24/01/2017 Newsnight

Back in November, when the court said Parliament should

get a vote on Brexit, there was rejoicing on one side,

Today, the Supreme Court upheld that verdict,

but it wasn't really clear who'd won or lost.

This judgment does not change the fact that the UK

will leave the European Union, and it's our job to deliver

on the instruction the people of the UK have given us.

Never has so much attention been given to a Supreme Court case

of such enormous constitutional significance, but which may end up

We'll hear from Alex Salmond, on the path Scotland will now take.

And Labour's Emily Thornberry on the party's challenge of trying

to appeal to both sides of the Brexit debate.

Also tonight, should primary school children wear hijabs?

We must not normalise it, instead of supporting that practice we should

question it because what you are doing is sexualising that child.

Donald Trump invites the cameras into the Oval Office.

What's he got to say about the environment?

We can't be in an environmental process for 15 years if a bridge is

going to be falling down, or if a highway is crumbling.

So we're expediting environmental reviews and

If you thought the arguments over Brexit would end

after the referendum, sorry, it's not over

and the Supreme Court has invited the arguments to continue -

in the Commons, and perhaps more crucially now,

Then there's Scotland, the court didn't give the government

there any power over Brexit, but the SNP are not going to accept

Now it's not clear who will actually have the muscle to actually

block or delay Brexit, and the bookies still think Article

50 will probably be triggered before the end of March.

But there is a chance it will get messy.

Our policy editor Chris Cook is good at making sense of a mess -

here's how he thinks things might pan out.

To invoke article 50, Downing Street will not

need to consult the devolved governments, but will need to pass a

In broad terms, Article 50 provides that a

country wishing to leave the EU must give a notice in accordance with its

Right now, that doesn't look like a serious

The first stage then in the Article 50

process is taking a bill into the House of Commons.

Now, the fundamental facts about the lower

house of parliament is there is a Conservative majority.

So yes, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats might cause

trouble for the government, but fundamentally they will not succeed.

The only that people are really looking or hoping for from the lower

House are really quite narrowly procedural.

Here for example, is the Labour position.

Labour accepts and respects the referendum result and

But we will be seeking to allay amendments to ensure a proper

scrutiny and accountability throughout the process.

That starts, Mr Speaker, with a white paper or

The government hopes that the bill will be through the

Commons by February the 9th when it rises for its next recess.

Then it is off to the House of Lords which

is where it is likely to have a tougher time.

Remember, the government does not have a majority

But any problems there are likely to take the form of

unhelpful amendments and perhaps a bit of delay.

On big items, the House of Lords is often restrained by the fact that

there was a commitment in a manifesto and by convention the

House of Lords does not oppose manifesto commitments.

But this time, while there was a commitment

to a referendum, there are certainly was not a commitment to take the UK

So some members at least will see that as

giving them licence to challenge the government.

But ultimately the House of Lords probably will not

want to be seen to be frustrating the will

expressed in the referendum result last year.

Now the government says that Parliament will get another

opportunity to vote on the deal that it gets

from Europe at the end of the process.

But whether that is an opportunity for Parliament to really

scrutinise what is going on and suggest changes, depends on

precisely when the government comes back for that vote.

The draft deal has to come back before it has

been signed because Parliament can look at it and I dare say, that is

fine, or it is mostly fine but this is not,

you can get something different or better on this.

It is important it comes at that stage, rather than

parliament being asked, take it or leave it, at the 11th hour.

I do not think that would be acceptable.

Given our rulers have not been much been constrained,

question today is, why they took this case

Well, the Scottish government does not have and has not sought

Thanks to the Supreme Court, we now know there is no requirement

for a vote in the devolved parliaments or assemblies.

But, the Scottish parliament is going to have a vote anyway.

Earlier I spoke to Alex Salmond, former First Minister,

Today he has said Downing Street must treat the devolved

administrations as equal partners in the Brexit process, quote,

I asked where did Theresa May make such a promise.

