23/02/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

All sides claim victory

in the aftermath of last

night's Cabinet away day,

and praise is heaped on Theresa May

- but could there be trouble ahead

for the Prime Minister

as the so-called Mutineers

rock the boat again?

Another bus with a big number on it.

This time, it's Remainers on board.

Can they really persuade

the British people to change

their mind about Brexit?

Gay people can get married

in England, Wales and Scotland -

but not in Northern Ireland.

With the Stormont Assembly suspended

should the UK parliament

legislate to legalise it?

And Lib Dem leader Vince Cable

chooses Roy Jenkins

as his political hero.

I think he would be a very,

very sad, heartbroken man if he saw

what had happened today.

All that in the next hour,

and with me for the duration,

the Guardian's Heather Stewart

and the Telegraph's Tim Stanley.

Welcome to the programme.

So, Theresa May's Brexit cabinet

enjoyed a lavish dinner last night

of cream of sweetcorn soup

with a ham hock croquette

followed by Guinness short rib

of Dexter Beef with onions

and parsnip mash, but now

the Chequers party is over

and the clean-up has begun.

We've been told the Prime Minister

"played a blinder" and that

there was an outbreak

of unity...for now.

But just what has been agreed?

Some have briefed that

"divergence has won",

meaning Britain won't be tied to EU

regulations but instead try to trade

with Europe using a system

of mutually agreed rules.

Others have said there

was an increasing realisation

that there needed to be a pragmatic

Brexit with an acknowledgement

that the UK should stick closely

to Brussels in some areas.

So what now?

Theresa May will have

to get her whole cabinet to sign off

on the deal next Tuesday before

the Prime Minister makes her keynote

speech outlining the government's

position next Friday.

The fun really starts when they put

the proposals to the EU.

Michel Barnier has always warned

that any deal must be "less

favourable" than the current

arrangement and that

the government's plans would not be

compatible with the EU's principles.

There are a few coming late

to the party, Tory backbench MP

Anna Soubry has put down

a new amendment to the government's

trade bill calling for a customs

union with the EU once we leave.

This could potentially be very

dangerous for Mrs May as it

could get support from Labour

who are also poised to commit

themselves to membership

of "a customs union" with a speech

from Jeremy Corbyn

expected on Monday.

Let's have a listen to

what Michael Gove and Amber Rudd had

to say about last night's meeting.

A very positive meeting and we got

behind the Prime Minister and agreed

the basis for her speech for next

weekend and are looking forward to

it going ahead.

The Prime Minister

will be making a speech shortly but

there was a very good atmosphere and

we agreed on a way forward.

And we're joined now from

Central Lobby by Dominic Grieve.

Dominic, your colleague, Anna Sue

Brie, put down a new amendment to

the trade bill calling for a customs

arrangement with the EU once we

leave -- Soubry. Theresa May said

you would be leaving the customs

union with the EU so why have you

signed up for it?

The Prime Minister

is right that we will leave the

customs union on the EU because the

on -- one is dependent on the other.

The question arises is what is in

the national interest for the future

to avoid tariffs and inspection

regimes and enable free trade and

allow an open border between

ourselves and the EU and the North

and South of Northern Ireland. These

are important considerations. My

view has been that the national

interest lies in maintaining those.

If that means being in a form of

customs union and I don't think that

is something we ought to rule out.

Of course, the prime Minister

indicated she would like to try and

achieve this ability to have a free

flow of trade of goods by some other

means and I don't object to Latin

anyway, -- object to that in any

way, but I do have strong views

about eliminating the possibility of

a customs union because, at the end

of the day, the likely benefit to

the United Kingdom was third-party

agreements with other countries,

which would be much less than a

disadvantage of using -- losing the

free flow of trade which I think

will have an adverse impact on our

GDP.

You differ with the Prime

Minister as to how this future

relationship can be achieved. What

difference will the tabled amendment

actually make?

Just be correct. I

don't differ with her about how it

might be achieved. If she can

achieve it by the means she is

seeking, all well and good but we

should not rule out the possibility

of a customs union, and in order to

make sure that issue remains on the

that is why the amendment has been

tabled and it will mean when we come

to the report stage of the bill it

can be given proper consideration in

the light of whether the

negotiations have got some point at

that stage.

Do you accept following

what has been reported from those

who attended them Chequers meeting,

the eight-hour meeting, that it was

relatively harmonious and by

supporting this amendment you are

making life difficult for your Prime

Minister?

That I think is a

misunderstanding of the tabling of

amendments. As parliamentarians we

can table amendments during the

passage of a bill to make sure

issues are considered that we think

are of importance. What decision is

taken about the amendment must be

dependent on what stage and the

information we have asked the

progress of negotiations when it

comes back. The point is, you should

not exclude the possibility of

remaining a customs union. And that

is what we have got to make sure,

that we keep that issue available

for us.

But you want to have Labour

MPs support the amendment and, in

fact, you want the Labour leadership

to MPs to back the amendment about

remaining in the customs union which

could result in defeat for your

government.

I have absolutely no

idea whether the Labour leadership,

which actually is led by someone who

broadly speaking has supported

Brexit, will wish to support the

amendment. I have little doubt the

amendment will command support

across the house and it might

command support across a broad

swathe of the Conservative party in

parliament. But at the moment we

haven't come to that point. At the

moment the amendment has been tabled

and I think it is essential we could

keep the issue available and could

consider it.

I have looked to the

people who signed up to the

amendment and there are a large

number of Labour MPs and, if you

listen to anything coming out the

Labour leadership's mounds in the

last few weeks, it looks as though

they are to confirming the position

which is like yours, keeping the

issue of a customs union on the

table. So if the government was

defeated, what would happen then?

