14/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The Ayes to the right 309, the nose

to the left, 205.

Theresa May suffers her

first commons defeat

on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

But what does the vote mean

and does is imperil Brexit?

The Prime Minister is on her way

to Brussels to seal the deal

she made last week which should

allow the UK to move

on to trade talks.

But how damaged is her authority

after last night's vote?

He was the man who stabbed

Boris Johnson in the front

year's leadership contest -

but is Michael Gove,

perhaps the most ruthless man

in British Politics, undergoing

a David Cameron style makeover?

And Jeremy Corbyn was awarded

a peace prize last Friday -

so why have the mainstream media not

reported the Labour leader's

accolade?

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today,

Gisela Stuart.

And we don't want to be accused

of censoring this former MP's

numerous accolades.

She has been awarded

a Bachelor of Law degree

from the University of London,

a business studies qualification

from Manchester Polytechnic,

and is

a former co-chair of Vote Leave.

But she didn't, I'm afraid -

according to Wikipedia at least -

complete her PhD.

Never mind - you are still

welcome on the programme.

I put it into law, I did not have

to!

You are welcome on the

programme.

So it was a bruising night

for the Government last night.

The Prime Minister's

authority diminished,

certainly, but what does it

all mean for Brexit?

Last night's dramatic defeat

for Theresa May saw 11

Conservative MPs vote

against their government in support

of Dominic Grieve's amendment,

Labour whipped its MPs to vote

in favour of the amendment too

and only two of their MPs

voted with the government

against the amendment.

The government ended up losing

by 309 votes to 305.

However, the bill still has a number

of stages to pass in Parliament

and the government could attempt

to overturn the amendment

when it has its report

stage on January 16th.

The amendment forms part of the EU

Withdrawal Bill which ends

the supremacy of EU law and copies

all existing EU law into UK law.

If it stands, the change to the bill

means that Parliament is now

guaranteed what the rebels have

called "meaningful vote"

on the Brexit deal.

The government

negotiates with the EU,

so if they reject it,

Theresa May could either ask the EU

for more time to negotiate,

or allow Britain to leave

the EU without any deal.

The rebel MPs' hope is

that the amendment will concentrate

the minds of Theresa May

and Brexit Secretary David Davis,

who will now have to be more mindful

of Parliament's views

when they negotiate the deal.

Let's talk to the BBC's political

editor, Laura Kuenssberg,

who's in Brussels.

Laura, hello. It was a big moment

last night as the opposition parties

cheered, along with the rebels.

Theresa May defeated on her own

terms over Brexit, but materially,

what has changed over Brexit?

You

are right. It was a huge moment last

night, and as MPs were cramming back

for the results, there was a message

that the government had one. They

thought the rebels had not succeeded

and with all their work with the

opposition parties that they had not

managed to beat Theresa May. But

when the tellers arrived, they did a

little shuffle in the chamber and

the opposition benches erupted into

cheers and they had done what they

wanted and for the first time had

beaten Theresa May on her own

business in the Commons. In terms of

what it means, nobody is sure

technically. First of all, when you

talk to the rebels about what they

want, there is a spectrum of

opinion. And then with line by line

on the Brexit deal, others see it as

a surprise. Do they want a vote that

could sink the deal and sink the

government, and I think in the last

few weeks they have not always given

the fullest answers to what they are

trying to achieve. The reason for

that is inside the coalition the

rebels alliance as it has become

known, somewhat quite different

things.

Does it we can Theresa May's

hand in the negotiations in Brussels

where you are?

It will be

embarrassed and for her to turn up

here this morning having been beaten

by her inside. It is not as bad as

the summit when she turned up having

thrown away her majority in the last

election result. Here in Brussels

since the election, they have been

worried about whether or not Theresa

May can last. Can they trust what

she tells them she will be able to

do when they sit with her in the

privacy of their leaders

conversations? But I think while

this has been a big drama, no

question, it has not necessarily

been a big disaster. We're not here

at the beginning of months and

months of defeat after defeat, but

certainly, there is a question, will

Theresa May have to think a bit more

about come to my thing before

pushing things to a vote which might

end in defeat. Let's talk about the

Labour Brexiteers.

There are some

who think that those in the Labour

Party who support Brexit and had

always supported Brexit, had voted

with the government in large

numbers, then Theresa May would not

have been defeated. Why in the end

did they vote with their party?

I

understand that MPs like Gisela

Stuart who is with you today, work

seriously ringing around other

Labour Brexiteers persuading them to

stay onside. The number of votes in

that which is normally nine or ten

went down to two or three. You're

right, if they had stuck with

project Brexit and voted with the

government then Theresa May would

not have lost. But I think given it

is clear for a while but numbers are

so tight, then frankly the

temptation of beating the government

was more important to some MPs like

Dennis Kimetto, than it was too

trying to stay shackled to the

Brexit legislation. -- Dennis

Skinner. But the movement will be

important in the next couple of

weeks. What will happen about the

Brexit date next week? So the naked

power plays between the two parties,

do they trump with ease on Brexit?

Last week we saw the house voting on

Brexit lines rather than party lines

and that is something that may

solidify. But other people say does

not make a big difference, it does

not add up to much more than a hill

of beans. Frankly, we do not know

yet.