What she and the Tory party have said is that Scotland is an equal

Actually, the phrase, not from Theresa May,

but from her predecessor was Scotland should lead

the United Kingdom, not leave the United Kingdom.

But the phrase equal partnership has been used by the Conservative Party,

that Scotland is an equal partner within the United Kingdom.

If you're an equal partner within the United Kingdom,

then your views on something as substantial and far reaching

as Brexit deserve to be taken on account on an equal basis.

It was one person, one vote in Scotland as it was everywhere

A Scottish person was equal to everywhere else.

But Scotland is a country, not a county, and the Scottish

nation voted decisively to stay within the European Union.

But of course, it was Theresa May who said explicitly,

the week after she became Prime Minister, when she went

to visit Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland, she said she wanted

an agreed position across the United Kingdom.

You can't have an agreed position, unless you're prepared to consult

She is consulting, but I don't think it was understood that the Scottish

administration would have equal say on an issue of customs union,

immigration policy, foreign policy, international treaties

as the government of the United Kingdom,

in which the people of Scotland have a large shaping part,

because they vote in UK general elections, obviously.

The vote in favour of staying in the European Union was 62%.

The vote in favour of the United Kingdom was 55%.

Far more people in Scotland by majority and percentage wanted

to stay within Europe as wanted to stay with

As you will remember in 2014, one of the cardinal arguments

of the No campaign, there were people arguing

against independence, was that we would stay in Europe

if we voted against Scottish independence.

It looks absurd, but that was one of the key arguments

More to the point, of course, Nicola Sturgeon,

the Scottish First Minister, stood on a manifesto commitment last

year and was re-elected on the basis that if Scotland was dragged out

of Europe against the will of the Scottish people,

then the Scottish Parliament would have the right to call

That brings me to what is the big question for the SNP today.

The big question for the SNP, why don't you just call a referendum?

You are not going to learn anything between now and Brexit.

We know what the British Government's policy on Brexit is,

it has been stated by Theresa May as clearly as anything.

We know that Scotland is not going to remain

in the single market, as the Scottish Government hopes,

we know that Britain is not even going to try and stay

What else do you need to trigger a referendum?

Well let's go through the Parliamentary process as far

The UK Government are still to respond officially

to the Scottish Government's compromise proposal that

if England is determined to leave the single market,

Scotland could stay in the single market.

There are working examples elsewhere in Europe where this is the case.

Why shouldn't that be considered as a reasonable proposal?

If at the end of the day Theresa May is not interested in staying

in the single market, she is not interested in respecting

the wishes of the people of Scotland to stay within the single market,

maintain jobs and investment, then of course if she flings down

the gauntlet, I fully expect Nicola Sturgeon to pick it up.

Well then we do expect a referendum, because she is not going to give

you different status within the single market.

There are all sorts of practical challenges and difficulties.

There is a working example in Europe at the moment for a country

which has a monetary and customs union with another country

and one is in the single market and one isn't.

That is Lichtenstein and Switzerland.

If you intend to implement control of labour at the workplace

for a green card system as Theresa May does,

there is no impediment to Scotland being within the single market

It of course has complexities, but anything about Brexit has

complexities and this is a practical proposition.

Why shouldn't the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom pay attention

to the wishes of the Scottish people, the Scottish Parliament

I am I suppose curious as to why you're offering

this rather complicated, and it would be complicated,

settlement when there is a much more simple one facing you,

which is to call a referendum and just let the Scottish people decide.

What is it that the Scottish people....

Is it because the polls are against you?

Right, OK, let's take these points in turn.

There is nothing as complicated as the Brexit process,

There is already going to be we know special deals

There is already going to be we know special deals for Northern Ireland,

for Gibraltar, perhaps even for the City of London,

for the car industry in Sunderland, and if there can be a special deal

for the car industry in Sunderland, then I think there might

be a special deal for the nation of Scotland.

