09/03/2018 Daily Politics


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS


09/03/2018

Jo Coburn is joined by journalists Rachel Shabi and Iain Martin for the latest political news, including analysis of President Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminium.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/03/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

0:00:330:00:37

A few months ago they were trading

insults but Kim Jong-Un

0:00:370:00:40

and Donald Trump could be

sitting across a table

0:00:400:00:43

from each other within weeks.

0:00:430:00:45

Has a nuclear showdown on the Korean

Peninsula been averted?

0:00:450:00:50

Donald Trump slaps tariffs

on imported steel and aluminium.

0:00:500:00:53

Has he kicked off an

international trade war?

0:00:530:00:57

MPs are at the centre

of allegations of bullying

0:00:570:01:00

in the Palace of Westminster.

0:01:000:01:01

Does there need to be

an independent process in place

0:01:010:01:04

to protect Commons staff?

0:01:040:01:11

When the British people voted last

June, they did not vote to become

0:01:130:01:16

poorer.

Nobody voted to be poorer.

Nobody voted to be poorer.

0:01:160:01:22

It's an often repeated

mantra from remainers,

0:01:220:01:24

but were some Leave voters prepared

to take a financial

0:01:240:01:26

hit to deliver Brexit?

0:01:260:01:31

All that coming up in the next 60

minutes and joining me

0:01:310:01:33

for the duration are Iain Martin

of the Times and the political

0:01:330:01:37

commentator, Rachel Shabi.

0:01:370:01:39

Welcome to both of you.

0:01:390:01:41

First today, it's been announced

in the last hour that 100 military

0:01:410:01:45

personnel are to be deployed

in Salisbury to assist

0:01:450:01:47

in the police investigation

into the poisoning of ex-Russian spy

0:01:470:01:51

Sergei Skripal and his

daughter Yulia.

0:01:510:01:54

The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd,

has visited the scene this morning.

0:01:540:01:57

Here's what she had to say.

0:01:570:01:59

At the moment, our priority

is going to be the incident,

0:01:590:02:02

which is why I'm here

in Salisbury today.

0:02:020:02:04

Making sure that everybody's

protected around here,

0:02:040:02:06

around the incident.

0:02:060:02:09

Making sure the emergency services

have had the support that they need

0:02:090:02:12

and will continue to get it -

ongoing - and it's been great

0:02:120:02:15

to hear that is the case.

0:02:150:02:17

In terms of further options,

that will have to wait

0:02:170:02:19

until we're absolutely clear

what the consequences could be

0:02:190:02:21

and what the actual source of this

nerve agent has been.

0:02:210:02:29

Let's talk to our Home Affairs

correspondent, Daniel Sandford.

0:02:300:02:38

-- lets talk to Jonathan Beale. Why

have the military been called in?

0:02:380:02:43

180 military personnel from all

three services who have specialist

0:02:430:02:48

expertise in chemical warfare and

training, and who know how to

0:02:480:02:51

decontaminate. One of the things

they will be doing along with the 12

0:02:510:02:55

vehicles involved will be to remove

ambulances that were used to ferry

0:02:550:03:00

those injured into hospital.

Possibly to take them a where to be

0:03:000:03:07

decontaminated but they will remove

other object as well. These are

0:03:070:03:12

people who have regular training in

chemical and biological warfare,

0:03:120:03:17

including 40 commando, who recently

completed a three-week exercise

0:03:170:03:21

called toxic dagger, where they were

practising these kind of scenarios.

0:03:210:03:26

Also 27 Squadron from the RAF

Regiment. You would say that perhaps

0:03:260:03:31

this expertise still exists in the

military, it is not as dense and

0:03:310:03:35

full as it was during the height of

the Cold War but they still have

0:03:350:03:39

this expertise and clearly there can

help the police in this

0:03:390:03:43

investigation and secure sites. The

message from the Ministry of Defence

0:03:430:03:49

and ministers is the public should

not be alarmed, the threat level has

0:03:490:03:52

not changed but you will see people

in military uniform, potentially

0:03:520:03:57

wearing gas masks and chemical

warfare equipment at the seams

0:03:570:03:59

around Salisbury.

You say the

message is don't be alarmed, but

0:03:590:04:03

they will not be surprised that if

the public are somewhat put at an

0:04:030:04:08

ease by the visibility -- puts at

our knees by the military personnel,

0:04:080:04:14

how long do you think they will be

in Salisbury?

I don't think we know,

0:04:140:04:19

people should be expecting to seemed

people in military uniform arriving

0:04:190:04:23

at Salisbury today. The public

should not be alarmed because the

0:04:230:04:27

threat level, there is no more

danger to the public than there was

0:04:270:04:30

yesterday. But they will have to get

used to seeing this military

0:04:300:04:38

personnel who have this expertise,

it might be reassuring to people to

0:04:380:04:41

know that people still have this

expertise in the military and they

0:04:410:04:47

are trained to deal with it.

0:04:470:04:49

That's the response in terms of the

investigation, the political

0:04:490:04:53

response as it looks as if the

finger of suspicion remains firmly

0:04:530:04:58

towards Russia and the Russian state

despite their denials, in reality,

0:04:580:05:02

what can be done, what is this whole

spectrum response that we have heard

0:05:020:05:06

in the last 24-hour is?

First of

all, it's absolutely right to have

0:05:060:05:12

the investigation ahead of the

political response because we are

0:05:120:05:15

still not 100% sure. It would be

good to have clarity. In terms of

0:05:150:05:19

what the response could be, it is

difficult to tell because of course

0:05:190:05:25

this is not the only thing that

Russia is doing. On the

0:05:250:05:32

international scale there would be

problems with his support for Assad

0:05:320:05:39

in Syria, the potential that he

meddled in elections in the UK and

0:05:390:05:45

the US. Without international

cooperation and caught naked

0:05:450:05:48

response, I'm not sure there's an

awful lot that the UK can do -- and

0:05:480:05:52

a quarter naked response, I'm

0:05:520:05:53

awful lot that the UK can do.

0:05:530:05:58

I think there is quite a bit that

can be done and government ministers

0:06:030:06:09

have been quite vocal in cracking

down on certain Russian interests in

0:06:090:06:14

London and the UK. The troubling

thing is that we might never really

0:06:140:06:20

properly know the answer, because

there is a grey area. There is the

0:06:200:06:25

Russian state, which totally denies

any involvement, but then there is

0:06:250:06:30

Russian organised crime, which has

links to the FSB and formerly KGB.

0:06:300:06:35

What an order given, and someone

acted -- was an order given and

0:06:350:06:41

someone acted on the basis that they

would rid them of this troublesome

0:06:410:06:43

person or was there school setting?

It suggests if there was no agent

0:06:430:06:50

used, there was agents involved.

You

cannot really make it easily in your

0:06:500:06:56

garden shed. In terms of this show

of strength, some ministers and

0:06:560:07:01

former ministers have said that

Russia only understands a show of

0:07:010:07:06

strength so Britain have to respond

by cutting off diplomatic ties,

0:07:060:07:11

freezing assets of Russians here or

in Moscow. But will that actually

0:07:110:07:15

harm or put enough pressure on

Vladimir Putin to change his policy

0:07:150:07:22

towards the West?

No, I'm not saying

those things shouldn't happen.

0:07:220:07:26

Recalling ambassadors and freezing

assets are things that you would

0:07:260:07:30

expect to see happen in this sort of

situation but I think there's a

0:07:300:07:33

wider question of how you do deal

with someone who is an authoritarian

0:07:330:07:37

like Putin, and the malign

international actor. I come back to

0:07:370:07:43

this point of, without having a firm

international response, a

0:07:430:07:48

coordinated response, I'm not sure

what a single country can do.

