0:00:33 > 0:00:37Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:37 > 0:00:40A few months ago they were trading insults but Kim Jong-Un
0:00:40 > 0:00:43and Donald Trump could be sitting across a table
0:00:43 > 0:00:45from each other within weeks.
0:00:45 > 0:00:50Has a nuclear showdown on the Korean Peninsula been averted?
0:00:50 > 0:00:53Donald Trump slaps tariffs on imported steel and aluminium.
0:00:53 > 0:00:57Has he kicked off an international trade war?
0:00:57 > 0:01:00MPs are at the centre of allegations of bullying
0:01:00 > 0:01:01in the Palace of Westminster.
0:01:01 > 0:01:04Does there need to be an independent process in place
0:01:04 > 0:01:11to protect Commons staff?
0:01:13 > 0:01:16When the British people voted last June, they did not vote to become
0:01:16 > 0:01:22poorer.Nobody voted to be poorer. Nobody voted to be poorer.
0:01:22 > 0:01:24It's an often repeated mantra from remainers,
0:01:24 > 0:01:26but were some Leave voters prepared to take a financial
0:01:26 > 0:01:31hit to deliver Brexit?
0:01:31 > 0:01:33All that coming up in the next 60 minutes and joining me
0:01:33 > 0:01:37for the duration are Iain Martin of the Times and the political
0:01:37 > 0:01:39commentator, Rachel Shabi.
0:01:39 > 0:01:41Welcome to both of you.
0:01:41 > 0:01:45First today, it's been announced in the last hour that 100 military
0:01:45 > 0:01:47personnel are to be deployed in Salisbury to assist
0:01:47 > 0:01:51in the police investigation into the poisoning of ex-Russian spy
0:01:51 > 0:01:54Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
0:01:54 > 0:01:57The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, has visited the scene this morning.
0:01:57 > 0:01:59Here's what she had to say.
0:01:59 > 0:02:02At the moment, our priority is going to be the incident,
0:02:02 > 0:02:04which is why I'm here in Salisbury today.
0:02:04 > 0:02:06Making sure that everybody's protected around here,
0:02:06 > 0:02:09around the incident.
0:02:09 > 0:02:12Making sure the emergency services have had the support that they need
0:02:12 > 0:02:15and will continue to get it - ongoing - and it's been great
0:02:15 > 0:02:17to hear that is the case.
0:02:17 > 0:02:19In terms of further options, that will have to wait
0:02:19 > 0:02:21until we're absolutely clear what the consequences could be
0:02:21 > 0:02:29and what the actual source of this nerve agent has been.
0:02:30 > 0:02:38Let's talk to our Home Affairs correspondent, Daniel Sandford.
0:02:38 > 0:02:43-- lets talk to Jonathan Beale. Why have the military been called in?
0:02:43 > 0:02:48180 military personnel from all three services who have specialist
0:02:48 > 0:02:51expertise in chemical warfare and training, and who know how to
0:02:51 > 0:02:55decontaminate. One of the things they will be doing along with the 12
0:02:55 > 0:03:00vehicles involved will be to remove ambulances that were used to ferry
0:03:00 > 0:03:07those injured into hospital. Possibly to take them a where to be
0:03:07 > 0:03:12decontaminated but they will remove other object as well. These are
0:03:12 > 0:03:17people who have regular training in chemical and biological warfare,
0:03:17 > 0:03:21including 40 commando, who recently completed a three-week exercise
0:03:21 > 0:03:26called toxic dagger, where they were practising these kind of scenarios.
0:03:26 > 0:03:31Also 27 Squadron from the RAF Regiment. You would say that perhaps
0:03:31 > 0:03:35this expertise still exists in the military, it is not as dense and
0:03:35 > 0:03:39full as it was during the height of the Cold War but they still have
0:03:39 > 0:03:43this expertise and clearly there can help the police in this
0:03:43 > 0:03:49investigation and secure sites. The message from the Ministry of Defence
0:03:49 > 0:03:52and ministers is the public should not be alarmed, the threat level has
0:03:52 > 0:03:57not changed but you will see people in military uniform, potentially
0:03:57 > 0:03:59wearing gas masks and chemical warfare equipment at the seams
0:03:59 > 0:04:03around Salisbury.You say the message is don't be alarmed, but
0:04:03 > 0:04:08they will not be surprised that if the public are somewhat put at an
0:04:08 > 0:04:14ease by the visibility -- puts at our knees by the military personnel,
0:04:14 > 0:04:19how long do you think they will be in Salisbury?I don't think we know,
0:04:19 > 0:04:23people should be expecting to seemed people in military uniform arriving
0:04:23 > 0:04:27at Salisbury today. The public should not be alarmed because the
0:04:27 > 0:04:30threat level, there is no more danger to the public than there was
0:04:30 > 0:04:38yesterday. But they will have to get used to seeing this military
0:04:38 > 0:04:41personnel who have this expertise, it might be reassuring to people to
0:04:41 > 0:04:47know that people still have this expertise in the military and they
0:04:47 > 0:04:49are trained to deal with it.
0:04:49 > 0:04:53That's the response in terms of the investigation, the political
0:04:53 > 0:04:58response as it looks as if the finger of suspicion remains firmly
0:04:58 > 0:05:02towards Russia and the Russian state despite their denials, in reality,
0:05:02 > 0:05:06what can be done, what is this whole spectrum response that we have heard
0:05:06 > 0:05:12in the last 24-hour is?First of all, it's absolutely right to have
0:05:12 > 0:05:15the investigation ahead of the political response because we are
0:05:15 > 0:05:19still not 100% sure. It would be good to have clarity. In terms of
0:05:19 > 0:05:25what the response could be, it is difficult to tell because of course
0:05:25 > 0:05:32this is not the only thing that Russia is doing. On the
0:05:32 > 0:05:39international scale there would be problems with his support for Assad
0:05:39 > 0:05:45in Syria, the potential that he meddled in elections in the UK and
0:05:45 > 0:05:48the US. Without international cooperation and caught naked
0:05:48 > 0:05:52response, I'm not sure there's an awful lot that the UK can do -- and
0:05:52 > 0:05:53a quarter naked response, I'm
0:05:53 > 0:05:58awful lot that the UK can do.
0:06:03 > 0:06:09I think there is quite a bit that can be done and government ministers
0:06:09 > 0:06:14have been quite vocal in cracking down on certain Russian interests in
0:06:14 > 0:06:20London and the UK. The troubling thing is that we might never really
0:06:20 > 0:06:25properly know the answer, because there is a grey area. There is the
0:06:25 > 0:06:30Russian state, which totally denies any involvement, but then there is
0:06:30 > 0:06:35Russian organised crime, which has links to the FSB and formerly KGB.
0:06:35 > 0:06:41What an order given, and someone acted -- was an order given and
0:06:41 > 0:06:43someone acted on the basis that they would rid them of this troublesome
0:06:43 > 0:06:50person or was there school setting? It suggests if there was no agent
0:06:50 > 0:06:56used, there was agents involved.You cannot really make it easily in your
0:06:56 > 0:07:01garden shed. In terms of this show of strength, some ministers and
0:07:01 > 0:07:06former ministers have said that Russia only understands a show of
0:07:06 > 0:07:11strength so Britain have to respond by cutting off diplomatic ties,
0:07:11 > 0:07:15freezing assets of Russians here or in Moscow. But will that actually
0:07:15 > 0:07:22harm or put enough pressure on Vladimir Putin to change his policy
0:07:22 > 0:07:26towards the West?No, I'm not saying those things shouldn't happen.
0:07:26 > 0:07:30Recalling ambassadors and freezing assets are things that you would
0:07:30 > 0:07:33expect to see happen in this sort of situation but I think there's a
0:07:33 > 0:07:37wider question of how you do deal with someone who is an authoritarian
0:07:37 > 0:07:43like Putin, and the malign international actor. I come back to
0:07:43 > 0:07:48this point of, without having a firm international response, a
0:07:48 > 0:07:53coordinated response, I'm not sure what a single country can do.That's
0:07:53 > 0:07:58very difficult because the European Union always runs a mile from this
0:07:58 > 0:08:02stuff for all these reasons, because of tensions with Germany and Germany
0:08:02 > 0:08:06has a particular approach in terms of handling Russia. The US is in a
0:08:06 > 0:08:10strange situation because of the current president. And also Britain
0:08:10 > 0:08:18is kind of isolated here with its strong Russian connections,
0:08:18 > 0:08:21particularly in wealthy London. It seems to be the case that Russian
0:08:21 > 0:08:27actors are prepared to kill on British soil, not prepared to kill
0:08:27 > 0:08:30on American soil, prepared to potentially interfere in American...