If the Prime Minister does not want to accede to any of these

reasonable compromise proposals from Nicola Sturgeon, then

as Nicola Sturgeon has rightly said, an independence referendum

And it will take place within the next two years.

As for support for it, there have been 16 polls

since the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom.

15 of these polls have shown support at a higher level than the 45%

I have seen a poll that 62% of Scottish people don't want

The question was wanted a referendum in 2017.

I would vote against a referendum this year, as indeed

Nicola Sturgeon's proposition in these circumstances

with a compromise proposal rejected is to have a referendum

within the negotiating period of two years.

Would you accept that if there is another referendum, that is it.

You cannot win on the best-of-3 at that stage.

If it is two-nil, it is over and this time really

it is over for 30, 50 years, it cannot come back

If the Prime Minister decides to ignore the substantial demand

in the UK as a whole to stay in the single market place,

if she then decides to ignore the wishes of Scotland

to maintain our 1000 year connection and history with Europe

as a European nation, in that context, if there

is a referendum within the next two years, then the Yes side will win.

For some reason, it is Labour that is perhaps struggling

with the consequences of this Supreme Court verdict more

If Parliament is to vote, then Labour has to make up its mind

as to exactly what it's position is - and yet it has given a good

impression of being in a muddle - keen to support Brexit

as that was the result of the referendum, but also having

lots of Remain supporters it can't ignore.

It's kind of stuck between Ukip in some blue collar neighbourhoods,

and the Lib Dems in university towns.

Nick Watt has been looking at where the parties stand.

For the best part of three decades Europe has cast a shadow over the

Conservative Party. Now at the very moment many Tories have been

expecting a split of historic proportions, it is the Labour Party

that is wrestling with this most troublesome of issues. The bulk of

the Conservative Party accepts Theresa May's timetable for

triggering Article 50 and her Brexit blueprint. As for the Labour Party

they are struggling to fashion a coherent response. Many Labour MPs

are trying to work out how to adapt their pro-EU views while

representing constituencies that recorded high Leave votes in the

referendum. I campaigned passionately for remain and I'd

lived and worked in Brussels for years and I am marriage to someone

from Denmark and I am pro-European with my heart and head but I am also

a Democrat. The referendum has overridden the way I would look at

the European question and now we have to accept the reality of where

we are, and pushed the government to secure the best possible deal for

the British people. It was but half a generation ago that Labour's

support for the EU was an electoral asset. Now the referendum has

changed everything, presenting Labour with a daunting challenge.

Labour will never appeal to people fervently pro-European and die-hard

Brexiteer is. It hurts to try to change the terms of the conversation

and reach out to people who did not feel strongly in either direction,

which means not talking about Brexit any more. While the conversation is

about Brexit vapour is in a weak position. He believes it is

providing rich pickings for other parties. Since the general election,

it is estimated Labour has lost the highest number of votes to the Lib

Dems. 400,000. It has also lost votes to the Conservatives and

200,000 to Ukip. The Labour Party in complete disarray. They do not know

what they think. You talk to Labour MPs on the issue and you get

different answers. The Labour Party should be getting behind voting to

trigger Article 50 but I have spoken to some today who say they will

still try to frustrate the process. One unlikely voiced sympathisers

with Labour. I am sympathetic to Jeremy Corbyn because I think he is

finding problems that any Labour leader would find and they are not

specific to him. He is a symptom, not decors, of the division with the

London voters thinking one thing and broadly be more than voters thinking

another. Jacob Rees-Mogg believes his party has an opportunity

unprecedented in the modern era. The Conservative Party is probably more

united on Europe than it has been since the days of Anthony Eden. Mrs

May is in the position of having less opposition than almost any

Conservative leader probably in history. That she has a united

party, there is no internal position. Stephen Kinnock believes

all may not be lost his party. The government has a mandate to take the

UK out of the EU. They do not have a mandate to turn us into some sort of

European version of the Cayman Islands. Brexit is not an excuse for

making a bonfire of workers' rights and of environmental rights, of

slashing the minimum wage, slashing corporation tax, deconstruction of

the welfare state this country is built on. This government does not

have a mandate to do that and our job is to draw those battle lines.

