15/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

EU leaders have formally agreed

to move Brexit talks

onto the next stage.

So does this mean Theresa May

will get her wish to start

talking trade anytime soon?

Is it the future of money?

Or a dangerous currency

bubble about to burst?

We'll delve into the secretive world

of Bitcoin and ask whether it

needs more regulation.

What's your national identity?

English, Scottish,

Welsh, Northern Irish?

Or Cornish?

Yes, the good people of Cornwall

want their own tick-box

in the next census.

Could it happen?

And, was the donner almost a gonner?

A vote in the European Parliament

this week almost skewered the humble

"frozen vertical meat stick" -

or kebab to you and me.

We'll chew over the details.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole programme

today is Anne McElvoy

from the Economist and the Daily

Mail's Andrew Pierce.

First today, the UK's most senior

military officer has warned that

Russia could turn off the internet

to Britain by tampering with

the undersea cables in the Atlantic.

The Chief of Defence Staff Sir

Stuart Peach said Russian ships

had been spotted close to the cables

and this posed a new

threat to UK security.

Russia, in addition to new ships

and submarines, continues to perfect

both unconventional capabilities

and information warfare.

And there's a new risk to our way

of life, which is the vulnerability

of the cables that crisscross

the sea beds.

Can you imagine a scenario where

those cables are cut or disrupted,

which would immediately

and potentially catastrophically

affect both our economy

and other ways of living

if they were disrupted?

How vulnerable is Crypto- Britain to

this threat?

One wouldn't

underestimate how much goes on

behind the scenes thinking of

unconventional warfare. It sounds

from the Borne Id dentity. Attacks

on cyberstructure, which we have

seen and are repelled by

Governments, a lot of them in some

way are connected to China, some to

Russia and some to other states in

the Middle East. These are things

they worry about a lot. Particularly

these big cables. We sort of forget

they are down there because they

have been down there so long. There

is a poem writ no-one the 1920s

about -- written in the 1920s about

installing them.

It is the infrastructure which keeps

everything on the road. It would

signal this is not just a flyby

night idea, that they do think there

might be some sort of planning that

could possibly aim towards an

attack.

And if that is a real

threat, an attack from Russia on

these cables, Britain doesn't really

have the ships, submarines or

aircraft to mount constant watch of

these cables. Are you happy and

reassured to rely on Nato to do it?

Defence cuts have been made so much.

Siber warfare is the new cold war.

No doubt about it. It would be sad

to rely on Nato to patrol our

waters. That would be the only way.

It would be a crippling blow if we

were attacked in that way in

undersea communications.

I am not

sure whether I agree whether I

agree, we have to think about what

is joint security at the moment and

particularly when we look at the

fragmented Europe, where I think

that Nato alliances is one of the

things which might help to glue the

countries with similar values back

together. Actually having that view,

which is not something we were

saying picking a fight with Russia,

not trying to do manoeuvres. To your

question about what would follow,

well, I am afraid I can only follow

what we heard there - they probably

have a better idea than I do. What

they are worried about is something

which causes panic and would cause

the internet to go down. Of course

people's devices would stop working.

As you would well know, the run-up

to this programme, all of us, not

saying the worst thing in the world,

but...

It would be dramatic.

In

everyone's lives. Of course hospital

machinery depends on it. Things more

important than The Daily Politics

going out on time depend on it. That

sense, how much of our domestic life

and security, personal security on

line depends on it all working.

Let's leave it there.

Now, EU leaders have given

the green light to the next

phase of Brexit talks.

They're meeting on the second day

of the European Council

Summit in Brussels.

Theresa May isn't there -

she's flown home -

but at a four-hour working dinner

last night she told European leaders

she was keen to "get on to the next

phase" of negotiations and discuss

Britain's future relationship.

We can speak now to our old friend,

Adam Fleming, who has been

at the summit for the last two days.

Welcome back. In terms of timing

when do you think we will move on to

these trade talks? The indications

indicate it will not be in the

immediate future.

Good to be back.

Yes, it has happened, sufficient

progress has been declared. Notice

that is sufficient progress, not

phase one completely done and

dusted. There's been a collective

sigh of relief over the last couple

of days they have reached this

symbolic milestone. It is the

question of when the trade talks

will start. We have seen the

guidelines which are the blueprint

for phase two. They have been

published by the European Council.

The first thing which will happen is

the formal negotiations about the

transition period oh or what the UK

Government call the implementation

phase, what happens next Street the

chief negotiator will publish a new

document, probably as soon as next

week, fleshing out what those

negotiations will involve, the terms

which they will be conducted. He

told me when he arrived they will

probably start negotiations about

the transition period in January n

the New Year, as soon as they can,

basically. Now the issue of the few

our partnership -- future

partnership, the co-operation on

trade, defence, security, climate

change, you name it, it will

probably not get started until March

2018 at the earliest. Because the EU

27, the 27 remaining countries want

the UK Government to have a

Cabinet-level discussion about what

they want from that future

partnership. Only then will the EU

put out more detailed guidance about

what they want from the future

partnership and how those

negotiations will unfold. A little

one though, there has been a change.

Says the EU 27 can start work. It is

not a dead stop on that until March.

There'll be work happening in

Brussels towards those talks

starting in March.

