09/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

A few months ago they were trading

insults but Kim Jong-Un

and Donald Trump could be

sitting across a table

from each other within weeks.

Has a nuclear showdown on the Korean

Peninsula been averted?

Donald Trump slaps tariffs

on imported steel and aluminium.

Has he kicked off an

international trade war?

MPs are at the centre

of allegations of bullying

in the Palace of Westminster.

Does there need to be

an independent process in place

to protect Commons staff?

When the British people voted last

June, they did not vote to become

poorer.

Nobody voted to be poorer.

Nobody voted to be poorer.

It's an often repeated

mantra from remainers,

but were some Leave voters prepared

to take a financial

hit to deliver Brexit?

All that coming up in the next 60

minutes and joining me

for the duration are Iain Martin

of the Times and the political

commentator, Rachel Shabi.

Welcome to both of you.

First today, it's been announced

in the last hour that 100 military

personnel are to be deployed

in Salisbury to assist

in the police investigation

into the poisoning of ex-Russian spy

Sergei Skripal and his

daughter Yulia.

The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd,

has visited the scene this morning.

Here's what she had to say.

At the moment, our priority

is going to be the incident,

which is why I'm here

in Salisbury today.

Making sure that everybody's

protected around here,

around the incident.

Making sure the emergency services

have had the support that they need

and will continue to get it -

ongoing - and it's been great

to hear that is the case.

In terms of further options,

that will have to wait

until we're absolutely clear

what the consequences could be

and what the actual source of this

nerve agent has been.

Let's talk to our Home Affairs

correspondent, Daniel Sandford.

-- lets talk to Jonathan Beale. Why

have the military been called in?

180 military personnel from all

three services who have specialist

expertise in chemical warfare and

training, and who know how to

decontaminate. One of the things

they will be doing along with the 12

vehicles involved will be to remove

ambulances that were used to ferry

those injured into hospital.

Possibly to take them a where to be

decontaminated but they will remove

other object as well. These are

people who have regular training in

chemical and biological warfare,

including 40 commando, who recently

completed a three-week exercise

called toxic dagger, where they were

practising these kind of scenarios.

Also 27 Squadron from the RAF

Regiment. You would say that perhaps

this expertise still exists in the

military, it is not as dense and

full as it was during the height of

the Cold War but they still have

this expertise and clearly there can

help the police in this

investigation and secure sites. The

message from the Ministry of Defence

and ministers is the public should

not be alarmed, the threat level has

not changed but you will see people

in military uniform, potentially

wearing gas masks and chemical

warfare equipment at the seams

around Salisbury.

You say the

message is don't be alarmed, but

they will not be surprised that if

the public are somewhat put at an

ease by the visibility -- puts at

our knees by the military personnel,

how long do you think they will be

in Salisbury?

I don't think we know,

people should be expecting to seemed

people in military uniform arriving

at Salisbury today. The public

should not be alarmed because the

threat level, there is no more

danger to the public than there was

yesterday. But they will have to get

used to seeing this military

personnel who have this expertise,

it might be reassuring to people to

know that people still have this

expertise in the military and they

are trained to deal with it.

That's the response in terms of the

investigation, the political

response as it looks as if the

finger of suspicion remains firmly

towards Russia and the Russian state

despite their denials, in reality,

what can be done, what is this whole

spectrum response that we have heard

in the last 24-hour is?

First of

all, it's absolutely right to have

the investigation ahead of the

political response because we are

still not 100% sure. It would be

good to have clarity. In terms of

what the response could be, it is

difficult to tell because of course

this is not the only thing that

Russia is doing. On the

international scale there would be

problems with his support for Assad

in Syria, the potential that he

meddled in elections in the UK and

the US. Without international

cooperation and caught naked

response, I'm not sure there's an

awful lot that the UK can do -- and

a quarter naked response, I'm

awful lot that the UK can do.

I think there is quite a bit that

can be done and government ministers

have been quite vocal in cracking

down on certain Russian interests in

London and the UK. The troubling

thing is that we might never really

properly know the answer, because

there is a grey area. There is the

Russian state, which totally denies

any involvement, but then there is

Russian organised crime, which has

links to the FSB and formerly KGB.

What an order given, and someone

acted -- was an order given and

someone acted on the basis that they

would rid them of this troublesome

person or was there school setting?

It suggests if there was no agent

used, there was agents involved.

You

cannot really make it easily in your

garden shed. In terms of this show

of strength, some ministers and

former ministers have said that

Russia only understands a show of

strength so Britain have to respond

by cutting off diplomatic ties,

freezing assets of Russians here or

in Moscow. But will that actually

harm or put enough pressure on

Vladimir Putin to change his policy

towards the West?

No, I'm not saying

those things shouldn't happen.

Recalling ambassadors and freezing

assets are things that you would

expect to see happen in this sort of

situation but I think there's a

wider question of how you do deal

with someone who is an authoritarian

like Putin, and the malign

international actor. I come back to

this point of, without having a firm

international response, a

coordinated response, I'm not sure

what a single country can do.