In the space of a fuel years, the UK has experienced two landmark

referendums and it has been Labour that has faced acute challenges in

the aftermath. The party will be hoping that the shadow cast by

Brexit will lift, although ironically, it may take a definitive

rake with the EU to allow Labour to return to a more natural terrain.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry joins us.

I know what the Lib Dems think of the EU and I know where Theresa May

stands. I would find it hard to say where labour stands at the moment.

Just in a couple of sentences, what is your policy. Do you really know

where the lead Dems stand, they only have a group of blind and the last

time they had to vote on Article 50 half of them voted one way and the

other half another. -- Lib Dems. In a couple of sentences what is the

Labour position on what happens now, not on the process but on what we

want and where we want to be. The British people have spoken, we have

our instructions, we have got to make sure we get the best possible

deal. We believe that begins with the economy. No one voted to be

poorer or to lose their job. And on that point you are no different to

Theresa May because she believes we want as much market access as

possible, we want investment. She is not willing to pay the price for

that market access, by giving up control of our borders. Are you

saying you would have less control of the border is then Theresa May is

advocating? I think there are differences in terms of emphasis but

I think the speech she made, she was trying to ride two wars is at once

going in different directions. It is our job as the opposition and we are

only the opposition, we have got to hold her to account, there are parts

of her speech we like, we like the idea of a tariff free access to the

single market. We like they're not being a build-up of red tape, that

is the kind of thing we like to hear and yes we will support her on that.

We want to make sure negotiations go that way. But when she talks about

some kind of weird new customs union entirely built for the UK or says if

we do not get the deal then we're going to become a completely

different country, break the economic model. This is what she

said. She said she wanted to break the economic model, attract in. That

was the back-up plan. She can only threaten if she means it and she

means if she does not get her own way she will try to attract business

here by lowering corporation tax and by making it more attractive. That

means less money for... I know what your critique of her youth. What I

want to know is if there an alternative vision to Brexit to the

one that says we get control back of the borders, we leave the single

market and customs union and fight for as much access as we can get

after that. That sounds as if that is what your position is. You're not

talking about free movement. What we're saying is that our first

principle, what is most important is that we look after the economy. For

any government what is most important is safety and security of

citizens and second is the economy. But all economists will tell you

free movement is the price you pay to get the best market access and

that is good for the economy. If we are not going to be in the single

market and we have to have a custom made deal for the UK, then there

will need to be negotiations and we have made it clear we will not die

in a ditch for freedom of movement. There needs to be give-and-take this

but the priority is to make sure no one loses their job and we look

after the economy. Because people who are just keeping their heads

above water will be those who are most affected if the economy goes

backwards. This is entirely consistent with Labour values. But

the trade-off between market access, and control of the borders, I'm not

100% clear where you are on that. Suppose you have knocked on my door

is a member of the public and I say, tell me what your policy is on

Europe. In a punter friendly style. I have just told you. So priority on

the economy. What about immigration question what our policy is that we

will not die in a ditch for freedom of movement. That argue for or

against. For free movement or against it? We're not against

immigration, we have always been in favour of their rules and managed

migration and that continues to be the Labour policy. So in favour of

free movement but not going to die in a ditch for it. So you would keep

it and get good market access? We're not going to be doing the

negotiations and our job as opposition is to make sure the

government does not lose sight of the overwhelming importance of jobs

and living standards. And the economy. We do not need them, we do

not trust them to go off on their own and negotiate on our behalf in

Europe without us keeping an eye on them. And so today we said the

Article 50 if it is going to be triggered, we will not get in the

way but try to amend the legislation in order to ensure that they keep

coming back, that would keep an eye on it and if necessary they will be

hand-to-hand combat on this. We need to make sure we get the best deal

for the country and she cannot say that she acts on behalf of the whole

country without negotiating with Parliament and Westminster

parliament, listening to the views of the British people. We represent

important parts of the and people said Labour is in such difficulties,

but will represent the country. The fact is, ... They represent more of

it because they got more votes. But the mixture of use with the Labour

Party reflects that of the public. The way in which we're thinking

about this with more depth I think that the Tories is a good thing and

we can contribute and help but they need to listen. One of the things,

the lines has been you will not let the government turn the UK into an

offshore Cayman Islands. Will that be an amendment to the Article 50

Bill? Let us first see what the bill is. It might be a couple of line.

