24/01/2017 Outside Source

Hello, I'm Ros Atkins, this is Outside Source.

President Trump has signed executive orders to reverse blocks on two

We will build our own pipeline. We will build our own pipes. That's

what it has to do with, like we used to in the old days.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament, not the Government,

should be responsible for triggering the Brexit process.

We'll report from Westminster and from Brussels.

Israel has approved plans to build 2500 new homes

in the occupied West Bank, the second announcement

of new construction since President Trump took office.

And not a good day for the bookmakers, just as we thought,

La La Land is leading the way in the Oscar nominations.

Donald Trump has revived plans for two hugely

They're called Keystone XL and Dakota Access.

We can see them here on this map supplied by the authorities.

Keystone is in green. It runs from Canada to Kansas. Dakota Access

would run from north Dakota to ill now. -- Illinois.

Here is a statement released by senator Bernie Sanders.

"Today President Trump ignored the voices of millions and put

the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industry ahead

This, though, is how the President sees things.

This is construction of pipelines in this country. We are and I am very

insistent that if we're going to build pipelines in the United

States, the pipes should be made in the United States. Unless there's

difficulty with that because companies are going to have to gear

up, much pipeline is bought from other countries. From now on we will

make pipeline in the United States. We build it in the United States, we

build the pipelines. We want to build the pipe. Got to put a lot of

steel workers back to work. A short while ago,

the White House press secretary, "This decision will create jobs and

that the environment is a priority." President Trump is known to have had

partial investments in two of the parent companies overseeing the

development of the Dakota Pipeline. A spokesperson for him announced

late last year that he'd sold off his stocks, but it remains unclear

when that occurred. Let's go now to

Washington to Katty Kay. The President would have been under

no illusions how controversial this would have been. No President Obama

delayed this to carry out environmental studies because of his

concerns from environmentalists. In some ways this is not really an

economic issue. This has become a symbol of the environmental fight of

the concerns for the environment versus creation of jobs. It's clear

that, under the Trump administration, jobs are going to

win. I spoke it a senior Republican senator just after that signing took

place. He sits on the energy committee, on the environmental

committee and he told me that he's thrilled by this. It shows that

Donald Trump really is committed to two things: Deregulation and

building jobs in the United States. Now environmentalists really hate

the Keystone pipeline and Dakota pipeline, one, because it goes

through hallowed ground of native Americans and on the Keystone

pipeline, it's bringing oil from the tar sands of Canada, one of the most

environmentally unfriendly ways to extract oil from the ground. On a

lot of fronts environmentalists don't like this. When you speak to

the Republicans you're referring to, who are delighted about this, do

they care that this potentially makes them look as if they disregard

the environment or do they reject that argument outright? You hear

Donald Trump today also saying that he is an environmentalist. They will

tell thaw they are concerned about the environment and the Republican

senator I spoke to said we can have clean air and we can have clean

water and we can do it in conjunction with jobs, the two don't

have to be set up against each other. Critics of the pipe lines say

that's not possible. You heard Bernie Sanders saying that America

is sacrificing the long-term future of the planet for the fossil fuel

industry. Make no mistake about it, though, this is a change that is

going to stay here in the United States. Donald Trump made it

absolutely clear during his campaign that he favoured more energy

exploration, production and use and he is in favour of deregulating the

fossil fuel industries. Environmentalists won't like it, but

it's here to stay. Here is the second thing to ask you about. Let

me show this to you. A short while ago, the whous press secretary Sean

Spicer held a briefing. His first two appearances in the job

both featured him defending Mr Trump's erroneous claims

that the inauguration crowd The one today featured Mr Spicer

defending Mr Trump's renewed claim that there were millions

of fraudulent votes in the election. It's a claim backed up by no

evidence whatsoever. REPORTER: Does the President believe

that millions voted illegally in that election and what evidence do

you have of widespread voter fraud, if that's the case? The President

does believe that. He stated that before. He stated his concerns of

voter fraud and people voting illegally during the campaign. He

continues to maintain that belief. REPORTER: Exactly what evidence.