That's

very difficult because the European

Union always runs a mile from this

stuff for all these reasons, because

of tensions with Germany and Germany

has a particular approach in terms

of handling Russia. The US is in a

strange situation because of the

current president. And also Britain

is kind of isolated here with its

strong Russian connections,

particularly in wealthy London. It

seems to be the case that Russian

actors are prepared to kill on

British soil, not prepared to kill

on American soil, prepared to

potentially interfere in American...

It does look as though Britain is a

particular target.

Yes, because over

the last 20 years, UK has been a

magnet for Russian wealth and there

has been two-way traffic between the

countries.

Let's leave it there.

Now it's time for our daily quiz,

and remember our quiz

is just a bit of fun,

there are no prizes.

Theresa May was asked

in an interview yesterday,

to mark International Women's Day,

what her ideal night with her

girlfriends would look like.

Was it...

Dinner at wine at home, karaoke and

cocktails, a boxed set binge or none

of the above?

At the end of the show

Rachel and Iain will,

we hope, give us the correct answer.

Now, female staff in the House

of Commons have been the subject

of bullying at the hands

of some MPs.

A BBC Newsnight investigation has

seen files and spoken

to witnesses who say staff

known as Commons clerks

have been mistreated.

Newsnight has spoken

to witnesses who believe

that a single member,

Paul Farrelly, the Labour MP

for Newcastle-under-Lyme,

made her continued employment

at the House of Commons impossible -

a consequence, they say, of years

of continued, personal criticism.

Newsnight's Chris Cook

asked the witness to

describe the treatment.

Aggressive, dismissive, rude.

And, ultimately, bullying.

And how much of an effect

did it have on her?

It ground her down.

It basically reached crisis point

and she could no longer do her job.

He had undermined her

and bullied her so much,

so regularly, so badly,

that she was just left entirely

exhausted and incredibly distressed.

And Newsnight's Chris

Cook joins me now.

What has been a response from Paul

Farrelly? We haven't actually heard

from him today. But his case is

something of a totem for women

working at the house today because

of what happened after that Clark,

who had to lose her job, complaint.

The two were the odd things that

have stuck in the mind, she raises a

complaint, it triggers an internal

inquiry run by another member of the

House staff, and an HR process which

was only eight months old at that

point. When she raised her complaint

other women came forward, and we had

eight years of test dummy about Mr

Farrelly's behaviour. Because the HR

policy was only eight months old,

they could only look at the eight

months, they thought. They feel that

the game has not been played fairly.

The second thing that has happened,

they go into this inquiry, of the

House staff goes to the allegations

that she makes, not the other women,

only her. He upholds complaint on

some of her allegations and decided

it was bullying and the

it was bullying and the contact was

offensive and there was no doubt

about her competence. That document

is taken to the House of Commons

commission which is a committee of

MPs, and they decide really not to

do anything. In fact, they suspend

the policy, they don't take action

against Mr Farrelly, they say that

the legal basis of the policy was

not down so they could not take

action. They also say that what

happened, any system that relies on

clerks investigating MPs is not fair

and robust.

You spoke to Paul

Farrelly before the piece went out,

what did he say?

He denies any

bullying, he says in 2012

allegations were made about me

having bullied a clerk during the

phone hacking inquiry, they were not

upheld but I apologised. The policy

was considered to be so unfair to

those about whom were complaint that

it was immediately withdrawn and

replaced by another policy. The case

is not really about Paul Farrelly,

this is all about the House of

Commons receiving a campaign and

clerks are taking the lesson -- a

complaint and clerks are taking a

lesson that the process cannot be

forwarded.

They think that the HR

process protect MPs. What about the

speaker, John Bercow?

In May 2010,

he got a new private secretary who

only lasted for nine months when she

was signed off sick. She had to be

found in new job somewhere else in

the House, they had to modify that

subsequent job so she would not come

into contact with the speaker. Her

managers were told that she had

posts a post right -- post-traumatic

stress disorder. She got that job

because she was regarded as a

phenomenal talent, the kind of

person you wanted in this enormously

important role. And there is an

enormous amount of sympathy for her

and everyone knows what happened to

her because they had to create these

new systems around her in a

subsequent job.

He has contested the

allegations as well?

His spokesman

says that he refutes the allegation

that he behaved in such a manner

eight years ago or any other time.

Downing Street has also been

speaking about this, the

spokesperson described claims of

staff bullying as concerning, and

they say there is no place for

bullying and harassment of any kind.

They also say that John Bercow has

said the allegations are being

contested but the Prime Minister has

full confidence in the speaker

according to her spokesman. Are you

surprised about these allegations?

I'm not, really. The House of

Commons or Parliament in general is

a very strange place. It doesn't

operate in a way that a conventional

workplace operates, it's not a

conventional organisation with a

hierarchy. MPs, and I should add

that I think most people would

accept that most MPs do not behave

in this fashion, but a small

minority do, and MPs really kind of

run the place. And in a group of 650

people, you end up with this small

minority who really wants to be

treated almost as little gods. And I

think the way in which the system is

constructed in means that staff then

don't necessarily have adequate

protection, there is confusion about

who investigates what. It's a legacy

of a place which has thousands of

people working in it, but it's not

constructed with the chief

executive. It cannot be because its

democratic institution. There's

going to have to be after this

investigation, have to be some form

of change.