Maybe, maybe not. You could put in an amendment saying the UK must not

become a tax haven or aim to... But there's no point anyway because a

future government could change its mind on that. There will be a number

of things. The first thing is the plan may be a piece of paper with

plan written on the top but it is a speech she did not make an

Parliament and therefore was not answerable to questions. So we want

a white paper, a clear plan so we can help them to account. She is

promising everything to everyone, let's have it written down and told

her to it. Then the broad principles, what are they, when you

are negotiating we want to be able to set lines in the sand. And then

most importantly, the accountability so as you go along, you must keep

reporting back. We should hold you to account and the final vote should

not be at the 11th hour when basically it is take it or leave it.

All processed stuff. If there's not much difference between you and...

There's a lot of difference between our approach and that of the Tories.

Do you accept, one of the difficulties is the country, the

great schism is Remain or Brexit. And the opposition, accepting the

Brexit result, it puts you in a difficult position because in a

sense you are not on either side of the great fissure in politics. In

the end you cannot have political parties to go for one half of the

other which is what the other parties are doing. The fact that we

are trying to bring the country together under the principle that we

need to look after the economy and get the best deal on behalf of the

whole country, is something we can unify the country around. We're not

going to chase 40%, or the extreme part of 52%, we will do our utmost

to ensure we stand up for the whole country and shall be listened to. We

will make sure that we are. A four-year-old Muslim girl

is at the centre of a row She was reportedly

told she couldn't wear a hijab - a headscarf -

by her Catholic primary school. The school was accused

by one councillor of In contrast, some Muslims have

pointed out pre-pubescent girls are not mandated to wear

the headscarf at all. But it's another case in the great

national discussion about the right boundary between tolerance

and non-conformity. Should a four-year-

old be wearing a hijab Katie Razzall has been to Birmingham

to find out what's been going on. It's a regular morning for these

seven and eight-year-olds at Birmingham's Anderton Park

primary school. In this classroom today five

of the girls were dressed in hijabs, the traditional head covering

sometimes worn by Muslim women. Here, headscarves are allowed

as long as they're purple or white. With some pupils in every year

opting to wear them, the headteacher is relaxed

about their choices. I think sometimes some of these

cultural practices like very young girls wearing a headscarf,

is just because that has always been done and maybe the families have

never questioned it. And often here girls may come

in in a headscarf at nine o'clock in the morning and then they're hot

or they have got PE and they just take it off and it is off

for the rest of the day. But another Birmingham School,

Catholic Saint Clare's, is under fire from a local Labour

councillor who weighed in after parents reportedly

complained to him that the school had banned their four-year-old

from wearing a hijab. This school has a strict

uniform policy. Amongst the prohibitions,

no dyed hair, no beads or coloured It is clearly outlined

on their website, so they may have been surprised to find themselves

at the centre of a row over a hijab. The row appeared on social media

when a man complained his four-year-old niece got detention

from school because she The local councillor, Waseem Zaffar,

replied saying he had already met the headteacher to discuss

the matter, clearly outlining to her

that this policy contravenes He continued he was insisting this

matter is addressed ASAP Neither the school nor Mr Zaffar,

who is Birmingham Council's cabinet member for equality,

would talk to Newsnight about the issue, which has

been widely reported But at the school gates this

afternoon, the only parent who would go on camera did not

support Saint Clare's approach. It is the 21st century and we should

be tolerant towards other religions and cultures,

actually, as well. We are Christians and Catholics

but never mind about the scarves, it The Equalities Act makes

no mention of uniform, but caselaw precedents do suggest

if a pupil cannot attend a school unless they remove an item

necessary for their faith, that is discriminatory

and potentially illegal. That is not what is

happening here, though. According to some Muslim activists

who argue even if you do believe girls should wear headscarves,

that only kicks in at puberty. They haven't done anything wrong,

