Browse content similar to 14/12/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
All that in the next hour
and with us for the whole
of the programme today,
And we don't want to be accused
of censoring this former MP's
She has been awarded
a Bachelor of Law degree
from the University of London,
a business studies qualification
from Manchester Polytechnic,
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
You are welcome on the
So it was a bruising night
for the Government last night.
The Prime Minister's
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.
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?
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
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
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?
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
Thank you, Laura Kuenssberg.
So, you were ringing round Labour
Brexiteers, why did you do that?
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.
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
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
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.
Will the honourable
gentleman give way?
I keep - no I'm not
going to 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.
I think we all want
to hear the result!
The ayes to the right, 309.
The noes to the left, 305.
We're joined now by one of those
Conservative MPs who helped defeat
the Government last night,
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
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
De think you have been
ignored by the government?
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.
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?
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
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.
think Jonathan is trying to thwart
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
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
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
Do you trust that?
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
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
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.
it does take rules from the European
Court of Justice.
They have a
What about freedom
of movement? Rowe again, without
Switzerland, they took freedom of
movement and it's an issue.
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.
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
I have to stop and ask, will you
vote against the motion to write the
date of departure on the bill next
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
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.
are just about to strike a deal
three days before the date and we
need a few more days, we should have
They always strike
a deal at two minutes to midnight,
whenever midnight is.
But you are
going to stick to your guns?
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.
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?
This year's general election?
At the end of the show Gisela
will hopefully give us
the correct answer.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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
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?
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.
when it comes to climate change, is
it just rhetoric if a long-term
targets in cutting carbon emissions
will not be reached?
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...
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
I think this country is
But you except it will
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
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
governments own admission we will
lose about a third of the
go further and will be free to do
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.
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?
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
Is it to be trusted --
is he to be trusted?
He is getting
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?
international cooperation. It has
never been so important.
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
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
Is he ambitious that he wants
to go for Prime Minister one-day?
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?
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
D-Day and Michael
Gove would be any stronger in
standing up to Donald Trump -- do
you think Michael Gove would be any
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
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.
think they betrayed people?
Should they be deselected?
Selection processes should be down
to the individual constituencies to
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...
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
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.
worried that the agreement on the
divorce settlement could unravel
during phase two of the
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
So there will not be a
trade deal by March 2019. Do you
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.
'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.
Keller, do you think a trade deal
will be done by the UK and EU by
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
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.
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
Will you accept oversight
of the European Court of Justice in
the transition period and possibly
beyond when it comes to the right of
If you look at the deal
it is time limited so that has to be
a cut-off date.
Where will it be?
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
You would accept being in a
customs union, single market,
freedom of movement and some sort of
judicial oversight during the period
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.
if we don't have a trade deal. Ska
Keller, do you think we will remain
in a status quo position for two
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
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
What will be the impact
in having a different band in
Scotland to the rest of the UK?
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
While they have the support
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
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.
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
Surely you do it when it
announced an part of the problem was
nobody in Labour announced it.
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
THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER Maybe
the press office might have done?
When did you first hear about it?
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
Should do not
have been some attention given to
the fact Jeremy Corbyn had won this
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.
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
I think the problem is with
the mainstream media who ignored it.
Even when it went viral on social
Where did it go viral?
he had been awarded the prize.
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
You are the media. You're the
BBC and it is your job to report the
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
It is irrelevant.
Why is it
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
Do you not think that is
unfair on Jeremy Corbyn? There has
been never negative coverage, do you
think that has been unfair?
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
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
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...
because it is not controversial or
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
Unusual that there was
not anything controversial.
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.
put it on Twitter when it happens.
When it was and it was by was a
media blackout is the point I am
Well we are not media
blackout in you, thank you for
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?
The American Election?
This year's general election?
So Gisela, what's
the correct answer?
Is it because I am here that the
answer is Brexit?
well done, you have cottoned on to
this. Do you believe them in that
regard, was evidence of Russian
I have no evidence of
that but I am sure the enquiries
will tell me. I am so new media
That sounds like
an excuse to me!
If there is
evidence out there I would like to
And the Electoral
Commission is reopening and
investigating into spending, why is
I think it is doing its job
and I am glad they are following the
I was, because I was not
sure what neither was but they have
two the job and I think they ought
That's all for today.
Thanks to all my guests,
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.