Chris Cook's report reveals it is

difficult to know where to go to

complain and people within the

building are investigating each

other to a certain extent. Do you

think there needs to be an

independent process now, a different

body coming in to investigate

complaints?

I do, I do. What I think

was terrific about the Newsnight

report is it took the time to

explain the situation about how this

occurs. When we talk about a

systemic culture of bullying and

harassment, when we talk about a

male workplace culture that promotes

or facilitate bullying and

harassment, the Newsnight report

took the time to show this is what

it looks like, this is how it

manifests, this is what it means. I

think unless we take the time to

look at it, we're not going to be

able to find out ways of tackling

it.

I think the danger is and we saw

this during the expenses crisis,

that the real risks in bringing in

and outside, independent body,

because of the strange

constitutional position of

Parliament, and Parliament is

sovereign, so if you place an

independent body above Parliament,

you do interesting, strange things

to the Constitution. What I would

like to see happen is the vast

majority of MPs who don't behave in

this fashion really take this as a

wake-up call, take charge of the

process and institute changes.

Wright, thank you Chris Cook for

coming in.

Now, last week President Trump

unveiled plans to raise

tariffs on foreign imports

of steel and aluminium.

"If you don't have steel,

you don't have a country!,"

you might recall him tweeting.

Yesterday, surrounded

by steel workers, he made

good on that promise,

and signed the measures into law,

claiming that the industry had been

"ravaged" by aggressive foreign

trade practices that were, he said,

"an assault" on the United States.

They are expected to take

effect in 15 days' time.

Let's hear what he had to say.

Today, I'm defending America's

national security by placing

tariffs on foreign imports

of steel and aluminium.

We will have a 25% tariff

on foreign steel, 10% tariff

on foreign aluminium,

when the product comes

across our borders.

It's a process called dumping.

And they dumped more than at any

time, on any nation,

anywhere in the world.

And it drove our plants out

of business, it drove our

factories out of business.

And we want a lot of steel

coming into our country,

but we want it to be fair

and we want our workers to be

protected and we want, frankly,

our companies to be protected.

By contrast, we will

not place any new tax

on a product made in the USA.

So there's no tax if a product

is made in the USA.

You don't want to pay tax?

Bring your plant to

the USA, there's no tax.

President Trump.

The UK's International Trade

Secretary Liam Fox appeared

on Question Time last night.

He said he would be travelling

to the United States next week

to meet his US counterpart.

The way that the United States

is going about this is wrong,

because they're doing it under

what's called a 232 investigation

based on national security.

And for the UK it's doubly absurd,

because we are only responsible

for 1% of America's steel imports.

It's 5% of our tonnage,

by steel, that we produce

here, it's 15% by value.

The reason there's a difference

is that we tend to produce

very high value steel,

some of which can't be sourced

in the United States and will simply

push up the price of steel there.

We also make steel for the American

military programme.

So it's doubly absurd that we should

be then caught on an investigation

on national security.

That was Liam Fox.

Joining me now is author

and consultant, Ted Malloch,

who is also a supporter of Donald

Trump.

Welcome to the programme. Do you

think the president is making the

right move?

Yes, and it's been

sometime in the. I call it a PPE

move. It has to do with politics on

one hand, we are in the mid-term

elections. If you noticed who was

behind the president when he makes

this announcement, working-class

steelworkers and aluminium workers

from those rust belt states who need

to vote in favour of the Republicans

for them to stay in power during the

next congressional election. The

second thing is philosophical,

promised to do that in his

campaigns, is following through on a

campaign pledge. And it is economic,

there is an economic reason for

doing this.

What is that?

China is

dumping steel on international

markets. About 2 billion tonnes of

steel made, 800 million coming from

China. They are dumping them and it

is affecting global markets. So we

are going to knock that down.

Do you

accept that, it's a good trade

policy for the United States to

pursue?

I can understand the

politics of it, I don't think the

economic 's really make any sense.

What troubles me about it, as

someone who is pro-market, is

pro-market people tend to look to

the United States for a lead.

Beginning a trade war in this

fashion could have all sorts of

unintended consequences, if others

respond. Should just qualify one

thing, which is we are talking as

though we in Europe don't use

tariffs, but of course the European

Union has a 72%...?

74.7.

And

Chinese steel. So the European Union

has been playing this game as well.

Having said that, I thought Trump

with the tax cuts, I thought he was

starting to get somewhere economic

year and I think this could set back

a lot of that progress.

It is the

beginning of a trade war,

potentially. European Union vice

president has had in the wake of

Trump's decision the commission will

continue with the rebalancing

measures. Will that help the United

States, a trade war?

I don't think

it will be a trade war, blown up to

that proportion.

It will they

retaliate.

There will be some

tit-for-tat like on things like Jack

Daniels, peanut butter and

Harley-Davidson motorcycles. The

real thing that is coming down the

pipe and this is significant in

Europe and the UK, and the president

intimated this yesterday and has

said it also in other speeches, is

the potential for significant

tariffs. In other words, narrowing

tariffs on automobiles.

What impact

would that have? That is a much

bigger deal in terms of the UK.

A

much bigger deal. The EU tariffs on

US automobiles is 2%. The US, I mean

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

just change that to the mirror

image, it would dramatically affect

the German automobile industry and

also Jaguar Land Rover.