they're not breaching any I would not want to start endorsing

and supporting the idea of girls wearing the headscarf

in primary schools. We must not normalise it and instead

of supporting that practice I think we should actually question it

because actually, what you are doing So is this about curtailing

religious freedoms, or cultural practices,

that some might see as misogynistic? A government commission review

on social integration recently found that some women are being held back

by regressive practices, justified in the name

of culture or religion. Newsnight has previously reported

on claims that some Muslim men within the Labour Party have been

accused of misogyny. Today, one female Muslim

councillor told us, this hijab When a Labour councillor

says that, it shocks me. But it did not surprise me,

I hear all sorts of things behind closed doors,

which are not good enough. And as a Labour councillor

that is on a Cabinet, a strong Labour authority,

where we know there has been issues before, there has been

Trojan Horse scandals, you have done

investigations yourself. Where it feels like the party is not

taking these things seriously, we need to have zero tolerance

on this kind of behaviour. Birmingham Council told Newsnight

school governing bodies decide on uniform but that it is working

with Saint Clare's to make sure its policy is in line

with legal requirements as well as talking to all schools

in the area to ensure The posts on Facebook

by the councillor who sparked this row have apparently

now been removed. Mark Urban, our diplomatic editor

has been in the US but is here now. A change of tack on

the Keystone Pipeline. You had better explain. It is a

pipeline running from Canadian oil fields, or is meant to, into the

American system, stopped by President Obama in 2015 and Donald

Trump this morning made an executive order to try to get it going and the

Dakota Access pipeline under construction stopped by lawsuits.

The aim is to announce big and bold, we put American jobs, American steel

to build these pipelines, America's energy needs ahead of tree hugging

people and we will drive a bulldozer through them. That is the aim and at

the same time infuriating environmentalists and Native

American groups. Basically trying to push a bulldozer through. There is

announcement of infrastructure projects in the coming weeks.

Foreign policy, more your beat. I am afraid we have been waiting in vain

with rumours that among the first orders will move the US embassy in

Israel to Jerusalem which did not happen and a cautious tone from the

embattled press secretary implying no decision had been made. Other

things we expected potentially on the Iran nuclear deal, Chinese

currency manipulation, so-called, they haven't happened. It is

fascinating. There is a desire to make the running with these big

domestic job creation type projects that are key to his agenda and his

base. They said today the administration, look, Congress has

been so slow to approve foreign policy choices we are behind. You

may see them coming together next week with a meeting with the

President of Mexico, where the trade agenda I think will come to the

fore. Let's finish by reflecting

on the story of the day - the Supreme Court verdict

and the path to Brexit, which is I am joined by author and journalist

Sonia Pernell and the sun's political journalist. And the

Guardian, 's Owen Jones. We have been speaking about the problems of

labour. Do you get depressed that the left right schism has been blown

apart by the Brexit Remain schism. And Jeremy Corbyn, to bring the left

populism to the people is not being heard? Depressed about politics, me?

Nothing to be depressed about! Clearly we have a divided country,

polarised on an issue that modern with -- that will dominate a long

time. Jacob Rees-Mogg alludes to this, the unique problem Labour has

is in its electoral coalition it has people who live in London,

Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, who feel traumatised in the

aftermath of the referendum and they want it to go away. You have Labour

voters in Doncaster, Burnley, who feel they have their country back

and it is difficult to reconcile the different perspectives. Brexit is

not just about the EU. If anything the EU is long down the list in

terms of what the referendum conjured up with immigration,

multiculturalism, social issues, I suppose. You get groups of people

with different outlooks on life. When you want a Labour opposition to

have a clear take on the people on the top, vested interests, to talk

about tax Justice, investment, cuts. Does it make you worried that the

coalition that is the Labour Party is past its sell-by date because the

two groups do not agree with each other on the big issues of the day?