Senator Ryan says that's there evidence, the national association

of secretaries of states say they don't agree with the President's

assessment, what evidence do you have? As I said, I think the

President has believed that for a while based on studies and

information he has. Back to catty. He's got a tough job, Mr Spicer,

defending the claims when there's nothing to back them up. Key words,

studies and information. Of course, we want to though what the studies

and information are because nobody else has seen any evidence

suggesting there was widespread voter fraud. You've had Republican

secretaries of state and officials say widespread voter fraud and

illegal immigrants voting or people voting illegally simply did not

happen in their state. He's setting himself up against the Republican

establishment here. Why? Why say something like this that dominates

the news cycle when you're doing an awful lot in terms of actual policy

changes that may very well be quite popular with American voters, but

then gets overshadowed by something like this. Sean Spicer couldn't

point to those documents and evidence and studies because as far

as we know, they simply don't exist. Those are the two issues I was

planning to ask you about, I have one other thing. I was listening to

a clip of Donald Trump at the beginning of the programme, I

thought, there's an interesting phrase in what he said earlier. Just

listen to this again and his reference to the past. We will build

our own pipeline. We will build our own pipes. That's what it has to do

with. Like we used to, in the old days. The old days, he's talking

about. There say nostalgia about the way Mr Trump ran his campaign and

now how he's running his presidency. It's interesting that you picked

that up. I was thinking exactly the same thing when I heard it. That's

what the phrase "make America great again" you could argue the most

important word in that phrase is "again". There is a nostalgia in

this administration for an era where there was less crime and less drugs

and things were simpler and people had jobs and arguably at a time when

America was whiter and more homogeneous. Is Mr Trump running up

against the course of history? Has the globalisation train left the

station? And is he going to find that he cannot take America back to

a world where protectionism ruled and things were made only in America

and that world has changed, that technology is changing that world,

frankly, as fast as anything else. And this idea that it's going to be

like the old days, it really isn't, because I'm moves forward. It is

doing so at a very fast pace right around the world. Thank you very

much indeed. We'll speak through the week.

That issue of protectionism, we will speak to Samira Hussain in New York

about that. Mr Trump has been talking to the US autoindustry. The

message is, if you want to sell cars in the US, make them in the US. Back

to Washington and New York in a little white. We must turn to what

has been by far the biggest story here in the UK today.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled the British Parliament must

approve the formal start of Brexit negotiations.

In other words, Prime Minister Theresa May can't take

Let's go through the reaction of the parties.

Here's Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Opposition Labour Party.

We want to make sure that process goes ahead, but we also want to make

sure that our Government is held to account throughout this process, so

they don't turn Britain into a tax haven on the shores of Europe. We

actually maintain living standards being, we improve -- standards, we

improve living standards and improve workers' rights and have market

access to Europe. That's the Labour Party. Next let's talk about another

significant elements of this ruling. is that the Scottish Parliament

and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, will not be formally

asked to approve the triggering Here's Scotland's First

Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. I think it's a matter of democratic

principle that the Scottish Parliament, on such a big,

fundamental issue, with so many implications for the devolved

settlement should have a say on whether or not it consents to the

triggering of Article 50. We will forward a motion that allows the

Scottish Parliament to do that. I would hope the UK Government would

pay attention to it. Tim Farron, leader of

the Liberal Democrats tweeted, "The Lib Dems are clear,

we demand a vote of the people on the final deal and without that,

we will not vote for A 50." The biggest single question

here is whether this ruling will delay the start

of the Brexit negotiations. Brexit secretary, David Davies,

doesn't think so. P We will, within days, introduce

legislation to give the Government the legal power to trigger Article

50 and begin the formal process of withdrawal. It will be separate to

the great repeal bill that will be introduced later this year, to

repeal the European Communities Act 1972. This will be the most

straightforward bill possible to give effect the decision of the

people and respect the Supreme Court's judgment. The purpose of the

bill is simply to give the Government the power to invoke

Article 50. On one level, it looks to be hugely

significant and it's certainly a high profile defeat

for the Government. On another level, the time table

of Brexit doesn't appear Here's Rob Watson at Westminster

with his reading of the story. On one level, it is deeply

significant if you're interested in the constitutional, legal

arrangements for the United Kingdom. But actually, will it have much

difference, make much difference politically? I don't think so. I

mean, it's true that the Supreme Court has now said it's Parliament

that has to give approval, not just the Prime Minister. But of course,

that would only be a massive story if Parliament were somehow going to

come to the rescue of those would want Britain to stay in the European

Union. Though it's perfectly true that most MPs personally voted to

remain, I don't think there's any mood or majority for somehow

blocking or delaying Brexit. Big day legally. Is it going to somehow

stop, complicate, super delay Brexit? I don't think so.