Thank you, Laura Kuenssberg.

So, you were ringing round Labour

Brexiteers, why did you do that?

I

confess to handful of texts rather

than ringing round. Party loyalty,

you are Labour MP and you get the

chance of defeating a Tory

government and I think that is the

tribalism of our party affiliation.

Were you disappointed that they did

not vote for Brexit?

I think just

that amendment I would have voted

with the government on that one, but

two of them did. Others held their

powder. The key thing is that

legislation is required in order to

allow us to exit properly and what

last night did made that process a

little more complicated.

White?

Because there will be debates on

this article nine, the statutory

powers which according to a vote you

need the primary one before the

secondary one. Then you have not

only Article 50, the clear

commitment that we are leaving, but

then you have a commission which is

coming. The key thing for me to say

is to all my colleagues, and

remember the referendum mandate was

that we are leaving, you're quite

right to have parliamentary

scrutiny, but now remain true to

your word which is you have accept

it that are leaving and you just

want to propose it rather than make

it a vehicle of stopping Brexit

altogether.

The vote came at about quarter past

seven last night after several

hours of heated debate

in the Common's chamber.

Let's just get a flavour

of those exchanges.

Parliament has to be able

to have a say in this process

and we should trust parliament to be

mature and be responsible.

There are a lot of members

opposite who said, actually,

if we let Parliament have a vote

on Article 50 the sky's

going fall in.

If the treaty isn't right

in the eyes of this Parliament then

a couple of months could turn

into a couple of years

and indeed in some cases some

people would like it to be

a couple of decades.

And when she talks therefore

for about a meaningful vote,

what about the meaningful vote

of the people of this

country who last June voted

to leave the European Union?

It's not a question I may say

to my desperately paranoid

Eurosceptic friends,

that somehow I am trying in some

surreptitious Remainer way to put

a spoke in the wheels of the fast

progress of the United Kingdom

towards the destination

to which we are going.

When he says that Leavers didn't

know what they were voting for,

he does risk sounding very

condescending because we knew

exactly what we were voting for.

The problem with my right honourable

and learned friends amendment

is that it could be and no doubt

is designed to be used

to try to overturn and frustrate

that meaningful vote.

Continue the discussions.

This is...

Will the honourable

gentleman give way?

I keep - no I'm not

going to give way.

Give way.

I keep hearing my right

honourable friend saying,

it's too late, it's too late,

it's too late.

I have never said...

Point of order.

I've heard you say that.

There is a time for everybody

to stand up and be counted,

as Churchill said, he's a good party

man, he puts the party before

himself and the country

before his party and that's

what I intend to do.

CHEERING.

I think we all want

to hear the result!

The ayes to the right, 309.

The noes to the left, 305.

CHEERING

We're joined now by one of those

Conservative MPs who helped defeat

the Government last night,

Jonathan Djanogly.

Are you proud of yourself, of what

you have done?

I think we did the

right thing. Looking at those

snippets, where there is a lot of

heat being generated, this was not

about defeating the government.

Well, it was, you defeated the

government.

It was not about

undermining the Prime Minister's

negotiations? It was not about

stopping my hindering the Brexit

process, which the vast majority of

people want to see happen. What this

was about was saying that in some

cases parliamentary sovereignty must

be respected. When we look at these

Henry VIII powers, which give a huge

power to government, to basically do

whatever they want, but actually,

before those are used, there must be

a vote in the House of Commons on a

bill which will look at the terms on

which we leave. This by the way is

the biggest decision we have taken

since the war. Parliament should

look at these issues?

There were a

series of assurances given by

ministers and some last-minute

concessions over the issue of a

meaningful vote on Parliament. Do

you not trust your own government

and Theresa May an David Davis to do

the right thing?

I think one of the

things to come out of this process,

because I gave my intentions to the

government about three months ago,

one of the things that has come out

is that the government does need to

engage in a more concerted and

meaningful way than it has been

doing. Again I say this is not about

stopping Brexit. It is about looking

at our Constitution. It is about

looking at when ultimately powers

are patridge from the European

Parliament of UK Parliament, they

are not done in a way which

undermines our Constitution, it is

about strengthening our

Constitution.

De think you have been

ignored by the government?

I think

collectively voices have been

ignored. Votes yesterday were not

indicative of the upset in the

party. You will find people who were

Remainers, people who were extreme

Brexiteers attacking clause nine and

these Henry VIII powers and saying

that in some cases that it should be

scrapped altogether at report stage.

And I do hope, and the reason for

that is because the government have

agreed to bring forward another bill

where they probably will not need

these powers. I think we need to

stand back, left a bit of the heat

go out and have a bit of discussion

about the implications and how we

will go forward.

Let's have a look

at the front page of today's's Daily

Mail. You are there with your

co-rebels, as I'm sure you have

noticed, with the comment, proud of

yourselves? Are you innocent or

guilty of betrayal?

There is a lot

of heat at the moment. I don't think

we are guilty of betrayal at all. We

are going through a process. This is

the committee stage of the bill. We

still have the report stage, then it

goes to the Lords. I would like to

see the government engage some more.