Rachel, that

would have a real impact here and on

German car-makers. What can be done

by the British government who are

said to have a special relationship

with the US?

It is one more reason

not to be so reliant on the US in

our post-Brexit reality. One of the

things I find objectionable about

right wing authoritarian site Donald

Trump is this misdiagnosis of what

is ailing the economy. It is not

globalisation per se that is a

problem. We lived in a joined up

world, that is the reality. It's a

neoliberal economic policy that has

ravaged peoples lives, destroyed

communities, that has gutted out and

hollowed out economies. It has

nothing to do with tariffs, it's a

political choice to run an economy

in a particular way. We can

reprogram it to run on a different

way, it's just that this particular

neoliberal system of running

economic has chosen not to.

What do

you say to that?

We have had

elections in the United States and

elected this president, is hardly an

authoritarian he's just started a

peace process and denuclearisation.

We will talk about that in a moment.

He's hardly an authoritarian. This

was part of his campaign, to bring

back manufacturing to American

industries. This is a national

security issue. Steel is rather

important, aluminium also rather

important. There this is nothing to

do with authoritarianism.

Isn't he

failing political promises question

what you could argue Jeremy Corbyn

also wants to have an economic

policy that is going to support

local industries, would also like to

actually support and subsidised

steel industry here, if he became

Prime Minister. In a way, these are

just different ways of dealing with

the same problem.

No, because one is

telling lies and making false

promises. Let's look at how

localisation, what it could look

like in the UK. One example of that

is the Preston model, the local

council in Preston, Lancashire,

which has seen a local government

spending when it has spent locally,

create more wealth in the local

economy than if it were outsourced.

That is one-way. It has nothing to

do with tariffs. That is one way of

reviving the local economy. It means

local businesses can thrive, they

employ people, everyone pays tax,

the business pays tax on the economy

locally is revived. It is nothing to

do with tariffs, it's a political

decision to reprogram an economy, to

work in a way that benefits people

are not corporations.

It has

benefits for people. The process of

trade liberalisation after the

Second World War, which was

advocated by moderate left centre

politicians and free-market

politicians, turned into

globalisation, which of course I am

concerned about some of the extreme

effects of that but it has globally

had the most extraordinary impact.

It has lifted at least a billion

people out of property.

Created the

biggest wealth inequalities as well.

I don't think trickle-down economics

has been proven not to work. I think

the problem is wired into the

system.

Let's compare the Chinese

economy in 1950 now...

Your point is

perfect on is the miracle is that

the Chinese economy. We moved 350

million people out of extreme

poverty in China.

That is a good

thing.

The cost of that has been the

cost of jobs in the rust belt in the

United States and hollowed out parts

of England and in Western Europe.

It's a trade-off.

Let's talk about

the relationship with the UK, is a

good friend of the United States?

Absolutely.

Will there be an

exemption for the UK?

Will you be

part of the European Union?

At the

moment.

When you leave we will see.

Is that the trade-off, the UK might

get an exemption once it leaves the

EU or would it be better to stay

part of the EU, a big trading bloc

and use and support those

retaliatory measures?

I voted to

leave but I didn't vote to leave

thinking that this utopia of loads

of trade deals being out there and

somehow some massive trade deal with

the US is going to solve Britain's

economic problems. Most of its

problems are domestic. Exports are

20% of the economy and about half of

that is the EU and half of that is

the rest of the world, led by the

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

certainly in this context the US

president doing what he's doing, I

don't think that that will be that

many trade deals in the next four or

five years.

You said once Britain

leads the EU, but if this friendship

and relationship exists now, why

can't there be an exemption, as

you're giving to other countries, to

the UK?

Because he would have to do

it to the whole of the EU and when

not about to do that. We gave an

exception to Mexico and Canada but

the president said yesterday, that

is only an exception if we can come

to terms on their Nafta. If we don't

we have leverage on the same tariffs

will apply to those two country.

It

said countries that meet or fail

their defence commitments to Nato.

We do stop white

only five do.

Would

you be confident the UK could get an

exemption or is there any point of

this special relationship if there

will be no special treatment for the

UK in the future?

We will see what

Mr Liam Fox accomplishes when he

goes to Washington this week or next

week. My guess is there won't be an

exemption for the UK.

What you say

about Liam Fox's view and trade, and

the high-grade steel that you get

from the UK, which would be able to

get it in the US?

Once those

industries come back in the US they

will be available. There are places

in the US where those things have

been decimated. With this new

measure, you have heard already

companies bringing back hundreds,

soon to be thousands of employees,

to make exactly those kinds of

products.

Ted Malloch, thank you.

She said she would, and apparently

Theresa May has raised concerns

about human rights in Saudi Arabia

during talks with the

country's Crown Prince,

Mohammed bin Salman has been

on a three-day UK visit

to talk about trade,

and presumably some of the more

awkward issues like Yemen.

The visit comes the same week

as International Women's Day,

another area, Saudi Arabia isn't

exactly celebrated for.

Here's Ellie.

At nearly every stop

on the Saudi Arabian visit this

week, the protesters

haven't been far.

Well, today I got the opportunity

to talk to one of 29 women who sit

on the Shoura Council.

It's not exactly a parliament,

but it's a council that advises

the Saudi Arabian King,

and there's plenty to put to her.