That's

0:07:480:07:53

very difficult because the European

Union always runs a mile from this

0:07:530:07:58

stuff for all these reasons, because

of tensions with Germany and Germany

0:07:580:08:02

has a particular approach in terms

of handling Russia. The US is in a

0:08:020:08:06

strange situation because of the

current president. And also Britain

0:08:060:08:10

is kind of isolated here with its

strong Russian connections,

0:08:100:08:18

particularly in wealthy London. It

seems to be the case that Russian

0:08:180:08:21

actors are prepared to kill on

British soil, not prepared to kill

0:08:210:08:27

on American soil, prepared to

potentially interfere in American...

0:08:270:08:30

It does look as though Britain is a

particular target.

Yes, because over

0:08:300:08:37

the last 20 years, UK has been a

magnet for Russian wealth and there

0:08:370:08:42

has been two-way traffic between the

countries.

Let's leave it there.

0:08:420:08:46

Now it's time for our daily quiz,

and remember our quiz

0:08:460:08:49

is just a bit of fun,

there are no prizes.

0:08:490:08:51

Theresa May was asked

in an interview yesterday,

0:08:510:08:53

to mark International Women's Day,

what her ideal night with her

0:08:530:08:56

girlfriends would look like.

0:08:560:08:57

Was it...

0:08:570:08:59

Dinner at wine at home, karaoke and

cocktails, a boxed set binge or none

0:09:020:09:09

of the above?

0:09:090:09:10

At the end of the show

Rachel and Iain will,

0:09:100:09:12

we hope, give us the correct answer.

0:09:120:09:14

Now, female staff in the House

of Commons have been the subject

0:09:140:09:17

of bullying at the hands

of some MPs.

0:09:170:09:19

A BBC Newsnight investigation has

seen files and spoken

0:09:190:09:21

to witnesses who say staff

known as Commons clerks

0:09:210:09:24

have been mistreated.

0:09:240:09:25

Newsnight has spoken

to witnesses who believe

0:09:250:09:26

that a single member,

Paul Farrelly, the Labour MP

0:09:260:09:29

for Newcastle-under-Lyme,

made her continued employment

0:09:290:09:30

at the House of Commons impossible -

a consequence, they say, of years

0:09:300:09:34

of continued, personal criticism.

0:09:340:09:35

Newsnight's Chris Cook

asked the witness to

0:09:350:09:36

describe the treatment.

0:09:360:09:38

Aggressive, dismissive, rude.

0:09:380:09:43

And, ultimately, bullying.

0:09:430:09:49

And how much of an effect

did it have on her?

0:09:490:09:54

It ground her down.

0:09:540:09:55

It basically reached crisis point

and she could no longer do her job.

0:09:550:09:58

He had undermined her

and bullied her so much,

0:09:580:10:00

so regularly, so badly,

that she was just left entirely

0:10:000:10:02

exhausted and incredibly distressed.

0:10:020:10:03

And Newsnight's Chris

Cook joins me now.

0:10:030:10:11

What has been a response from Paul

Farrelly? We haven't actually heard

0:10:190:10:22

from him today. But his case is

something of a totem for women

0:10:220:10:31

working at the house today because

of what happened after that Clark,

0:10:310:10:34

who had to lose her job, complaint.

The two were the odd things that

0:10:340:10:41

have stuck in the mind, she raises a

complaint, it triggers an internal

0:10:410:10:47

inquiry run by another member of the

House staff, and an HR process which

0:10:470:10:52

was only eight months old at that

point. When she raised her complaint

0:10:520:10:58

other women came forward, and we had

eight years of test dummy about Mr

0:10:580:11:01

Farrelly's behaviour. Because the HR

policy was only eight months old,

0:11:010:11:08

they could only look at the eight

months, they thought. They feel that

0:11:080:11:13

the game has not been played fairly.

The second thing that has happened,

0:11:130:11:18

they go into this inquiry, of the

House staff goes to the allegations

0:11:180:11:22

that she makes, not the other women,

only her. He upholds complaint on

0:11:220:11:30

some of her allegations and decided

it was bullying and the

0:11:300:11:37

it was bullying and the contact was

offensive and there was no doubt

0:11:370:11:40

about her competence. That document

is taken to the House of Commons

0:11:400:11:43

commission which is a committee of

MPs, and they decide really not to

0:11:430:11:47

do anything. In fact, they suspend

the policy, they don't take action

0:11:470:11:51

against Mr Farrelly, they say that

the legal basis of the policy was

0:11:510:11:57

not down so they could not take

action. They also say that what

0:11:570:12:00

happened, any system that relies on

clerks investigating MPs is not fair

0:12:000:12:05

and robust.

You spoke to Paul

Farrelly before the piece went out,

0:12:050:12:10

what did he say?

He denies any

bullying, he says in 2012

0:12:100:12:14

allegations were made about me

having bullied a clerk during the

0:12:140:12:21

phone hacking inquiry, they were not

upheld but I apologised. The policy

0:12:210:12:28

was considered to be so unfair to

those about whom were complaint that

0:12:280:12:34

it was immediately withdrawn and

replaced by another policy. The case

0:12:340:12:38

is not really about Paul Farrelly,

this is all about the House of

0:12:380:12:42

Commons receiving a campaign and

clerks are taking the lesson -- a

0:12:420:12:47

complaint and clerks are taking a

lesson that the process cannot be

0:12:470:12:54

forwarded.

They think that the HR

process protect MPs. What about the

0:12:540:13:00

speaker, John Bercow?

In May 2010,

he got a new private secretary who

0:13:000:13:09

only lasted for nine months when she

was signed off sick. She had to be

0:13:090:13:12

found in new job somewhere else in

the House, they had to modify that

0:13:120:13:18

subsequent job so she would not come

into contact with the speaker. Her

0:13:180:13:22

managers were told that she had

posts a post right -- post-traumatic

0:13:220:13:31

stress disorder. She got that job

because she was regarded as a

0:13:310:13:35

phenomenal talent, the kind of

person you wanted in this enormously

0:13:350:13:39

important role. And there is an

enormous amount of sympathy for her

0:13:390:13:42

and everyone knows what happened to

her because they had to create these

0:13:420:13:45

new systems around her in a

subsequent job.

He has contested the

0:13:450:13:51

allegations as well?

His spokesman

says that he refutes the allegation

0:13:510:13:55

that he behaved in such a manner

eight years ago or any other time.

0:13:550:13:57

Downing Street has also been

speaking about this, the

0:13:570:14:02

spokesperson described claims of

staff bullying as concerning, and

0:14:020:14:10

they say there is no place for

bullying and harassment of any kind.

0:14:100:14:13

They also say that John Bercow has

said the allegations are being

0:14:130:14:17

contested but the Prime Minister has

full confidence in the speaker

0:14:170:14:21

according to her spokesman. Are you

surprised about these allegations?

0:14:210:14:24

I'm not, really. The House of

Commons or Parliament in general is

0:14:240:14:29

a very strange place. It doesn't

operate in a way that a conventional

0:14:290:14:35

workplace operates, it's not a

conventional organisation with a

0:14:350:14:39

hierarchy. MPs, and I should add

that I think most people would

0:14:390:14:44

accept that most MPs do not behave

in this fashion, but a small

0:14:440:14:48

minority do, and MPs really kind of

run the place. And in a group of 650

0:14:480:14:56

people, you end up with this small

minority who really wants to be

0:14:560:15:03

treated almost as little gods. And I

think the way in which the system is

0:15:030:15:09

constructed in means that staff then

don't necessarily have adequate

0:15:090:15:16

protection, there is confusion about

who investigates what. It's a legacy

0:15:160:15:19

of a place which has thousands of

people working in it, but it's not

0:15:190:15:24

constructed with the chief

executive. It cannot be because its

0:15:240:15:28

democratic institution. There's

going to have to be after this

0:15:280:15:32

investigation, have to be some form

of change.