But having a look at the Daily Mail

front page, this is the first time I

have rebelled in 17 years.

Have you

just helped the opposition?

No way whatsoever, icons lamented

the Prime Minister and David Davis

on the remarkable achievement of

their phase one negotiations and

they have a good platform going into

phase two. Let me turn this around,

let's just say, we had not amended

the bill, the government came back

with an option that would basically

keep us in the customs union and the

single market, keep freedom of

movement and then lacked all those

things through rather than taking it

to Parliament? I don't think Gisela

would be very happy. Parliament must

have a say.

Why did you read the

desk? -- retweet this?

I just

thought it was hilarious, somebody

taking an aggressive front page and

making it a joke. Amongst all of the

seriousness and you can see I do

take this very seriously we must

also stay a little light-hearted and

I thought it captured the moment.

And it is almost Christmas. Do you

agree that you would have been very

upset if there had been an attempt

which Parliament was not able to

stop the keep Britain in the single

market and the customs union in

perpetuity?

In that case we would

not have left the European Union.

Can I disaggregated two arguments,

there is no different level of

legislation and it's a sequence of

problems, getting the deal and

getting it approved. Then the Henry

VIII powers. The amount of Henry

VIII powers in the 1972 European act

are infinitely greater and I thought

the proposals of sifting out and

taking it step-by-step would be

bringing back a whole lot of stuff

which we have forgotten how to

legislate on, the environment,

agriculture, we have not debated on.

I always thought Parliament would

find a way of having a vote.

Do you

think Jonathan is trying to thwart

Brexit?

This is the test, they say

they do not. One of my Labour

colleagues in the Lords said on

Twitter this is the first step for

stopping Brexit and referred to it

as the national betrayal bill. That

means the nice I hear from the House

of Lords are not very good. My

challenge to you is that you now

have two sure you are as good as

your word.

I cannot talk for a

Labour peer but what I can say for

my own point of view is that I

accepted the referendum result. It's

a question of leaving the European

Union but in a way that does not

destroy our own Constitution. I

think the nub of this is are we

really going to repatriate powers

from the European Union in a way

that gives those powers to the

executive and cut out Parliament?

Was that were people voted for who

wanted to leave the European Union?

I don't think so.

Why has the wood

have you been called Brexit in name

only?

I deny it, it is ridiculous.

My personal position is I would like

us to remain within the single

market and possibly the customs

union but I do not want to fetter

the hand of the Prime Minister. She

has to go out there, strike a fair

deal and there will be negotiation

and discussion and give and take and

I don't want to fit her hand in any

way and I think she has done very

well.

Do you trust that?

If you

would like the country to remain in

the single market then we have lost

control of our borders, the European

Court of Justice. Of supremacy so

then we have not left the European

Union.

We will have, Norway is not a

member of the European Union that

are a member of the single market.

During the referendum campaign there

were many people on the Brexit side

who were arguing let's get out of

the EU and just trade with Europe,

stay in the single market. That's a

consistent argument.

So you would

accept the supremacy of the European

Court of Justice, automatic

supremacy plus a free movement of

Labour? Norway does not do that.

But

it does take rules from the European

Court of Justice.

They have a

separate court.

What about freedom

of movement? Rowe again, without

Switzerland, they took freedom of

movement and it's an issue.

If that

is your idea of Brexit it is not an

idea shared by millions of people

who voted because they thought we

would put an end to it.

Can I add

one aspect of freedom of movement?

The idea of leaving the customs

union is we can strike deals with

third-party countries. India,

Australia, New Zealand have already

indicated they want to strike free

trade agreement with us. The number

one agenda item for them is a UK

visas. So this idea that we leave

the EU, we are not part of the

single market, and we somehow don't

have an immigration issue any more

is simply untrue.

You are

misrepresenting this, the issue was

that within the European Union you

have got virtually half of our net

migration automatic, what we are

arguing is this Parliament decides

what the entire immigration policy

is.

I have to stop and ask, will you

vote against the motion to write the

date of departure on the bill next

week?

The debate and that has

happened and I spoke against it and

I expect the government to make at

concession on that.

Should they just

drop that?

Well, the real date is

the end of Parliament so I think

there already is an end so I'll

leave that to party management.

We

are just about to strike a deal

three days before the date and we

need a few more days, we should have

that flexibility.

They always strike

a deal at two minutes to midnight,

whenever midnight is.

But you are

going to stick to your guns?

I will

see how it develops. There are some

20 issues we have been debating and

only one rebellion so far. I am

hopeful we will have a good

resolution on the date.

Was it

reasonable for the government to

sack Stephen Hammond?

That is a

matter for the government.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

And the question for today is -

according to Facebook,

what did an organisation with links

to the Russian government

spend just 73p promoting,

according to Facebook?

Was it the American Election?

Brexit?

This year's general election?

Or Vodka?

At the end of the show Gisela

will hopefully give us

the correct answer.

As usual

Now - he was described as having

stabbed his rival for the Tory party

leadership "in the front".

When Michael Gove decided to stand

against fellow Brexiteer,

Boris Johnson, last year,

prompting Mr Johnson

to abort his bid for the top job,

he cemented his reputation

as the most ruthless

politician in Westminster.