A good place to start -

women's rights.

A country that in June is finally

allowing women to drive cars,

and that is being seen as progress.

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

The country is young, not just

in its population but in its age.

Effectively it's an 80 year

old country, but I actually always

say it's a 50 year old country,

because when the first revenue

of oil came to the country,

to the government, that's

when it was used for

the infrastructure.

When you look at a country

that is basically 50 years old,

we're only going one way,

which is forwards.

But it cannot happen

from one day to the next.

But it is true that women don't

have the same rights as men,

don't have the same rights

that they would here in the UK?

When did you get your rights?

More than 100 years ago,

women have been voting, for example.

Yes, that's fine, but how long did

it take for you to have?

I'm talking about a country

that is 50 years old.

You were not 50 years

old when you got your rights.

I'm not justifying the fact that

in your eyes we are slow.

Yes, it is challenging.

There are obstacles,

we get frustrated and I'm not

denying any of that,

this is the reality, it's there.

What about you personally?

You're a woman living

in Saudi Arabia.

When I need to find myself at X, Y,

Z place at a certain time,

and I can't be there

because of transportation reasons,

yes, of course, I get frustrated.

Today things are easier,

with Uber, with Careem

and with private drivers,

obviously things do gets easier.

But when I look at it on a global

level, a 50 year old country,

to have reached what a lot

of countries took

hundreds of years to do.

And, like I said, I think the only

way we have had to go is forwards.

Much has been made this

visit of Vision 2030 -

a blueprint by King Salman

and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

of economic and social reforms

to modernise Saudi Arabia.

You yourself have a daughter.

Do you think Saudi Arabia

of the future will be an easier

place to thrive for a woman?

I believe it will be,

but if it's not done in 2030

and it's done in 2032,

that's fine too.

Like I said, it's part

of the evolutionary

development of the country.

It's not stagnating.

And because we are moving forwards,

it can only get better.

It'll get better from next year,

it will get better the year after,

because we are seeing these changes,

because there is a genuine desire

to change and reform.

And it's not just because Prince

Mohammed or King Salman

want that to happen,

it's because the young people

of the country want it to happen.

And these young people are coming

back from their education abroad

not just with a degree,

but with open horizons,

mental horizons that

will change the way they live,

will change their aspirations.

There have been protests

during your visit here

about human rights abuses,

about the situation in Yemen.

Do you find some of those

difficult to defend?

Politically speaking,

when a country's surrounded

by enemies more than by friends,

there are certain actions

that need to be taken.

Especially if politically

and diplomatically chances

were given, not just once,

not just twice, more than that.

We have had the example

of Hezbollah in the North.

We don't want a resurgence

or a reappearance of something

like that in the South.

I'm not justifying the deaths

or the human rights issues

that come with any war,

I'm just stating the facts.

I think that it is very easy

to criticise and to talk

about issues when they're not

relatively clear to

the general public.

So the idea that the situation

in Yemen is a proxy war

against Iran is, what?

Definitely there's part of that,

I'm not denying that at all.

Iran has a big role, has had a big

role in this issue, yes.

Ali Price reporting. Do you share

her optimism in terms of the pace of

reform that Saudi Arabia is very

keen to promote, we saw that

underlined in that interview? In

terms of women's rights especially?

No, there have been cosmetic reforms

and obviously we need to credit and

celebrate the Saudi women who have

campaigned for those reforms, two

decades in the case of getting the

right to drive. But they are

cosmetic reforms. As long as the

underpinning system of male

guardianship exists in Saudi Arabia,

whereby women has to get permission

from a male guardian for all kinds

of things which essentially mean

they do not have equal rights as

citizens. As long as there is system

like that underpinning everything,

these reforms will be cosmetic.

In

terms of the relationship that

Britain has the Saudi Arabia, how

under pressure is that with

accusations of military advisers in

Britain being involved in the war in

Yemen?

I don't think it's

necessarily under pressure. The UK

Government has invested a lot of

faith and time in recent months

building up to this week to really

make a fuss of Mohammed bin Salman,

and there is a calculation and play

made by the Foreign Office is that

what he is doing is potentially

transformative. And while I share

some of the scepticism, but there

are reasons to be cautious about it,

he is potentially transformative.

The French have been far ahead of

the UK in terms of trade and being

in there with the new leadership.

Britain had some catching up to do,

that's what this week was about.

Those trade deals are extremely

important, worse potentially

billions of pounds. The trouble with

this -- worth potentially billions

of pounds.

The trouble with this

very cosy relationship is not just

the human rights abuses in Saudi

Arabia itself, and the treatment of

women comes up in that category, it

is that it is a destabilising force

in the Middle East. It backed a

military coup against the

democratically elected president in

Egypt's, it has at least covertly

funded some pretty violent

extremists in Syria and Iraq, it

effectively kidnapped Lebanese Prime

Minister just a few months ago and

that's before we get onto the

horrific human rights violations

going on in.

Of course.

Aided and

abetted by the UK whose arms sales

to Yemen have increased by an

extraordinary amount despite these

very clear human rights violations.

What that does to Britain is that it

undermines our reputation and

credibility in the Middle East and

internationally.

Is it defensible?

