration of financial,

accountancy and legal practices. And

the language. It is not as if there

is an obvious alternative Paris,

Frankfurt, Amsterdam? The services

and institutions are so spread

across the continent no one can

watch London. London is the only

place Europe has versus Shanghai,

Hong Kong or New York. It will take

something of an earthquake. We

should not be complacent and we need

to ensure our tax and regulatory

systems keep London competitive. But

as the Bank of England Governor has

warned, not an enthusiast for

Brexit, he has warned Europe don't

damage your's only real chance of

having a global, financial centre.

Tim is right, there is an ecosystem

in London that has not been

replicated anywhere else. You could

argue potentially New York, but

nowhere else in the world has

combined all of these industries

together. It is like this ecosystem

or coral reef where everything is

feeding on each other. But we could

gradually over time lose that and it

will not be replicated in any other

single city. It will all go to

different parts of Europe like

Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin, Amsterdam.

It could disappear, business could

not happen because Europe does not

have a place that ticks all the

boxes in a way that London does.

That is the worry. We will lose

something for ever and quite a lot

of business will not happen that

would have happened.

What do you

think the public will make of this

idea? Emma's film was about par

sporting rights and exemptions for

people who are quite wealthy. Will

the public be sympathetic to that on

pragmatic grounds? We need to soften

the transition. But will they say

why should there be different rules

for different folks?

That is what

Jeremy Corbyn talked about at the

top of the hour. There is a feeling

the mood has changed and there is

less indulgence. You can see a lot

of our politics through the lens of

post-crash politics and there is

still residual anger. Who are the

politicians making the case to

people that are strong, resilient

financial sector is in the interest

of people who do not feel they have

seen any of the proceeds of that in

the last ten or 15 years?

Which

politicians are championing the

financial sector at the moment?

There are none. I would say Philip

Hammond is the closest you have had

to a proponent and a defender of the

city. People are trying to keep

quite a lot of staff here, people

want to stay here, except those who

have been offered tax breaks to go

back to Italy and France. But if we

have a Labour government which is

explicit in raising taxes on the

financial sector, it is a bit

harder.

How hard are you finding to

win the argument that the short-term

pain in Brexit will be worth it

because of a game in the medium and

long-term? Is that getting for you

to argue?

There was an interesting

poll that asked voters what they

thought the long-term outlook was.

They thought it would be OK.

I think Britain is in a good

position in the long run and voters,

more than people in Westminster that

we inhabit, they do not obsessed

about the twists and turns of these

negotiations and ultimately they

think that slogan, taking control

and being in control, is funny.

But

people thinking about the global

economy and world finance, we had

years where people had nothing but

bad things to say about the

Eurozone, the included. It's

terribly lethargic, not been able to

adjust to problems, but this year,

the growth forecasts have been

revised up... We also have the

possibility of a stronger Franco

German partnership which could

produce some reform. It seems ironic

that we seem to be falling away from

Europe as we are seeing positive

changes.

We opened the show with

Jeremy Corbyn's video last night

about Morgan Stanley, where he had a

tirade against the financial sector.

In the city, what do they think is

the bigger threat, Jeremy Corbyn or

Brexit?

It's a difficult position,

he knew that there would be such

unpalatable options for people in

the city to choose from? In the last

election, most people, certain the

last election but one, many people

in the city would have taken Labour

as the least worst option but with

this kind of rhetoric and it is

playing well, were then maybe, that

could change? By and which is a

bigger threat to the city, Corbyn or

Brexit?

Obviously Brexit.

Obviously

Corbyn! We like a range of views on

the show!

Thank you for coming in.

Bonjour et bienvenue

a la Daily Politics.

I knew I would get the accent

completely wrong!

No need to adjust your sets -

that's how Daily Politics may be

introduced in the future

if President Macron has his way.

On a trip to Burkina Faso in Africa,

the French President called

for French to become

the world's first language.

Mr Macron said French had

a "radiance" and "attractiveness"

to it and should be

more widely used.

Here's a few famous British faces

showing how to do it.

FRENCH NATIONAL ANTHEM PLAYS.