But has a new softer, gentler -

well - more cuddly side

to Michael Gove emerged

in recent months?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

From political assassin to pop

cuddler, it's quite a

transformation. In the aftermath of

the EU referendum, having squashed

the hopes and dreams of Boris

Johnson Michael Gove had become a

felon of almost pantomime

proportions.

You brought down David

Cameron menu brought down Boris

Johnson, some people are saying you

are a political serial killer.

Against the odds he is back,

installed and championing all things

bright and beautiful, all creatures

great and small. A tactic borrowed

perhaps from an old friend.

This

idea of green credentials are

something from the David Cameron

playbook, it is what they did when

they were in opposition and David

Cameron was trying to find a way to

show his party was modernising, they

had a slow kill in the local council

elections which is vote blue, go

green. He seems genuinely happy and

part of that is back in Cabinet and

he has a remarkable change in

fortunes if you think back to the EU

referendum.

And it seems there is no

issue too big or too small, in

recent months the Environment

Secretary have raided in rows over

tree felling in Sheffield, supported

introducing beavers, and legislated

to protect elephants and it's not

going unnoticed. Michael Gove, we

have seen a firework display of

activity. The comeback is quite

staggering.

I year ago he was

reviled as a traitor and now here is

as Environment Secretary showing the

wider world that conservatives do

actually care about the environment

and doing it with tremendous brio

and winning plaudits from all sorts

of environmentalists. It's quite

staggering. It has occurred partly

because within the Cabinet there are

very few rivals for attention.

In a

Parliament is set by Brexit wars

fellow Conservative MPs seem to have

jumped on board the charm offensive.

This week even managing to

coordinate their social media

reactions to the BBC programme blue

planet. Divided by almost everything

else, Michael Gove seems to have hit

on something the British public

really can unite on.

We're joined now by the Green

Party's Jonathan Bartley

and the Conservative MP,

Henry Smith of the Conservative

Animal Welfare Foundation.

Welcome to both of you, Jonathan

Bartley, are you pleased by Michael

Gove's support for all things

environmental?

Credit where it is

due, under no illusions it's a

rebrand, what they have done on

plastics, the consultation over tax

on micro beads, phasing out coal

power by hopefully 2025, these are

steps, going from a two out of ten

to four out of ten.

Do you think it

is genuine?

I don't think you can

take it as genuine when there is so

much lacking around climate change

which is the big issue. The biggest

threat to the sea is climate change.

Clean growth plan should have been a

green print for the future and was a

blueprint for underachievement. It

will miss out on the fourth and

fifth carbon budgets, still

investment in fracking, no action to

tackle airport expansion and the

frequent flyers. This is a massive

hole in the government agenda.

When

it comes to Michael Gove when did

the conversion happen?

We are seeing

tangible measures coming forward in

terms of policies, there is a new

animal welfare Bill which was

announced the other day which will

increase sentences for cruelty up to

five years. Jonathan has already

been talking about the banning

plastic micro beads to help save the

ocean environment. The introduction

of CCTV into slaughter houses to

increase welfare is something I

raised in Parliament a couple of

years ago and I am pleased to see

that as well. Recognising sentience

in UK law which is stronger than the

Article 13 of the...

The government

ran into trouble over that, is it

that which is made ministers set up

and think we need to at least

appear, if not believe in things

which are environmentally important

to the public?

I have been a

co-chair of the all-party

parliamentary animal welfare group

for many years and I know many of

these policies have been in train

for some time. Maybe the

presentation has improved in recent

months and I think that is necessary

but these are real, tangible

policies which are coming through. I

think we have seen more advancement

in some environmental and animal

protection policies in the last few

months than we have seen in many

years previously.

Do not forget that

was a U-turn from the government

because of what Caroline Lucas dead

on sentience. This is about public

pressure, public pressure has been

building for years, great NGO's

doing great work. The government,

these issues have been going up and

up the agenda and they know they

have to respond.

But at the same

time do you except there have been

tangible changes and improvements to

things like animal welfare?

It does

seem they are heading in the right

direction but if you do not tackle

climate change our oceans will be

devastated, the coral reefs

destroyed so the big question is not

being addressed. It's like putting a

broken arm in a sling but not

putting a cast on it.

What about

when it comes to climate change, is

it just rhetoric if a long-term

targets in cutting carbon emissions

will not be reached?

Already this

government is absolutely committed

to the Paris agreement. The other

day already the Prime Minister was

in France to restate the importance

of this country playing its part in

ensuring carbon emissions are

reduced and on sentience...

The

clean growth plan will not hit, even

in the government plan which is

supposed to be legally binding to

meet those targets, the plan says it

will not hit the fourth and fit

budgets.

I think this country is

leading...

But you except it will

fail?

I do not... We are heading

very much in the right direction.

There are huge challenges ahead but

I think we have a real determination

and I just wanted to come back on

sentience. Let's be careful about

what the Lisbon Treaty said on

sentience, it only applied to EU law

and the new animal welfare bill

coming in will apply to all UK law

across the board. And of course the

EU Charter on animal sentience

allowed bull-fighting, foie gras

production, the single market means

we cannot ban the live export of

animals for slaughter or the

importation of cruel products. Once

we leave the single market, which I

believe we should be doing, we will

increase and will wear her

standards.