Theresa May was

applauded after addressing EU

leaders last night. Does that mean

the EU counsel is full square behind

her?

It has been amazing to see the

support she's had from continental

colleagues. It exists for a few

reasons. First, they want to give

her help because they know she's got

a difficult political situation back

home. They want her to stay in

position and be able to deliver the

final Brexit deal and get it tloo u

the British Parliament. Second of

all, these are all professional

politicians, many of whom find

themselves in a far more precarious

political position than Theresa May

does. There a has been a lot of

fellow feeling for her as well. It's

been quite amazing seeing the

solidarity that people have been

laying it on quite thick, some

people say.

It is the season of

goodwill and thaul. So -- and all

that.

So relief for the Prime Minister

in Brussels, but where does it

leave her with Parliament

and her party, especially

after this week's defeat...

What do you think of the

Conservative rebels?

The rears, a

lot of former ministers who were

fired. I still think they are

intent, some at least, in trying to

destroy Brexit. Dominic Grieve has

told me it's the worst thing which

has happened in this country. Think

I he would like to junk the whole

thing. The Prime Minister may back

off this idea of actually writing

the date into legislation because

she cannot afford another defeat. It

is too embarrassing.

It has enraged

people. Dominic Grieve has received

death threats do. You feel

responsible for whipping up that

sort of...

I am sorry he's received

death threats. It is nothing to do

what the Daily Mail has put on their

page. The reason she is applauded is

because they are dealing with her.

The last thing they want is Boris

Johnson or Michael Gove or a

hard-line Brexit tear leading the

negotiations.

Does it do anything to

lessen the likelihood of it

happening?

Not to my mind. I can see

the case for arguing for Parliament

to have a greater say and

sovereignty. That is actually the

strongest plank in the argument and

those of his fellow wreckers, as

Andrew says, as a bit of a joke.

There is something there about the

role of Parliament which is quite

difficult in this situation.

However, there is a problem. There

is a problem from this viewpoint -

which is, what do they think they

would like. It is not a menu where

you can go I would like it with the

pork! You have to take it with the

direction of travel and you see from

your package there is a sense the EU

is behind the direction of travel

that Theresa May has taken f they

have to have Brexit at all, I should

say. If you don't go this route,

most of that, you end up with a

resort of WTO rules, which is the

so-called hard Brexit, which most

people who oppose Brexit don't want

most of all. Their own strategy is

unclear beyond inflicting damage on

Theresa May.

Looking beyond next

week, we have heard from the lobby,

where the press were gathered at

number ten to say they have no plans

to withdraw it. Is that code for,

they might be?

That is code for they

might change their mind. The whips I

don't think handled it this week.

There was rumour that the Chief Whip

was threatening action against some

of the rebels. They have to improve

it this week. If there is a risk,

they'll back off. If they do keep

pushing this, the EU has said they

will not reopen negotiations thus

far. We could walk away with no deal

at all. That is the last thing they

want.

What about the op sigss in

this? They joined with the Tory

rebels. Are they emboldened or do

they actually now seem to think they

do have to go along with

negotiations because there isn't

much more they can do at this point?

It depends who you are asking. If

you look at Kier Starmer trying to

move his party in the single market

access as much as possible, what you

want to do from his perspective is

make life difficult for the

Government. You don't want a

full-frontal assault on the

Government.

Jeremy Corbyn said things which

didn't commit Labour to anything at

all.

And I think Keir Starmer has got

Jeremy Corbyn in his team be I

saying, please don't say anything

unless you mean it it is unclear

what Labour would actually do. If we

were to go into an early election

that question would loom from day

one that Labour's position is

absolutely mysterious.

What might be intriguing to the

voting public is the Cabinet doesn't

have an agreed position yet, well

not publically in terms of how the

future relationship with the EU or

what it will look like - why not?

The Prime Minister has not permitted

the discussion to take place. She

wants the first negotiations out of

the way. It has actually stopped the

discussion.

Is that because the gulf

between the likes of Phillip Hammond

on one and Boris Johnson and Michael

Gove is too wide that it cannot be

reached?

There is a big gap between

them. The Chancellor knows we are

leaving the European Union, we are

leaving the customs union, that is

agreed.

How far apart do you think

they will be. We have heard from

Brussels the sort of threat, until

you have an agreed position, and

until we know the view we will not

move on to the trade talks.

Theresa

May can be a rid gid leader. She's

not being too unclever about this.

Last week in the run-up, when things

were going badly with that meeting,

that problem with the DUP, and all

those things, what she did cleverly

is got Michael Gove on side to sign

up to sort of some sort of plus,

plus, minus and add to take away

one. That seems to be going. So

Michael Gove seems to be coming on

side. She got Boris Johnson on side

separately to say, could you advise?

She's good as picking off one by

one. She doesn't want to have

everyone around a table and say, OK,

what would you like? Then those

splits would open up again. The

mixture and desire to get there and

internal competition, she ended up

with her Chancellor and Defence

Secretary having a stand-up fight

recently.

Which didn't get that much

coverage because there was so much

talk about Brexit.

She doesn't want

that again. She picks off the

naughty boys and girls one by one,

like a good head.

What about

transition because that and the

terms of transition seems to be the

next priority. How urgent is that

now for business that those terms

are agreed?