0:15:320:15:38

Chris Cook's report reveals it is

difficult to know where to go to

0:15:390:15:42

complain and people within the

building are investigating each

0:15:420:15:45

other to a certain extent. Do you

think there needs to be an

0:15:450:15:48

independent process now, a different

body coming in to investigate

0:15:480:15:52

complaints?

I do, I do. What I think

was terrific about the Newsnight

0:15:520:15:56

report is it took the time to

explain the situation about how this

0:15:560:16:00

occurs. When we talk about a

systemic culture of bullying and

0:16:000:16:05

harassment, when we talk about a

male workplace culture that promotes

0:16:050:16:10

or facilitate bullying and

harassment, the Newsnight report

0:16:100:16:13

took the time to show this is what

it looks like, this is how it

0:16:130:16:18

manifests, this is what it means. I

think unless we take the time to

0:16:180:16:21

look at it, we're not going to be

able to find out ways of tackling

0:16:210:16:25

it.

I think the danger is and we saw

this during the expenses crisis,

0:16:250:16:30

that the real risks in bringing in

and outside, independent body,

0:16:300:16:37

because of the strange

constitutional position of

0:16:370:16:41

Parliament, and Parliament is

sovereign, so if you place an

0:16:410:16:44

independent body above Parliament,

you do interesting, strange things

0:16:440:16:48

to the Constitution. What I would

like to see happen is the vast

0:16:480:16:52

majority of MPs who don't behave in

this fashion really take this as a

0:16:520:16:57

wake-up call, take charge of the

process and institute changes.

0:16:570:17:01

Wright, thank you Chris Cook for

coming in.

0:17:010:17:03

Now, last week President Trump

unveiled plans to raise

0:17:030:17:05

tariffs on foreign imports

of steel and aluminium.

0:17:050:17:08

"If you don't have steel,

you don't have a country!,"

0:17:080:17:10

you might recall him tweeting.

0:17:100:17:12

Yesterday, surrounded

by steel workers, he made

0:17:120:17:13

good on that promise,

and signed the measures into law,

0:17:130:17:20

claiming that the industry had been

"ravaged" by aggressive foreign

0:17:200:17:23

trade practices that were, he said,

"an assault" on the United States.

0:17:230:17:25

They are expected to take

effect in 15 days' time.

0:17:250:17:28

Let's hear what he had to say.

0:17:280:17:30

Today, I'm defending America's

national security by placing

0:17:300:17:37

tariffs on foreign imports

of steel and aluminium.

0:17:370:17:41

We will have a 25% tariff

on foreign steel, 10% tariff

0:17:410:17:47

on foreign aluminium,

when the product comes

0:17:470:17:50

across our borders.

0:17:500:17:54

It's a process called dumping.

0:17:540:17:59

And they dumped more than at any

time, on any nation,

0:17:590:18:01

anywhere in the world.

0:18:010:18:05

And it drove our plants out

of business, it drove our

0:18:050:18:08

factories out of business.

0:18:080:18:11

And we want a lot of steel

coming into our country,

0:18:110:18:15

but we want it to be fair

and we want our workers to be

0:18:150:18:19

protected and we want, frankly,

our companies to be protected.

0:18:190:18:23

By contrast, we will

not place any new tax

0:18:230:18:26

on a product made in the USA.

0:18:260:18:33

So there's no tax if a product

is made in the USA.

0:18:330:18:36

You don't want to pay tax?

0:18:360:18:37

Bring your plant to

the USA, there's no tax.

0:18:370:18:39

President Trump.

0:18:390:18:40

The UK's International Trade

Secretary Liam Fox appeared

0:18:400:18:42

on Question Time last night.

0:18:420:18:43

He said he would be travelling

to the United States next week

0:18:430:18:46

to meet his US counterpart.

0:18:460:18:50

The way that the United States

is going about this is wrong,

0:18:500:18:53

because they're doing it under

what's called a 232 investigation

0:18:530:18:55

based on national security.

0:18:550:18:57

And for the UK it's doubly absurd,

because we are only responsible

0:18:570:19:00

for 1% of America's steel imports.

0:19:000:19:05

It's 5% of our tonnage,

by steel, that we produce

0:19:050:19:07

here, it's 15% by value.

0:19:070:19:10

The reason there's a difference

is that we tend to produce

0:19:100:19:13

very high value steel,

some of which can't be sourced

0:19:130:19:15

in the United States and will simply

push up the price of steel there.

0:19:150:19:19

We also make steel for the American

military programme.

0:19:190:19:23

So it's doubly absurd that we should

be then caught on an investigation

0:19:230:19:26

on national security.

0:19:260:19:30

That was Liam Fox.

0:19:300:19:32

Joining me now is author

and consultant, Ted Malloch,

0:19:320:19:34

who is also a supporter of Donald

Trump.

0:19:340:19:36

Welcome to the programme. Do you

think the president is making the

0:19:360:19:39

right move?

Yes, and it's been

sometime in the. I call it a PPE

0:19:390:19:47

move. It has to do with politics on

one hand, we are in the mid-term

0:19:470:19:51

elections. If you noticed who was

behind the president when he makes

0:19:510:19:56

this announcement, working-class

steelworkers and aluminium workers

0:19:560:19:59

from those rust belt states who need

to vote in favour of the Republicans

0:19:590:20:04

for them to stay in power during the

next congressional election. The

0:20:040:20:10

second thing is philosophical,

promised to do that in his

0:20:100:20:13

campaigns, is following through on a

campaign pledge. And it is economic,

0:20:130:20:18

there is an economic reason for

doing this.

What is that?

China is

0:20:180:20:23

dumping steel on international

markets. About 2 billion tonnes of

0:20:230:20:28

steel made, 800 million coming from

China. They are dumping them and it

0:20:280:20:32

is affecting global markets. So we

are going to knock that down.

Do you

0:20:320:20:37

accept that, it's a good trade

policy for the United States to

0:20:370:20:41

pursue?

I can understand the

politics of it, I don't think the

0:20:410:20:44

economic 's really make any sense.

What troubles me about it, as

0:20:440:20:48

someone who is pro-market, is

pro-market people tend to look to

0:20:480:20:52

the United States for a lead.

Beginning a trade war in this

0:20:520:20:57

fashion could have all sorts of

unintended consequences, if others

0:20:570:21:01

respond. Should just qualify one

thing, which is we are talking as

0:21:010:21:06

though we in Europe don't use

tariffs, but of course the European

0:21:060:21:11

Union has a 72%...?

74.7.

And

Chinese steel. So the European Union

0:21:110:21:18

has been playing this game as well.

Having said that, I thought Trump

0:21:180:21:22

with the tax cuts, I thought he was

starting to get somewhere economic

0:21:220:21:28

year and I think this could set back

a lot of that progress.

It is the

0:21:280:21:32

beginning of a trade war,

potentially. European Union vice

0:21:320:21:35

president has had in the wake of

Trump's decision the commission will

0:21:350:21:41

continue with the rebalancing

measures. Will that help the United

0:21:410:21:45

States, a trade war?

I don't think

it will be a trade war, blown up to

0:21:450:21:50

that proportion.

It will they

retaliate.

There will be some

0:21:500:21:54

tit-for-tat like on things like Jack

Daniels, peanut butter and

0:21:540:22:00

Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The

real thing that is coming down the

0:22:000:22:03

pipe and this is significant in

Europe and the UK, and the president

0:22:030:22:07

intimated this yesterday and has

said it also in other speeches, is

0:22:070:22:12

the potential for significant

tariffs. In other words, narrowing

0:22:120:22:16

tariffs on automobiles.

What impact

would that have? That is a much

0:22:160:22:22

bigger deal in terms of the UK.