Run us through exactly what has to happen in the House of Commons and

the House of Lords before Article 50's triggered. In the next couple

of days, possibly as early as Thursday, the Government will

introduce a bill, presumably a very short one basically saying something

like, we recognise that the Government should now begin the

Article 50 process. That will then have to be voted on in the House of

Commons and in the House of Lords. Ideally from the Government's point

of view, all in the next couple of weeks. A quick word about the

Opposition Labour Party. The majority of its MPs supported

staying in the European Union. How's it going to play this issue? The

Opposition Labour Party is just in a horrible position. What it's saying

it will do is it won't block Brexit, but it will try to hold the

Government to account. I say the Opposition Labour Party's in a

horrible position because half of its MPs represent constituencies

where people voted to leave the European Union. About the other half

of their MPs voted in constituencies where people very much wanted to

remain in the EU. It's in a very, very difficult position. Actually,

to get the big politics picture on this, I don't think that the real

problems for Theresa May are going to be managing Parliament, at least

in the short-term. Her real political problems are going to be

when her Brexit plan meets the reality of negotiating with the

other EU 27 and perhaps even longer term than that, in keeping the union

here in Britain together, because this court ruling very much upset

the Scottish National Party, which is saying possibly it brings a

second referendum that bit closer. Having heard Rob say perhaps Theresa

May's greatest challenge is in Brussels, I spoke to Jonny Dymond

who's there. If you want to sum up the feeling here it's four words:

Get on with. It the desire very strongly of officials and

politicians in Brussels and in other European capitals is that the Brexit

negotiations start soon, finish on time and are done with. I think

there is an absolute resignation to the fact that Britain is going to

leave the European Union. And what leaders of the EU and the officials

here in the EU do not want under any circumstances is for Brexit to be

the only thing that is discussed in the European Union for the next two,

three, five years. There are very major challenges, some of them

nothing to do with Brexit, the migration crisis, there is still a

banking system to be reformed. There are still the crisis of the euro.

Then there are issues thrown up by Brexit, which are not directly

related to Britain leaving. That's issues such as how to restore some

kind of popular legitimacy to the European Union. What they don't want

to be doing is talking the fine details of Brexit, when they want to

be trying to work out how to strengthen and maintain the union.

For them, getting some kind of certainty over what's going to

happen in the next few weeks and getting certainty that Article 50,

that resignation note, will be triggered on time, by the end of

March, by Theresa May, is the most important thing.

In the a few minutes it's Outside Source business.

Coming up in a few minutes, on the same day he revives

controversial oil pipeline project, Donald Trump tells autoexecutives

that to a large extent, he's an environmentalist.

We'll pick up on that with Samira Hussain in NYC.

A man who was on holiday with his wife in Tunisia has said

the Thomson staff he booked the holiday with didn't warn them

about any potential security risks, just a month before terrorists

Jim Windass, whose wife Claire was killed in the Sousse attack

in May 2015, also told the inquest that Thomson staff didn't mention

the Foreign Office travel advice available online.

Our correspondent, Richard Galpin, was at the

This is a really important piece of evidence in this inquest. Of course,

the role of the holiday companies is key. It's been discussed already a

lot during this inquest, did they provide enough information to the

holidaymakers, many of them who booked through Thomson, did they

provide sufficient information to the people planning to go to Tunisia

at that time? This is Outside Source, live from

the BBC Newsroom. Our lead story is: President Trump

has signed executive orders to relaunch two controversial oil

pipelines in the US. The projects were rejected

by Barack Obama following years The Gambian Parliament has skaed

the state of emergency imposed last -- scrapped the state of emergency

imposed last week by the former President,

The new President, Adama Barrow, is expected to return home

Organisations that provide sexual Health Services in Africa have

criticised President Trump's decision to reinstate a policy

that denies them access to American funding.

And US authorities have seized $20 million in cash hidden under

The money's believed to be linked to a $1 billion pyramid scheme.

Stories from the UK, the US and west Africa. Next let's go to Israel.