It's pretty much going to be a

two-year transition and no more. I

was at a conference in Reading and

talking to businesses and they said

they're much more relaxed now about

Brexit. They feared the uncertainty

but they think clarity is coming.

Don't you think that would be open

if this issue with the date keeps

slipping? It's one thing you can

save you can check out whenever you

like but you can only leave in cue

years just that. As soon as there's

an odd little about the date, I

think that will make the hard Brexit

crowd go crazy.

Let's move on.

It's the new goldrush.

The digital currency bitcoin has

been making headlines this week

after its huge increase in value.

But now ministers are to introduce

tighter regulations on the virtual

currency because of concerns it's

being used to launder

money and dodge tax.

Some MPs believe the Government

should help bring digital currencies

into the mainstream,

and say it could have advantages

for our public services.

Here's Emma Vardy.

Bitcoin is one of a number

of so-called crypto currencies.

Unlike the notes in your pocket,

it largely exists online and isn't

printed by governments

or traditional banks.

You store bitcoin in a digital

wallet and it can be used to pay

for all sorts of goods

and services online.

And some businesses accept

payment in bitcoin, too,

like this soup restaurant

here in Old Street, which also

has its own bitcoin cashpoint.

There is an advantage and that's

lower transaction fees.

If you compare the fees

of accepting bitcoin compared

to credit card fees,

which - especially AMEX -

can be very high.

It's quite nice being the underdog

against the banking system.

Until now, people have been able

to buy and sell bitcoin

largely anonymously.

So apart from just buying your lunch

with it, police say it could be used

on a much bigger scale for money

laundering by criminals.

Now the Treasury wants to regulate

bitcoin and other crypto currencies.

Regulators need to look at consumer

protection and I think that's

probably one of the issues

that we really need to address

and take seriously.

There is no protections,

actually, in bitcoin.

So if you go to the bank,

you've got a £70,000 buffer

that they will guarantee for you.

No such thing with bitcoin.

You are effectively your own bank.

At the moment, the new regulations,

which are expected to come

into force by early next year,

will focus on giving

authorities greater oversight

of crypto currencies under

anti-money-laundering

and counterterrorism legislation.

The identities of bitcoin users

will no longer remain anonymous.

But some say the government

should go much further.

We ought to be leading the way

in how we can apply this for social

good as well as for economic gain.

By encouraging bitcoin and that side

of the crypto currencies and that

side of this new technology wave,

by regulating it properly

and allowing it to expand,

we are actually doing ourselves

a big favour as a country.

John Mann, a member

of the Treasury Select Committee,

says he wants to see the government

carry out a much fuller enquiry

into the potential use

of alternative currencies for public

services And believes

the government should look at how

they and the underlying technology,

called blockchain, could be used

in future by authorities.

I'd like to see our health records

put on the blockchain,

so if an ambulance turns up,

they've got immediate

access to my records.

Also property transactions,

a really good one to be

carried out on there.

It would actually help

get rid of fraud.

It needs that push from government

and that would allow this

whole new technology wave

to dramatically expand.

The value of a single bitcoin has

increased 12-fold this year,

from around £700 in January

to around £8,000.

Part of its charm, some argue,

was the fact it wasn't

part of the mainstream.

Now government regulation could pave

the way for that to change.

Well, here to discuss this with me

are Dominic Frisby, author

of Bitcoin: The Future Of Money?

And Dr Savvas Savouri,

chief economist at

Toscafund Asset Management.

Welcome to the programme.

Dominick, do you think we'll all be

paying for our shopping and meals

out with bitcoin in the future?

No,

I don't. Bitcoin is another currency

and it was designed to be cash for

the Internet. If you think about

what we use cash for in the real

world, we use it for small

transactions, we use it for quick

transactions, we use it for direct

transactions and we use it for

private transactions. Now, they're

all sorts of transactions and the

aim of bitcoin was to replicate that

for the Internet. So I can send you

money without involving a bank or

any kind of middleman. That was the

original purpose of bitcoin and it

wasn't to kind of replace the US

dollar or anything else or the

British pound, so the idea that

we'll use it and it will be the only

money system in the world is

fallacious. But the technology

behind it, which am as your show

just showed, morphed into something

much bigger than an alternative cash

system. It used for record keeping,

all sorts of things. The technology

behind it is a breakthrough

technology and future money systems

might actually be based on block

chain technology.

Why don't you

think, that the future of it is with

bitcoin, Sav?

You mentioned block

chain. You don't own block chain by

owning bitcoin. If you look at those

who have been buying bitcoin of late

and those who think John McDonald

would be a good Chancellor, they

overlap too closely. You cannot deny

the graph. You cannot deny the

exponential growth in the price of

bitcoin, but we mustn't confuse the

price of something with its value.

It's a bubble. I'm short Dominic's

book is a great work of fiction. A

work of fact was written in 1841

called extraordinary illusions.

We've been here before. This will

burst.

Your acidic, clearly, but is

your book a book of fiction in the

way it's been described?

That's a

rather damning indictment from

someone who's never even read my

book. Interestingly, you down the

technology, you've never used it.

You've never bought bitcoin. You

find this with the bitcoin

doomsayers. It's always inevitably

people who are not familiar with the

technology.

