20/11/2016 Sunday Politics East

Morning folks - welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May says she'll deliver on Brexit but does that mean leaving

the EU's Single Market and the Customs Union?

Tory MPs campaign for a commitment from the Prime

The Chancellor pledges just over a billion pounds worth of spending

on Britain's roads but is that it or will there be

Here in the East... 18 days in the job.

The devolution dream for Norfolk and Suffolk is all over.

In a special programme, we look at what's gone wrong

in London: Is the battle for Richmond Park based on the skies? Or

is it about a bigger conflict in Europe?

And with me - as always - and, no, these three aren't doing

the Mannequin challenge - it's our dynamic, demonstrative

dazzling political panel - Helen Lewis, Isabel Oakeshott

and Tom Newton Dunn they'll also be tweeting throughout the programme.

First this morning - Theresa May has said

"Brexit means Brexit" - but can the Prime Minister -

who was on the Remain side of argument during the referendum

Well, Leave-supporting Tory MPs are re-launching

the "European Research Group" this morning to keep Mrs May's feet

Are you worried that you cannot trust Theresa May until payment to

deliver full Brexit was Magellan like I totally trust Theresa May,

100% behind her. She has displayed a massive amount of commitment to

making a success of Brexit for the country.

We don't know that yet, because nothing has happened. Why, then

have you formed a pressure group? We were fed up with the negativity

coming out around Brexit. I feel positive about the opportunities we

face, and we are a group to provide suggestions. Who do you have in mind

when you talk about negativity the Chancellor? No, from the Lib Dems,

for example, from Labour MPs. This is a pressure group for leaving

membership of the single market and customs union, correct? That is what

we are proposing. It has a purpose other than just to combat

negativity. When it comes to membership of the single market and

the customs union, can you tell us what Government policy is towards

both or either? Rightly, the Government hasn't made the position

clear, and I think that is the right approach, because we don't want to

review our negotiating hand. What we're saying... I'm not asking what

you are saying. Can you tell us what Government policy is towards

membership of these institutions? The Government wants to make sure

British businesses have the right to trade with EU partners, to forge new

trade deals with the rest of the world. We hope to Reza may speak at

Mansion house this week. -- we had Theresa May speak at Mansion house

this week. She has been clear, saying it was not a binary choice.

And she's right. Let's run that tape, because I want to pick up on

what she did say. This is what she had to say about the customs union

at Prime Minister's Question Time. On the whole question of the customs

union, trading relationships that we have with the European Union and

other parts of the world once we have left the European Union, we are

preparing carefully for the formal negotiations. We are preparing

carefully for the formal negotiations. We want to ensure we

have the best possible trading deal with the EU once we have left. Do

you know what she means when she says being in the customs union is

not a binary choice? I think she's right when she says that. At the

moment, and you know this, as long as we are in the customs union, we

cannot set our own tariffs or rules, cannot have a free trade agreement

with the US or China. We need to leave a customs union to do that.

Binary means either you are in or you are out, self which is it? We

still want to trade with the EU and I think we can have a free trade

agreement with the EU. That is a separate matter, and it has to do

with the single market. What about the customs union? We need to leave

the customs union. We do it and properly. That is how to get the

most out of this opportunity. Summit is a binary choice? The Prime

Minister is right when she says it's not a binary choice. Both can't be

right. We can leave the customs union, get their benefits, and have

a free trade agreement with zero tariffs with the EU. So it is a

binary choice an either be stale really. Yellow like I am saying the

Prime Minister is right when she says it is not a binary choice. -- I

am saying the Prime Minister is right. We need clarity. Youth had

said -- you have said it is a binary choice. We need to leave the

constraints of the customs union. It pushes up prices. The EU is not

securing the right trade deals, and if we want to make the most of it,

we need to get out there and get some deals going. Do you accept that

if we remain in the customs union, we cannot do our own free-trade

deals? Yellow right 100%. That is why we have to leave. -- 100%. Do

you accept that if we leave the customs union but stay with

substantial access, I don't say membership, but substantial access

to the single market, that goods going from this country to the

single market because we're no longer in the union will be subject

to complicated rules of origin regulations, which could cost

business ?13 billion a year? I would like to see a free-trade agreement

between the UK and the EU. Look at the Canadian deal. I give you that,

but if we're not in the customs union, things that we bring in on

our own tariffs once we've left we can't just export again willy-nilly

to the EU. They will demand to see rules of origin. Norway has to do

that at the moment and it is highly complicated expensive. I think if we

agree a particular arrangement as part of this agreement with the EU,

we can reach an agreement on that which sets a lower standard, which

sets a different level of tariffs, which protects some of our

industries. Let's suppose we have pretty much free trade with the EU

but we are out of the customs union, and let's suppose that the European

Union has a 20% tariff on Japanese whisky and we decide to have a %

tariff - what then happens to the whisky that comes into Britain and

goes on to the EU? The EU will not let that in. That will be part of

the negotiation. I think there is a huge benefit for external operators.