0:08:30 > 0:08:37It does look as though Britain is a particular target.Yes, because over
0:08:37 > 0:08:42the last 20 years, UK has been a magnet for Russian wealth and there
0:08:42 > 0:08:46has been two-way traffic between the countries.Let's leave it there.
0:08:46 > 0:08:49Now it's time for our daily quiz, and remember our quiz
0:08:49 > 0:08:51is just a bit of fun, there are no prizes.
0:08:51 > 0:08:53Theresa May was asked in an interview yesterday,
0:08:53 > 0:08:56to mark International Women's Day, what her ideal night with her
0:08:56 > 0:08:57girlfriends would look like.
0:08:57 > 0:08:59Was it...
0:09:02 > 0:09:09Dinner at wine at home, karaoke and cocktails, a boxed set binge or none
0:09:09 > 0:09:10of the above?
0:09:10 > 0:09:12At the end of the show Rachel and Iain will,
0:09:12 > 0:09:14we hope, give us the correct answer.
0:09:14 > 0:09:17Now, female staff in the House of Commons have been the subject
0:09:17 > 0:09:19of bullying at the hands of some MPs.
0:09:19 > 0:09:21A BBC Newsnight investigation has seen files and spoken
0:09:21 > 0:09:24to witnesses who say staff known as Commons clerks
0:09:24 > 0:09:25have been mistreated.
0:09:25 > 0:09:26Newsnight has spoken to witnesses who believe
0:09:26 > 0:09:29that a single member, Paul Farrelly, the Labour MP
0:09:29 > 0:09:30for Newcastle-under-Lyme, made her continued employment
0:09:30 > 0:09:34at the House of Commons impossible - a consequence, they say, of years
0:09:34 > 0:09:35of continued, personal criticism.
0:09:35 > 0:09:36Newsnight's Chris Cook asked the witness to
0:09:36 > 0:09:38describe the treatment.
0:09:38 > 0:09:43Aggressive, dismissive, rude.
0:09:43 > 0:09:49And, ultimately, bullying.
0:09:49 > 0:09:54And how much of an effect did it have on her?
0:09:54 > 0:09:55It ground her down.
0:09:55 > 0:09:58It basically reached crisis point and she could no longer do her job.
0:09:58 > 0:10:00He had undermined her and bullied her so much,
0:10:00 > 0:10:02so regularly, so badly, that she was just left entirely
0:10:02 > 0:10:03exhausted and incredibly distressed.
0:10:03 > 0:10:11And Newsnight's Chris Cook joins me now.
0:10:19 > 0:10:22What has been a response from Paul Farrelly? We haven't actually heard
0:10:22 > 0:10:31from him today. But his case is something of a totem for women
0:10:31 > 0:10:34working at the house today because of what happened after that Clark,
0:10:34 > 0:10:41who had to lose her job, complaint. The two were the odd things that
0:10:41 > 0:10:47have stuck in the mind, she raises a complaint, it triggers an internal
0:10:47 > 0:10:52inquiry run by another member of the House staff, and an HR process which
0:10:52 > 0:10:58was only eight months old at that point. When she raised her complaint
0:10:58 > 0:11:01other women came forward, and we had eight years of test dummy about Mr
0:11:01 > 0:11:08Farrelly's behaviour. Because the HR policy was only eight months old,
0:11:08 > 0:11:13they could only look at the eight months, they thought. They feel that
0:11:13 > 0:11:18the game has not been played fairly. The second thing that has happened,
0:11:18 > 0:11:22they go into this inquiry, of the House staff goes to the allegations
0:11:22 > 0:11:30that she makes, not the other women, only her. He upholds complaint on
0:11:30 > 0:11:37some of her allegations and decided it was bullying and the
0:11:37 > 0:11:40it was bullying and the contact was offensive and there was no doubt
0:11:40 > 0:11:43about her competence. That document is taken to the House of Commons
0:11:43 > 0:11:47commission which is a committee of MPs, and they decide really not to
0:11:47 > 0:11:51do anything. In fact, they suspend the policy, they don't take action
0:11:51 > 0:11:57against Mr Farrelly, they say that the legal basis of the policy was
0:11:57 > 0:12:00not down so they could not take action. They also say that what
0:12:00 > 0:12:05happened, any system that relies on clerks investigating MPs is not fair
0:12:05 > 0:12:10and robust.You spoke to Paul Farrelly before the piece went out,
0:12:10 > 0:12:14what did he say?He denies any bullying, he says in 2012
0:12:14 > 0:12:21allegations were made about me having bullied a clerk during the
0:12:21 > 0:12:28phone hacking inquiry, they were not upheld but I apologised. The policy
0:12:28 > 0:12:34was considered to be so unfair to those about whom were complaint that
0:12:34 > 0:12:38it was immediately withdrawn and replaced by another policy. The case
0:12:38 > 0:12:42is not really about Paul Farrelly, this is all about the House of
0:12:42 > 0:12:47Commons receiving a campaign and clerks are taking the lesson -- a
0:12:47 > 0:12:54complaint and clerks are taking a lesson that the process cannot be
0:12:54 > 0:13:00forwarded.They think that the HR process protect MPs. What about the
0:13:00 > 0:13:09speaker, John Bercow?In May 2010, he got a new private secretary who
0:13:09 > 0:13:12only lasted for nine months when she was signed off sick. She had to be
0:13:12 > 0:13:18found in new job somewhere else in the House, they had to modify that
0:13:18 > 0:13:22subsequent job so she would not come into contact with the speaker. Her
0:13:22 > 0:13:31managers were told that she had posts a post right -- post-traumatic
0:13:31 > 0:13:35stress disorder. She got that job because she was regarded as a
0:13:35 > 0:13:39phenomenal talent, the kind of person you wanted in this enormously
0:13:39 > 0:13:42important role. And there is an enormous amount of sympathy for her
0:13:42 > 0:13:45and everyone knows what happened to her because they had to create these
0:13:45 > 0:13:51new systems around her in a subsequent job.He has contested the
0:13:51 > 0:13:55allegations as well?His spokesman says that he refutes the allegation
0:13:55 > 0:13:57that he behaved in such a manner eight years ago or any other time.
0:13:57 > 0:14:02Downing Street has also been speaking about this, the
0:14:02 > 0:14:10spokesperson described claims of staff bullying as concerning, and
0:14:10 > 0:14:13they say there is no place for bullying and harassment of any kind.
0:14:13 > 0:14:17They also say that John Bercow has said the allegations are being
0:14:17 > 0:14:21contested but the Prime Minister has full confidence in the speaker
0:14:21 > 0:14:24according to her spokesman. Are you surprised about these allegations?
0:14:24 > 0:14:29I'm not, really. The House of Commons or Parliament in general is
0:14:29 > 0:14:35a very strange place. It doesn't operate in a way that a conventional
0:14:35 > 0:14:39workplace operates, it's not a conventional organisation with a
0:14:39 > 0:14:44hierarchy. MPs, and I should add that I think most people would
0:14:44 > 0:14:48accept that most MPs do not behave in this fashion, but a small
0:14:48 > 0:14:56minority do, and MPs really kind of run the place. And in a group of 650
0:14:56 > 0:15:03people, you end up with this small minority who really wants to be
0:15:03 > 0:15:09treated almost as little gods. And I think the way in which the system is
0:15:09 > 0:15:16constructed in means that staff then don't necessarily have adequate
0:15:16 > 0:15:19protection, there is confusion about who investigates what. It's a legacy
0:15:19 > 0:15:24of a place which has thousands of people working in it, but it's not
0:15:24 > 0:15:28constructed with the chief executive. It cannot be because its
0:15:28 > 0:15:32democratic institution. There's going to have to be after this
0:15:32 > 0:15:38investigation, have to be some form of change.