Waits...

Are you

familiar with it?

I have a Ph.D..

I'm a capitalist. I would hate to

stand in the way of people making

money...

People will have made money

on bitcoin.

There is a theory

creeping in here. Let's not conflate

owning bitcoin with owning block

chain.

The greater argument, bitcoin

has been the greatest moneymaking

opportunity any of us will ever see

in our lifetimes. Who's the greater

fool? The guy who's made money or

the guy who's stood aside?

What

about people who have lost money?

Because they have. It is extremely

vulnerable and prone to illegal

activity and to the Lord.

You're

absolutely right and you're looking

at somebody who has lost money in

bitcoin.

Why do you still believe in

it?

As I originally said to you, it

is cash for the Internet. The reason

those bitcoin were stolen from me

was my own ignorance in security.

What you say about financially

ignorant people currently

speculating on bitcoin, I would go

along with that. It is a mania.

People are investing in bitcoin who

have no experience whatsoever with

it. And anyone who does speculate it

should familiarise themselves with

the technology first and be aware

that by holding bitcoins you are

doing the Internet equivalent of

holding cash. If you held large

amounts of cash, you would put it in

a safe, a bank...

My 12-year-old son

was trading with his friends two or

three years ago, football picture

cards. He got bored of it and the

current generation who are trading

bitcoin will get bored.

Will they

come if they're making money?

They

keep holding on to the position

saying it will go up again. No one

is suggesting there haven't been

profits but it's a zero-sum. You

make money because flog it.

If there

were regulation, could it work and

more of a fad?

No. We have enough

currencies in the world will stop

the fact that western grizzlies have

no yield because interest is zero,

that will change. Normal service

will resume shortly.

I don't see how

it could ever be a replacement as

cash or as another currency.

I'm not

suggesting that, I'm saying it's

cash for the Internet. That was its

original purpose but it's morphed

into something much bigger. The

current system of money is there are

all sorts of false with it. It's

broken. You said it's a zero

interest rate situation that will

fix itself. We'd been there for

nearly ten years and there's very

little sign of it changing. This is

a system of money backed by

mathematical proof. It cannot be

debased or quantitatively eased. You

can't suppress interest rates. You

can't print it. It can be stolen,

absolutely.

It hasn't caught on in a

massive way.

Its tulips. The base is

narrow.

It's interesting, because

the 17th-century bitcoin of its day

work tulip bulbs. People invested

massively and suddenly the interest

went pop.

There is no underlying

function to tulips.

Will the bubble

burst?

As always I take my leave

from the Economist and I do because

people spend a lot of time working

on it. Bitcoin, I wouldn't spend too

much time on it. You have to get in

and out and it is difficult. The

underlying theory of crypto

currencies will be a development in

our lifetimes I think there is

something underlying.

I'm not

denying its mania and it's gone in

way excess of what its value is, but

it has real world use. .Com was a

bubble.

And it burst!

Now, it's panto time

and we all know the story

of Cinderella and how she's

desperate to attend the ball.

Well, my next guest was also hoping

to go to the ball, but has been told

by the Conservative party -

rather than the wicked

step-sisters - that he can't.

And just a warning -

the pictures you're about to see do

contain flashing images.

Charlie Mullins,

from Pimlico Plumbers

and Conservative party supporter

and donor, has been told he can no

longer attend the exclusive

Black and White ball,

held to fundraise for

the Conservative Party.

Pictured here attending last year's

event, Mr Mullins had wanted

to have a table at the

event costing £15,000.

But when he went to book he was told

he was no longer welcome.

He believes it's due

to his criticism of Theresa May,

but hasn't been given an exact

reason by the party.

We did ask the Conservatives

if they could tell us why

Charlie Mullins had been declined

a table at the ball but they did not

want to comment or provide

anyone for an interview.

Charlie Mullins joins us now.

How disappointed are you?

I'm not

really that disappointed. At the end

of the day, I think it's very

childish, necessary. I've been a

Tory donor for many years, gone to

various different parties with them

and all of a sudden, they're telling

me you're not welcome.

Do you its --

do you think it's because of your

support to remain in the EU?

I'm not

happy about that but evidently it's

because of my views that I don't

think she's doing a great job at the

moment.

And you been quite explicit

in those views. We certainly aren't

a fan of Theresa May. Tell us some

of the things you said.

I think we

need a stronger leader or will end

up with Jeremy Corbyn.

She's got to

go over her own sake, it's

embarrassing, she's not only weak

but her is hobbling the UK. This is

totally your entitlement to say

these things, but do you think that

is what led to this?

Undoubtably.

I've been told it's because of

outspoken comments. Let's be fair.

Andrew, you're very outspoken and

you and Kevin argue like man and

wife!

Are you talking about Kevin

Maguire?

Yes! I'm sure you still

invite you to his Christmas party.

Is it childish of the Conservative

Party not to accept money from

Charlie Mullins?

I certainly don't

think it's anything to do with

Charlie's views on the EU. Some of

the Cabinet are remain as will stop

they'll be there en masse.

What do

you think the reason is?

It to do

that with that, Andrew. Brexit leave

or stay, what they're saying is they

don't like what you're saying about

her. I'm only saying what a lot of

people are thinking and she needs

people like me to put the point

across that if you aren't doing the

job right, everyone else is being

lovely, lovely. She should get on to

Boris and these people who are

backstabbing hair and not me.