If

the government was defeated

eventually I would assume the

government would be required to seek

to negotiate keeping us in the

customs union, if that can be

obtained from our EU partners.

Excuse me. Those are things that one

has to keep in mind, of course. But

I don't think it would be the end of

the government at all. There's no

reason why it should be.

If you

clear your throat for a moment,

Heather Stewart, let's ask about

Labour, because Jeremy Corbyn will

make this speech on Monday. Do you

think it will be the point at which

Jeremy Corbyn says we will back the

idea of Britain remaining in a

customs union with the European

Union.

There has certainly been a

shift in Labour policy and I

coordinated one as we saw different

members from wings of the party,

Owen Smith, Emily Thornberry and

others saying the policy was

evolving. John McDonnell had

interesting words as well. It's

always dangerous to predict what

Jeremy Corbyn will say in his

speeches. I remember a speech in the

referendum campaign which did not

turn out as expected. But there has

clearly been a shift and busily the

Labour leadership is extremely keen

on inflicting defeat in the House of

Commons to the government if it can.

So how dangerous is it for Theresa

May? Dominic grieve says it will

mean we just have to keep the idea

of a customs union on the table but

it will mean more than that for

Theresa May?

Listening then he

seemed to leave the door open of a

Canada plus model free-trade model

which delivers the benefits of a

customs union without being in one

and I'm sure he will want to respond

to that and I don't want to put

words in his mouth but I see that as

the compromise that might happen. We

essentially have three separate

positions. That of the government,

which hasn't really changed, where

they say they want divergences where

they will copy what the EU does but

not be in the EU. You have the Tory

rebel and Labour position which

hasn't really changed of saying we

should be in a customs union. One

position that might have changed is

that some members of the EU 27 are

in favour of a Canada plus plus plus

style deal and don't want to see

things dragged out by the

negotiators of the commission. So in

many ways things have not changed

but I don't see this disagreement

between the rebels on the government

is completely shutting the door on

some sort of agreement.

What would

happen if the government was

defeated on the amendment?

It would

be very embarrassing and undermine

the government's efforts are

providing a unified front and might

embolden those in the Cabinet such

as Philip Hammond who take a more

remain point of view which I suspect

is what on the rebels minds. But I

expect they are reasonable and some

accommodation can be made.

But you

to inflict an embarrassing defeat on

your own government?

I never want to

defeat my own government and I

always seek to try and avoid doing

that and after all, I don't have are

serial rebel reputation even though

I voted once against the government

on a national issue.

You said it was

in the national interest to keep it

on the table so will you put your

principles ahead of the party?

We

are in danger of running ahead of

ourselves on this. I've explained

what it is that the amendment is

designed to achieve and the point

was very well made that it might be

that some sort of Canada plus plus

plus arrangement can be arrived at

but I am interested in the reality

of free trade without tariffs and

inspection regimes. That is what I

want to see and I'm perfectly

prepared to consider different

options but I'm not prepared to

exclude options in order to achieve

that.

What do you say to Jacob Rees

Mogg who said remaining in a customs

union with the EU means we would be

common to internal tariff meaning

higher prices for clothing and

footwear and it would be more

expensive for the British public?

Does the amendment risk lowering the

standard of living for people in

this country?

I completely disagree

with Jacob's analysis. The evidence

is overwhelming that if we come out

of a customs union we have no

satisfactory arrangements and have a

tariff and inspection regime meaning

the cost of living will rise and it

is the poorest and most vulnerable

who will suffer the most.

Tim

Stanley, what you say to that?

You

could argue that the Brexiteers are

breeding trouble for the government

by saying that stopping the

migration of people during the

transition. Everyone is bargaining

now. That is all I can really say.

It's up to the Prime Minister to

navigate this. One reason she

appears so tight-lipped and

difficult to read is because she is

juggling so many balls. You could

argue it's her fault because she did

not get the majority she wanted to

make it possible that this week I

feel more sympathetic because we are

starting to see the demands of other

people in the parliament and she has

to keep them all happy whilst also

maintaining a clear path for the

government.

Dominic Grieve, thank

you.

Now the leaders of the other 27 EU

countries are gathering

today to amongst other things firm

up their position on Brexit.

Our Brussels reporter,

Adam Fleming is there.

Add, tell me what they are

discussing.

The way I've been

putting it this morning is that

Brexit is not the theme tune for the

summit but it is the background

music so they will talk about the

future composition of the European

Parliament after 2019 because there

will no longer be 73 British MEPs

and they will talk about the

successor to the process by which

Jean-Claude Juncker was made prime

minister of the EU Commission and

his term of office is up there. Then

they have the really thorny issue of

the MSF left, the multi-financial

framework, which is the seven-year

budget cycle which starts in 2021

and will have a Brexit sized hole in

it of potentially 15 billion euros

per year. Lots of difficult

conversations between net

contributors who pay in and don't

necessarily want to paying more, and

their recipients who don't

necessarily want to receive less,

while there is increasing demands on

the budget when it comes to security

and migration. That discussion will

go on for months and months. In

terms Brexit, the only bit formerly

on the agenda today is Donald Tusk

will update the 27 leaders on the

process he will go through to write

their next set of guidelines for the

next phase of talks about trade and

the future relationship, which the

27 will sign off in this building

when they next meet on the 23rd of

March.