A

much bigger deal. The EU tariffs on

0:22:220:22:27

US automobiles is 2%. The US, I mean

is 10%, the US is 2%. If we were to

0:22:270:22:35

just change that to the mirror

image, it would dramatically affect

0:22:350:22:38

the German automobile industry and

also Jaguar Land Rover.

Rachel, that

0:22:380:22:43

would have a real impact here and on

German car-makers. What can be done

0:22:430:22:51

by the British government who are

said to have a special relationship

0:22:510:22:54

with the US?

It is one more reason

not to be so reliant on the US in

0:22:540:23:00

our post-Brexit reality. One of the

things I find objectionable about

0:23:000:23:06

right wing authoritarian site Donald

Trump is this misdiagnosis of what

0:23:060:23:10

is ailing the economy. It is not

globalisation per se that is a

0:23:100:23:14

problem. We lived in a joined up

world, that is the reality. It's a

0:23:140:23:19

neoliberal economic policy that has

ravaged peoples lives, destroyed

0:23:190:23:22

communities, that has gutted out and

hollowed out economies. It has

0:23:220:23:26

nothing to do with tariffs, it's a

political choice to run an economy

0:23:260:23:31

in a particular way. We can

reprogram it to run on a different

0:23:310:23:36

way, it's just that this particular

neoliberal system of running

0:23:360:23:39

economic has chosen not to.

What do

you say to that?

We have had

0:23:390:23:45

elections in the United States and

elected this president, is hardly an

0:23:450:23:50

authoritarian he's just started a

peace process and denuclearisation.

0:23:500:23:53

We will talk about that in a moment.

He's hardly an authoritarian. This

0:23:530:23:57

was part of his campaign, to bring

back manufacturing to American

0:23:570:24:02

industries. This is a national

security issue. Steel is rather

0:24:020:24:07

important, aluminium also rather

important. There this is nothing to

0:24:070:24:11

do with authoritarianism.

Isn't he

failing political promises question

0:24:110:24:16

what you could argue Jeremy Corbyn

also wants to have an economic

0:24:160:24:18

policy that is going to support

local industries, would also like to

0:24:180:24:24

actually support and subsidised

steel industry here, if he became

0:24:240:24:27

Prime Minister. In a way, these are

just different ways of dealing with

0:24:270:24:32

the same problem.

No, because one is

telling lies and making false

0:24:320:24:36

promises. Let's look at how

localisation, what it could look

0:24:360:24:39

like in the UK. One example of that

is the Preston model, the local

0:24:390:24:45

council in Preston, Lancashire,

which has seen a local government

0:24:450:24:49

spending when it has spent locally,

create more wealth in the local

0:24:490:24:53

economy than if it were outsourced.

That is one-way. It has nothing to

0:24:530:24:58

do with tariffs. That is one way of

reviving the local economy. It means

0:24:580:25:02

local businesses can thrive, they

employ people, everyone pays tax,

0:25:020:25:07

the business pays tax on the economy

locally is revived. It is nothing to

0:25:070:25:10

do with tariffs, it's a political

decision to reprogram an economy, to

0:25:100:25:14

work in a way that benefits people

are not corporations.

It has

0:25:140:25:19

benefits for people. The process of

trade liberalisation after the

0:25:190:25:22

Second World War, which was

advocated by moderate left centre

0:25:220:25:28

politicians and free-market

politicians, turned into

0:25:280:25:30

globalisation, which of course I am

concerned about some of the extreme

0:25:300:25:33

effects of that but it has globally

had the most extraordinary impact.

0:25:330:25:36

It has lifted at least a billion

people out of property.

Created the

0:25:360:25:41

biggest wealth inequalities as well.

I don't think trickle-down economics

0:25:410:25:45

has been proven not to work. I think

the problem is wired into the

0:25:450:25:50

system.

Let's compare the Chinese

economy in 1950 now...

Your point is

0:25:500:25:56

perfect on is the miracle is that

the Chinese economy. We moved 350

0:25:560:25:59

million people out of extreme

poverty in China.

That is a good

0:25:590:26:03

thing.

The cost of that has been the

cost of jobs in the rust belt in the

0:26:030:26:08

United States and hollowed out parts

of England and in Western Europe.

0:26:080:26:14

It's a trade-off.

Let's talk about

the relationship with the UK, is a

0:26:140:26:19

good friend of the United States?

Absolutely.

Will there be an

0:26:190:26:23

exemption for the UK?

Will you be

part of the European Union?

At the

0:26:230:26:28

moment.

When you leave we will see.

Is that the trade-off, the UK might

0:26:280:26:35

get an exemption once it leaves the

EU or would it be better to stay

0:26:350:26:39

part of the EU, a big trading bloc

and use and support those

0:26:390:26:42

retaliatory measures?

I voted to

leave but I didn't vote to leave

0:26:420:26:47

thinking that this utopia of loads

of trade deals being out there and

0:26:470:26:51

somehow some massive trade deal with

the US is going to solve Britain's

0:26:510:26:54

economic problems. Most of its

problems are domestic. Exports are

0:26:540:26:58

20% of the economy and about half of

that is the EU and half of that is

0:26:580:27:04

the rest of the world, led by the

US. I don't think in the short-term,

0:27:040:27:07

certainly in this context the US

president doing what he's doing, I

0:27:070:27:10

don't think that that will be that

many trade deals in the next four or

0:27:100:27:14

five years.

You said once Britain

leads the EU, but if this friendship

0:27:140:27:19

and relationship exists now, why

can't there be an exemption, as

0:27:190:27:21

you're giving to other countries, to

the UK?

Because he would have to do

0:27:210:27:26

it to the whole of the EU and when

not about to do that. We gave an

0:27:260:27:30

exception to Mexico and Canada but

the president said yesterday, that

0:27:300:27:33

is only an exception if we can come

to terms on their Nafta. If we don't

0:27:330:27:40

we have leverage on the same tariffs

will apply to those two country.

It

0:27:400:27:44

said countries that meet or fail

their defence commitments to Nato.

0:27:440:27:52

We do stop white

only five do.

Would

you be confident the UK could get an

0:27:520:27:58

exemption or is there any point of

this special relationship if there

0:27:580:28:01

will be no special treatment for the

UK in the future?

We will see what

0:28:010:28:07

Mr Liam Fox accomplishes when he

goes to Washington this week or next

0:28:070:28:09

week. My guess is there won't be an

exemption for the UK.

What you say

0:28:090:28:14

about Liam Fox's view and trade, and

the high-grade steel that you get

0:28:140:28:19

from the UK, which would be able to

get it in the US?

Once those

0:28:190:28:23

industries come back in the US they

will be available. There are places

0:28:230:28:26

in the US where those things have

been decimated. With this new

0:28:260:28:29

measure, you have heard already

companies bringing back hundreds,

0:28:290:28:32

soon to be thousands of employees,

to make exactly those kinds of

0:28:320:28:36

products.

Ted Malloch, thank you.

0:28:360:28:38

She said she would, and apparently

Theresa May has raised concerns

0:28:380:28:41

about human rights in Saudi Arabia

during talks with the

0:28:410:28:46

country's Crown Prince,

Mohammed bin Salman has been

0:28:460:28:48

on a three-day UK visit

to talk about trade,

0:28:480:28:50

and presumably some of the more

awkward issues like Yemen.

0:28:500:28:53

The visit comes the same week

as International Women's Day,

0:28:530:28:57

another area, Saudi Arabia isn't

exactly celebrated for.

0:28:570:28:59

Here's Ellie.

0:28:590:29:01

At nearly every stop

on the Saudi Arabian visit this

0:29:010:29:04

week, the protesters

haven't been far.

0:29:040:29:05

Well, today I got the opportunity

to talk to one of 29 women who sit

0:29:050:29:09

on the Shoura Council.

0:29:090:29:10

It's not exactly a parliament,

but it's a council that advises

0:29:100:29:13

the Saudi Arabian King,

and there's plenty to put to her.