It does need to adapt. All over Europe social democracy is in

crisis. It does not matter if the leaders of these parties on the left

or right. In Germany, the Labour sister party, their leader supports

third way style policy. He would probably be envious of Labour's

terrible polling in this country. There are few countries where it is

doing well. You get across Europe be centre-left and a rising radical

left who argue with each other but that is often displace Durie from

both wings that their lack of a clear route and vision to power and

a clear strategy and all sections, if you believe in a different

Britain, different Europe, in those other countries, there is a big ask

about how you build a coalition and that coalition has changed. It is

not the industrial working class, more people going to university. Let

me put it to the others. Are you selling your shares in Labour? I

would but what we have is a complete vacuum of leadership and they have

to decide where they are, and be brave and decide what they are going

to do and stick to it and fight for it and vote accordingly in

Parliament. The Supreme Court said it is up to politicians to take it

forward. It is now up to Parliament to make a decision. MPs are not

delegates, they are representatives, not legally bound to vote, they

should vote with their conscious. The leadership of the party should

allow them to do so. Tom, do you have advice for Labour? Very happy

to offer advice. Sonia is right. They will be in a terrible mess for

as long as they try, as Owen pointed out, to straddle this giant fissure.

If they give up one side they will lose half their market. We have seen

it before. The Scottish referendum, by almost no fault of their own,

they have been split by two giant referendums. What Labour need to

realise is the existential threat. It is not a problem that will

resolve in a few months, with a few cheeky votes in parliament. There is

a poll for the Stoke by-election by the John Bell sponsored Labour

outfit. The first on that by-election which has the leader of

Ukip ten points ahead already. If you want a list of candidates in the

by-election, go to the BBC website. A ten point lead for Paul Nuttall.

Labour on 25%. 80% of his supporters come from Labour voters. Is this the

fissure that divides the nation. I wonder out there there are people

who don't much care about it? There was another poll saying more people

were concerned about what is happening in the NHS than with

Brexit. These issues get conflated. Again, go back to leadership. You

need a leader of the Labour Party, whichever party will replace it, to

take the position and stick at it and say it will be better for the

NHS and employment. We don't have that. We have no opposition. Where

have all the Tory Remain people gone? Why are they acquiescing? I

think they are biding their time. Their numbers are strong. There are

those brave enough to give David Davis a hard time as they did in the

Commons. The likes of George Osborne, a lot of people remain

silent. They know it is the wrong time to wave their flags. Theresa

May has momentum behind her. It will get a lot more difficult for her. At

the moment it feels she is making the running. This is the early

skirmishes of what will be giant warfare. Do you agree? What Theresa

May has done has made Brexit is like a cult. If you don't belong to it,

you are shunned, you do not get on TV, do not get asked to parties and

you are excluded. A lot of people are afraid to stick their heads

above the parapet. Are you optimistic for a post Brexit

Britain? Are you down on it? At the moment, the odds are it is a deal

that prioritises jobs, the economy, not looking great. Turning Britain

into a giant tax haven that would mean cutting public services would

chill everyone. In British politics, if it is about our relationship to

the European Union, rather than say, like we have gone through the

longest fall in living standards is the 19th century, that squeeze will

come back. The housing crisis, the lack of secure jobs, which is why

many communities voted to leave, because they felt they had lost

control of their communities. Education, the NHS. Labour needs and

this is its task ahead, while keeping the electoral coalition

together, to have a coherent alternative on those issues and try

to shift the debate so we are not just talking about the EU for the

next 50 years at this rate. There are other things that need to be

addressed. Thanks. That is all we have time for. Amelie will be here

tomorrow. Good night.