Why do

you want to go if you think it's a

disaster? Why do you want to go to

the Conservative fundraiser?

I want

to put money in and make sure they

stay in power will stop when she had

the snap election we put quite a few

quid in for a few MPs. I'm very much

behind the Conservatives. I'm just

saying I don't think she's the lady

to be the leader.

You said on a blog

that she is politically dead, maybe

some will do the decent thing and

take her out. Perhaps party

officials may not want you sitting

near her at the dinner.

She's being

bullied. At the conference she was

being bullied, everything was going

wrong for her, and people are

backstabbing hair. .

Shouldn't the

government be doing more to

encourage business people?

I think

they should. Charlie has a

successful business.

You think you

should be allowed to go?

I think

it's a hideous do, it's so ghastly.

That's your choice. I think you

should go because you live it up.

It

is about being a critical friend,

isn't it?

It is, I sent ambiguity

and I think it's a mixture of a

fundraiser and a social event. Most

people go, they're going to have

criticisms of Theresa May. They

might want another leader, the Yate,

Boris crowd who rattle their

jewellery. If you are of the view

that she's a complete disaster, it

seems funny. This is an event she

will be the big guest.

Final words

to you.

The summer party a couple of

months ago, David Davis on the

table, but in 15 grand, spent a few

quid and was being told to f-off.

On

that note, thank you.

Now, as you'll know -

when you fill out the census,

you have to tick a box

to state your national identity.

At the moment, the options available

are English, Scottish,

Northern Irish and Welsh.

But could that be about to change?

This week a delegation from Cornwall

council came to Westminster to call

for Cornish identity to be

recognised with their own tick-box

on the next census.

Welcome to The Daily Politics. What

are you calling for?

We'd like to

see Cornish identity recognised the

same as Welsh, Scottish and Irish

identity. In 2014 the

Conservative-led coalition

recognised the Cornish as the

national group. They told us we

would be treated the same as the

Irish, the Scots the Welsh. We

should have that come forward as

well as the other Celtic groups.

What material difference will it

make having a tick box on the

census?

First about fairness. What

is the point about the Government

saying they will recognise the

Cornish as a group if we are there

after ignored. It is about

statistics showing if you are

Cornish in Cornwall you are more

likely to be in a deprived community

than if you are not. 14% of the

Cornish population wrote Cornish in.

We want to be able to record

everyone who is Cornish so we can

understand the factors of our

community.

How do you think the

campaign is going? Do you think

you'll get your way?

It is a

difficult campaign,ly not lie.

There's a lot of groups of different

ethnic origins looking to get some

sort of inclusion within the census.

So we are working hard. We've put

further information to the accepts

can. They have promised further

meetings. We are hopeful they will

follow through. The real key thing

is the UK Government has recognised

the Cornish officially I was done

through David Cameron, supported by

the Chancellor, right through to

local MPs. We want to see the action

that should follow from.

Having done

that, giving them recognition

officially, what should it mean in

practise?

That is the difficulty

that quite often Governments will

come under pressure from various

groups of people who have very

strong identity, as your guest is

lining there. I suppose gathering

material for the census it would be

fine to say you can have as many

boxes as you like. People might

laugh about it. I can see front

columns in the Daily Mail. If people

have an identity and want to express

it. When you say, oh, this group of

people, by virtue of being Cornish n

this case, are suffering. How do you

then balance that against incomers

into the area? It could end up being

divisive. I wouldn't like to see us

go down the road on that one.

What

is your response to that?

Frankly,

that is completely wrong. The point

of the census is to find out all

manner of information so politicians

can put forward policies and

initiatives. Maybe they find that

certain things are not what we

anticipate them to be. The reality

is you need information to go

forward to do what is right for the

communities and everyone who lives

in those communities.

Thank you for joining us today.

For the next half an hour we're

going to be focussing

even more on Europe.

We'll be discussing.

First though here's our guide

to the latest from Europe -

in just 60 seconds.

Theresa May began the week

with a Brexit spring in her step

following that deal to move talks

on to the next stage.

But by mid-week, she'd suffered her

first defeat in the Commons,

when MPs voted to give parliament

a legal guarantee of

a vote on the final deal

struck with Brussels.

The European Parliament passed

a motion of bringing

the move to phase two,

but not all MEPs were so supportive.

Theresa the appeaser has given

in on virtually everything.

Elsewhere, the new Polish Prime

Minister has said his dream

is to re-Christianise the EU,

calling for a return to proper

values in an interview

with a catholic TV channel.

The European Commission president,

Jean-Claude Juncker,

is facing an investigation over

a case involving an alleged

illegal wiretap when he was

Prime Minister of Luxembourg.

And Emmanuel Macron hosted 50

countries and one cool little kid

at a climate change summit

in Brussels, warning the world

is losing the battle.

A notable absentee from

the gathering was the US

President Donald Trump -

but don't worry, Arnold

Schwarzenegger was there instead.

One of the stories

we saw there was about

the new Polish Prime Minister -

who wants to 're-Christianise'

The EU. What do you think about

that?

It is the no-mates category in

Europe. It is a big country. It has

turned in toward. It does have

problems within its legal system.