Every bottle of Japanese whisky they will have to work out the rules

of origin. There have been studies that show there is a potential for

50% increase in global product if we leave. We're losing the benefits of

free trade. I understand, I am asking for your particular view

Thank you for that. Is it not surprising Mr Hannan could

not bring himself to say we would leave the customs union? It is

messy. The reason there is this new group of Tory MPs signing up to a

campaign to make sure we get a genuine Brexit is because there is

this vacuum. It is being filled with all sorts of briefing from the other

side. There is a real risk in the minds of Brexit supporting MPs that

the remaining side are going to try to hijack the process, not only

through the Supreme Court action, which I think most Brexit MPs seem

to accept the appeal will fail, but further down the line, through

amendments to the great repeal bill. This is a pressure group to try to

hold the Prime Minister to account. There is plenty of pressure on the

Prime Minister effectively to stay in the single market and the customs

union, and if you do both of these things, de facto, you have stayed in

the EU. She is in a difficult position because there is no good

faith assumption about what Theresa May wants because she was a

Remainer. There is all this talk about a transitional arrangement,

but she can't sell that as someone who voted to remain. The way Isabel

has characterised it is interesting. There is a betrayal narrative.

Everyone is looking to say that she has betrayed the true Brexit. Since

the Government cannot give a clear indication of what it once in terms

of the customs union, which sets external tariffs, or the single

market, which is the free movement of people, capital, goods and

services, others are filling this vacuum. Right. The reasons they

can't do this are, first, they don't know if they can get it or not. We

saw this with the renegotiation the last Prime Minister. What are they

hoping to get? The world on a stick, to get cake and eat it. You go into

a negotiation saying, let's see what we can get in total. Are they going

to ask the membership of the single market? Yellow I think they will ask

for a free trade agreement involving everything. You can demand what you

want. The question is, do they stand a cat's chance in hell of getting

it? They don't know. Welcome back. We will be back, believe me. It is

150 day since we found out the UK had voted to leave the EU, but as we

have heard, remain and leave campaigners continue to battle about

what type of relationship we should have with the EU after exit.

Leave campaigners say that leaving the EU

also means quitting the

Single Market, the internal European trading bloc that includes free

movement of goods, services, capital and people.

They point to evidence that leading Leave supporting

politicians ruled out staying in the Single Market during

Andrea Leadsom, for example, said it would almost

certainly be the case that the UK would come out of the Single Market.

When asked for a yes or no on whether the UK should stay

"No, we should be outside the Single Market."

And Boris Johnson agreed with his erstwhile ally, saying, "Michael

Gove was absolutely right to say the UK

They've released a video of clips of Leave campaigners speaking before

the referendum apparently saying that the UK should stay in the

Nigel Farage, for example, once said that on leaving

the EU we'll find ourselves part of the European economic area

Owen Paterson, the former Environment Secretary,

once made the startling statement that only a madman would actually

And Matthew Elliott, the Vote Leave chief, said

that the Norwegian option would be initially attractive for some

But do these quotes create an accurate picture of what

To cast some light on where these quotes came from we're

joined by James McGrory, director of Open Britain

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. . Your video has statements from leave

campaigners hinting they want to stay in the single market. How many

were made during the referendum campaign? I don't know. Not one was

made during the referendum campaign. Indeed, only two of the 12

statements were recorded after Royal assent had been given to the

referendum. Only one was made this year before the referendum.

Throughout the campaign am a leave campaigners lauded the Norwegian

model. Norway are in the single market but not in the EU. They went

out of their way not to be pinned down on a specific trading

arrangement they want to see in the future with Europe, when the

Treasury model the different models it was the EEA or a free-trade

agreement. I understand. Does it not undermine your case that none of the

12 statements on your video were made during the campaign itself

when people were giving really serious thought to such matters The

Leave campaign weren't giving serious thought to such matters

They did not set out the future trading model they wanted to see.