Do you believe that? This

idea there are practices which are

forced onto the UK by the European

Union when it comes to animal

welfare will be improved in

post-Brexit Britain?

By the

governments own admission we will

lose about a third of the

environmental regulations.

We will

go further and will be free to do

that.

The government is failing on

such of the big issue is how can we

have confidence on the small issues?

It is not failing at the moment when

you cut carbon emissions, it is true

if you look further into the future

they will not hurt those targets...

It is getting a whole new industry

up and running, overriding local

communities over fracking, it has

just produced £2.3 billion by the

Chancellor 's own admission to

invest in North Sea oil and is not

investing in home insulation which

could cut through puberty. It goes

on and on.

You worked with Michael Gove and you

know him, do you believe this

commitment to protecting the

environment is genuine?

I do. I

think what is telling is he is

showing what is in his department,

where he has a say as his Cabinet

post, that Brexit does not need to

paralyse government. Secretaries of

state can actually start to use

those newly gained powers, and the

suggestion is that with some of the

cosmetic testing, he is showing you

can make things better.

Because he

is now deemed as a ruthless

politician, do you think he's the

man to push it? Do you think he is

as ruthless as portrayed?

As

politician to politician, this is

about power and making decisions. He

is exercising his Cabinet post in an

area where we can end up with new

legislation, with the new freedom

effectively.

Is it to be trusted --

is he to be trusted?

He is getting

things done.

He's getting things

done and I have worked with him for

many years on the campaign trail.

This government has to be dragged

kicking and screaming through the

courts to deal with the basic stuff

which will affect our population.

Airplay and related -- air pollution

related deaths or in the thousands.

In this government, as it is getting

new powers on animal welfare he is

making those changes. That should

not stop other Cabinet ministers to

do the same but on this narrow

question, are we using those newly

gained powers to have better

standards than before?

We need

international cooperation. It has

never been so important.

Of course

there needs to be international

cooperation but it also takes

responsible countries to lead and

show the way and I think the way the

United Kingdom can do it better...

There has been a monument to failure

from this government right across

the board on climate change. If it

cannot produce a clean growth plan

on strategy, what leadership is

there?

To achieve the leadership you

have said, are you convinced by

Michael Gove. Is he to be trusted?

He takes on the job, it was a

portfolio we did not have before.

Let's take another example.

Yesterday I think the new fisheries

quotas were being agreed and Michael

has done a lot of work of saying

what will be the return of powers,

how do you have that allocation, how

do you deal with that in the UK's

interest. That is all you can expect

from an effective politician at this

stage.

Is he ambitious that he wants

to go for Prime Minister one-day?

I

am not here to speak on behalf of

other people, what their political

ambitions might be.

Would you like

to see some might Michael Gove be in

the ten as an environmentalist?

We

have seen David Cameron as an

environmentalist in Number Ten.

Theresa May is forging through with

animal welfare protection. We do

have a government who is led by

someone who is a committed

environmentalist.

D-Day and Michael

Gove would be any stronger in

standing up to Donald Trump -- do

you think Michael Gove would be any

stronger?

I think this country is

showing leadership both in terms of

standing up to the European Union

and Donald Trump when he is doing

things which are not good for our

planet.

How did you feel about your

11 rebels last night?

I was very

disappointed. I was not so much

disappointed for the Prime Minister

and the government, I was

disappointed for the 17.4 million

people, the largest majority in a

poll in this country who voted for

Brexit and the 58% of my

constituents who did as well.

Do you

think they betrayed people?

Gisela.

Should they be deselected?

-- yes.

Selection processes should be down

to the individual constituencies to

decide.

Now, Theresa May will join fellow EU

leaders in Brussels this

afternoon, bruised -

maybe - after last night's vote

but confident that the other 27

leaders will agree to allow Brexit

talks to move onto the UK's future

relationship with the EU.

Yesterday, the European Parliament

passed a motion approving that move

to phase II of the negotiations -

but emphasising the UK must hold

to the commitments it's made so far.

That's after MEPs expressed concerns

about some of the things

Brexit Secretary, David Davis,

has since said publicly

about the agreement.

We had an agreement, then it was put

into question, in London.

And that of course raises a lot

of questions what any sort

of agreement that we are making

here, that you are making

here with your counterparts.

And I would say especially also

about the future relationship.

Because if you can't trust one

another, if you're not sure that

whatever you agree is actually

going to hold, then this

is going to put a major strain

on any future relation.

Monsieur Barnier said earlier

there were key areas

upon which he was not prepared

to make many concessions.

Well, you didn't need to, sir.

Because you were up

against Theresa May and she was...

LAUGHTER.

She was all for making as many

concessions as she possibly could.

Including agreeing a ludicrous bill

of up to 40 billion sterling for us

to have the right to leave.

A continued role for

the European Court of Justice.

And in line with that,

family reunions which mean frankly

open-door immigration

from the European Union is going

to continue for years to come.

I'm now joined from Strasbourg

by the German Green MEP, Ska Keller,

and here in the studio Anand Menon,

professor of European Politics

and Foreign Affairs

at King's College London.