Yemen is a catastrophe, of course,

but you cannot look at Yemen without

looking at the role of Iran. You

can't have a situation from the

Saudi's position...

But we are

post... -- closely allied.

Yes, we

have been 50 years but it cannot

have a situation from a typical

point of view where Iranian

interests without in Yemen against

the Saudis. In terms of funding

against terrorism, we will see if he

is as good as his word, but he seems

to have said to the National

Security Council and MI6 and MI5

that he will curtail the funding of

certain groups. He has only been in

charge for a small amount of time

and it seems to be heading in the

right direction.

Now, if you've paid any

attention to British politics

since the Brexit referendum,

you've probably seen and heard one

sentiment expressed more

than any other by some of the most

ardent pro-EU voices in Westminster.

And even by some in the government.

Let's take a look.

Nobody voted on the 23rd of June

to make this country poorer.

Nobody voted to be poorer.

Nobody in this process

voted to be poorer.

Nobody, nobody voted to be poorer.

The country didn't vote

to make itself poorer.

When the British people voted

last June, they did not

vote to become poorer.

Philip Hammond at the end there,

echoing a sentiment

expressed by many across

the political spectrum.

But even if the jury's yet to return

a verdict on how the EU

will affect people's finances -

were some people who voted Brexit

prepared to take an economic hit

if that was the price

of leaving the EU?

Well, to discuss this we're

joined by David Goodhart

from the Policy Exchange think-tank,

he's also the author

of The Road to Somewhere, which,

amongst other things, explores

why people voted for Brexit.

Welcome to the show. Do you think

people were prepared to take an

economic hit in order to take back

control, to use another phrase?

I

think they would rather not but I

think a lot of people did vote

knowing that their pockets might be

hit. But regarding it as a

reasonable trade-off. We might be a

few hundred pounds richer in ten

years' time, but our democratic

accountability would be weaker, our

national identity would be weaker,

if we remained in the European

Union, a lot of people thought. I

actually voted to remain but I

thought that they were right about

that.

Do you agree and accept that

there were plenty of people who did

feel it was worth economic

uncertainty, let's put it like that,

and potentially being slightly worse

off in order to regain some sorts of

national identity?

I think national

identity is a phrase that's doing a

lot of work in that sentence. It's

very hard to discern what it was

that people actually did vote for,

and that's precisely why were having

such difficulty is that the

negotiations because we're trying to

find out what is it that people

wanted from Brexit. Nobody actually

said that. That wasn't on the

ballot. But I don't think these kind

of cultural concerns, that seems to

me a proxy for what can only be

described as Zeno races and I don't

think we should be making any -- is

then a racism and I don't wish to

make any political decisions on

that.

I find myself much more

favourable for Brexit because of the

arguments we had from the militant

Remainers, sheer panic on the

financial side or that we are all

racist, the 50% who voted leave.

Neither of those things are true.

There will be an adjustment cost but

I suspect we will be just as rich as

we will have been. This is that

first big push back of the shrinkage

of democratic space that has

happened in all big democracies, you

think of the way that the WTO,

European and aggression, even

domestic policies like the

independence of the Bank of England

have shrunk the attic space. What is

exciting about Brexit is it is a the

first push back against the

shrinking of that democratic space.

Although people might have been

prepared to take an economic hit, we

don't know how they thought it would

manifest itself. Do you think there

were a broad sense of the reasons

that people were voting and that has

made it difficult for negotiations,

because people said, we will be the

single market and the customs union

and if that makes us poorer, then so

be it.

We have to be sceptical about

polling after the event of the last

few years but there are quite

detailed series of polls done on

testing attitude afterwards, on what

people thought they were doing.

Immigration comes second, first

tends to come the question of

self-government and the country

making its own laws. What's

astonishing about the British

political class is that it was so

shocked by the result. It's been

apparent since about the time of

Maastricht at something close to the

majority of British voters were

sceptical about excessive political

integration and were never asked the

question. The first time the

question was put to them, they

delivered a pretty clear answer. In

terms of the good people voting to

be poorer, that is obviously a piece

of sophistry. I certainly voted but

that was a possibility -- knowing

that was a possible 80 and I know

many Leave voters who voted thinking

it was.

it was. People heard the warnings,

they calculated that there might be

some hit, there might not, depending

on things that had not happened yet.

But if there was a moderate hit, and

an adjustment cost, it is something

worth living for force of

government.

People said it was worth

it because Britain could then -- it

was worth living for four

self-government, people said it was

worth it because Britain could then

make decisions over things like

borders, and money, and that is more

important?

People were sold this

idea of taking back control. That

doesn't mean anything, it's an

anti-slogan.

It's not an empty

slogan.

When we talk about the

accountability of the WTO, or of

banks and multinationals, that is a

very separate thing from the issue

of the EU. And that's exactly the

success of the Leave campaign, it

managed to divert a lot of very

reasonable concerns, economic

concerns into something that was

essentially... It was huge areas of

life. But because of European --

because of European rules, we could

not control, the way in which

different can -- countries balance

risk and other things, it's hugely

different from country to country

and we are squeezed into often

German related anxieties about their

detection, for example.

We have to

pay huge tariffs on shoes because of

the Italians. This is all sorts of

areas that we can reclaim

sovereignty. Liberal fantasists

think it is a

think it is a pooling of

empowerment, but I think a lot of

people think it is this empowering.