0:15:39 > 0:15:42Chris Cook's report reveals it is difficult to know where to go to
0:15:42 > 0:15:45complain and people within the building are investigating each
0:15:45 > 0:15:48other to a certain extent. Do you think there needs to be an
0:15:48 > 0:15:52independent process now, a different body coming in to investigate
0:15:52 > 0:15:56complaints?I do, I do. What I think was terrific about the Newsnight
0:15:56 > 0:16:00report is it took the time to explain the situation about how this
0:16:00 > 0:16:05occurs. When we talk about a systemic culture of bullying and
0:16:05 > 0:16:10harassment, when we talk about a male workplace culture that promotes
0:16:10 > 0:16:13or facilitate bullying and harassment, the Newsnight report
0:16:13 > 0:16:18took the time to show this is what it looks like, this is how it
0:16:18 > 0:16:21manifests, this is what it means. I think unless we take the time to
0:16:21 > 0:16:25look at it, we're not going to be able to find out ways of tackling
0:16:25 > 0:16:30it.I think the danger is and we saw this during the expenses crisis,
0:16:30 > 0:16:37that the real risks in bringing in and outside, independent body,
0:16:37 > 0:16:41because of the strange constitutional position of
0:16:41 > 0:16:44Parliament, and Parliament is sovereign, so if you place an
0:16:44 > 0:16:48independent body above Parliament, you do interesting, strange things
0:16:48 > 0:16:52to the Constitution. What I would like to see happen is the vast
0:16:52 > 0:16:57majority of MPs who don't behave in this fashion really take this as a
0:16:57 > 0:17:01wake-up call, take charge of the process and institute changes.
0:17:01 > 0:17:03Wright, thank you Chris Cook for coming in.
0:17:03 > 0:17:05Now, last week President Trump unveiled plans to raise
0:17:05 > 0:17:08tariffs on foreign imports of steel and aluminium.
0:17:08 > 0:17:10"If you don't have steel, you don't have a country!,"
0:17:10 > 0:17:12you might recall him tweeting.
0:17:12 > 0:17:13Yesterday, surrounded by steel workers, he made
0:17:13 > 0:17:20good on that promise, and signed the measures into law,
0:17:20 > 0:17:23claiming that the industry had been "ravaged" by aggressive foreign
0:17:23 > 0:17:25trade practices that were, he said, "an assault" on the United States.
0:17:25 > 0:17:28They are expected to take effect in 15 days' time.
0:17:28 > 0:17:30Let's hear what he had to say.
0:17:30 > 0:17:37Today, I'm defending America's national security by placing
0:17:37 > 0:17:41tariffs on foreign imports of steel and aluminium.
0:17:41 > 0:17:47We will have a 25% tariff on foreign steel, 10% tariff
0:17:47 > 0:17:50on foreign aluminium, when the product comes
0:17:50 > 0:17:54across our borders.
0:17:54 > 0:17:59It's a process called dumping.
0:17:59 > 0:18:01And they dumped more than at any time, on any nation,
0:18:01 > 0:18:05anywhere in the world.
0:18:05 > 0:18:08And it drove our plants out of business, it drove our
0:18:08 > 0:18:11factories out of business.
0:18:11 > 0:18:15And we want a lot of steel coming into our country,
0:18:15 > 0:18:19but we want it to be fair and we want our workers to be
0:18:19 > 0:18:23protected and we want, frankly, our companies to be protected.
0:18:23 > 0:18:26By contrast, we will not place any new tax
0:18:26 > 0:18:33on a product made in the USA.
0:18:33 > 0:18:36So there's no tax if a product is made in the USA.
0:18:36 > 0:18:37You don't want to pay tax?
0:18:37 > 0:18:39Bring your plant to the USA, there's no tax.
0:18:39 > 0:18:40President Trump.
0:18:40 > 0:18:42The UK's International Trade Secretary Liam Fox appeared
0:18:42 > 0:18:43on Question Time last night.
0:18:43 > 0:18:46He said he would be travelling to the United States next week
0:18:46 > 0:18:50to meet his US counterpart.
0:18:50 > 0:18:53The way that the United States is going about this is wrong,
0:18:53 > 0:18:55because they're doing it under what's called a 232 investigation
0:18:55 > 0:18:57based on national security.
0:18:57 > 0:19:00And for the UK it's doubly absurd, because we are only responsible
0:19:00 > 0:19:05for 1% of America's steel imports.
0:19:05 > 0:19:07It's 5% of our tonnage, by steel, that we produce
0:19:07 > 0:19:10here, it's 15% by value.
0:19:10 > 0:19:13The reason there's a difference is that we tend to produce
0:19:13 > 0:19:15very high value steel, some of which can't be sourced
0:19:15 > 0:19:19in the United States and will simply push up the price of steel there.
0:19:19 > 0:19:23We also make steel for the American military programme.
0:19:23 > 0:19:26So it's doubly absurd that we should be then caught on an investigation
0:19:26 > 0:19:30on national security.
0:19:30 > 0:19:32That was Liam Fox.
0:19:32 > 0:19:34Joining me now is author and consultant, Ted Malloch,
0:19:34 > 0:19:36who is also a supporter of Donald Trump.
0:19:36 > 0:19:39Welcome to the programme. Do you think the president is making the
0:19:39 > 0:19:47right move?Yes, and it's been sometime in the. I call it a PPE
0:19:47 > 0:19:51move. It has to do with politics on one hand, we are in the mid-term
0:19:51 > 0:19:56elections. If you noticed who was behind the president when he makes
0:19:56 > 0:19:59this announcement, working-class steelworkers and aluminium workers
0:19:59 > 0:20:04from those rust belt states who need to vote in favour of the Republicans
0:20:04 > 0:20:10for them to stay in power during the next congressional election. The
0:20:10 > 0:20:13second thing is philosophical, promised to do that in his
0:20:13 > 0:20:18campaigns, is following through on a campaign pledge. And it is economic,
0:20:18 > 0:20:23there is an economic reason for doing this.What is that?China is
0:20:23 > 0:20:28dumping steel on international markets. About 2 billion tonnes of
0:20:28 > 0:20:32steel made, 800 million coming from China. They are dumping them and it
0:20:32 > 0:20:37is affecting global markets. So we are going to knock that down.Do you
0:20:37 > 0:20:41accept that, it's a good trade policy for the United States to
0:20:41 > 0:20:44pursue?I can understand the politics of it, I don't think the
0:20:44 > 0:20:48economic 's really make any sense. What troubles me about it, as
0:20:48 > 0:20:52someone who is pro-market, is pro-market people tend to look to
0:20:52 > 0:20:57the United States for a lead. Beginning a trade war in this
0:20:57 > 0:21:01fashion could have all sorts of unintended consequences, if others
0:21:01 > 0:21:06respond. Should just qualify one thing, which is we are talking as
0:21:06 > 0:21:11though we in Europe don't use tariffs, but of course the European
0:21:11 > 0:21:18Union has a 72%...?74.7.And Chinese steel. So the European Union
0:21:18 > 0:21:22has been playing this game as well. Having said that, I thought Trump
0:21:22 > 0:21:28with the tax cuts, I thought he was starting to get somewhere economic
0:21:28 > 0:21:32year and I think this could set back a lot of that progress.It is the
0:21:32 > 0:21:35beginning of a trade war, potentially. European Union vice
0:21:35 > 0:21:41president has had in the wake of Trump's decision the commission will
0:21:41 > 0:21:45continue with the rebalancing measures. Will that help the United
0:21:45 > 0:21:50States, a trade war?I don't think it will be a trade war, blown up to
0:21:50 > 0:21:54that proportion.It will they retaliate.There will be some
0:21:54 > 0:22:00tit-for-tat like on things like Jack Daniels, peanut butter and
0:22:00 > 0:22:03Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The real thing that is coming down the
0:22:03 > 0:22:07pipe and this is significant in Europe and the UK, and the president
0:22:07 > 0:22:12intimated this yesterday and has said it also in other speeches, is
0:22:12 > 0:22:16the potential for significant tariffs. In other words, narrowing
0:22:16 > 0:22:22tariffs on automobiles.What impact would that have? That is a much
0:22:22 > 0:22:27bigger deal in terms of the UK.A much bigger deal. The EU tariffs on
0:22:27 > 0:22:35US automobiles is 2%. The US, I mean is 10%, the US is 2%. If we were to
0:22:35 > 0:22:38just change that to the mirror image, it would dramatically affect
0:22:38 > 0:22:43the German automobile industry and also Jaguar Land Rover.Rachel, that
0:22:43 > 0:22:51would have a real impact here and on German car-makers. What can be done
0:22:51 > 0:22:54by the British government who are said to have a special relationship
0:22:54 > 0:23:00with the US?It is one more reason not to be so reliant on the US in
0:23:00 > 0:23:06our post-Brexit reality. One of the things I find objectionable about
0:23:06 > 0:23:10right wing authoritarian site Donald Trump is this misdiagnosis of what
0:23:10 > 0:23:14is ailing the economy. It is not globalisation per se that is a
0:23:14 > 0:23:19problem. We lived in a joined up world, that is the reality. It's a
0:23:19 > 0:23:22neoliberal economic policy that has ravaged peoples lives, destroyed
0:23:22 > 0:23:26communities, that has gutted out and hollowed out economies. It has
0:23:26 > 0:23:31nothing to do with tariffs, it's a political choice to run an economy
0:23:31 > 0:23:36in a particular way. We can reprogram it to run on a different
0:23:36 > 0:23:39way, it's just that this particular neoliberal system of running
0:23:39 > 0:23:45economic has chosen not to.What do you say to that?We have had
0:23:45 > 0:23:50elections in the United States and elected this president, is hardly an
0:23:50 > 0:23:53authoritarian he's just started a peace process and denuclearisation.