Welcome to both of you. Ska first of

all, how has Theresa May's defeat in

the House of Commons last night been

betrayed in Europe?

I don't think

this is a problem. The parliament in

Britain wants to be involved, that

is understandable, especially from

other parliamentarians. The problem

was really that the agreements which

have been made here were put into

question later by ministers. That

should not happen.

Do you not trust

the UK to live up to that agreement

that has been talked about and will

probably be signed off this week?

Well, the trust certainly has not

increased in the last week and I

think that is a big problem because

we are going to talk now about a

future relationship and trust is a

very important issue there. I really

hope that the British government

will try and build trust rather than

try and destroy it. I get that it is

politically a very difficult

situation in London, but still we

have to rely on one another, we have

to trust each other and whatever is

said in London will also be heard

here and that is something which is

very important for the British

government to understand.

Are you

worried that the agreement on the

divorce settlement could unravel

during phase two of the

negotiations?

I am not too worried

yet. There is an agreement, we have

seen it and we have seen the word

comic in the agreement. It will be

transferred to a legally binding

agreement. We will know soon whether

the British government stands up for

its own words and irony hope that is

the case.

Do you think David Davis

was reckless when he made those

comments about it just being a

statement of intent, the implication

being that they cannot trust that

agreement?

If you read the agreement

it starts off by saying nothing is

agreed until everything is agreed,

and there is a clear understanding

that this is a process, and what the

United Kingdom committed itself to.

I think it is committed to, subject

to the overall package. I think it

is a bit of a storm in a teacup,

that bit of the argument.

Do you

think it is a storm in a teacup, to

use that British phrase, that

nothing is agreed until everything

is agreed? Do you understand that

sentiment in the agreement?

Of

course, it is always the case that

nothing is agreed until everything

is agreed that that is different

than saying there are nearly

tensions. If David Davis had said we

need to see the overall package, no

problem, but he was putting it that

the commitment was only an intention

not. I do it have any problem that

one has to look at the overall

package once it is there, but I do

have a problem with the commitment

not being honoured. That for me is

really important. And if we look at

the future cooperation, it is

important that we are not just

saying it is just an intention when

it is a commitment.

That is a

problem for Theresa May and the

government, because if she hasn't

got the trust of the negotiators on

the other side, then that

cooperation will not be there.

I

think they should have the trust,

because part of the argument arose

out of regulatory assignment. There

was a sentence which said in the

absence of any agreement, a dental

about the Northern Ireland border. I

think the two uncertainties were

kind of conflated in there. I don't

think there has been any intention

to do things which were agreed as

part of an overall package.

Anand

Menon, do you think there is a risk

that if the UK does not live up to

its commitments, and on the Northern

Irish border, will it impact on the

UK's ability to secure a trade deal

with the EU?

I think there are three

dangers here. The first is that the

agreement is awfully woolly. It

means ministers can say one thing

which goes against the

understandings and the alignment is

understood very differently in

Brussels to the weight is understood

here. Secondly, this is a progress

report and not a deal. The British

government is right in saying this

is as far as we have got but we are

not bound to it, because it has been

ratified. The two sides mean

something very different to the

sentence of everything is -- nothing

is agreed until everything is

agreed. For some members of the

British government, they seem to

think that when everything is

wrapped up it will include a trade

deal but we will not have one when

we have to put our name on this

document.

So there will not be a

trade deal by March 2019. Do you

accept that?

No, because that is

where all our energy has to go. I am

not repaired to say we take it off

the table at this stage.

Phase two

's transition. That will take a

while. The EU will not get

negotiating guidelines until March.

This gives us time to sign a deep

and competence of trade deal.

Ska

Keller, do you think a trade deal

will be done by the UK and EU by

March 2019?

Well, I have been

working on EU trade policy here, and

the trade deals are really

conjugated things, just from the

whole matter of what you have to

deal with. It takes really long and

we have not had any trade agreement

which has not taken many years. I

den see how it can be so fast and

that is not a matter of bad

intentions, it is a matter of

practicalities and technicalities. I

don't see how we will get one so

fast.

I don't want to say two

against one here, but what makes you

think there is time, never mind the

will, to get a trade deal done?

Every trade deal which has been

negotiated would be one where you

had two diverging blocks, how to

find a way of working together. This

one is different because you are

starting from the point of total

convergence, say you are finding

ways of how you can continue to

trade, so it is a different deal.

The complexities of the different

nature and it can be done if the

political will is there.

Do you

think this is the case or it is

about transition? The next stage is

about agreeing the terms of the

two-year transition which will come

after March 2019?

I think transition

will prove more compensated the many

people think. The agreement that

people are talking about, that we

are in the market but not in a

member state, is legally

problematic. We start with full

alignment, we start with a member

state so you're not Canada where you

have to start by identifying areas

of convergence and divergence. But

nonetheless, looking to the future,

when we look at what particular

customs arrangements will be put in

place, that will not be happening

overnight.

Will you accept oversight

of the European Court of Justice in

the transition period and possibly

beyond when it comes to the right of

EU citizens?

If you look at the deal

it is time limited so that has to be

a cut-off date.

Where will it be?

It

is eight years and I accept that.