Its politics has become rather

hideous and views of minorities is

not good. It is funny we are

focussing on it, given we had this

argument when Germany opposed

Turkish entry to the EU. If there

was an in fairness to Poland clause

here, Angela Merkel had a strong

Christian identity. To be Christian

to go to church. It meant there was

a Christian underpinning to the EU,

which historically was true. That is

one of the reasons why she kept, the

Austrians, and others kept the Turks

out. It doesn't feel like it is the

right language to be talking now.

Do

you agree with that? As Anne has

said, it seems a far cry from the

days we were talking about accession

for Turkey. That was an issue during

the EU referendum. Now we have the

new Prime Minister in Poland saying

he wants the EU to return to

traditional Christian routes?

A as a

good Catholic boy I ought to welcome

it. But the politics in Poland has

turned very far to the right and I

think it's got an unhealthy

undertone. Sounds like it could be

an unhealthy undertone. I would be

concerned...

Now European Union leaders have

formally agreed to allow Brexit

talks to progress to the next phase.

Lots of issues including trade,

justice and the list goes on. The

BBC's Adam Fleming caught up with

Brexit negotiate after the...

You will get your new guidelines.

Your new instructions.

When do you think we'll have the

transition period agreed?

The

transition, the beginning of next

year.

And when will we know for

definite what it is? Will we know by

March?

Wait and see.

And joining me now to discuss

all this is the MEP Seb Dance,

the deputy leader of Labour

in the European Parliament.

He's here in the studio,

whilst the Conservative leader

in the European Parliament,

Ashley Fox MEP joins

me from Bristol.

We want a deep and special

partnership with the European Union.

During that transition period I

think we want to maintain

equivalence with the customs union,

equivalence with the single market,

so that during that two-year period

firms don't need to adjust their

rules again. And then...

Sorry, does

that mean still taking rules from

the European Court of Justice and

freedom of movement?

I think that is

something to be negotiated.

And what

is your view?

Well, it is something

to be negotiated. I would expect

freedom of movement to continue from

the two years after we leave to the

end of the transition period.

Right.

Seb, Ashley says that needs to be

negotiated. Formulating the

transition will be part of that. It

requires the approval of the

European Parliament. What is the

mood in Brussels and Strasbourg from

European MPs?

Well I suppose the

mood is one of caution. There is a

slight air of relief we've managed

to get some progress now, obviously.

There was a stage towards the end of

last week where panic stations were

setting it in because it looked very

bad indeed. At least there is a

sense of progress. Ultimately the

Government has caved in on so much

already, the expectation is the

transition period will be another

example of that and it will be the

status quo and the only difference

is we will not be able to make any

of the rules, we will be applying.

In what way has the Government

caved?

Full regulatory agreement,

that is the post France session

stage. That, in effect, means the

customs union. In order to get

regulatory agreement covered by the

Good Friday Agreement you need to

imply meant a lot of the rule rule

the single market and the customs

union.

Do you accept there is a

strong possibility that Britain

remains in the customs union for

many years?

No I think he's talking

complete nonsense there. We will

leave the customs union and the

single market. We'll have a bespoke

agreement between the UK and the EU.

It is interesting that the Italian

Prime Minister has already said we

need a tailor-made solution for the

United Kingdom. I have to say it

must be difficult being a Labour MEP

at the moment because you have to be

permanently miserable, permanently

talk down our country. And Mrs May

has done really well. She's a

foremid-able politician.

I would

like to know what magical way of

squaring the circle you have come up

with. That is what the text says.

Unless you can come one a way of

achieving full alignment through

another means which does not involve

that. You've had 18 months to come

up with this magical solution and

nobody has. I am not miserable. I am

fascinated to how this magic trick

will be performed.

Seb has not

clearly read the agreement. It says

we will maintain alignment for those

areas where there is north-south

co-operation. 12 areas, some are

fair lay minor, by waterways and --

fairly minor, like waterways.

So there are challenges relating to

agriculture, that we absolutely will

not be staying in the customs union.

Isn't the truth that actually Labour

wants to remain in all but name

within the single market and the

customs union and actually you

welcome the debate around this issue

of full alignment regarding the

border between Ireland and Northern

Ireland because this is Labour's

game plan, is not to recognise the

Brexit referendum outcome.

You can

say game plan all you like. I would

like to stay in the European Union.

I am not making any bones about

that. That is obviously up to the

British people, if they decide what

they get at the end of this process

is not what they voted for on 23rd

June, I think there is a case to

say, is this what you want to do? It

is up to me and others like me to

make the case.

Isn't that Labour's

strategy?

It is to effectively

minimise the effect of what Brexit

to do. A hard Brexit - that is not

in the country's interest.

There is

a difficulty that during that

transition period you will not be

able to strike any free trade

agreements with other countries, not

EU countries - that is correct,

isn't it?

I anticipate we will be

able to par take in trade

negotiations. Until the transition

period is concludes, which I would

imagine to be the first quarter of

2021 those new trade arrangements

cannot take effect.

Do you know what

the Government's vision will be for

that trade between Britain and the

EU?

It has been described as Canada,

plus, plus, plus. If you look at the

free trade agreen you will see that

98% of tariff lines are abolished

and set at zero. We see no reason

why it cannot be zero. We want an

ambitious service chapter on top of.