0:23:53 > 0:23:57We will talk about that in a moment. He's hardly an authoritarian. This
0:23:57 > 0:24:02was part of his campaign, to bring back manufacturing to American
0:24:02 > 0:24:07industries. This is a national security issue. Steel is rather
0:24:07 > 0:24:11important, aluminium also rather important. There this is nothing to
0:24:11 > 0:24:16do with authoritarianism.Isn't he failing political promises question
0:24:16 > 0:24:18what you could argue Jeremy Corbyn also wants to have an economic
0:24:18 > 0:24:24policy that is going to support local industries, would also like to
0:24:24 > 0:24:27actually support and subsidised steel industry here, if he became
0:24:27 > 0:24:32Prime Minister. In a way, these are just different ways of dealing with
0:24:32 > 0:24:36the same problem.No, because one is telling lies and making false
0:24:36 > 0:24:39promises. Let's look at how localisation, what it could look
0:24:39 > 0:24:45like in the UK. One example of that is the Preston model, the local
0:24:45 > 0:24:49council in Preston, Lancashire, which has seen a local government
0:24:49 > 0:24:53spending when it has spent locally, create more wealth in the local
0:24:53 > 0:24:58economy than if it were outsourced. That is one-way. It has nothing to
0:24:58 > 0:25:02do with tariffs. That is one way of reviving the local economy. It means
0:25:02 > 0:25:07local businesses can thrive, they employ people, everyone pays tax,
0:25:07 > 0:25:10the business pays tax on the economy locally is revived. It is nothing to
0:25:10 > 0:25:14do with tariffs, it's a political decision to reprogram an economy, to
0:25:14 > 0:25:19work in a way that benefits people are not corporations.It has
0:25:19 > 0:25:22benefits for people. The process of trade liberalisation after the
0:25:22 > 0:25:28Second World War, which was advocated by moderate left centre
0:25:28 > 0:25:30politicians and free-market politicians, turned into
0:25:30 > 0:25:33globalisation, which of course I am concerned about some of the extreme
0:25:33 > 0:25:36effects of that but it has globally had the most extraordinary impact.
0:25:36 > 0:25:41It has lifted at least a billion people out of property.Created the
0:25:41 > 0:25:45biggest wealth inequalities as well. I don't think trickle-down economics
0:25:45 > 0:25:50has been proven not to work. I think the problem is wired into the
0:25:50 > 0:25:56system.Let's compare the Chinese economy in 1950 now...Your point is
0:25:56 > 0:25:59perfect on is the miracle is that the Chinese economy. We moved 350
0:25:59 > 0:26:03million people out of extreme poverty in China.That is a good
0:26:03 > 0:26:08thing.The cost of that has been the cost of jobs in the rust belt in the
0:26:08 > 0:26:14United States and hollowed out parts of England and in Western Europe.
0:26:14 > 0:26:19It's a trade-off.Let's talk about the relationship with the UK, is a
0:26:19 > 0:26:23good friend of the United States? Absolutely.Will there be an
0:26:23 > 0:26:28exemption for the UK?Will you be part of the European Union?At the
0:26:28 > 0:26:35moment.When you leave we will see. Is that the trade-off, the UK might
0:26:35 > 0:26:39get an exemption once it leaves the EU or would it be better to stay
0:26:39 > 0:26:42part of the EU, a big trading bloc and use and support those
0:26:42 > 0:26:47retaliatory measures?I voted to leave but I didn't vote to leave
0:26:47 > 0:26:51thinking that this utopia of loads of trade deals being out there and
0:26:51 > 0:26:54somehow some massive trade deal with the US is going to solve Britain's
0:26:54 > 0:26:58economic problems. Most of its problems are domestic. Exports are
0:26:58 > 0:27:0420% of the economy and about half of that is the EU and half of that is
0:27:04 > 0:27:07the rest of the world, led by the US. I don't think in the short-term,
0:27:07 > 0:27:10certainly in this context the US president doing what he's doing, I
0:27:10 > 0:27:14don't think that that will be that many trade deals in the next four or
0:27:14 > 0:27:19five years.You said once Britain leads the EU, but if this friendship
0:27:19 > 0:27:21and relationship exists now, why can't there be an exemption, as
0:27:21 > 0:27:26you're giving to other countries, to the UK?Because he would have to do
0:27:26 > 0:27:30it to the whole of the EU and when not about to do that. We gave an
0:27:30 > 0:27:33exception to Mexico and Canada but the president said yesterday, that
0:27:33 > 0:27:40is only an exception if we can come to terms on their Nafta. If we don't
0:27:40 > 0:27:44we have leverage on the same tariffs will apply to those two country.It
0:27:44 > 0:27:52said countries that meet or fail their defence commitments to Nato.
0:27:52 > 0:27:58We do stop whiteonly five do.Would you be confident the UK could get an
0:27:58 > 0:28:01exemption or is there any point of this special relationship if there
0:28:01 > 0:28:07will be no special treatment for the UK in the future?We will see what
0:28:07 > 0:28:09Mr Liam Fox accomplishes when he goes to Washington this week or next
0:28:09 > 0:28:14week. My guess is there won't be an exemption for the UK.What you say
0:28:14 > 0:28:19about Liam Fox's view and trade, and the high-grade steel that you get
0:28:19 > 0:28:23from the UK, which would be able to get it in the US?Once those
0:28:23 > 0:28:26industries come back in the US they will be available. There are places
0:28:26 > 0:28:29in the US where those things have been decimated. With this new
0:28:29 > 0:28:32measure, you have heard already companies bringing back hundreds,
0:28:32 > 0:28:36soon to be thousands of employees, to make exactly those kinds of
0:28:36 > 0:28:38products.Ted Malloch, thank you.
0:28:38 > 0:28:41She said she would, and apparently Theresa May has raised concerns
0:28:41 > 0:28:46about human rights in Saudi Arabia during talks with the
0:28:46 > 0:28:48country's Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman has been
0:28:48 > 0:28:50on a three-day UK visit to talk about trade,
0:28:50 > 0:28:53and presumably some of the more awkward issues like Yemen.
0:28:53 > 0:28:57The visit comes the same week as International Women's Day,
0:28:57 > 0:28:59another area, Saudi Arabia isn't exactly celebrated for.
0:28:59 > 0:29:01Here's Ellie.
0:29:01 > 0:29:04At nearly every stop on the Saudi Arabian visit this
0:29:04 > 0:29:05week, the protesters haven't been far.
0:29:05 > 0:29:09Well, today I got the opportunity to talk to one of 29 women who sit
0:29:09 > 0:29:10on the Shoura Council.
0:29:10 > 0:29:13It's not exactly a parliament, but it's a council that advises
0:29:13 > 0:29:18the Saudi Arabian King, and there's plenty to put to her.