For the number where you need

referrals by British judges,

time-limited, that is fine. But it

is the authenticity of the European

Court of Justice, after that you can

negotiate. There has to be a clear

intake.

You would accept being in a

customs union, single market,

freedom of movement and some sort of

judicial oversight during the period

of transition?

I would not put it

the way you do, because you have to

have agreed what the final position

is, and the transition is towards a

clearly defined end state.

But not

if we don't have a trade deal. Ska

Keller, do you think we will remain

in a status quo position for two

years?

Yes, certainly. The transition phase

is needed to define what sort of

future cooperation we have, the ECJ

issue for us is very important,

especially of course the citizens

issue, they cannot just have a

cut-off date in the near future

because they are EU citizens who are

still going to be there and we

already see now we have big problems

to prolong this to get residence

permits, faced with really we are

bureaucracy. That also has not

increased the chances that we can

just leave it to British courts.

What does it mean in practice in

terms of negotiating Brexit what

happened last night, does it in

pellet in any way?

I don't think so,

and I don't think those who rebelled

against the whip were intending

that. When push comes to shove a

deal comes to Parliament next

September October they had to vote

on it and it looks like the default

condition will be no deal so MPs

will have a choice, we either vote

for the deal or Brexit without one.

You do not think it is likely MPs

will reject it?

Conservative MPs in

particular will think carefully

because it might bring down the

government.

Now - at the moment there are only

very minor differences in the amount

of income tax you pay in Scotland

and the rest of the UK.

But is Nicola Sturgeon's government

about to wield its devolved powers

to make big changes to the tax

regime in Scotland?

Let's talk to our Scotland editor,

Sarah Smith who is at Holyrood.

Everyone has assumed yes they are

going to announce an increase in the

higher rate of tax.

That is what we

assume and they might introduce some

entirely new tax bands so there will

be maybe four or five different

rates of income tax in Scotland

meaning higher earners could pay

significant by more. We have had

little clue from Nicola Sturgeon who

was talking at First Minister

questions and said 70% of all

Scottish taxpayers will not see an

increase in their income tax so I

think from that we can read the

basic rate is unlikely to go up.

They would find it politically

difficult to increase the base rate

because they need a manifesto

promise not to do that. But the

Scottish Government says they need

to increase the amount of revenue

because they want to maintain public

spending even though the amount of

money they get from London is being

cut. They have promised a pay rise

to public sector workers. And they

want to invest in other parts of the

Scottish economy. To do that they

have to raise more money so the

betting is it will be middle and

high earning earners who will bear

the brunt.

What will be the impact

in having a different band in

Scotland to the rest of the UK?

The

Scottish Government argues that

taxpayers who live in Scotland

should be happier to pay more

because they argue we get benefits

which are not available to people

who live in England, Wales and

Northern Ireland like free tuition

fees and prescriptions. But they

have to be careful not to raise

income tax on higher earners too

much. There have been a lot of

warnings from finance experts saying

if you put the higher rate up to

far, 50p being the psychological

tipping point, you will find these

higher earners who are very mobile

will relocate to other parts of the

UK or find different congregated

ways of shielding income from tax

and the revenue which comes to the

government might actually go down.

It's a delicate balance. How to

raise money from the better off

without leading to behavioural

changes would mean tax receipts are

reduced.

While they have the support

of Labour?

Certainly not, the new

leader of the Labour Party in

Scotland Richard Leonard has

outlined tax plans which are far

more radical than the government are

like to go for. They want a juicy

the Tories are against any

difference between Scotland and the

UK, they say Scotland becomes

non-Nazi high tax economy people not

want to live here. But the SNP will

need to get the agreement of some

other party because they are a

minority government so unless they

can get the greens or the Lib Dems

to vote with them.

Now, are the Labour Leader's

achievements being overlooked?

Jeremy Corbyn was awarded

a peace prize last Friday.

If that's news to you it's probably

because it wasn't reported

by most broadcasters, newspapers or

mainstream news websites.

But should it have been?

It all started with a press

release in September -

Jeremy Corbyn had won

the Sean MacBride Peace Prize

from an organisation called

the International Peace Bureau.

Last week, Mr Corbyn went

to Geneva to deliver a speech

to the United Nations,

and whilst he was there

he received the peace prize.

His speech was covered

by mainstream media outlets.

But the fact he'd won

the prize wasn't.

The online news site Sqwawkbox

posted an article accusing the BBC

and other mainstream media outlets

of ignoring Mr Corbyn's accolade.

And the story was picked up by

Corbyn supporters on social media -

accusing the MSM, or mainstream

media, of bias.

But when Channel Four's factcheck

looked into the accusation,

they concluded that the award

of the prize had only been reported

twice in the UK media since 1992.

But that article prompted another

furious backlash on social media

from Jeremy Corbyn supporters.

We're joined now by the Labour front

bencher and Jeremy Corbyn

ally, Chris Williamson.

Welcome back, why do you think there

is a conspiracy amongst UK

mainstream media to suppress

positive stories about Jeremy

Corbyn?

You tell me but it is clear

there was a blackout. There was a

photograph of Jeremy wearing a

tracksuit and it made front-page

news. When Theresa May put a star on

a Christmas tree there was

wall-to-wall coverage as there was

of William and Kate being awarded

the blue Peter badge. Here we have

the Leader of the Opposition being

awarded a prestigious peace award

and being completely ignored.