But you cannot produce a single video with somebody saying we should

stay in the single market during the campaign. Daniel Hanna had talked

about the Norwegian model as a future option. One comment from

Nigel Farage dates back to 2009 when we didn't even know if we would

have a referendum or not. Does it not stretch credibility to go back

to the time when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister? The overall point

stands. It is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of the options.

Daniel Hannan, described as the intellectual godfather of the Leave

movement is saying that no one is talking about threatening our place

in the signal market. I think it's legitimate to point out the Leave

campaign never came forward with a credible argument. We have

highlighted some of the quotes you picked out from leave campaigners

over time. Do you think you have fully encapsulated their arguments

accurately? I don't think in a 2nd video you can talk about the full

thing. -- a 90-2nd video. Some of them want to seek a free-trade

agreement, some to default on to World Trade Organisation tariffs.

There is a range of opinion in the Leave campaign. Let's listen to the

clip you used on Owen Paterson first.

Only a madman would actually leave the market.

Only a madman would actually leave the market.

It's not the EU which is

a political organisation delivering the prosperity and buying our goods.

It's the market, it's the members of the market and we'll carry on

I mean, are we really suggesting that the

economy in the world is not going to come to come

to a satisfactory trading arrangement with the EU?

Are we going to be like Sudan and North

It is ludicrous this idea that we are going to leap off a

What he said when he said only a madman would leave Europe, was that

we would continue to trade, we would continue to have access. Any country

in the world can have access. What the Leave campaign suggested is our

trade would continue uninterrupted, they are still at it today, David

Davis used the phrase, uninterrupted, from the dispatch box

recently. You misrepresented him by saying only a madman would leave the

Single Market and stopped it there, because he goes onto say that of

course we want Leave in the sense of continuing to have access. I don't

think he was about axis, he is talking

about membership. He doesn't use the word membership at all. He talks

about we are going to carry on trading with them, we will not leap

off, we will carry on trading. Anybody can trade with the EU, it's

the terms on which you trade that is important and leave campaigners and

Patterson is an example of this saying we can trade as we do now,

the government saying we can trade without bureaucratic impediments and

tariff free. The viewers will make up their mind. Let's listen to the

views of Matthew Elliott, the Chief Executive of Vote Leave.

When it comes to the Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that

it might be initially attractive for some business people.

So you then cut him off there but this is what he went on to say in

the same clip, let's listen to that. When it comes to the Norwegian

option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initially attractive

for some business people. But then again for voters

who are increasingly concerned about migration in the EU,

they will be very concerned that it allows free movement

of people to continue. Again, you have misrepresented him.

He said the Norwegian model has attractions but there are real

problems if it involves free movement of people, which it does.

But you cut that bit out. I challenge anyone to represent them

accurately because they took such a range of opinions. I don't know what

we are supposed to do. You are misrepresenting them. He is saying

the Norwegian option is attractive to business, I understand why. It

might not be attractive for voters. But then he said if it allowed free

movement of people it could be an issue. You took that out. You are

saying this is a definitive position. I'm suggesting you are

distorting it. This is what you had Mr Farage say.

On D+1 we'll find ourselves part of the European economic area

This is what he then went on to say in that same clip that you didn t

run. There is absolutely

nothing to fear in terms of trade from leaving

the on D+1 we'll find ourselves part

of the European Economic Area and we should use our

membership of the EEA as a holding position from which

we can negotiate as the European Union's biggest export

market in the world, as good a deal, my goodness me,

if Switzerland can have one we So there again, he says not that we

should stay in the Single Market as a member, but that we stay in the EA

as a transition until we negotiate something. -- EEA. This whole clip

is online, how would you get away with this distortion? It is not a

distortion, the whole point is to point out they do not have a

definitive position, he is arguing for membership of the Single Market,

for a transitional period. For the transition. How long does that go

on, what does he want to then achieve? Not very quickly but he

does not say we should stay members of the Single Market and you didn't

let people see what he went on to say, you gave the impression he

wanted to stay in the one it. It would not be a video then, it would

be a seven-week long lecture. They took so many positions, and the idea

now that they were clear with people that we should definitely leave the

Single Market I think is fictitious. You are trying to make out they all

had one position which was to remain members of the one it. You see the

full clips that is not what they are saying. We are trying to point out

there is no mandate to leave the Single Market. The idea the Leave

campaign spoke with unanimity and clarity of purpose and throughout

the whole campaign said we will definitely leave the Single Market

is not true. That is the whole point of the media. We showed in the

montage in the video just before we came on, we said that then Prime

Minister, the then Chancellor, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, being