0:29:18 > 0:29:21A good place to start - women's rights.
0:29:21 > 0:29:24A country that in June is finally allowing women to drive cars,
0:29:24 > 0:29:26and that is being seen as progress.
0:29:26 > 0:29:28It's a woeful record, isn't it?
0:29:28 > 0:29:35The country is young, not just in its population but in its age.
0:29:35 > 0:29:40Effectively it's an 80 year old country, but I actually always
0:29:40 > 0:29:44say it's a 50 year old country, because when the first revenue
0:29:44 > 0:29:46of oil came to the country, to the government, that's
0:29:46 > 0:29:48when it was used for the infrastructure.
0:29:48 > 0:29:53When you look at a country that is basically 50 years old,
0:29:53 > 0:29:56we're only going one way, which is forwards.
0:29:56 > 0:30:00But it cannot happen from one day to the next.
0:30:00 > 0:30:03But it is true that women don't have the same rights as men,
0:30:03 > 0:30:06don't have the same rights that they would here in the UK?
0:30:06 > 0:30:08When did you get your rights?
0:30:08 > 0:30:11More than 100 years ago, women have been voting, for example.
0:30:11 > 0:30:14Yes, that's fine, but how long did it take for you to have?
0:30:14 > 0:30:16I'm talking about a country that is 50 years old.
0:30:16 > 0:30:19You were not 50 years old when you got your rights.
0:30:19 > 0:30:23I'm not justifying the fact that in your eyes we are slow.
0:30:23 > 0:30:25Yes, it is challenging.
0:30:25 > 0:30:30There are obstacles, we get frustrated and I'm not
0:30:30 > 0:30:32denying any of that, this is the reality, it's there.
0:30:32 > 0:30:34What about you personally?
0:30:34 > 0:30:38You're a woman living in Saudi Arabia.
0:30:38 > 0:30:42When I need to find myself at X, Y, Z place at a certain time,
0:30:42 > 0:30:44and I can't be there because of transportation reasons,
0:30:44 > 0:30:47yes, of course, I get frustrated.
0:30:47 > 0:30:51Today things are easier, with Uber, with Careem
0:30:51 > 0:30:53and with private drivers, obviously things do gets easier.
0:30:53 > 0:30:58But when I look at it on a global level, a 50 year old country,
0:30:58 > 0:31:02to have reached what a lot of countries took
0:31:02 > 0:31:04hundreds of years to do.
0:31:04 > 0:31:08And, like I said, I think the only way we have had to go is forwards.
0:31:08 > 0:31:12Much has been made this visit of Vision 2030 -
0:31:12 > 0:31:15a blueprint by King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
0:31:15 > 0:31:21of economic and social reforms to modernise Saudi Arabia.
0:31:21 > 0:31:23You yourself have a daughter.
0:31:23 > 0:31:26Do you think Saudi Arabia of the future will be an easier
0:31:26 > 0:31:27place to thrive for a woman?
0:31:27 > 0:31:30I believe it will be, but if it's not done in 2030
0:31:30 > 0:31:32and it's done in 2032, that's fine too.
0:31:32 > 0:31:34Like I said, it's part of the evolutionary
0:31:34 > 0:31:36development of the country.
0:31:36 > 0:31:38It's not stagnating.
0:31:38 > 0:31:40And because we are moving forwards, it can only get better.
0:31:40 > 0:31:43It'll get better from next year, it will get better the year after,
0:31:43 > 0:31:46because we are seeing these changes, because there is a genuine desire
0:31:46 > 0:31:51to change and reform.
0:31:51 > 0:31:56And it's not just because Prince Mohammed or King Salman
0:31:56 > 0:31:59want that to happen, it's because the young people
0:31:59 > 0:32:00of the country want it to happen.
0:32:00 > 0:32:07And these young people are coming back from their education abroad
0:32:07 > 0:32:10not just with a degree, but with open horizons,
0:32:10 > 0:32:12mental horizons that will change the way they live,
0:32:12 > 0:32:16will change their aspirations.
0:32:16 > 0:32:20There have been protests during your visit here
0:32:20 > 0:32:22about human rights abuses, about the situation in Yemen.
0:32:22 > 0:32:25Do you find some of those difficult to defend?
0:32:25 > 0:32:28Politically speaking, when a country's surrounded
0:32:28 > 0:32:31by enemies more than by friends, there are certain actions
0:32:31 > 0:32:34that need to be taken.
0:32:34 > 0:32:36Especially if politically and diplomatically chances
0:32:36 > 0:32:41were given, not just once, not just twice, more than that.
0:32:41 > 0:32:46We have had the example of Hezbollah in the North.
0:32:46 > 0:32:49We don't want a resurgence or a reappearance of something
0:32:49 > 0:32:51like that in the South.
0:32:51 > 0:32:56I'm not justifying the deaths or the human rights issues
0:32:56 > 0:33:00that come with any war, I'm just stating the facts.
0:33:00 > 0:33:04I think that it is very easy to criticise and to talk
0:33:04 > 0:33:08about issues when they're not relatively clear to
0:33:08 > 0:33:11the general public.
0:33:11 > 0:33:14So the idea that the situation in Yemen is a proxy war
0:33:14 > 0:33:17against Iran is, what?
0:33:17 > 0:33:19Definitely there's part of that, I'm not denying that at all.
0:33:19 > 0:33:27Iran has a big role, has had a big role in this issue, yes.
0:33:30 > 0:33:38Ali Price reporting. Do you share her optimism in terms of the pace of
0:33:38 > 0:33:42reform that Saudi Arabia is very keen to promote, we saw that
0:33:42 > 0:33:44underlined in that interview? In terms of women's rights especially?
0:33:44 > 0:33:52No, there have been cosmetic reforms and obviously we need to credit and
0:33:52 > 0:33:57celebrate the Saudi women who have campaigned for those reforms, two
0:33:57 > 0:34:01decades in the case of getting the right to drive. But they are
0:34:01 > 0:34:05cosmetic reforms. As long as the underpinning system of male
0:34:05 > 0:34:11guardianship exists in Saudi Arabia, whereby women has to get permission
0:34:11 > 0:34:14from a male guardian for all kinds of things which essentially mean
0:34:14 > 0:34:19they do not have equal rights as citizens. As long as there is system
0:34:19 > 0:34:23like that underpinning everything, these reforms will be cosmetic.In
0:34:23 > 0:34:26terms of the relationship that Britain has the Saudi Arabia, how
0:34:26 > 0:34:29under pressure is that with accusations of military advisers in
0:34:29 > 0:34:35Britain being involved in the war in Yemen?I don't think it's
0:34:35 > 0:34:40necessarily under pressure. The UK Government has invested a lot of
0:34:40 > 0:34:42faith and time in recent months building up to this week to really
0:34:42 > 0:34:48make a fuss of Mohammed bin Salman, and there is a calculation and play
0:34:48 > 0:34:53made by the Foreign Office is that what he is doing is potentially
0:34:53 > 0:34:58transformative. And while I share some of the scepticism, but there
0:34:58 > 0:35:04are reasons to be cautious about it, he is potentially transformative.
0:35:04 > 0:35:08The French have been far ahead of the UK in terms of trade and being
0:35:08 > 0:35:14in there with the new leadership. Britain had some catching up to do,
0:35:14 > 0:35:18that's what this week was about. Those trade deals are extremely
0:35:18 > 0:35:22important, worse potentially billions of pounds. The trouble with
0:35:22 > 0:35:26this -- worth potentially billions of pounds.The trouble with this
0:35:26 > 0:35:30very cosy relationship is not just the human rights abuses in Saudi
0:35:30 > 0:35:33Arabia itself, and the treatment of women comes up in that category, it
0:35:33 > 0:35:39is that it is a destabilising force in the Middle East. It backed a
0:35:39 > 0:35:42military coup against the democratically elected president in
0:35:42 > 0:35:46Egypt's, it has at least covertly funded some pretty violent
0:35:46 > 0:35:50extremists in Syria and Iraq, it effectively kidnapped Lebanese Prime
0:35:50 > 0:35:54Minister just a few months ago and that's before we get onto the
0:35:54 > 0:35:59horrific human rights violations going on in.Of course.Aided and
0:35:59 > 0:36:06abetted by the UK whose arms sales to Yemen have increased by an
0:36:06 > 0:36:09extraordinary amount despite these very clear human rights violations.