0:29:130:29:18

A good place to start -

women's rights.

0:29:180:29:21

A country that in June is finally

allowing women to drive cars,

0:29:210:29:24

and that is being seen as progress.

0:29:240:29:26

It's a woeful record, isn't it?

0:29:260:29:28

The country is young, not just

in its population but in its age.

0:29:280:29:35

Effectively it's an 80 year

old country, but I actually always

0:29:350:29:40

say it's a 50 year old country,

because when the first revenue

0:29:400:29:44

of oil came to the country,

to the government, that's

0:29:440:29:46

when it was used for

the infrastructure.

0:29:460:29:48

When you look at a country

that is basically 50 years old,

0:29:480:29:53

we're only going one way,

which is forwards.

0:29:530:29:56

But it cannot happen

from one day to the next.

0:29:560:30:00

But it is true that women don't

have the same rights as men,

0:30:000:30:03

don't have the same rights

that they would here in the UK?

0:30:030:30:06

When did you get your rights?

0:30:060:30:08

More than 100 years ago,

women have been voting, for example.

0:30:080:30:11

Yes, that's fine, but how long did

it take for you to have?

0:30:110:30:14

I'm talking about a country

that is 50 years old.

0:30:140:30:16

You were not 50 years

old when you got your rights.

0:30:160:30:19

I'm not justifying the fact that

in your eyes we are slow.

0:30:190:30:23

Yes, it is challenging.

0:30:230:30:25

There are obstacles,

we get frustrated and I'm not

0:30:250:30:30

denying any of that,

this is the reality, it's there.

0:30:300:30:32

What about you personally?

0:30:320:30:34

You're a woman living

in Saudi Arabia.

0:30:340:30:38

When I need to find myself at X, Y,

Z place at a certain time,

0:30:380:30:42

and I can't be there

because of transportation reasons,

0:30:420:30:44

yes, of course, I get frustrated.

0:30:440:30:47

Today things are easier,

with Uber, with Careem

0:30:470:30:51

and with private drivers,

obviously things do gets easier.

0:30:510:30:53

But when I look at it on a global

level, a 50 year old country,

0:30:530:30:58

to have reached what a lot

of countries took

0:30:580:31:02

hundreds of years to do.

0:31:020:31:04

And, like I said, I think the only

way we have had to go is forwards.

0:31:040:31:08

Much has been made this

visit of Vision 2030 -

0:31:080:31:12

a blueprint by King Salman

and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

0:31:120:31:15

of economic and social reforms

to modernise Saudi Arabia.

0:31:150:31:21

You yourself have a daughter.

0:31:210:31:23

Do you think Saudi Arabia

of the future will be an easier

0:31:230:31:26

place to thrive for a woman?

0:31:260:31:27

I believe it will be,

but if it's not done in 2030

0:31:270:31:30

and it's done in 2032,

that's fine too.

0:31:300:31:32

Like I said, it's part

of the evolutionary

0:31:320:31:34

development of the country.

0:31:340:31:36

It's not stagnating.

0:31:360:31:38

And because we are moving forwards,

it can only get better.

0:31:380:31:40

It'll get better from next year,

it will get better the year after,

0:31:400:31:43

because we are seeing these changes,

because there is a genuine desire

0:31:430:31:46

to change and reform.

0:31:460:31:51

And it's not just because Prince

Mohammed or King Salman

0:31:510:31:56

want that to happen,

it's because the young people

0:31:560:31:59

of the country want it to happen.

0:31:590:32:00

And these young people are coming

back from their education abroad

0:32:000:32:07

not just with a degree,

but with open horizons,

0:32:070:32:10

mental horizons that

will change the way they live,

0:32:100:32:12

will change their aspirations.

0:32:120:32:16

There have been protests

during your visit here

0:32:160:32:20

about human rights abuses,

about the situation in Yemen.

0:32:200:32:22

Do you find some of those

difficult to defend?

0:32:220:32:25

Politically speaking,

when a country's surrounded

0:32:250:32:28

by enemies more than by friends,

there are certain actions

0:32:280:32:31

that need to be taken.

0:32:310:32:34

Especially if politically

and diplomatically chances

0:32:340:32:36

were given, not just once,

not just twice, more than that.

0:32:360:32:41

We have had the example

of Hezbollah in the North.

0:32:410:32:46

We don't want a resurgence

or a reappearance of something

0:32:460:32:49

like that in the South.

0:32:490:32:51

I'm not justifying the deaths

or the human rights issues

0:32:510:32:56

that come with any war,

I'm just stating the facts.

0:32:560:33:00

I think that it is very easy

to criticise and to talk

0:33:000:33:04

about issues when they're not

relatively clear to

0:33:040:33:08

the general public.

0:33:080:33:11

So the idea that the situation

in Yemen is a proxy war

0:33:110:33:14

against Iran is, what?

0:33:140:33:17

Definitely there's part of that,

I'm not denying that at all.

0:33:170:33:19

Iran has a big role, has had a big

role in this issue, yes.

0:33:190:33:27

Ali Price reporting. Do you share

her optimism in terms of the pace of

0:33:300:33:38

reform that Saudi Arabia is very

keen to promote, we saw that

0:33:380:33:42

underlined in that interview? In

terms of women's rights especially?

0:33:420:33:44

No, there have been cosmetic reforms

and obviously we need to credit and

0:33:440:33:52

celebrate the Saudi women who have

campaigned for those reforms, two

0:33:520:33:57

decades in the case of getting the

right to drive. But they are

0:33:570:34:01

cosmetic reforms. As long as the

underpinning system of male

0:34:010:34:05

guardianship exists in Saudi Arabia,

whereby women has to get permission

0:34:050:34:11

from a male guardian for all kinds

of things which essentially mean

0:34:110:34:14

they do not have equal rights as

citizens. As long as there is system

0:34:140:34:19

like that underpinning everything,

these reforms will be cosmetic.

In

0:34:190:34:23

terms of the relationship that

Britain has the Saudi Arabia, how

0:34:230:34:26

under pressure is that with

accusations of military advisers in

0:34:260:34:29

Britain being involved in the war in

Yemen?

I don't think it's

0:34:290:34:35

necessarily under pressure. The UK

Government has invested a lot of

0:34:350:34:40

faith and time in recent months

building up to this week to really

0:34:400:34:42

make a fuss of Mohammed bin Salman,

and there is a calculation and play

0:34:420:34:48

made by the Foreign Office is that

what he is doing is potentially

0:34:480:34:53

transformative. And while I share

some of the scepticism, but there

0:34:530:34:58

are reasons to be cautious about it,

he is potentially transformative.

0:34:580:35:04

The French have been far ahead of

the UK in terms of trade and being

0:35:040:35:08

in there with the new leadership.

Britain had some catching up to do,

0:35:080:35:14

that's what this week was about.

Those trade deals are extremely

0:35:140:35:18

important, worse potentially

billions of pounds. The trouble with

0:35:180:35:22

this -- worth potentially billions

of pounds.

The trouble with this

0:35:220:35:26

very cosy relationship is not just

the human rights abuses in Saudi

0:35:260:35:30

Arabia itself, and the treatment of

women comes up in that category, it

0:35:300:35:33

is that it is a destabilising force

in the Middle East. It backed a

0:35:330:35:39

military coup against the

democratically elected president in

0:35:390:35:42

Egypt's, it has at least covertly

funded some pretty violent

0:35:420:35:46

extremists in Syria and Iraq, it

effectively kidnapped Lebanese Prime

0:35:460:35:50

Minister just a few months ago and

that's before we get onto the

0:35:500:35:54

horrific human rights violations

going on in.

Of course.

Aided and

0:35:540:35:59

abetted by the UK whose arms sales

to Yemen have increased by an

0:35:590:36:06

extraordinary amount despite these

very clear human rights violations.