If people are feeling poorer at the

moment because of high inflation and

wage stagnation because in the

aftermath of that EU vote,

GDP will fall by less than it fell

in the financial crisis. I do think

people would change their mind, come

to regret what they thought was

worth taking an economic hit for?

It's possible, there is no sign of

it yet. I think where the Labour

Party has a real advantage and

Jeremy Corbyn are headed the game,

because the Tories are focused on

the shambolic negotiations already

Labour in that keynote speech Jeremy

Corbyn gave last week, already he is

talking about Britain after Brexit.

I think the Labour understanding is

correct. Once Brexit is a done deal

and happens in one form or another,

there will then be up battle for

votes in areas for those who voted

for Brexit who want to see some

concrete improvement.

David

Goodhart, thank you.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News website -

that's bbc.co.uk/brexit.

Donald Trump has accepted

an invitation from the North Korean

leader, Kim Jong-un,

to hold an unprecedented meeting

to discuss the future

of the regime's nuclear

and missile programme.

Following months of mutual

hostility, senior South Korean

officials appeared outside

the White House to announce the news

having verbally conveyed Kim's

invitation to Trump.

The White House confirmed Trump

was ready to meet Kim "by May."

President Trump himself

confirmed the meeting

in his own inimitable way

- yes, tweeting.

To get the latest on this we can

talk to our correspondent

Robin Brant in Seoul.

What has been the reaction in South

Korea?

Korea?

The South Koreans believe

that they are the ones who have

engineered this meeting, and meeting

the like of which has never, ever

happened before. A sitting president

sitting down with chairman Kim, in

this instance, the leader of the

Democratic People's Republic of

Korea. South Korea's leader was a

man who came to office a couple of

years ago on a promise to extend the

olive branch to the north. Clearly

he is delivering on that. At the

same time he has pursued a policy

trying to further cement that very

close relationship with the United

States.

States. But Moon Jae-in has high

hopes for the meeting, even though

we don't know when it will take

place. South Korea's president

already saying he feels this meeting

will be remembered as a historical

milestone that realised piece on the

Korean Valencia. Even before it has

taken place. But the South Koreans

clearly believe that there can be

tangible gains, real achievements,

in terms of not just an

de-escalation of tensions between

North Korea and America but also on

this issue, very vexed issue of

denuclearisation.

Thank you. Joining

me now is Professor Robert Kelley,

an expert in Korean affairs. Welcome

to the Daily Politics. An enormous

diplomatic breakthrough?

It may be,

if the president can bring home a

genuinely big deal. That meeting

means the stakes are really high, we

assume there is some sort of big

bargain to come from this. But there

is only ten weeks to actually

prepare for this and really there

has not been much discussion in the

analyst community. They didn't seem

the Secretary of State knew was

coming White House staff. The

president has to bring home

something big, a lot of work to do

in a short time.

How have things

changed so rapidly? We thought

relations were at an extremely low

point. Trump was promising to bring

down fire and you're like the world

had never seen an Korea and now?

I

think a lot of this shows the

President's temperament. We know he

is very erratic and volatile and

changes his mind very rapidly. Just

three months ago we were talking

about air strikes on North Korea. My

sense is that is the president.

North Korea properly have fully

functional nuclear weapons they

figure, why not talk now? The

sanctions are biting also. I think

the big swing is due to the

president himself.

You think it is

down to him. Could this be the mixer

China moment for President Trump,

that he has manoeuvred the US into a

strong position?

It could be of the

president brings home something

real. The concern from the analyst

community, if you're watching TV or

looking at Twitter today, a lot of

people have been very unsure about

what this means. Because it came out

of the blue. Fixing this issue as

difficult as North Korea- US

relations, it's highly unlikely can

be fixed in just ten weeks. This is

the kind of thing that takes years

and years. If you look at the 90s,

years were spent on this kind of

stuff and suddenly Donald Trump

order in ten weeks. It is so

unlikely. Maybe, but unlikely.

Just

before I go to my guests, what you

keep saying, it's a very short space

of time to get all this sorted out

before the meeting. What are the

risks to these talks, and saying

they will be done by May? If they

collapse or they don't go the way

either side wants, could actually

escalate the situation?

Yes, I think

there are two possibilities. The

first is they meet and don't like

each other. And they both start... I

mean Kim Jong-un have called him

names and Donald Trump likewise.

They could fall back to that and

load each other and then there is a

real impasse. The other possible it

is they meet and it doesn't go

anywhere, it fails. Particularly the

Trump sides is look, we went for the

big show, the summer and it went

nowhere and it doesn't leave us with

anywhere else to go. Normally these

things work their way through a

lower-level policy process before

the summit happens, Trump is taking

a chance to have the summit before

the years of groundwork that

normally precede it stop like that

is an important point, the stakes

are very high. On one side you could

say it will be the meeting of two

absurd figures

who have high levels

of vanity. On the other hand, an

historic meeting?

It is. But it is

another example, Trump has to be

seen in terms of celebrity

wrestling. He is that kind of

president. He is seeing this other

guy, Kim, is the other celebrity

wrestler, and they've been facing

off, promising to kill each other.