0:36:09 > 0:36:14What that does to Britain is that it undermines our reputation and
0:36:14 > 0:36:21credibility in the Middle East and internationally.Is it defensible?
0:36:21 > 0:36:24Yemen is a catastrophe, of course, but you cannot look at Yemen without
0:36:24 > 0:36:27looking at the role of Iran. You can't have a situation from the
0:36:27 > 0:36:35Saudi's position...But we are post... -- closely allied.Yes, we
0:36:35 > 0:36:40have been 50 years but it cannot have a situation from a typical
0:36:40 > 0:36:46point of view where Iranian interests without in Yemen against
0:36:46 > 0:36:53the Saudis. In terms of funding against terrorism, we will see if he
0:36:53 > 0:36:57is as good as his word, but he seems to have said to the National
0:36:57 > 0:37:06Security Council and MI6 and MI5 that he will curtail the funding of
0:37:06 > 0:37:11certain groups. He has only been in charge for a small amount of time
0:37:11 > 0:37:14and it seems to be heading in the right direction.
0:37:14 > 0:37:17Now, if you've paid any attention to British politics
0:37:17 > 0:37:20since the Brexit referendum, you've probably seen and heard one
0:37:20 > 0:37:23sentiment expressed more than any other by some of the most
0:37:23 > 0:37:24ardent pro-EU voices in Westminster.
0:37:24 > 0:37:25And even by some in the government.
0:37:25 > 0:37:27Let's take a look.
0:37:27 > 0:37:31Nobody voted on the 23rd of June to make this country poorer.
0:37:31 > 0:37:32Nobody voted to be poorer.
0:37:32 > 0:37:35Nobody in this process voted to be poorer.
0:37:35 > 0:37:38Nobody, nobody voted to be poorer.
0:37:38 > 0:37:41The country didn't vote to make itself poorer.
0:37:41 > 0:37:44When the British people voted last June, they did not
0:37:44 > 0:37:48vote to become poorer.
0:37:48 > 0:37:50Philip Hammond at the end there, echoing a sentiment
0:37:50 > 0:37:52expressed by many across the political spectrum.
0:37:52 > 0:37:55But even if the jury's yet to return a verdict on how the EU
0:37:55 > 0:37:59will affect people's finances - were some people who voted Brexit
0:37:59 > 0:38:02prepared to take an economic hit if that was the price
0:38:02 > 0:38:04of leaving the EU?
0:38:04 > 0:38:06Well, to discuss this we're joined by David Goodhart
0:38:06 > 0:38:09from the Policy Exchange think-tank, he's also the author
0:38:09 > 0:38:12of The Road to Somewhere, which, amongst other things, explores
0:38:12 > 0:38:18why people voted for Brexit.
0:38:18 > 0:38:23Welcome to the show. Do you think people were prepared to take an
0:38:23 > 0:38:27economic hit in order to take back control, to use another phrase?I
0:38:27 > 0:38:29think they would rather not but I think a lot of people did vote
0:38:29 > 0:38:36knowing that their pockets might be hit. But regarding it as a
0:38:36 > 0:38:40reasonable trade-off. We might be a few hundred pounds richer in ten
0:38:40 > 0:38:46years' time, but our democratic accountability would be weaker, our
0:38:46 > 0:38:48national identity would be weaker, if we remained in the European
0:38:48 > 0:38:53Union, a lot of people thought. I actually voted to remain but I
0:38:53 > 0:38:56thought that they were right about that.Do you agree and accept that
0:38:56 > 0:39:00there were plenty of people who did feel it was worth economic
0:39:00 > 0:39:03uncertainty, let's put it like that, and potentially being slightly worse
0:39:03 > 0:39:09off in order to regain some sorts of national identity?I think national
0:39:09 > 0:39:14identity is a phrase that's doing a lot of work in that sentence. It's
0:39:14 > 0:39:18very hard to discern what it was that people actually did vote for,
0:39:18 > 0:39:22and that's precisely why were having such difficulty is that the
0:39:22 > 0:39:25negotiations because we're trying to find out what is it that people
0:39:25 > 0:39:28wanted from Brexit. Nobody actually said that. That wasn't on the
0:39:28 > 0:39:34ballot. But I don't think these kind of cultural concerns, that seems to
0:39:34 > 0:39:39me a proxy for what can only be described as Zeno races and I don't
0:39:39 > 0:39:44think we should be making any -- is then a racism and I don't wish to
0:39:44 > 0:39:53make any political decisions on that.I find myself much more
0:39:53 > 0:40:01favourable for Brexit because of the arguments we had from the militant
0:40:01 > 0:40:10Remainers, sheer panic on the financial side or that we are all
0:40:10 > 0:40:16racist, the 50% who voted leave. Neither of those things are true.
0:40:16 > 0:40:20There will be an adjustment cost but I suspect we will be just as rich as
0:40:20 > 0:40:28we will have been. This is that first big push back of the shrinkage
0:40:28 > 0:40:31of democratic space that has happened in all big democracies, you
0:40:31 > 0:40:36think of the way that the WTO, European and aggression, even
0:40:36 > 0:40:40domestic policies like the independence of the Bank of England
0:40:40 > 0:40:47have shrunk the attic space. What is exciting about Brexit is it is a the
0:40:47 > 0:40:50first push back against the shrinking of that democratic space.
0:40:50 > 0:40:53Although people might have been prepared to take an economic hit, we
0:40:53 > 0:40:57don't know how they thought it would manifest itself. Do you think there
0:40:57 > 0:41:02were a broad sense of the reasons that people were voting and that has
0:41:02 > 0:41:06made it difficult for negotiations, because people said, we will be the
0:41:06 > 0:41:11single market and the customs union and if that makes us poorer, then so
0:41:11 > 0:41:14be it.We have to be sceptical about polling after the event of the last
0:41:14 > 0:41:18few years but there are quite detailed series of polls done on
0:41:18 > 0:41:21testing attitude afterwards, on what people thought they were doing.
0:41:21 > 0:41:26Immigration comes second, first tends to come the question of
0:41:26 > 0:41:31self-government and the country making its own laws. What's
0:41:31 > 0:41:33astonishing about the British political class is that it was so
0:41:33 > 0:41:38shocked by the result. It's been apparent since about the time of
0:41:38 > 0:41:43Maastricht at something close to the majority of British voters were
0:41:43 > 0:41:45sceptical about excessive political integration and were never asked the
0:41:45 > 0:41:49question. The first time the question was put to them, they
0:41:49 > 0:41:55delivered a pretty clear answer. In terms of the good people voting to
0:41:55 > 0:42:00be poorer, that is obviously a piece of sophistry. I certainly voted but
0:42:00 > 0:42:09that was a possibility -- knowing that was a possible 80 and I know
0:42:09 > 0:42:14many Leave voters who voted thinking it was.
0:42:14 > 0:42:18it was. People heard the warnings, they calculated that there might be
0:42:18 > 0:42:21some hit, there might not, depending on things that had not happened yet.