0:36:060:36:09

What that does to Britain is that it

undermines our reputation and

0:36:090:36:14

credibility in the Middle East and

internationally.

Is it defensible?

0:36:140:36:21

Yemen is a catastrophe, of course,

but you cannot look at Yemen without

0:36:210:36:24

looking at the role of Iran. You

can't have a situation from the

0:36:240:36:27

Saudi's position...

But we are

post... -- closely allied.

Yes, we

0:36:270:36:35

have been 50 years but it cannot

have a situation from a typical

0:36:350:36:40

point of view where Iranian

interests without in Yemen against

0:36:400:36:46

the Saudis. In terms of funding

against terrorism, we will see if he

0:36:460:36:53

is as good as his word, but he seems

to have said to the National

0:36:530:36:57

Security Council and MI6 and MI5

that he will curtail the funding of

0:36:570:37:06

certain groups. He has only been in

charge for a small amount of time

0:37:060:37:11

and it seems to be heading in the

right direction.

0:37:110:37:14

Now, if you've paid any

attention to British politics

0:37:140:37:17

since the Brexit referendum,

you've probably seen and heard one

0:37:170:37:20

sentiment expressed more

than any other by some of the most

0:37:200:37:23

ardent pro-EU voices in Westminster.

0:37:230:37:24

And even by some in the government.

0:37:240:37:25

Let's take a look.

0:37:250:37:27

Nobody voted on the 23rd of June

to make this country poorer.

0:37:270:37:31

Nobody voted to be poorer.

0:37:310:37:32

Nobody in this process

voted to be poorer.

0:37:320:37:35

Nobody, nobody voted to be poorer.

0:37:350:37:38

The country didn't vote

to make itself poorer.

0:37:380:37:41

When the British people voted

last June, they did not

0:37:410:37:44

vote to become poorer.

0:37:440:37:48

Philip Hammond at the end there,

echoing a sentiment

0:37:480:37:50

expressed by many across

the political spectrum.

0:37:500:37:52

But even if the jury's yet to return

a verdict on how the EU

0:37:520:37:55

will affect people's finances -

were some people who voted Brexit

0:37:550:37:59

prepared to take an economic hit

if that was the price

0:37:590:38:02

of leaving the EU?

0:38:020:38:04

Well, to discuss this we're

joined by David Goodhart

0:38:040:38:06

from the Policy Exchange think-tank,

he's also the author

0:38:060:38:09

of The Road to Somewhere, which,

amongst other things, explores

0:38:090:38:12

why people voted for Brexit.

0:38:120:38:18

Welcome to the show. Do you think

people were prepared to take an

0:38:180:38:23

economic hit in order to take back

control, to use another phrase?

I

0:38:230:38:27

think they would rather not but I

think a lot of people did vote

0:38:270:38:29

knowing that their pockets might be

hit. But regarding it as a

0:38:290:38:36

reasonable trade-off. We might be a

few hundred pounds richer in ten

0:38:360:38:40

years' time, but our democratic

accountability would be weaker, our

0:38:400:38:46

national identity would be weaker,

if we remained in the European

0:38:460:38:48

Union, a lot of people thought. I

actually voted to remain but I

0:38:480:38:53

thought that they were right about

that.

Do you agree and accept that

0:38:530:38:56

there were plenty of people who did

feel it was worth economic

0:38:560:39:00

uncertainty, let's put it like that,

and potentially being slightly worse

0:39:000:39:03

off in order to regain some sorts of

national identity?

I think national

0:39:030:39:09

identity is a phrase that's doing a

lot of work in that sentence. It's

0:39:090:39:14

very hard to discern what it was

that people actually did vote for,

0:39:140:39:18

and that's precisely why were having

such difficulty is that the

0:39:180:39:22

negotiations because we're trying to

find out what is it that people

0:39:220:39:25

wanted from Brexit. Nobody actually

said that. That wasn't on the

0:39:250:39:28

ballot. But I don't think these kind

of cultural concerns, that seems to

0:39:280:39:34

me a proxy for what can only be

described as Zeno races and I don't

0:39:340:39:39

think we should be making any -- is

then a racism and I don't wish to

0:39:390:39:44

make any political decisions on

that.

I find myself much more

0:39:440:39:53

favourable for Brexit because of the

arguments we had from the militant

0:39:530:40:01

Remainers, sheer panic on the

financial side or that we are all

0:40:010:40:10

racist, the 50% who voted leave.

Neither of those things are true.

0:40:100:40:16

There will be an adjustment cost but

I suspect we will be just as rich as

0:40:160:40:20

we will have been. This is that

first big push back of the shrinkage

0:40:200:40:28

of democratic space that has

happened in all big democracies, you

0:40:280:40:31

think of the way that the WTO,

European and aggression, even

0:40:310:40:36

domestic policies like the

independence of the Bank of England

0:40:360:40:40

have shrunk the attic space. What is

exciting about Brexit is it is a the

0:40:400:40:47

first push back against the

shrinking of that democratic space.

0:40:470:40:50

Although people might have been

prepared to take an economic hit, we

0:40:500:40:53

don't know how they thought it would

manifest itself. Do you think there

0:40:530:40:57

were a broad sense of the reasons

that people were voting and that has

0:40:570:41:02

made it difficult for negotiations,

because people said, we will be the

0:41:020:41:06

single market and the customs union

and if that makes us poorer, then so

0:41:060:41:11

be it.

We have to be sceptical about

polling after the event of the last

0:41:110:41:14

few years but there are quite

detailed series of polls done on

0:41:140:41:18

testing attitude afterwards, on what

people thought they were doing.

0:41:180:41:21

Immigration comes second, first

tends to come the question of

0:41:210:41:26

self-government and the country

making its own laws. What's

0:41:260:41:31

astonishing about the British

political class is that it was so

0:41:310:41:33

shocked by the result. It's been

apparent since about the time of

0:41:330:41:38

Maastricht at something close to the

majority of British voters were

0:41:380:41:43

sceptical about excessive political

integration and were never asked the

0:41:430:41:45

question. The first time the

question was put to them, they

0:41:450:41:49

delivered a pretty clear answer. In

terms of the good people voting to

0:41:490:41:55

be poorer, that is obviously a piece

of sophistry. I certainly voted but

0:41:550:42:00

that was a possibility -- knowing

that was a possible 80 and I know

0:42:000:42:09

many Leave voters who voted thinking

it was.

0:42:090:42:14

it was. People heard the warnings,

they calculated that there might be

0:42:140:42:18

some hit, there might not, depending

on things that had not happened yet.

0:42:180:42:21

But if there was a moderate hit, and

an adjustment cost, it is something

0:42:210:42:26

worth living for force of

government.

People said it was worth

0:42:260:42:29

it because Britain could then -- it

was worth living for four

0:42:290:42:34

self-government, people said it was

worth it because Britain could then

0:42:340:42:37

make decisions over things like

borders, and money, and that is more

0:42:370:42:41

important?

People were sold this

idea of taking back control. That

0:42:410:42:46

doesn't mean anything, it's an

anti-slogan.

It's not an empty

0:42:460:42:49

slogan.

When we talk about the

accountability of the WTO, or of

0:42:490:42:59

banks and multinationals, that is a

very separate thing from the issue

0:42:590:43:03

of the EU. And that's exactly the

success of the Leave campaign, it

0:43:030:43:07

managed to divert a lot of very

reasonable concerns, economic

0:43:070:43:11

concerns into something that was

essentially... It was huge areas of

0:43:110:43:15

life. But because of European --

because of European rules, we could

0:43:150:43:29

not control, the way in which

different can -- countries balance

0:43:290:43:33

risk and other things, it's hugely

different from country to country

0:43:330:43:37

and we are squeezed into often

German related anxieties about their

0:43:370:43:41

detection, for example.