Now, something interesting, the

great Trump show is going to produce

something, a great plot twist. It is

possible. I am a Trump sceptic but

there is certainly something in his

approach and we saw it last month on

gun control, where he flipped and

adopted a different position from

the position the NRA would have

wanted to take. There is something

in his unpredictability and his

showmanship which, in this case,

might just work. It is worth a go.

In celebrity wrestling, in this

instance, who comes out on top?

Oh

my goodness! That is the question,

isn't it? It might be that

showmanship works. I think it is

interesting what the analysts and

experts are saying, which is look,

normally negotiations on this sort

of situation, it's years, its years

of backroom staff. There is a lot

going on before it comes to leaders

meeting fostered in this case none

of this has happened, they've just

gone straight to this meeting.

Therefore, the likelihood of it

producing something, without that

huge background, backroom effort, it

doesn't seem high, does it?

In terms

of using President Trump has to come

home with something big. This

denuclearisation, is that the only

goal, the only possible prize,

anything less than that will be seen

as a failure?

The Americans keep

talking it up that way, yes. I think

the president needs to start

managing expectations. The North

Korean spent 40 years developing

nuclear weapons, it is unlikely they

will give up in ten weeks. It would

be astonishing. What's more likely

as you'll get some movement on human

rights, is important, cameras or

inspectors back in North Korea, may

be nuclear safety. There is concern

about that. All this stuff, these

are small steps. It would be helpful

to work our way through those before

we went in for the big enchilada. It

is highly unlikely in a state that

has been 40 years building nuclear

weapons that they will give them up.

It brings a possible this might not

turn out to be anything. It might be

a big, a show that goes nowhere, the

Trump show. That is what the

president has to work on. He has a

lot to do in ten weeks.

Will it

matter if it doesn't go anywhere?

Symbolically it will be important.

Imagine the two of them when they

meet, what will that be like?

We

have come a long way since Stalin,

Roosevelt and Churchill. It is going

to be a Technicolor, most

extraordinary reality TV style

event. Imagine the media experience,

as they shake hands, and the

carnival.

But they are serious

issues.

A very serious issue. I

think if it fails, I don't think

domestically it really make that

much difference. He is derided in

the US by liberal analysts and he

seems to have, he has a meeting

which, of a kind which none of his

predecessors have managed and he is

giving it a go. I say that as a

Trump sceptic, it is probably worth

a go.

Di welcomer?

What is

interesting is behind this, the

relationship, the thawing of North

Korea and South Korea. They had

meetings at the Olympics, had a lot

of drinks together, which says a lot

for alcohol fuelled diplomacy!

Whatever works. Robert, thank you

for joining us today.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, what does

Theresa May's ideal night

with her girlfriends look like?

Dinner and wine at home,

karaoke and cocktails,

a box set binge

or none of the above?

You are stumped.

I can't really see

her doing karaoke, I'm going to go

with dinner with the girls.

None of

the above. I don't know what it is

about these questions to the Prime

Minister.

Iain is right. I'm not

surprised you were foxed by it.

Let's have a look and see.

If you could have your perfect

get-together with your girlfriends

on International Women's Day,

away from all of the pressures

of your job, what would be your

perfect night with them and how

would you let your hair down?

Goodness me, what a question!

And I haven't thought

about it, because, actually,

my International Women's Day

is heavily focused on what we're

doing on domestic abuse.

So it's not going to have the time

to have the girls round

and have an evening together,

I'm afraid.

I know that, I know

that Prime Minister.

I'm just saying on your dream

moment, how would you let your hair

down with your girlfriends?

Well, I don't think that

when you let your hair down,

I don't think there's only one way

of doing it, I think it depends

on the group that you've got,

it depends on the time.

How many ways are there to let down

your hair? Rage, why do you think

the Prime Minister finds it so

difficult to answer questions at

this question that you remember the

naughtiest thing you have ever done?

Because she's not very natural and

sincere and it keeps coming over,

doesn't it? She doesn't seem very

ordinary.

Does it matter? That she

doesn't answer the questions?

It

does matter, it mattered during the

election a lot.

Why do you think it

is difficult for her?

I think it is

shyness, not a lack of sincerity.

You're just watching that, you want

her to just, you feel for her, you

want her to take dinner at home and

a glass of wine at.

Anything!

Anything, not just I'm focusing on

domestic abuse.

In the end, what

does it say to people?

I think it's

misinterpreted as, and perceived as

a sort of stiffness and a remoteness

and I think it is actually just that

she finds it very difficult,

off-camera as well, to do that small

talk. If you asked how the weather

today she would say, it's too early

to say.

And you don't want to make a

mistake and say the wrong thing.

I

get the thing about small talk, I'm

not great at small talk either but

there is something about that that

says, it's not sincere and it is not

real. There is something quite fake

about not being able to relax and

give any answer to a very sort of

normal, everyday question.

How did

you let your hair down on

International Women's Day?

I did go

for a drink with the girls.

You

couldn't answer, not as easy as you

think!

I was going to dad cooked

dinner for my wife but that's a lie,

she cooked dinner for me.

Is that

how it always is?!

That's all for today.

Thanks to my guests.

No more difficult questions, that's

it, have a nice weekend, goodbye.