That

Sptd isn't that the problem -

when you think what the British

services make up and Canada, I take

your point about plus, plus, plus,

but the deal with Canada did not

involve services?

We are in complete

regulatory alignment with the EU.

All our financial service providers

have equivalent regulation to the

EU.

That is the point, we are come

from a totally different starting

point to Canada and therefore, this

idea that it is going to be

impossible, that it might take eight

years is wishful thinking on that

part. Not at all. That is the point,

but applied from the other way. We

have regulatory alignment because we

are in the EU. Those regulations are

decided by the EU. Do we think we

will be deciding what the European

financial services regulations will

be once we are outside of the

institutions that set those? Of

course we won't. But we will be

applying them. That is the point.

This is not taking back control at

all. Do

Do you think they will accept being

part of the court of justice for a

few years, for a few years in that

sense?

I think most of them, they're

unhappy about it but have accepted

it because it's pretty minuscule. I

think Labour is in real difficulty

because John McDonald said the other

day he wants to not be the single

market, to be in a different single

market. They bit keep changing their

position and I think they want to

keep us in the single market and the

Customs market.

What do you think

phase one agreement has effectively

done in terms of the customs union?

Fox talks about north-south

alignment, the DUP ensured it was

east-west, as well. The Good Friday

Agreement, that's a huge chunk of

what the Brexiter is said we would

do trade deals on.

How do you see

this term full alignment influencing

our future relationship? In a

nutshell, it will sort of dictate

how closely aligned our rules and

regulations and standards are to the

ones of the EU.

I think it depends.

It's a great phrase, it reminds me

of the variable geometry. It can be

made to be anything you want it to.

In the position you're coming from,

it makes no difference, if you want

full alignment you might as well not

have bothered, but of course you

wouldn't have bothered as you would

have remained at you've been very

open stop

You have to have a language which

allows people to make deals which

isn't at the same time saying, well,

you might as well just accept

customs union and single market. You

don't have to be very far on the

Brexit curve to say those things are

not acceptable to me. I think you're

right that it's a bit of a forge but

your colleague on the other side in

Brussels also has a point. You do

actually have to come up with

instruments which are going to make

this at least as less likely to lead

to any future big problems, even if

you can't use it to cut every

problem through right now.

Ashley

Fox, do you think the EU blinked in

the end in order to get to the end

of phase one?

I don't think either

side blinked. I think these were

difficult negotiations. Mrs May

showed herself to be a formidable

negotiator and we've reached a

compromise. Mrs May is doing a good

job stopping white --

do you think

David Davis is a good negotiator?

Yes and he's doing a good job. MEPs

and politicians who pretend to

support their country take delight

in every small difficulty.

Why

didn't you vote for the motion

approving progress to phase two. You

say we oppose it.

We voted in favour

of the paragraph that called...

Because it was full of a whole load

of nonsense put in. That is not the

purpose of the European Parliament.

Lets leave it there for the moment.

There have always been tensions

in the EU between federalists

who want deeper integration

in the bloc and those

who value member state

sovereignty above all else.

Britain traditionally sat

in the second camp -

but now that we're leaving,

could plans for European federalism

be moving ahead at pace?

Today at the European

Council Summit, leaders

are expected to discuss ways

to deepen eurozone integration.

On the table is the possible

creation of a budget for

the eurozone, as well as a finance

minister to represent the bloc.

Earlier this week the

European Council adopted

the creation of a permanent

defence and security

cooperation network,

known as PESCO.

25 EU states have signed the defence

pact, with only Malta,

Denmark and the United Kingdom

choosing not to take part.

PESCO will integrate military

planning, weapons development

and operations that will rely

on a 5 billion euro defence fund.

Last week Martin Schulz,

the leader of Germany's centre-left

Social Democrats or SPD and former

European Parliament President,

called for the creation

of a United States of Europe.

Schulz told SDP delegates

that he wanted EU member states

to sign off on a "constitutional

treaty" committing them to take

steps towards a federal Europe.

Do you think it'll catch on, this

idea of a United States of Europe?

It has always been there in the

minds of advanced federalists. I

know it depends on what you call a

federalist but it was there and it

was there for the vision of Europe

stretching back over 20 years. I

spent a lot of time in Germany

recently looking at Angela Merkel's

situation and possibly life after

her. Martin Schulz who was sat on a

low percentage, very bad election,

he need something that from his

perspective, he's very pro-European,

Brussels is where he's come from

into this part of German politics.

He wants to offer something bold and

visionary and I think his view is

you go full tilt for it, stop saying

you don't want it, that helps you

get on with Emmanuel Macron and you

can move something forward.

Do you

think greater integration is the way

it's heading?

In many areas, yes,

and in many it isn't. I think we

will probably see the emergence of a

multisport Europe.

Do you support

that quiz Siam at the end of the

day, the EU is member states

and the

states decide what they are

comfortable with at any given point.

Frankly, there will always be

federalist and always those who want

the sovereignty of member states

above all else. The buck stops with

member states.

As a result of that

conflict, do you see it happening in

terms of having a budget Minister

and there is already a sort of

Foreign Minister, but that sort of

close cooperation on defence? In the

end, national values will trump for

many countries within the EU.