The EU seems to have rejected

a key British proposal for the

future relationship after Brexit,

the so-called baskets where you can

have a variance in relation post

Brexit. This is according to

documents published by the European

commission. In your opinion, are the

EU 27 still singing from the same

hymn sheet? Is there any sign of

divergences?

Yeah, that's the word they all use

all the time.

Very fashionable.

That

document yesterday which emerged was

a presentation that was given by the

European Commission Brexit

negotiators to diplomats from the

27, a couple of weeks ago, which

talked about these three Baskett

approach the Prime Minister has as a

basis for the discussion about the

future relationship and they said it

was incompatible with the European

Council's guidelines for Brexit and

they pointed out that it meant that

the UK was cherry picking, taking

what bits of the single market it

liked which threatened the integrity

of the single market, it threatened

the autonomy of the EU's

decision-making because it would

mean the UK on the outside would be

too involved on decision is

happening on the inside, there would

have to be a role for the European

Court of Justice in the UK were

still going to rely on concepts in

EU law, and also said what about

Norway, because they are in the

European economic Eire, might get

annoyed by the UK getting the sort

of deal? They were very firm. That's

against the guidelines drawn up by

the 27 in April last year. But I'm

detecting subtle little hints where

things are changing force of this is

going to sound incredibly geeky so

bear with me. The Swedish board of

trade, which is the trade agency

which advises the Swedish

Government, has just written 260

pages of Brexit reports about the

economy, it's all in Swedish but

they've released a four page summary

in English which says a one size

fits all model for the UK and Sweden

is not appropriate for the Swedish

economy and they say for some

sectors of the Swedish economy it

would be best of the UK remained in

EU. For some sectors of the Swedish

economy it would be better if there

was a deep and special trade

relationship like the one the EU has

with Ukraine, but some part of the

switch economy it would be like

Switzerland where they have loads of

bilateral deals in different sectors

and they say a plane free trade

agreement like the EU has with

Canada and Japan, would not

eliminate barriers to trade

effectively and would not be good

enough. To my ears, does that mean

they are criticising Michel

Barnier's Canada is the best you are

going to get approach or criticising

the UK's guidelines saying we have

to delete some of those red lines in

those areas or is it both or neither

and is that what we're going to be

looking at, more clues about what

member states think about this

future relationship?

Adam, thank

goodness there was that translation

from the Swedish board of trade

because it would have left you in a

pickle.

We're joined now from

Rome by the Italian

MEP Roberto Gualtieri,

who is on the European Parliament's

Brexit steering group.

Welcome to the programme. I don't

know how much of the last discussion

you just heard, but we are already

hearing that Brussels is rejecting

Theresa May's approach of managed

divergences also why?

Actually this

is not true. We are respectfully

waiting for understanding of what

exactly is the UK proposal. We

understand there will be a speech

from the Prime Minister next week.

And then we will define our

guidelines. We have only said that

we want a relationship with the

United Kingdom which is as close as

possible, but, of course, any kind

of relationship has its own balance

and rights of obligation, single

market has other rules, custom

union, other rules, and if there are

red lines which prevent those

solutions, then we enter into a

category of a free-trade agreement

which of course have to be

negotiated.

You say you don't know

what Britain once and therefore

nothing has been rejected, but

that's not the case, is it, Roberto,

because the Prime Minister has put

forward a proposal of three baskets

where you would have some mutual

recognition in some areas, some

close alignment and some divergences

and we know now from the commission

that they rejected that, so I say

again, why has that been rejected

out of hand?

Honestly, I don't

understand what we're talking about.

We have not received a formal

position. We haven't heard the

speech. Nothing hinting of these

baskets, which is not a totally

clear concept. We know in a

free-trade agreement, if the UK is

not in the customs union, if it's

not in a single market, of course we

cannot have a totally free market,

we have to have an agreement and the

level of market access will depend

on a number of factors. We can have

a very good level of market taxes

for goods and services, the more

difficult, of course, as the Swedish

document just quoted saying, in a

free-trade agreement, if it's

impossible, if you want frictionless

trade, you need to stay in the

single market. These other basics.

Of course we have to enter into

negotiations and we need a clear

position from the UK and of course

we will our guidelines to Parliament

in March.

You do accept there's a

number of countries in fact that do

have special deals with the European

Union, it's not strictly a case of

remaining in the single market to

get that frictionless trade or

remaining in the customs union, so

there is the complete alignment with

regulations. For example, Turkey, it

isn't bound by freedom of movement

and has a customs union with the EU

but only on goods and not services.

That's a bespoke deal so why can't

Britain have a bespoke deal?

This is

exactly a good example. Turkey is a

member of a different union, which

has advantages, in terms of tariff.

Of course Turkey is bound to have

the same tariff outside so this

means there's some equalisation of

the policy. With less friction in

the trade of goods, of course, there

are still some checks to be done

because they are not in the single

market.

Yes but button plaited

broadly with the approach of three

baskets? Norway also has a special

deal, it's part of the single

market, but not the customs union.

It a separate rules. For industries

like farm produce and fish. Britain

could have a similar approach,

mixing perhaps the two?

That's

exactly the reason why we need to

wait for what would be the proposal

because something similar to Turkey

is different from a free-trade

agreement because it implies some

limitation in the external tariff

which Canada does not have. So far

we have heard that the UK was

excluding this option. If they move

in this direction it would be a

positive thing of course, but it has

not been said.

Yes, but we keep

hearing from the EU, Michel Barnier,

Britain won't be allowed to cherry

pick but examples of Norway, Turkey

and Switzerland, their bilateral

agreements with the EU to some

extent that is cherry picking. This

has been rejected out of hand for

Britain. Why?