Francias o Anglais je croix parce

que j'ai appris l'allemamd.

Il ya maintenant cinquent ans qua la

celebration du centenaire y j'ai

appris les canadiens de continuer

l'exemple de valor, d'egalite,

de liberte y d'inclusion.

Entante camille et allies.

Merci beaucoup toute

le monde, merci.

Well to discuss President Macron's

ambitions we're joined from Paris

by the journalist Agnes Poirier.

Thank you very much indeed for being

with us. Is there nothing that

Emmanuel Macron thinks he cannot do?

Is there any chance of this proposal

actually becoming a reality?

I can

hear the sarcasm all the way from

Paris! I sort of share that British

irony. But, President Macron's

optimism knows no limits. It is also

based, I must say, on projections by

demographers. It is in the first

time that I've heard this. 2050,

because of the birth rate in Franco

Africa, is very high, the numbers of

Francophone speakers will be higher

than the number of Anglophone

speakers. Well, I'm not sure we will

still be around to discuss that

then, but if you read or hear a

speech in Africa, it wasn't just

gung ho that France and the French

language, rather, would rule the

waves soon but it was quite

inclusive. Talking about how the

French language does not belong to

or in France but it also belongs to

Africa. And a very young Africa.

It's true, the same with the English

language that French literature,

wealth and richness, it comes

actually, I would say it personally,

more from territories outside of

France because it makes a language

richer. Now, is it desirable that

French regain status? I'm not sure.

Your point on demography, tomography

is very important as we look forward

to the rest of the 21st century but

if it was about demography,

shouldn't we all be learning

Mandarin or Hindi or Urdu? Isn't

that the way the world is expanding

rather than through Francophone

Africa?

Personally I think you

should learn as many languages as

you can. Talking about Mandarin,

there are languages that are spoken

by a lot of people like Mandarin but

it is within their borders. The

thing is, like Spanish, Arabic,

English and Portuguese, French is

spoken outside of its borders. So,

making it an international language.

It is the fifth most spoken language

in the world and great writers felt

comfortable writing in French is in

their own language like Tolstoy or

Anthony Burgess, actually. He was a

polyglot. I think the future belongs

to polyglots, not people who look

inwardly but for people and

countries who look outwardly and, if

I could say a word on Brexit, and I

know it is not going to please Tim,

but if Brexit is implemented and if

Trump is here to stay, it will have

an impact on Anglophone coach. --

culture. It has already had an

impact. Speaking to young Europeans,

they are fine. The US, Britain, the

Anglophone culture, it's less

desirable than it was before and it

is very sad. It saddens me

enormously.

That's a hell of a

charge to put at the feet of the

Brexiteers! How would you respond?

By voting to leave the EU, you made

English less fashionable and less

cool and English is on the rise?

We talked about the bumpy patch that

Brexit is going through, that isn't

a bad point, but also that President

Macron's ambitions no no limits,

neither does his humility. Perhaps

you should focus on reforming

Francis labour laws, and do the

basic things first before changing

how the world speaks. Look at France

24, their news channel. They have a

French language service and an

English service language. The BBC

doesn't...

And Arabic as well.

I

couldn't possibly speak for the BBC.

I think English is pretty safe,

there is a lot of speculation about

Brexit.

We had to move on. Thank you

for joining us from Paris. Much

appreciated.

Now, it's been a busy

week at Westminster.

As loyal viewers of the Daily

Politics, we know you'll be

completely up to date

on all the political goings

on, but just in case -

here's Ellie with a round-up

of the week in 60 seconds.

This week we saw the UK agree to pay

a divorce bill which could be worth

up to 50 billion euros.

The government handover to MPs it's

redacted analysis of what Brexit

will mean for the economy,

and Michel Barnier, the EU's chief

negotiator, irritates some

Brexiteers by suggesting that by

voting to leave, Britain had chosen

not to stand shoulder to shoulder

with Europe following

the terror attacks.