0:42:21 > 0:42:26But if there was a moderate hit, and an adjustment cost, it is something
0:42:26 > 0:42:29worth living for force of government.People said it was worth
0:42:29 > 0:42:34it because Britain could then -- it was worth living for four
0:42:34 > 0:42:37self-government, people said it was worth it because Britain could then
0:42:37 > 0:42:41make decisions over things like borders, and money, and that is more
0:42:41 > 0:42:46important?People were sold this idea of taking back control. That
0:42:46 > 0:42:49doesn't mean anything, it's an anti-slogan.It's not an empty
0:42:49 > 0:42:59slogan.When we talk about the accountability of the WTO, or of
0:42:59 > 0:43:03banks and multinationals, that is a very separate thing from the issue
0:43:03 > 0:43:07of the EU. And that's exactly the success of the Leave campaign, it
0:43:07 > 0:43:11managed to divert a lot of very reasonable concerns, economic
0:43:11 > 0:43:15concerns into something that was essentially... It was huge areas of
0:43:15 > 0:43:29life. But because of European -- because of European rules, we could
0:43:29 > 0:43:33not control, the way in which different can -- countries balance
0:43:33 > 0:43:37risk and other things, it's hugely different from country to country
0:43:37 > 0:43:41and we are squeezed into often German related anxieties about their
0:43:41 > 0:43:48detection, for example.We have to pay huge tariffs on shoes because of
0:43:48 > 0:43:53the Italians. This is all sorts of areas that we can reclaim
0:43:53 > 0:44:03sovereignty. Liberal fantasists think it is a
0:44:03 > 0:44:05think it is a pooling of empowerment, but I think a lot of
0:44:05 > 0:44:10people think it is this empowering. If people are feeling poorer at the
0:44:10 > 0:44:14moment because of high inflation and wage stagnation because in the
0:44:14 > 0:44:24aftermath of that EU vote,
0:45:02 > 0:45:06GDP will fall by less than it fell in the financial crisis. I do think
0:45:06 > 0:45:09people would change their mind, come to regret what they thought was
0:45:09 > 0:45:13worth taking an economic hit for? It's possible, there is no sign of
0:45:13 > 0:45:19it yet. I think where the Labour Party has a real advantage and
0:45:19 > 0:45:23Jeremy Corbyn are headed the game, because the Tories are focused on
0:45:23 > 0:45:28the shambolic negotiations already Labour in that keynote speech Jeremy
0:45:28 > 0:45:35Corbyn gave last week, already he is talking about Britain after Brexit.
0:45:35 > 0:45:40I think the Labour understanding is correct. Once Brexit is a done deal
0:45:40 > 0:45:44and happens in one form or another, there will then be up battle for
0:45:44 > 0:45:48votes in areas for those who voted for Brexit who want to see some
0:45:48 > 0:45:51concrete improvement.David Goodhart, thank you.
0:45:51 > 0:45:53And for more reporting and analysis of Brexit,
0:45:53 > 0:46:01check out the BBC News website - that's bbc.co.uk/brexit.
0:46:01 > 0:46:03Donald Trump has accepted an invitation from the North Korean
0:46:03 > 0:46:05leader, Kim Jong-un, to hold an unprecedented meeting
0:46:05 > 0:46:07to discuss the future of the regime's nuclear
0:46:07 > 0:46:08and missile programme.
0:46:08 > 0:46:11Following months of mutual hostility, senior South Korean
0:46:11 > 0:46:14officials appeared outside the White House to announce the news
0:46:14 > 0:46:19having verbally conveyed Kim's invitation to Trump.
0:46:19 > 0:46:23The White House confirmed Trump was ready to meet Kim "by May."
0:46:23 > 0:46:28President Trump himself confirmed the meeting
0:46:28 > 0:46:31in his own inimitable way - yes, tweeting.
0:46:43 > 0:46:46To get the latest on this we can talk to our correspondent
0:46:46 > 0:46:50Robin Brant in Seoul.
0:46:50 > 0:46:56What has been the reaction in South Korea?
0:46:56 > 0:47:00Korea?The South Koreans believe that they are the ones who have
0:47:00 > 0:47:03engineered this meeting, and meeting the like of which has never, ever
0:47:03 > 0:47:09happened before. A sitting president sitting down with chairman Kim, in
0:47:09 > 0:47:13this instance, the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of
0:47:13 > 0:47:16Korea. South Korea's leader was a man who came to office a couple of
0:47:16 > 0:47:20years ago on a promise to extend the olive branch to the north. Clearly
0:47:20 > 0:47:24he is delivering on that. At the same time he has pursued a policy
0:47:24 > 0:47:27trying to further cement that very close relationship with the United
0:47:27 > 0:47:32States.
0:47:35 > 0:47:38States. But Moon Jae-in has high hopes for the meeting, even though
0:47:38 > 0:47:41we don't know when it will take place. South Korea's president
0:47:41 > 0:47:45already saying he feels this meeting will be remembered as a historical
0:47:45 > 0:47:49milestone that realised piece on the Korean Valencia. Even before it has
0:47:49 > 0:47:53taken place. But the South Koreans clearly believe that there can be
0:47:53 > 0:48:00tangible gains, real achievements, in terms of not just an
0:48:00 > 0:48:03de-escalation of tensions between North Korea and America but also on
0:48:03 > 0:48:12this issue, very vexed issue of denuclearisation.Thank you. Joining
0:48:12 > 0:48:17me now is Professor Robert Kelley, an expert in Korean affairs. Welcome
0:48:17 > 0:48:24to the Daily Politics. An enormous diplomatic breakthrough?It may be,
0:48:24 > 0:48:30if the president can bring home a genuinely big deal. That meeting
0:48:30 > 0:48:34means the stakes are really high, we assume there is some sort of big
0:48:34 > 0:48:38bargain to come from this. But there is only ten weeks to actually
0:48:38 > 0:48:43prepare for this and really there has not been much discussion in the
0:48:43 > 0:48:46analyst community. They didn't seem the Secretary of State knew was
0:48:46 > 0:48:49coming White House staff. The president has to bring home
0:48:49 > 0:48:53something big, a lot of work to do in a short time.How have things
0:48:53 > 0:48:56changed so rapidly? We thought relations were at an extremely low
0:48:56 > 0:49:00point. Trump was promising to bring down fire and you're like the world
0:49:00 > 0:49:07had never seen an Korea and now?I think a lot of this shows the
0:49:07 > 0:49:12President's temperament. We know he is very erratic and volatile and
0:49:12 > 0:49:15changes his mind very rapidly. Just three months ago we were talking
0:49:15 > 0:49:22about air strikes on North Korea. My sense is that is the president.
0:49:22 > 0:49:26North Korea properly have fully functional nuclear weapons they
0:49:26 > 0:49:30figure, why not talk now? The sanctions are biting also. I think
0:49:30 > 0:49:33the big swing is due to the president himself.You think it is
0:49:33 > 0:49:40down to him. Could this be the mixer China moment for President Trump,
0:49:40 > 0:49:44that he has manoeuvred the US into a strong position?It could be of the
0:49:44 > 0:49:48president brings home something real. The concern from the analyst
0:49:48 > 0:49:51community, if you're watching TV or looking at Twitter today, a lot of
0:49:51 > 0:49:55people have been very unsure about what this means. Because it came out
0:49:55 > 0:50:00of the blue. Fixing this issue as difficult as North Korea- US
0:50:00 > 0:50:04relations, it's highly unlikely can be fixed in just ten weeks. This is
0:50:04 > 0:50:08the kind of thing that takes years and years. If you look at the 90s,
0:50:08 > 0:50:12years were spent on this kind of stuff and suddenly Donald Trump
0:50:12 > 0:50:16order in ten weeks. It is so unlikely. Maybe, but unlikely.Just
0:50:16 > 0:50:21before I go to my guests, what you keep saying, it's a very short space
0:50:21 > 0:50:27of time to get all this sorted out before the meeting. What are the
0:50:27 > 0:50:31risks to these talks, and saying they will be done by May? If they
0:50:31 > 0:50:37collapse or they don't go the way either side wants, could actually
0:50:37 > 0:50:40escalate the situation?Yes, I think there are two possibilities. The
0:50:40 > 0:50:45first is they meet and don't like each other. And they both start... I
0:50:45 > 0:50:49mean Kim Jong-un have called him names and Donald Trump likewise.
0:50:49 > 0:50:54They could fall back to that and load each other and then there is a
0:50:54 > 0:50:57real impasse. The other possible it is they meet and it doesn't go
0:50:57 > 0:51:05anywhere, it fails. Particularly the Trump sides is look, we went for the
0:51:05 > 0:51:07big show, the summer and it went nowhere and it doesn't leave us with
0:51:07 > 0:51:12anywhere else to go. Normally these things work their way through a
0:51:12 > 0:51:16lower-level policy process before the summit happens, Trump is taking
0:51:16 > 0:51:19a chance to have the summit before the years of groundwork that
0:51:19 > 0:51:22normally precede it stop like that is an important point, the stakes
0:51:22 > 0:51:26are very high. On one side you could say it will be the meeting of two
0:51:26 > 0:51:30absurd figureswho have high levels of vanity. On the other hand, an
0:51:30 > 0:51:36historic meeting?It is. But it is another example, Trump has to be
0:51:36 > 0:51:40seen in terms of celebrity wrestling. He is that kind of
0:51:40 > 0:51:50president. He is seeing this other guy, Kim, is the other celebrity
0:51:50 > 0:51:55wrestler, and they've been facing off, promising to kill each other.