I insist I agree with

your description of how we reject,

but it's not true.

That they have

rejected it.

We have some

obligations with the UK if they

choose to be banned by a customs

union, and it's a positive fact we

not rejecting it all. Switzerland is

a bit different, but I would like to

remind you, Switzerland has the

freedom of movement. I understand

the UK does not want this.

Is the EU

27 still unified?

Absolutely. We

have been unified and we will be

united because we have a very

reasonable position. We want a

relationship as close as possible

with the United Kingdom. Of course

each kind of relationship has

balances, rights and obligations

under accept this principle, so we

are open to engaging in a decision

as far as the UK, we have a clear

proposal, and we will discuss it. It

would also be very useful of course

to move forward the discussion on

transition because that an element

of uncertainty. We are close, not

yet there, but I hope a number of

problems will be positively solved

and a very reasonable proposal of

the union with some limitation of

course, would be the basis of an

agreement so we can move into the

last phase which is crucial of

course.

Roberto, stay with us why

bring in my other guest to the

discussion. What do you make of what

Roberto is saying? Despite some

other language that has come from

the European Union, about not

wanting Britain to cherry pick, does

he have a point it is still not

clear exactly what Britain is after?

That is very true but it's all so

from what he said, not entirely

clear, what Europe will eventually

agree to. I'm loving the discussion

this morning because we're seeing

some light at the end of the tunnel.

At the beginning of the negotiation

process everything tended to feel

like it was on the side of the EU

because they were trying to get as

much money out of us, that was their

focus and they got it. With is gone,

they are down 9 billion, but now

we're moving on, while the

commission may well be saying one

thing, Michel Barnier could be

saying it's not possible, you can't

cherry pick, which technically

speaking is true from the EU's point

of view, it's interesting to hear

the individual representatives of

different countries are thinking,

hang on, we sell to Britain's

markets, why can't we do a deal

because it's in everyone's benefit?

What do you think about the idea of

Britain's managed divergences which

I'm sure can mean something to

everyone, in terms of sort of

semantics and linguistic gymnastics,

do you think Britain will find much

more difficult when is presented to

the EU?

I do, and I think it's a

better way of dealing with the

divergences within the Cabinet

itself, rather than thinking about

the negotiations although it seems

to me they're there was a chink of

light in the sense of when you

raised Turkey the answer was, yes,

we have a customs union in

particular areas so that does seem

up the idea of different

arrangements in different sectors,

which Theresa May many months ago

used to say repeatedly the customs

union is not a binary question to

which the commission used to say

absolutely yes, it is. Perhaps it is

a bit more complex than that and

that is why David Davis and his

ministers are shuttling around like

mad visiting several European

capitals every week because they

very much hope to open up ultimate

of a chink between Brussels and the

EU 27.

On the implementation period,

Roberto mentioned, do you think it

is now becoming clear Theresa May

will have to give away on her

proposal to change the rights for EU

citizens coming during the two-year

period?

It is implicit in the

transition deal, it doesn't feel it

has been nailed down a. And the

Times of course was reporting today

that exactly what would happen. I

think what Britain wants to maintain

at this stage is as much Flex it is

possible because it has got to get

its House in order but also doesn't

want to put a time negotiations when

it comes to negotiating a future

traders have regardless of what the

Government may publicly say about

rights, Ireland, any of this stuff,

my suspicion is the transition will

be a movable feast.

Thank you very

much for joining us today.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Earlier this week, David Davis

was at pains to tell people

post-Brexit Britain wouldn't be

a "Mad Max-style dystopian fantasy".

Disappointing a view!

Disappointing a view!

Well, yesterday, his

cabinet colleague Andrea

Leadsom backed him up,

and said life outside the EU

would be much more

like another film.

But which one?

Was it a) 28 Days Later?

b) Love Actually?

c) Four Weddings and a Funeral?

or d) The Wicker Man?

The mind boggles!

The mind boggles!

At the end of the show,

Tim and Heather will give

us the correct answer.

Slightly surreal question.

Slightly surreal question.

Now, remember that Leave Campaign

bus which carried the claim

that we send £350 million a week

to the EU?

Money which could be

spent on the NHS?

Well, Remainers now have their own

bus touring the country with a big

number on the side of it.

It's in Liverpool today and onboard

is campaigner Phil Richmond.

Haven't we had enough of buses with

big figures on the side of them?

I

don't know. I mean, we had a bus

which said 350 William pounds was

going to be saved by leaving the EU,

and then the government's own

figures showed in fact we are going

to be 2000 million pounds a week

poorer and we understand why they

try to give it under wraps and why

MPs are only allowed to go and look

at these numbers in a special room

with an invigilator if they leave

their mobile phones at the door.

Behind you we have three Jacob Rees

Moggs behind you which could be

worrying from your point of view.

They are obviously not very keen on

your bus but we will leave them

there in the background. Just to

remind viewers of his position.

Isn't this all a bit late, two years

too late in fact? Shouldn't you have

done this during the referendum

campaign?

No, absolutely not. It

couldn't be a better time. We have

had a phoney war for 18 months and

finally the Government is having to

admit there are hard trade-offs in

Brexit and it's going to come at a

price. And it's not going to make is

better off, we are going to be

poorer, and we know how much poorer

we are going to be. We are at a

point when people are asking is it

worth it? We now concede what the

price of Brexit is going to be and

what our campaign is doing is saying

is it worth it? And more and more

people are asking is it worth it?

Why and how have you calculate that

figure on the bus which is being

scored slightly by the trio of Jacob

Rees Moggs?