We have to

pay huge tariffs on shoes because of

0:43:410:43:48

the Italians. This is all sorts of

areas that we can reclaim

0:43:480:43:53

sovereignty. Liberal fantasists

think it is a

0:43:530:44:03

think it is a pooling of

empowerment, but I think a lot of

0:44:030:44:05

people think it is this empowering.

If people are feeling poorer at the

0:44:050:44:10

moment because of high inflation and

wage stagnation because in the

0:44:100:44:14

aftermath of that EU vote,

0:44:140:44:24

GDP will fall by less than it fell

in the financial crisis. I do think

0:45:020:45:06

people would change their mind, come

to regret what they thought was

0:45:060:45:09

worth taking an economic hit for?

It's possible, there is no sign of

0:45:090:45:13

it yet. I think where the Labour

Party has a real advantage and

0:45:130:45:19

Jeremy Corbyn are headed the game,

because the Tories are focused on

0:45:190:45:23

the shambolic negotiations already

Labour in that keynote speech Jeremy

0:45:230:45:28

Corbyn gave last week, already he is

talking about Britain after Brexit.

0:45:280:45:35

I think the Labour understanding is

correct. Once Brexit is a done deal

0:45:350:45:40

and happens in one form or another,

there will then be up battle for

0:45:400:45:44

votes in areas for those who voted

for Brexit who want to see some

0:45:440:45:48

concrete improvement.

David

Goodhart, thank you.

0:45:480:45:51

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

0:45:510:45:53

check out the BBC News website -

that's bbc.co.uk/brexit.

0:45:530:46:01

Donald Trump has accepted

an invitation from the North Korean

0:46:010:46:03

leader, Kim Jong-un,

to hold an unprecedented meeting

0:46:030:46:05

to discuss the future

of the regime's nuclear

0:46:050:46:07

and missile programme.

0:46:070:46:08

Following months of mutual

hostility, senior South Korean

0:46:080:46:11

officials appeared outside

the White House to announce the news

0:46:110:46:14

having verbally conveyed Kim's

invitation to Trump.

0:46:140:46:19

The White House confirmed Trump

was ready to meet Kim "by May."

0:46:190:46:23

President Trump himself

confirmed the meeting

0:46:230:46:28

in his own inimitable way

- yes, tweeting.

0:46:280:46:31

To get the latest on this we can

talk to our correspondent

0:46:430:46:46

Robin Brant in Seoul.

0:46:460:46:50

What has been the reaction in South

Korea?

0:46:500:46:56

Korea?

The South Koreans believe

that they are the ones who have

0:46:560:47:00

engineered this meeting, and meeting

the like of which has never, ever

0:47:000:47:03

happened before. A sitting president

sitting down with chairman Kim, in

0:47:030:47:09

this instance, the leader of the

Democratic People's Republic of

0:47:090:47:13

Korea. South Korea's leader was a

man who came to office a couple of

0:47:130:47:16

years ago on a promise to extend the

olive branch to the north. Clearly

0:47:160:47:20

he is delivering on that. At the

same time he has pursued a policy

0:47:200:47:24

trying to further cement that very

close relationship with the United

0:47:240:47:27

States.

0:47:270:47:32

States. But Moon Jae-in has high

hopes for the meeting, even though

0:47:350:47:38

we don't know when it will take

place. South Korea's president

0:47:380:47:41

already saying he feels this meeting

will be remembered as a historical

0:47:410:47:45

milestone that realised piece on the

Korean Valencia. Even before it has

0:47:450:47:49

taken place. But the South Koreans

clearly believe that there can be

0:47:490:47:53

tangible gains, real achievements,

in terms of not just an

0:47:530:48:00

de-escalation of tensions between

North Korea and America but also on

0:48:000:48:03

this issue, very vexed issue of

denuclearisation.

Thank you. Joining

0:48:030:48:12

me now is Professor Robert Kelley,

an expert in Korean affairs. Welcome

0:48:120:48:17

to the Daily Politics. An enormous

diplomatic breakthrough?

It may be,

0:48:170:48:24

if the president can bring home a

genuinely big deal. That meeting

0:48:240:48:30

means the stakes are really high, we

assume there is some sort of big

0:48:300:48:34

bargain to come from this. But there

is only ten weeks to actually

0:48:340:48:38

prepare for this and really there

has not been much discussion in the

0:48:380:48:43

analyst community. They didn't seem

the Secretary of State knew was

0:48:430:48:46

coming White House staff. The

president has to bring home

0:48:460:48:49

something big, a lot of work to do

in a short time.

How have things

0:48:490:48:53

changed so rapidly? We thought

relations were at an extremely low

0:48:530:48:56

point. Trump was promising to bring

down fire and you're like the world

0:48:560:49:00

had never seen an Korea and now?

I

think a lot of this shows the

0:49:000:49:07

President's temperament. We know he

is very erratic and volatile and

0:49:070:49:12

changes his mind very rapidly. Just

three months ago we were talking

0:49:120:49:15

about air strikes on North Korea. My

sense is that is the president.

0:49:150:49:22

North Korea properly have fully

functional nuclear weapons they

0:49:220:49:26

figure, why not talk now? The

sanctions are biting also. I think

0:49:260:49:30

the big swing is due to the

president himself.

You think it is

0:49:300:49:33

down to him. Could this be the mixer

China moment for President Trump,

0:49:330:49:40

that he has manoeuvred the US into a

strong position?

It could be of the

0:49:400:49:44

president brings home something

real. The concern from the analyst

0:49:440:49:48

community, if you're watching TV or

looking at Twitter today, a lot of

0:49:480:49:51

people have been very unsure about

what this means. Because it came out

0:49:510:49:55

of the blue. Fixing this issue as

difficult as North Korea- US

0:49:550:50:00

relations, it's highly unlikely can

be fixed in just ten weeks. This is

0:50:000:50:04

the kind of thing that takes years

and years. If you look at the 90s,

0:50:040:50:08

years were spent on this kind of

stuff and suddenly Donald Trump

0:50:080:50:12

order in ten weeks. It is so

unlikely. Maybe, but unlikely.

Just

0:50:120:50:16

before I go to my guests, what you

keep saying, it's a very short space

0:50:160:50:21

of time to get all this sorted out

before the meeting. What are the

0:50:210:50:27

risks to these talks, and saying

they will be done by May? If they

0:50:270:50:31

collapse or they don't go the way

either side wants, could actually

0:50:310:50:37

escalate the situation?

Yes, I think

there are two possibilities. The

0:50:370:50:40

first is they meet and don't like

each other. And they both start... I

0:50:400:50:45

mean Kim Jong-un have called him

names and Donald Trump likewise.

0:50:450:50:49

They could fall back to that and

load each other and then there is a

0:50:490:50:54

real impasse. The other possible it

is they meet and it doesn't go

0:50:540:50:57

anywhere, it fails. Particularly the

Trump sides is look, we went for the

0:50:570:51:05

big show, the summer and it went

nowhere and it doesn't leave us with

0:51:050:51:07

anywhere else to go. Normally these

things work their way through a

0:51:070:51:12

lower-level policy process before

the summit happens, Trump is taking

0:51:120:51:16

a chance to have the summit before

the years of groundwork that

0:51:160:51:19

normally precede it stop like that

is an important point, the stakes

0:51:190:51:22

are very high. On one side you could

say it will be the meeting of two

0:51:220:51:26

absurd figures

who have high levels

of vanity. On the other hand, an

0:51:260:51:30

historic meeting?

It is. But it is

another example, Trump has to be

0:51:300:51:36

seen in terms of celebrity

wrestling. He is that kind of

0:51:360:51:40

president. He is seeing this other

guy, Kim, is the other celebrity

0:51:400:51:50

wrestler, and they've been facing

off, promising to kill each other.