I

would agree with that. My concern

over this structured colons --

script should defence is to Nato. If

it results in European nation state

spending more on defence than that

is to be welcomed. What we don't

want are several more divisions of

bureaucrats who don't actually add

to defence capability.

But doesn't

it make sense to have those

countries remaining in the EU coming

closer together?

For the Eurozone,

you're probably right. Because the

euro was set up initially very

badly, with economies that went

convergent and too many states,

we've seen a great many problems.

They're probably does need to be a

greater fiscal capacity for the

Eurozone. I'm just delighted the UK

isn't part of that.

Right. Would you

like to be part of it if Britain

were to stay in the EU? Would you

have been a fan of being part of

that closer integration?

Close

integration in defence makes sense

given the levels of threat we have.

We got to counter this idea that

it's somehow undermines Nato.

Britain and France for example have

already conducted operations under a

joint EU flag. That hasn't

undermined our contribution to Nato

or the security of the North

Atlantic Treaty organisation in any

way shape or form. You can have

multiple layers.

Would it be a good

thing?

Know and if this line would

have been around before the

referendum, I think the referendum

result would have been even bigger

for Leave. We don't like the idea of

Brussels taking even more power away

from sovereign Parliament.

Is there

also a problem with Germany, or it

seems like from Martin Schulz in the

position, that he is to control

everything within the EU? Do you

think that's the problem?

Yes,

there's a problem with Germany, they

run the whole show

there's a problem with Germany, they

run the whole show?

Germany is

obviously the economic powerhouse

and has tried. The Franco German

relationship is not at his strongest

and there is a challenge for France

but this is not the position of

Angela Merkel. The CDU is likely to

head the government as we go

forward, it is a position of the

underbidder.

You take offence of

this idea that Germany runs the

show.

Germany is the largest economy

full stop incidentally, we were on

course to be the biggest economy in

the EU if we had stayed. You could

see Britain -- say that Britain runs

the show but we'll never know. The

idea Germany runs it is absurd. Look

at it through German eyes. Here we

have the biggest military power in

the EU leaving at a time when we

have threats from Russia, less than

concrete assurances from our good

allies the USA and president trump.

There is a lot of nervousness

around.

We have Anglo German

military cooperation.

And we will

continue to.

The layer of

Corporation makes sense will stop

David Cameron spent a lot of time

negotiating tracks get concessions

in the EU, spent most of his time in

Bonn.

Will have to say goodbye to

our two guests.

Now, were donors almost goners?

Who writes this?

A vote in the European Parliament

this week seeking to ban phosphates

from frozen kebab meat fell just

short of the majority needed.

There were three votes in it

and the British MEPs did their bit

to save the frozen vertical meat

spits - or kebabs as they're known

by us ordinary folk.

Here's a flavour of the debate.

TRANSLATION:

Instead of saying

the EU's banning kebabs -

that's not right -

the media and companies should be

asking the commission why

the commission is making our food

less healthy and worse

because that is ultimately

what the whole story's about.

TRANSLATION:

The Greens

and the Social Democrats

are simply spreading panic.

The reason why that's not

the case is that phosphates

are allowed in many foods,

but they're obviously naturally

present in many foods.

If they were such a great

risk to human health,

we'd all have been ill long ago.

And Ibrahim Dogus, the founder

of the British Kebab Awards

is here to chew this all over.

Those ponds! Are you relieved?

We

are indeed. We welcome the decision

taken by the Parliament to let

kebabs be made the way they wear.

What are phosphate is used in making

Donna kebabs?

Within a very small

industry in the frozen kebabs

industry stop macro -- they don't

use phosphates in it. It is to keep

meat moist and give it a bit of

flavour will stop its an additive

and there are many others used in

many other industries.

If it was

only being used for a small number

would it have had that much of an

impact if it has been banned?

Not a

huge impact in Britain but in

Germany, the frozen give out

industry is bigger than in Britain.

In Britain we have more restaurants

and takeaways who make their own

kebabs in-house rather than buying

frozen. The frozen kebabs is still

part of our industry and it would

have been bad to ban the use of

phosphates.

Basta band phosphate,

but how unhealthy is it is to have

phosphates as part of the process?

The European Food Standards Agency

made an assessment is back in 2013

and they confirmed there is no

health risk for any products that

are using phosphates, it doesn't

cause any direct health risks to

consumers at all-star white are you

celebrating with a big plate of

devouts

everybody is feeling hungry

at this moment. What's your view on

this great Donna kebabs debate?

And

not a great eater of them but if

you're happy, I'm happy.

Do you eat

kebabs honest?

I have from my

teenage son so if they could get rid

of the ones with as many additives

as possible I'd be happier, if you

could nudge the industry in that

direction.

British MEPs helped the

industry here. They are forming a

function in the EU.

Two more years

to go and they can carry on doing

good work and then our own

Parliament can sort it out.

You

can't underestimate the work they're

doing at the moment. Did you lobby

for this?

No direct lobbying, but we

knew our MEPs would be sensible

people.

What made you think that

exactly?

Most of our MEPs have done

great work for many years so we

expected them to

great work for many years so we

expected them to.

That's all for now, thanks

to all my guests, and goodbye.