OK, it's a pity you

can't see the figure, because it's

very simple. If you have 5% loss of

GDP growth, and you have a current

GDP of macro-2,000,000,000,000, 5%

of that is 100 billion, and that is

2000 million. It's as simple as

that. There's no calculations

needed.

Aren't you reigniting

project fear?

project fear?

No. Project fear is

about frightening people with things

that might happen. This is simply

telling people what the Government's

thinking is. This is what the best

experts the Government has are

telling them is going to happen with

Brexit.

Apart from the three behind you, how

have is the turnout been to see the

bus?

The turnout is well and we've

been well-received everywhere. You

can't see, they are on the other

side of the bus. But because of the

noise of those I'm finding hard to

hear you.

Thanks for joining us and

maybe you should have a conversation

with the three guys behind you

wearing the Jacob Rees Mogg masks.

As soon as I am of their I am going

to ask them do you really think it

is worth it? But thanks for having

me on.

Well, earlier this week a pro-Brexit

group of economists came up

with their own assessement

of the economic impact

of leaving the EU.

Julian Jessop contributed

to that report.

Vicky Pryce is a former

government economist.

We were all glued to the Jacob Rees

Mogg people in the last film. Your

model assumes mass elimination of

tariffs. As any government minister

or political party indicated they

would unilaterally eliminate

tariffs?

Not as such but that's a

reasonable approximation of where

the government wants to end up, a

situation where we have a

comprehensive free-trade deal with

the rest of the European Union

covering both goods and services and

significantly lower trade barriers

with the rest of the world. It's

true the government is not hoping to

completely eliminate the barriers

and to make those assumptions we

have another assumption where we

only make roughly half of them and

that still delivers a positive

number but whichever way you look at

it you end up in positive numbers

rather than negatives. But you don't

think anyone has put the scenario

forward?

Has any other country

indicated they would be interested

in removing tariffs and nontariff

barriers to the extent you'd like to

see?

We have the model what the

government is aiming to achieve. You

can have a separate argument about

whether this scenario is likely to

be accepted by the rest of the

European Union or world, but the

problem with the Treasury analysis

is that it models three scenarios,

none of which are government policy

and particular the one that features

on the bus is the one thing that the

government has ruled out. So there

has to be a range of scenarios

rather than prejudging before the

negotiations have started?

What do

you say to that?

It interesting

they've come up with a positive

figure in the medium to long term.

What is the medium to long term?

2030, that is the period you are

looking at. But it could take longer

for any positives to come through.

The interesting thing is they are

not saying much about the

short-term, which is likely to be

disruptive for those who put it

together.

together. That will be difficult.

Any trade agreement we have with

anyone else is unlikely to cover

services and quite a lot of

countries that would like to talk to

us about this, like India, would

like and return to be to be able to

come and work here and that is

something the UK is not going to

allow.

Do you sign up broadly to the

Treasury analysis that they used to

say that growth would grow less

quickly in the future?

What I have

signed up to is that if we move with

restraint to our major trading

partner because 45% of our services

of business to them, if you make

that less frictionless and you

reduce the ability to sell to those

countries the way we did before it

will increase costs and reduce

growth, and that in itself is a good

starting point. Anything you do to

reduce the impact you may have,

anything that allows you to stay as

close as you are to where you are at

present will, of course mean, you

are not doing as badly as you did

otherwise.

Do you agree you are

talking about the medium to long

term, and if we are talking about 15

years of slower growth or a smaller

economy that that is something that

is going to impact negatively on the

British public?

As far as the

short-term the Treasury made a

report two years ago that suggested

a vote to leave would prompt an

immediate recession so prompt --

predicting on short-term is pretty

good.

What is it the short-term this

time?

It depends on a couple of

things, such as transitional

arrangements and what sort of

adjustment mechanisms are put in

place. To protect agriculture, if we

remove those subsidies or

manufacturing sectors. And looking

at the longer term we can expect a

big positive.

What about the cost to

consumers Brexit, there has always

been the two different positions

with Jacob Rees Mogg saying if we do

not have a clean or pragmatic

Brexit, the cost of -- for consumers

will go up.

One of the benefits of

being in this huge regional

free-trade area is that prices are

kept low and now we have inflation

reappearing because of overall we

had a period of low inflation we

have no tariffs and trade barriers

are practically nonexistent which

means there are no costs to industry

and the benefit is that it is forced

firms to take advantage of economies

of scale to take advantage of the

fact that you can move things easily

from one country to another and take

advantage of the open skies and

airline costs coming down. The

consumer has been the main

beneficiary of being there. On the

other side, and that was the point

you are making...

The common

external tariff has meant in the

mind of Jacob Rees Mogg that closing

and some food is more expensive.

It

is absolutely true there are tariffs

against various countries for those

products that keep some price is

high but that is compensated by the

low prices we pay for other things

and there is no expectation we will

be reducing those tariffs to zero or

considerably good as that would

eliminate our agriculture sector and

eliminate the manufacturing sector,

so the consumer would suffer because

of lower growth and higher

unemployment.

Do you accept the

compensation outweighs the model

that has been outlined by Jacob Rees

Mogg or do you agree with him

completely?

On this matter I am with

Jacob. The key point is that the

things being modelled are in the

hands of the government so when you

get a big negative it's because you

assume in the absence of a deal the

British government would impose

tariffs on imports from the European

Union. In practice it could maintain

a level playing field under the

rules of the World Trade

Organisation by lowering tariffs on

trade, which would be a clear policy

-- positive. The winners outweigh

the losers and it's possible to

compensate the losers and be better

off.