0:51:500:51:55

Now, something interesting, the

great Trump show is going to produce

0:51:550:52:00

something, a great plot twist. It is

possible. I am a Trump sceptic but

0:52:000:52:07

there is certainly something in his

approach and we saw it last month on

0:52:070:52:11

gun control, where he flipped and

adopted a different position from

0:52:110:52:17

the position the NRA would have

wanted to take. There is something

0:52:170:52:21

in his unpredictability and his

showmanship which, in this case,

0:52:210:52:26

might just work. It is worth a go.

In celebrity wrestling, in this

0:52:260:52:31

instance, who comes out on top?

Oh

my goodness! That is the question,

0:52:310:52:36

isn't it? It might be that

showmanship works. I think it is

0:52:360:52:42

interesting what the analysts and

experts are saying, which is look,

0:52:420:52:47

normally negotiations on this sort

of situation, it's years, its years

0:52:470:52:52

of backroom staff. There is a lot

going on before it comes to leaders

0:52:520:52:58

meeting fostered in this case none

of this has happened, they've just

0:52:580:53:01

gone straight to this meeting.

Therefore, the likelihood of it

0:53:010:53:05

producing something, without that

huge background, backroom effort, it

0:53:050:53:09

doesn't seem high, does it?

In terms

of using President Trump has to come

0:53:090:53:15

home with something big. This

denuclearisation, is that the only

0:53:150:53:20

goal, the only possible prize,

anything less than that will be seen

0:53:200:53:22

as a failure?

The Americans keep

talking it up that way, yes. I think

0:53:220:53:28

the president needs to start

managing expectations. The North

0:53:280:53:31

Korean spent 40 years developing

nuclear weapons, it is unlikely they

0:53:310:53:37

will give up in ten weeks. It would

be astonishing. What's more likely

0:53:370:53:41

as you'll get some movement on human

rights, is important, cameras or

0:53:410:53:46

inspectors back in North Korea, may

be nuclear safety. There is concern

0:53:460:53:51

about that. All this stuff, these

are small steps. It would be helpful

0:53:510:53:56

to work our way through those before

we went in for the big enchilada. It

0:53:560:54:02

is highly unlikely in a state that

has been 40 years building nuclear

0:54:020:54:06

weapons that they will give them up.

It brings a possible this might not

0:54:060:54:09

turn out to be anything. It might be

a big, a show that goes nowhere, the

0:54:090:54:14

Trump show. That is what the

president has to work on. He has a

0:54:140:54:19

lot to do in ten weeks.

Will it

matter if it doesn't go anywhere?

0:54:190:54:23

Symbolically it will be important.

Imagine the two of them when they

0:54:230:54:26

meet, what will that be like?

We

have come a long way since Stalin,

0:54:260:54:32

Roosevelt and Churchill. It is going

to be a Technicolor, most

0:54:320:54:40

extraordinary reality TV style

event. Imagine the media experience,

0:54:400:54:44

as they shake hands, and the

carnival.

But they are serious

0:54:440:54:48

issues.

A very serious issue. I

think if it fails, I don't think

0:54:480:54:54

domestically it really make that

much difference. He is derided in

0:54:540:54:59

the US by liberal analysts and he

seems to have, he has a meeting

0:54:590:55:07

which, of a kind which none of his

predecessors have managed and he is

0:55:070:55:11

giving it a go. I say that as a

Trump sceptic, it is probably worth

0:55:110:55:15

a go.

Di welcomer?

What is

interesting is behind this, the

0:55:150:55:22

relationship, the thawing of North

Korea and South Korea. They had

0:55:220:55:25

meetings at the Olympics, had a lot

of drinks together, which says a lot

0:55:250:55:29

for alcohol fuelled diplomacy!

Whatever works. Robert, thank you

0:55:290:55:34

for joining us today.

0:55:340:55:37

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

0:55:370:55:40

The question was, what does

Theresa May's ideal night

0:55:400:55:42

with her girlfriends look like?

0:55:420:55:44

Dinner and wine at home,

karaoke and cocktails,

0:55:440:55:46

a box set binge

or none of the above?

0:55:460:55:53

You are stumped.

I can't really see

her doing karaoke, I'm going to go

0:55:540:56:01

with dinner with the girls.

None of

the above. I don't know what it is

0:56:010:56:06

about these questions to the Prime

Minister.

Iain is right. I'm not

0:56:060:56:14

surprised you were foxed by it.

Let's have a look and see.

0:56:140:56:17

If you could have your perfect

get-together with your girlfriends

0:56:170:56:19

on International Women's Day,

away from all of the pressures

0:56:190:56:22

of your job, what would be your

perfect night with them and how

0:56:220:56:25

would you let your hair down?

0:56:250:56:26

Goodness me, what a question!

0:56:260:56:27

And I haven't thought

about it, because, actually,

0:56:270:56:29

my International Women's Day

is heavily focused on what we're

0:56:290:56:32

doing on domestic abuse.

0:56:320:56:33

So it's not going to have the time

to have the girls round

0:56:330:56:36

and have an evening together,

I'm afraid.

0:56:360:56:40

I know that, I know

that Prime Minister.

0:56:400:56:42

I'm just saying on your dream

moment, how would you let your hair

0:56:420:56:45

down with your girlfriends?

0:56:450:56:47

Well, I don't think that

when you let your hair down,

0:56:470:56:51

I don't think there's only one way

of doing it, I think it depends

0:56:510:56:55

on the group that you've got,

it depends on the time.

0:56:550:57:00

How many ways are there to let down

your hair? Rage, why do you think

0:57:000:57:05

the Prime Minister finds it so

difficult to answer questions at

0:57:050:57:07

this question that you remember the

naughtiest thing you have ever done?

0:57:070:57:11

Because she's not very natural and

sincere and it keeps coming over,

0:57:110:57:16

doesn't it? She doesn't seem very

ordinary.

Does it matter? That she

0:57:160:57:23

doesn't answer the questions?

It

does matter, it mattered during the

0:57:230:57:27

election a lot.

Why do you think it

is difficult for her?

I think it is

0:57:270:57:32

shyness, not a lack of sincerity.

You're just watching that, you want

0:57:320:57:35

her to just, you feel for her, you

want her to take dinner at home and

0:57:350:57:39

a glass of wine at.

Anything!

Anything, not just I'm focusing on

0:57:390:57:45

domestic abuse.

In the end, what

does it say to people?

I think it's

0:57:450:57:51

misinterpreted as, and perceived as

a sort of stiffness and a remoteness

0:57:510:57:57

and I think it is actually just that

she finds it very difficult,

0:57:570:58:01

off-camera as well, to do that small

talk. If you asked how the weather

0:58:010:58:05

today she would say, it's too early

to say.

And you don't want to make a

0:58:050:58:09

mistake and say the wrong thing.

I

get the thing about small talk, I'm

0:58:090:58:13

not great at small talk either but

there is something about that that

0:58:130:58:17

says, it's not sincere and it is not

real. There is something quite fake

0:58:170:58:21

about not being able to relax and

give any answer to a very sort of

0:58:210:58:26

normal, everyday question.

How did

you let your hair down on

0:58:260:58:31

International Women's Day?

I did go

for a drink with the girls.

You

0:58:310:58:37

couldn't answer, not as easy as you

think!

I was going to dad cooked

0:58:370:58:41

dinner for my wife but that's a lie,

she cooked dinner for me.

Is that

0:58:410:58:44

how it always is?!

0:58:440:58:46

That's all for today.

0:58:460:58:47

Thanks to my guests.

0:58:470:58:50

No more difficult questions, that's

it, have a nice weekend, goodbye.

0:58:500:58:54

Jo Coburn is joined by journalists Rachel Shabi and Iain Martin for the latest political news, including analysis of how President Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminium will affect British industry.