Elsewhere, the government

announced its long-awaited

industrial strategy

which focused on, among other

things, the development

of artificial intelligence

and clean energy, which was entirely

overshadowed by the announcement of

the biggest royal

wedding of the century

since the last one,

and the

spoilsport PM said no, we won't be

getting a bank holiday for it...

Meanwhile, Theresa May

has been in Iraq -

the first British Prime

Minister to visit since 2008.

And...

# It's beginning to look

a lot like Christmas...

# Even in Westminster...#

a lot like Christmas...

Where they've already put

up their Christmas tree.

So, the Parliamentary Christmas tree

has arrived and today is of course

the first of December,

and that means we can officially

start talking about Christmas!

Here on the Daily Politics

we like to give you a helping hand,

so have come up with a few ideas

for presents to give

to the politico in your life.

Tim, Helen, what do we think of

this? This is a Jeremy Corbyn 2008

annual...

I have flicked through my

copy, there are many useful things,

including cut out and keep Jeremy

Corbyn masks! To surprise your loved

ones...

Tim, I thought this would

suit you... It is austere, and full

of financial information... A lot of

economic things... You know how much

it costs? £15? £25? £35 if you want

a budget. Do you want that?

Of all

the things on the table... I want

that one. Is it signed?

It is a rare

and signed one!

Rare and signed! --

and un-signed. Can I have that one?

Thank you very much. I'm not going

to wear that...

I hope I'm not going

to upset Helen with my idea. She is

from the new statesman and I think

we have two fantastic political

weeklies. But the world is about

technology at the moment. What is

happening with Facebook, and Google.

That is where the action is. I would

give politicians a subscription to

the new scientist and Wired. That is

where the action is. What is

happening over there in Westminster?

Silicon valley and the laboratories

and the bedrooms of the whiz kids,

that's what we need to focus on.

And

Helen?

Any kind of magazine is good,

to get people reading!

Internet

websites are quite good.

I do quite

like the Internet...

We have gifts

for you! This is for you, Helen.

It's all worth it!

Can we opened

them now? I haven't got anything for

you, I feel guilty!

You are on TV so

therefore you should be impressed!

I

will practice my happy and surprised

face.

Merry Christmas!

Aah... I can

put this on our tree... I've just

put up my true.

I have votes for

women. Next year it is the 100th

anniversary of the representation of

the People Act. I'm genuinely

impressed.

Yes, very nice. I quite

like the Jeremy Corbyn annual as

well.

All right, happy Christmas!

It's something you always wanted. I

really think that red is your

colour.

Manchester United red, but

not Labour!

There's update you on

the David Davis story about... I

mentioned it earlier. Basically,

David Davis has warned Downing

Street not to sack his Cabinet

colleague Damian Green as a result

of the wrongful attempt by former

officers to do him down. That is

what sources close to whom have told

the BBC. He says he feels he has a

dog in the fight because Damian

Green was his subordinate on the

team at the time. He threw a

protective cloak around his

colleague on a point of principle. I

suspect that story will develop

through the course of the day.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was about Jeremy Corbyn

appearance on the cover of this

month's GQ magazine.

What make was the suit

he was wearing for the photo shoot?

Was it...

a) Armani.

b) Pri-mani, otherwise

known as Primark.

c) Dolce and Gabbana,

or d) Marks and Spencer?

So, Tim and Helen -

what's the correct answer?

I have my Marks & Spencer suit

jacket on...

We cannot have these

endorsements!

I Marks and Spencers.

Did you know that? I did, that their

Tropi didn't walking on was wearing

an incredibly expensive suit.

What

does that GQ cover say?

That

airbrushing is brilliant and

everybody should have done!

I don't

think he confirmed that he was

airbrushed...

Either that or he has

a great moisturiser!

They are better

than the pictures in this annual...

Should the Labour leader be getting

airbrushed?

I don't think they were

worrying in 1984...

Guys, I hope you

enjoy your Christmas presents. Happy

Christmas from the BBC.

That's all for today.

Thanks to Tim Montgomerie

and Helen Lewis.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

Sarah Smith will be back

on Sunday on BBC One at 11

with the Sunday Politics.

And Jo will be back here

on BBC Two on Monday at midday