Let's have a look at the idea

of compensation. If we go back to

the Treasury analysis, for a

free-trade deal with America to make

up for lost trade with the EU, those

civil service estimates and

economists will not just be wrong,

they will have to be wrong by a

factor of 40. For the estimated 0.2%

growth from the US trade deal to

make up for the lost 8% in trade

from the EU.

Do you accept that?

Both those numbers fail the

common-sense test. Exports to the EU

are only 12% of GDP and somehow the

hit would be 8% even with a small

increase...

But we are talking about

wrong by a factor of 40. Due

accepted to large measure to be

wrong by?

If you look at the past

record of forecasting by the

Treasury, it's possible to get that

wrong.

Treasury forecasting has not

got a good track record and it is

true that economic Armageddon was

predicted in the immediate aftermath

of that referendum vote and it has

not been realised.

Firstly, Treasury

forecasting are exactly not been

bad. Many times they've been

considerably better than the

independent forecasters and we have

not left the EU yet, Brexit has not

happened and there was a huge

increase of liquidity into the

system by the Bank of England and

low interest rates and special help

for loans and enterprises for

consumers. They've all benefited

from that and that is white there is

the fall in the pound. What is going

on right now is where is the rest of

the world is growing fast, we are

lowing -- growing at the lowest rate

of the G-7.

You claim that border

costs would be zero. Is there any

border in the cost -- in the world

where the costs zero except the

borders between the countries of

single market?

That is a modelling

assumption.

Belied the Treasury one.

It is an assumption. It is more

reasonable than the Treasury

assumption because over time border

costs are falling through

technological progress and its

increasingly easy to move goods

across borders without having to

face large costs and we see that not

just in the UK, but worldwide. In

contrast the Treasury forecast a big

increase in border costs and a

knock-on on the amount of trade we

do. As it happens, if you add a

small back into the modelling for

border costs you would still produce

higher costs, but I think our

analysis is more accurate than the

Treasury's.

In terms of the effect

on voters, the economy was not the

main issue for many people who voted

to leave. These discussions,,

important as they are, will they

have an impact, including the amount

of money being printed on this bus

saying it will cost 2000 million,

actually affect what people think?

I

doubt they will in the short-term.

The problem with the arguments made

by the Treasury at the time of the

referendum campaign was that people

did not believe the numbers. I sat

in on a focus group, £4300 a year to

be worse off than they did not

believe it and did not understand

how it related to their real life.

Unlike 350 million going to the NHS.

That seems simpler because we know

we make a direct financial

contribution. I think people will be

sceptical about the economist

forecast and the fact we didn't drop

into recession of the voted to leave

will emphasise the general voter

suspicions about whether they can

trust the numbers, which seems to be

spuriously precise always.

One of

the problems is that neither side,

certainly on the extremes, seems to

be keen to give away in any sense to

the other argument. Is there really

a view that there will be no

economic downside to Brexit?

I've

not encountered anyone, privately or

publicly, who has said that, in the

short term. The Brexit argument, the

pro-Brexit argument is the first of

all the forecasts have been called

into question by the lack of

severity of the impact of the result

because we thought it would be much

worse than it has been and Britain

has fared fairly well. The second

argument is that if you leave the EU

and positively embrace global trade,

and this leave you to sit on the

margins of Europe and begged to be

allowed back in, that won't do much

for growth but if you positively

leave and trade more with East Asia,

America, that is actually going to

create a growth which can make up

for the loss with Europe. The other

thing mentioned is technological

change and why it is difficult to

make medium and long-term forecast

is you cannot predict things like

the Internet or artificial

intelligence which will dramatically

change the kinds of markets we

operate in in ten or 20 years.

We

have to end it there, but thank you

very much.

Now, deep divisions

in the Labour Party.

A national debate about

Britain's place in Europe.

Sounds familiar?

Well, they are the same issues that

shaped the political career of a big

figure of a previous political era,

Roy Jenkins.

And he's the man Liberal Democrat

Leader, Vince Cable,

has chosen as his political Hero.

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

Vince Cable, who is

your political hero?

Well I've chosen Roy Jenkins,

who was one of the great figures

in the Liberal and Social Democratic

tradition in British politics.

A great reforming Home Secretary.

A much-admired Chancellor,

a great European.

And somebody whose values and life,

in many ways, I have followed.

Roy Jenkins was born

in 1920 in the mining

valleys of South Wales.

A grammar school boy

who went on to Oxford,

he was immersed in politics

from an early age, following in his

father's footsteps and becoming

a Labour MP in 1948.

He was a hugely reforming

Home Secretary of the 1960s

at a point when you were a young

man, a student, just

beginning your working life.

What did that mean to you?

This was the era of Mary Whitehouse

who had this attempt to restore

old-fashioned values.

It was the dirtiest programme that

I have seen for a very long time.

There was this enormous mood,

particularly amongst young people,

to sweep away all the rather

old-fashioned values that seemed

to exist at that time.

There was censorship

on books and the theatre,

divorce laws, abortion laws,

rules governing homosexuality.

They all seemed rooted

in a bygone era.

And he, more than anybody else,

lifted the barriers.

It changed the face of the country.

It modernised it in a way

that we would now regard

as perfectly normal today.

Always of the centre,

his experiences as an intelligence

officer during World War II made him

a passionate European.

He would defy his party and campaign

for membership in 1975.

Leaving UK politics to become

president of the European

Commission two years later.

People of his generation were people

who'd fought in the war,

who saw the rebuilding of Europe

as something that was a political

objective to end conflict in Europe,

I think he would be a very,

very sad, heartbroken man if he saw

what had happened today.