0:51:55 > 0:52:00Now, something interesting, the great Trump show is going to produce
0:52:00 > 0:52:07something, a great plot twist. It is possible. I am a Trump sceptic but
0:52:07 > 0:52:11there is certainly something in his approach and we saw it last month on
0:52:11 > 0:52:17gun control, where he flipped and adopted a different position from
0:52:17 > 0:52:21the position the NRA would have wanted to take. There is something
0:52:21 > 0:52:26in his unpredictability and his showmanship which, in this case,
0:52:26 > 0:52:31might just work. It is worth a go. In celebrity wrestling, in this
0:52:31 > 0:52:36instance, who comes out on top?Oh my goodness! That is the question,
0:52:36 > 0:52:42isn't it? It might be that showmanship works. I think it is
0:52:42 > 0:52:47interesting what the analysts and experts are saying, which is look,
0:52:47 > 0:52:52normally negotiations on this sort of situation, it's years, its years
0:52:52 > 0:52:58of backroom staff. There is a lot going on before it comes to leaders
0:52:58 > 0:53:01meeting fostered in this case none of this has happened, they've just
0:53:01 > 0:53:05gone straight to this meeting. Therefore, the likelihood of it
0:53:05 > 0:53:09producing something, without that huge background, backroom effort, it
0:53:09 > 0:53:15doesn't seem high, does it?In terms of using President Trump has to come
0:53:15 > 0:53:20home with something big. This denuclearisation, is that the only
0:53:20 > 0:53:22goal, the only possible prize, anything less than that will be seen
0:53:22 > 0:53:28as a failure?The Americans keep talking it up that way, yes. I think
0:53:28 > 0:53:31the president needs to start managing expectations. The North
0:53:31 > 0:53:37Korean spent 40 years developing nuclear weapons, it is unlikely they
0:53:37 > 0:53:41will give up in ten weeks. It would be astonishing. What's more likely
0:53:41 > 0:53:46as you'll get some movement on human rights, is important, cameras or
0:53:46 > 0:53:51inspectors back in North Korea, may be nuclear safety. There is concern
0:53:51 > 0:53:56about that. All this stuff, these are small steps. It would be helpful
0:53:56 > 0:54:02to work our way through those before we went in for the big enchilada. It
0:54:02 > 0:54:06is highly unlikely in a state that has been 40 years building nuclear
0:54:06 > 0:54:09weapons that they will give them up. It brings a possible this might not
0:54:09 > 0:54:14turn out to be anything. It might be a big, a show that goes nowhere, the
0:54:14 > 0:54:19Trump show. That is what the president has to work on. He has a
0:54:19 > 0:54:23lot to do in ten weeks.Will it matter if it doesn't go anywhere?
0:54:23 > 0:54:26Symbolically it will be important. Imagine the two of them when they
0:54:26 > 0:54:32meet, what will that be like?We have come a long way since Stalin,
0:54:32 > 0:54:40Roosevelt and Churchill. It is going to be a Technicolor, most
0:54:40 > 0:54:44extraordinary reality TV style event. Imagine the media experience,
0:54:44 > 0:54:48as they shake hands, and the carnival.But they are serious
0:54:48 > 0:54:54issues.A very serious issue. I think if it fails, I don't think
0:54:54 > 0:54:59domestically it really make that much difference. He is derided in
0:54:59 > 0:55:07the US by liberal analysts and he seems to have, he has a meeting
0:55:07 > 0:55:11which, of a kind which none of his predecessors have managed and he is
0:55:11 > 0:55:15giving it a go. I say that as a Trump sceptic, it is probably worth
0:55:15 > 0:55:22a go.Di welcomer?What is interesting is behind this, the
0:55:22 > 0:55:25relationship, the thawing of North Korea and South Korea. They had
0:55:25 > 0:55:29meetings at the Olympics, had a lot of drinks together, which says a lot
0:55:29 > 0:55:34for alcohol fuelled diplomacy! Whatever works. Robert, thank you
0:55:34 > 0:55:37for joining us today.
0:55:37 > 0:55:40There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
0:55:40 > 0:55:42The question was, what does Theresa May's ideal night
0:55:42 > 0:55:44with her girlfriends look like?
0:55:44 > 0:55:46Dinner and wine at home, karaoke and cocktails,
0:55:46 > 0:55:53a box set binge or none of the above?
0:55:54 > 0:56:01You are stumped.I can't really see her doing karaoke, I'm going to go
0:56:01 > 0:56:06with dinner with the girls.None of the above. I don't know what it is
0:56:06 > 0:56:14about these questions to the Prime Minister.Iain is right. I'm not
0:56:14 > 0:56:17surprised you were foxed by it. Let's have a look and see.
0:56:17 > 0:56:19If you could have your perfect get-together with your girlfriends
0:56:19 > 0:56:22on International Women's Day, away from all of the pressures
0:56:22 > 0:56:25of your job, what would be your perfect night with them and how
0:56:25 > 0:56:26would you let your hair down?
0:56:26 > 0:56:27Goodness me, what a question!
0:56:27 > 0:56:29And I haven't thought about it, because, actually,
0:56:29 > 0:56:32my International Women's Day is heavily focused on what we're
0:56:32 > 0:56:33doing on domestic abuse.
0:56:33 > 0:56:36So it's not going to have the time to have the girls round
0:56:36 > 0:56:40and have an evening together, I'm afraid.
0:56:40 > 0:56:42I know that, I know that Prime Minister.
0:56:42 > 0:56:45I'm just saying on your dream moment, how would you let your hair
0:56:45 > 0:56:47down with your girlfriends?
0:56:47 > 0:56:51Well, I don't think that when you let your hair down,
0:56:51 > 0:56:55I don't think there's only one way of doing it, I think it depends
0:56:55 > 0:57:00on the group that you've got, it depends on the time.
0:57:00 > 0:57:05How many ways are there to let down your hair? Rage, why do you think
0:57:05 > 0:57:07the Prime Minister finds it so difficult to answer questions at
0:57:07 > 0:57:11this question that you remember the naughtiest thing you have ever done?
0:57:11 > 0:57:16Because she's not very natural and sincere and it keeps coming over,
0:57:16 > 0:57:23doesn't it? She doesn't seem very ordinary.Does it matter? That she
0:57:23 > 0:57:27doesn't answer the questions?It does matter, it mattered during the
0:57:27 > 0:57:32election a lot.Why do you think it is difficult for her?I think it is
0:57:32 > 0:57:35shyness, not a lack of sincerity. You're just watching that, you want
0:57:35 > 0:57:39her to just, you feel for her, you want her to take dinner at home and
0:57:39 > 0:57:45a glass of wine at.Anything! Anything, not just I'm focusing on
0:57:45 > 0:57:51domestic abuse.In the end, what does it say to people?I think it's
0:57:51 > 0:57:57misinterpreted as, and perceived as a sort of stiffness and a remoteness
0:57:57 > 0:58:01and I think it is actually just that she finds it very difficult,
0:58:01 > 0:58:05off-camera as well, to do that small talk. If you asked how the weather
0:58:05 > 0:58:09today she would say, it's too early to say.And you don't want to make a
0:58:09 > 0:58:13mistake and say the wrong thing.I get the thing about small talk, I'm
0:58:13 > 0:58:17not great at small talk either but there is something about that that
0:58:17 > 0:58:21says, it's not sincere and it is not real. There is something quite fake
0:58:21 > 0:58:26about not being able to relax and give any answer to a very sort of
0:58:26 > 0:58:31normal, everyday question.How did you let your hair down on
0:58:31 > 0:58:37International Women's Day?I did go for a drink with the girls.You
0:58:37 > 0:58:41couldn't answer, not as easy as you think!I was going to dad cooked
0:58:41 > 0:58:44dinner for my wife but that's a lie, she cooked dinner for me.Is that
0:58:44 > 0:58:46how it always is?!
0:58:46 > 0:58:47That's all for today.
0:58:47 > 0:58:50Thanks to my guests.
0:58:50 > 0:58:54No more difficult questions, that's it, have a nice weekend, goodbye.