Why

did you not mention it when it was

announced back on six of September?

Jeremy is not one for bragging about

his achievements. The fact is when

the award was made, that is when the

ceremony took place, last week, that

was the time it seems to me for the

media...

Surely you do it when it

announced an part of the problem was

nobody in Labour announced it.

I

would ask you, if it was Theresa May

that had been given this award or

any award, do you think the

mainstream media would have ignored

it?

THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER Maybe

the press office might have done?

When did you first hear about it?

I

first heard when he was awarded it

last week. I would have expected the

mainstream media, when you have the

Leader of the Opposition being

awarded this prestigious award to

have actually given some attention

to it. Not saying it should be main

headline news but there was no

mention whatsoever.

Should do not

have been some attention given to

the fact Jeremy Corbyn had won this

peace prize?

I have to confess I had

not heard of that prize or its being

awarded. In my experience, if you

want news out there you have two

quite often beat your own drum.

Do

you agree? You did not know about

it, you just said, back on the 6th

of September when it was announced

he has won the price, none of the

official Labour media accounts or

even Jeremy Corbyn himself

publicised it, do you think that's a

problem?

I think the problem is with

the mainstream media who ignored it.

Even when it went viral on social

media.

Where did it go viral?

After

he had been awarded the prize.

The

criticism from you is that we did

not reported at the time and you

didn't seem to know about it nor did

Labour will stop but that is your

job.

You are the media. You're the

BBC and it is your job to report the

news.

You did not know he had been

awarded this prize, so why would

every part of the media know if you

yourself did not know? I did not

know at the time it was announced on

the 6th of September.

Not on the 6th

of September. But we are talking

about last week.

Did you know on the

6th of September? Did Jeremy Corbyn

now?

It is irrelevant.

Why is it

irrelevant?

The presentation was

made last week, he was in Geneva for

that and to make an important speech

which did not get a lot of coverage

either. The Leader of the Opposition

being given what I think is a

prestigious award, 1891 cents this

organisation has been in existence

and some say it inspired the Nobel

Peace Prize. They are very

established in that sense and yet

the media ignored the fact that the

Leader of the Opposition, the

official opposition in this country,

particularly when you take into

account all the smears which have

been levelled at Jeremy. This issue

about his alleged support for Hamas

which is nonsense. Here we have a

peace award being awarded to him and

no mention.

Do you not think that is

unfair on Jeremy Corbyn? There has

been never negative coverage, do you

think that has been unfair?

Randolph

Hearst once said that news is what

someone does not want you to know

and everything else is advertising.

I could have masses of criticism as

to whether the news at the moment is

too negative about Brexit, I know

the media was very negative about

Jeremy Corbyn. But then how do you

respond as an organisation? You have

to rebut it and put out the good

news stories.

But the point here is

there was no news, they just ignored

it. If there was nothing about

Brexit I think there would be

something to say about it. When the

media is giving a wall to wall

coverage of the Prime Minister

putting a star on the Christmas tree

but is not reporting that the leader

of the official opposition has been

presented with a prestigious peace

award particularly given the

allegations made against him that he

is soft on terrorism...

You have not

answered that question, is there an

fair coverage of Jeremy Corbyn and

his position on things like, the

Israeli-Palestinian crisis for

example?

There is a tendency to

focus on the negative but that is

what the media does and that is why

we need to go out and put the

positive on that.

The point is it is

a media blackout, it's not

negativity, this is just a blackout.

When it's good news there is

nothing, the media just...

Is it

because it is not controversial or

unusual?

You just said yourself, if it is

good news it does not get coverage.

You said unusual, I think it is

unusual, when is the last time the

leader of the official opposition in

this country was presented with a

peace prize?

Unusual that there was

not anything controversial.

So you

only report bad news?

That is what

you are implying!

But when it is the

Prime Minister you report about

putting a tree up, or Jeremy Corbyn

is wearing a tracksuit.

Next time

put it on Twitter when it happens.

When it was and it was by was a

media blackout is the point I am

making.

Well we are not media

blackout in you, thank you for

coming on.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was -

according to Facebook,

what did an organisation with links

to the Russian government

spend just 73p promoting,

according to Facebook?

Was it:

The American Election?

Brexit?

This year's general election?

Or vodka?

So Gisela, what's

the correct answer?

Is it because I am here that the

answer is Brexit?

Funnily enough,

well done, you have cottoned on to

this. Do you believe them in that

regard, was evidence of Russian

interference?

I have no evidence of

that but I am sure the enquiries

will tell me. I am so new media

useless that's...

That sounds like

an excuse to me!

If there is

evidence out there I would like to

know it.

And the Electoral

Commission is reopening and

investigating into spending, why is

that?

I think it is doing its job

and I am glad they are following the

proper procedure.

Were you

surprised?

I was, because I was not

sure what neither was but they have

two the job and I think they ought

to.

That's all for today.

Thanks to all my guests,

especially Gisela.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

And I'll be back here at noon

tomorrow with all the big

political stories of the day.

Bye-bye.