One of the things that comes

across when you're reading

about him, looking at his speeches,

is sort of how urbane he was.

Is that something

that appealed to you?

Well, no, our lifestyle

is a little bit different.

I'm a little bit more

puritanical, more frugal.

He liked the big long lunch,

which became rather celebrated,

a great lover of high-class wines.

I've never really got into that.

He didn't come across

as particularly tribal.

And I think perhaps

that is the way people might

think about you as well.

Yes, and I did respect that in him.

He had good relationships right

across the spectrum.

I think those were the days when MPs

used to write each other private

letters of congratulation

and condolence and there was a kind

of civilised environment.

But returning from Europe,

those relationships could not

prevent the growing alienation

he felt as the Labour Party

swung to the left.

In 1981, he and others

from the right of the party,

known as the Gang of four,

would leave to set up the SDP.

We offer, not only a new party,

although it is that,

but a new approach to politics.

A certain Vince Cable

was amongst the converts.

I'm just coming around

the area meeting everybody.

They would later merge

with the Liberals.

What was most difficult I think

for him and also for any of us

was the break with many of the other

so-called moderates

in the Labour Party.

One of his closest associates

was Anthony Crossland,

who had actually been his lover

when they were at

university together.

And Roy Hattersley and

people of that kind.

He's still reviled by some

people in the Labour Party

for splitting away with the SDP.

Did he make mistakes?

Well, historians will argue

for many, many years as to

whether the breakaway was justified.

I think actually the Labour Party

modernisation which started under

Neil Kinnock, through John Smith

to Tony Blair, probably wouldn't

have happened if it hadn't been

for the SDP breakaway and I think

British politics is much the better

for having had the Lib Dems,

of which he was one of the parents.

Of course you would say that.

In fact, in his later years,

sitting as a life peer,

he would advise Tony Blair

as the new Labour project took form.

As Chancellor of Oxford

he would continue to write

the acclaimed biographies

which he produced

throughout his life.

Married to wife Jennifer

for nearly 58 years,

he died in 2003 at the age of 82.

If you were going to pay tribute

to Roy Jenkins, what would you say?

I think he was one

of the great statesman

of the post-war era in Britain.

You can read his

legacy in his books.

I think he fell short of what he

ultimately wanted to achieve.

He never became Prime Minister.

His vision of the SDP

Liberal Alliance never lead

to Government as he'd hoped.

But he was a genuinely great figure

in post-war British politics.

Vince Cable talking about his

political hero, Roy Jenkins there.

And you can see the other films

in our Political Hero

series on our website.

Do you agree he was one of the great

statesmen of British politics even

though he didn't become Prime

Minister?

Yes, she was and is

amended for those social reforms he

helped to champion. It's fascinating

to look at that and think about

someone really agonising about

whether they should remain in their

party, but their party before their

country, which they could see to be

deeply important, and I think there

are MPs in both parties actually who

fear that they may have to make that

decision at some point over the next

couple of years. Perhaps we can all

muddle through it but it's

fascinating to remember what goes

around comes around.

In that sense,

it is amazing to look back at the

error of Roy Jenkins on the fact

Europe was at the heart of

everything that he believed in.

That's what led him to break away

and help set up the SDP. Lessons

learned for today?

In that case,

they won but then society was rather

different, more deferential and when

the establishment backed staying in

the EEC, which was the issue, the

public listened. People said reddish

liberalism died in the 1920s but it

didn't, and Roy Jenkins is probably

the most significant Labour Liberal

of the 20th century and his reforms

in the 60s changed society. In the

1980s the experiment with the SDP

didn't quite transform politics but

many Labour Party people would say

cut Margaret Thatcher in power. Here

is proof that where there is why,

there was a way.

How cruel.

Same-sex marriage has been

a legal reality in England,

Wales and Scotland since 2014.

And gay marriage is already a right

in the Isle of Man and is legal

or being legalised in Channel

Islands.

But there is one part of the UK

where you still cannot marry

a same-sex partner -

Northern Ireland.

It also means that couples who wed

in Great Britain will not

have their marriage recognised

in Northern Ireland.

Any legislation to enable same-sex

marriage is a matter

for the Assembly at Stormont

where the Democratic Unionist

Party have blocked it.

But with the collapse

of talks to get the devolved

administration up and running,

there are now calls

for Westminster to legislate.

In a written reply to the Labour MP,

Conor McGinn, Northern Ireland

Secretary Karen Bradley said

the issue, "Should be addressed

in the NI Assembly, but the power

of the Westminster Parliament

to legislate remains unaffected.

If this issue were to be

raised in Westminster,

the Government's policy is to allow

a free vote on matters of conscience

such as equal marriage."

And her shadow, Labour's

Owen Smith stated -

"In the absence of a Stormont Bill,

would she consider legislating

similarly to extend equal marriage

rights to Northern Ireland?

We believe that she should,

and we will support

her if she does so."

Conor McGinn is in our self and

newsroom and joins us now. You've

had confirmation from the Northern

Ireland Secretary that Westminster

could legislate and the Tories

wouldn't win the vote. Tell their

MPs what to do, but that doesn't

mean same-sex marriage Northern

Ireland will happen any time soon,

does it?

And taking forward a bill

at the end of March which can

decisively test the mood of the

House of Commons if anyone objects

to extending equal marriage Northern

Ireland, they can oppose it and put

it to a vote. I'm very confident we

would win any vote and it's then for

the Government to legislate but let

me be very clear, my preference

would be for a fully functioning

power-sharing executive and assembly

to do this but people can't wait for

their basic rights any longer than

that's why I've taken the decision,

along with my colleagues in the

Labour Party and others, to put this

to Westminster.