? New homes are going to be built in Israel. The Defence Ministry has

said the move is meant to fulfil demand for new housing to maintain

regular daily life. The announcement may not be unrelated to the arrival

of President Trump in the White House. Mark Lowen can explain. This

is the second time in the space of a week that the Israeli government has

announced more building in settlements, 2,500 homes to be build

in the occupied West Bank announced today. And over the weekend, there

was an announcement that over 560 new homes will be built in

settlements in occupied east Jerusalem. Both of these

announcements coming after the inauguration of Donald Trump. A

feeling here that the Israeli government is feeling emboldened,

even encouraged by the new administration in the US to build

more in the settlements after the relationship between Israel and the

US under Barack Obama plummeted, partly over the issue of settlement

building. Mr Obama was fiercely opposed to the settlements. He

allowed a UN Resolution to pass condemning Israeli building in the

settlements. Donald Trump, his son-in-law and pick for US

ambassador for Israel have donated to the settlements and will take a

more pro-Israeli policy. There is also a feeling that this is done

partly for domestic political consumption. The Prime Minister

here, Benjamin Netanyahu, is facing a bill challenge at the moment from

the -- is facing a big challenge from the far right. He's trying to

burnish his credentials by choosing an issue that will go down well with

Nationalists. The issue of settlements is so contentious

because it violates international law, according to the UN and it is

being built in areas that the Palestinians want for a future

state, that are going beyond Israel's borders, according to the

1967 border demarcation. So the Palestinians have reacted furiously.

A spokesman for the Palestinians saying this would foster extremism

and terrorism and calling on the international community to take a

stand against Israel and against the issue of settlement building.

Donald Trump met with executives from the US autoindustry today.

We're going to make the process much more simple for the companies and

everybody auto else that wants to do business in the United States. I

think this you will find this to go from very inhospitable to very

hospitable. We will go down as one of the most friend lip companies.

Right now it's not. I have friends that want to build in the United

States and have to wait years and year and then don't get the

approval. Do these car companies like the idea of making cars in the

US? It comes at a tricky time. We're seeing a little bit less demand for

some cars, but if you talk about cars in the United States, which is

really what we're talking about, there is a little bit more demand

for SUVs and bigger kinds of cars. It doesn't mean that these car

operators need to build new factories. They could revamp the

ones they have. It's really interesting to see just how much

Donald Trump is speaking directly with corporate America. This is not

something we would typically see with an American President. In terms

of action, policy that Mr Trump can take in order to encourage these

companies to base their manufacturing in the US, what's

available to him? What he has said is that he wants to cut back on

regulation. So when it comes to regulations in the car industry, it

could be anything from taxes, corporate taxes, to anything

regarding the environment and emissions or anything limiting in

terms of how freely part can travel. And these are some of the issues

that the makers have raised auto with Trump in their hour-long

meeting in. Terms of what will actually happen, they was short on

specifics. When some of the car makers spoke with reporters

afterwards they said they believe today was a healthy conversation but

no real specifics in terms of what regulations the President is looking

to cut. I guess we'll have to give him a little longer to come up with

those. Only in the job a few days. Certainly people would like to see

them. This is what happened to BT's share price today.

down 21%, the biggest slump in the company's history.

It's bought BT is writing down the value of its Italian

Here's BBC business editor, Simon Jack.

It was a real shock, BT's not the kind of company we expect to have

profits warnings. It's a very strong company with quite a reliable,

dependable and forecastable business. We just don't expect these

kind of issues. Why this sudden and very dramatic

slump? BT has problems on a number of fronts. Today we learned the

accounting scandal in BT's Italian business is much worse than

expected. The black hole there has widened from ?145 million to ?530

million. Even more worrying for investors, it warned today that

profits in its core business will be 175 million lower this year and

next. Now that's down to stagnating revenue from some of its biggest

customers, who are not renewing major contracts. Today's news is set

against an already uncertain back drop for the company. The company is

fighting calls from competitors and the regulator to split off its Open

Reach network division. It has one of the biggest pension fund deficits

and it's been spending big on entertainment. There's a lot of

nervousness around BT at the moment, particularly given the ongoing

review of Open Reach and the review of pensions due to happen this year.

If there's one thing that investors hate, it's uncertainty. Given the

amount of uncertainty there is at the moment any knock to BT sees an

amplified effect which we've seen with the share price today. Heads

have already started to roll. The BBC has learned tonight the head of

BT Europe is expected to resign imminently. All this will put

pressure on the ultimate boss, who's been in charge during a period of

bold expansion for BT. We're in the process of really building our

Broadband business... BT expressed disappointment at I vent in --

events in Italy. Shareholders will be disappointed today too. When a

company as big as BT says its biggest company aren't spending

money, it's a worry for the wide ere economy. I'm back in a couple of

minutes. Bye-bye.