What do you think

about that? If there isn't a

power-sharing devolved

administration functioning people

shouldn't be forced to wait to find

out if they can practice same-sex

marriage?

There is a contradiction

in argument for that but of course

in the assembly there is something

called a petition of concern, a

device created to ensure one idea,

even if supported by the majority of

the assembly can't be imposed upon

another community. Last time was a

vote on same-sex marriage the

assembly voted to introduce it but

because of this petition concern,

because it wasn't a supermajority,

it couldn't be imposed and if you

look the breakdown of the voting,

essentially the Unionist community,

the elected representatives, are

opposed to this. So imagine what it

could do to the Northern Ireland

settlement if in Westminster someone

impose a something which is of

enormous sectarian controversy upon

Northern Ireland.

Conor McGinn, you

are shaking your head.

That is not

about people being Unionist, being

gay, married, but people being

equal. If my constituents at the

same sex and love their partner can

get married in Saint Helens, if they

can in Cardiff and Edinburgh and

Dublin, they should be able to do so

in Belfast as well.

That there are

other issues to consider.

One could

say the teaching of the Irish line

which in Northern Ireland is an

equality issue and why shouldn't it

be taught in state schools but you

wouldn't want Westminster imposing

that. It's very obvious that would

undermine the settlement in Northern

Ireland. Why therefore do it with

same-sex marriage? The whole thing

was stitched together in order to

prevent exactly this kind of thing

and I fear that there bill, I

understand that attention behind it,

it could be a provocative act --

intention.

I think there's a

majority for equal marriage in the

Northern Ireland assembly. Every

opinion poll taken has shown the

public is in favour of equal

marriage and I think this is the

right thing to do. The people of

Northern Ireland should not be

discriminated against. It's 50 years

on from the Northern Ireland Civil

Rights Association taking to the

streets to demand equal rights and

we talked about Roy Jenkins earlier

in this programme, it's 50th on from

homosexuality being to come alive,

if not all right for people in

Northern Ireland, gay people, to be

discriminate against.

What do you

say about the concern raised by Tim

Stanley it could antagonise

sectarian relations if the polls

suggested the Unionist community

wasn't as in favour of same-sex

marriage in Northern Ireland and it

would be imposed upon them from

Westminster?

I don't think that's

wholly accurate but the DUP can't

have it both ways. They've called

for direct rule, they want Northern

Ireland to remain part of the United

Kingdom for that they believe

Westminster has an important role to

play and so they therefore can't

fully complain if Westminster acts

decisively on this issue of equal

marriage and they have the

opportunity to oppose it when my

bill comes forward at the end of

March. Political House of Commons

and at the House of Commons decided

in favour like the Northern Ireland

assembly has already decided, the

Government has a duty to act and

they should bring forward

legislation.

Right, forgave me for

being cynical, Conor McGinn, but

this is not just about the principle

about politics.

about politics. The Prime Minister

is dependent on the DUP for her

Parliamentary majority and that

party is opposed to same-sex

marriage, so obviously this could

make it very difficult for the

relationship between the Government

and the DUP.

That's a matter for

Theresa May. The concern is that

whether it in terms of negotiations

at Stormont around the overall

settlement in future of Northern

Ireland and re-establishing the

institutions or equal marriage, she

and her Government are compromised

either relationship with the DUP and

their reliance on them. But the

Secretary of State for Northern

Ireland has made clear that will be

a free vote and I'm very confident

there will be an overwhelming

majority in the House of Commons

that support equal marriage, so in

that sense, it's up to every MP to

make his or her own mind up about

whether to support this or not.

What

is your opinion on the idea that

being imposed on Northern Ireland

because there's not a devolved

December that the moment?

It

underlines the fact that a year-long

suspension in the assembly is

incredibly problematic in the way

the Government has failed to get a

grip on it. It's alarming. Although

I share some of his concerns about

unravelling a very delicate mess, I

do think it's an anomaly and it's

about rights and about people mag

boss lives and we saw one the

legislation changed in the rest of

the UK, what a huge difference it

made to couples had been living

together for many years and could

formalise their relationships and

we're talking about people's

ablation ships and lives who could

formalise their relationships --

relationships and lives. It's a

right issue.

How problematic would

be for Theresa May in her

relationship with the DUP?

It's

embarrassing, isn't it? She relies

on their votes in the Commons, and

some of the Liberals in her own

party, Ruth Davidson made a fuss

when the deal was struck about the

fact this is a party who has some

rather old-fashioned views, let's

say, as we would see it, so it would

be embarrassing for Theresa May and

she is already in a position where

it's hard for her to appear as

neutral broker in those talks in

Northern Ireland, even with issues

like this blowing up.

Conor McGinn,

thank you very much.

And we did ask to speak

to a minister from the Northern

Ireland Office but no

one was available.

The Democratic Unionist Party

also turned down our

request for an interview.

Oh well, we are Billy no mates.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was which film did

Andrea Leadsom say post-Brexit

Britain would be more like

than Mad Max?

Was it: A) 28 Days Later?

B) Love Actually?

C) Four Weddings and a Funeral?

Or D) The Wicker Man?

So, Tim and Heather,

what's the correct answer?

And the answer was Love Actually.

I have to say it's a film which

makes me feeling credibly nauseous.

It is the correct answer. We won't

show it now because we run out of

time.

That's all for today.

Thanks to my guests.

Bye bye.