categorical that if you vote to leave the EU, you vote to leave

membership of the Single Market What bit of that didn't you

understand? Under duress they occasionally said they wanted to

leave. Some of them wanted to leave the Single Market. All of the other

promises they made, whether ?35 million for the NHS, whether a VAT

cut on fuel, points-based system. You do not have a single quote of

any of these members saying they want to be a member. Daniel Hannan

has said consistently that Norway are a part of the Single Market You

spend the referendum campaign criticising for Rim misrepresenting

and misrepresenting and lying and many thought they did. Having seen

this many will conclude that you are the biggest liars. I think it is

perfectly reasonable to point out that the Leave campaign did not have

a clear position on our future trading relationship with Europe.

That is all this video does. It doesn't say we definitely have to

stay in the Single Market, it just says they do have a mandate to drag

us out of our biggest trading partner.

Now people have seen the full quotes in context our viewers will make up

their mind. Thank you. Now - voting closes next week

in the the Ukip leadership contest. The second Ukip leadership contest

this year after the party's first female leader - Diane James -

stood down from the role Since then the party's lurched from

farce to fiasco. It's a world gripped by uncertainty,

split into factions. Yes, 2, because they're

having their second Watch as the alpha male,

the Ukip leader at Nigel Watch as the alpha male,

the Ukip leader Nigel Farage, hands power to the new alpha

female Diane James. The European Parliament

in Strasbourg, October. Another leading light and possible

future leader, the MEP Steven Wolfe,

has been laid low after an alleged tussle with a colleague

during a meeting. A few days later he is

out of hospital and I will be withdrawing my

application to become I'm actually withdrawing

myself from Ukip. You're resigning from the party

I'm resigning with immediate effect. And this week a leaked document

suggested the party improperly spent EU funds on political

campaigning in the UK. Another headache for whoever takes

over the leadership of the pack One contender is Suzanne Evans,

a former Tory councillor and was briefly suspended for

disloyalty. Also standing, Paul Nuttall,

an MEP from Liverpool who has been by Farage's side

as his deputy for six years. There's another big beast

in the Ukip leadership contest, and I'm told

that today he can be spotted He's John Rees-Evans,

a businessman and adventurer who is offering members the chance

to propose policies via a website We've got really dedicated

passionate supporters who feel like they're not really

being listened to and are not even Typically what happens

is they just basically sit there until six months before

a General Election when they are contacted and asked to go out

and leaflet and canvas. Even at branch level people feel

there is not an adequate flow of communication

up-and-down the party. Are you not going to take part in

any hustings? He left a hustings saying

the contest was an establishment coronation and has

made colourful comments in the past. He's in favour of the death penalty

for crimes like paedophilia. I think there is a clear

will amongst the offences should be dealt with

decisively. But again, on an issue like that,

that is something that Our members are not

going to agree with me on everything and I don't believe that

I would have any authority to have the say and determine

the future What method would you use

for the death penalty? Again, that is something that could

be determined by suggestions made So you'd have like an online

poll about whether you use the electric chair,

or lethal injection? For example, arguments would be made

in favour of This is such a small aspect

of what I'm standing for. Essentially, in mainstream media

they try to by focusing on pretty irrelevant

details. This is one vote that

the membership would have. What I'm actually trying to do

in this party is to revolutionise the democratic

process in the UK, and that's really what your viewers should

be concentrating on. With him at the helm he reckons Ukip

would win at Meanwhile, in New York,

on a visit to Trump Tower, Nigel Farage admired the plumage

of the President-elect, a man he has described as

a silverback gorilla, a friendship that's been condemned by some

in this leadership contest. There are also elections

to the party's National Executive Committee, a body

that's been roundly criticised by And we're joined now by two

of the candidates in the Ukip leadership election -

Suzanne Evans and Paul Nuttall. We are going to kick off by giving

each of them 30 seconds to lay out their case as to why they would be

the less leader starting with Suzanne Evans.

Ukip is at its best when it is scaring the political establishment,

forcing it to address those problems it would rather ignore. But it

really change people's lives for the better and fast, we need to win

seats and elections right across the country. To win at the ballot box we

need to attract more women, more ethnic

minorities, and more of those Labour voters who no longer recognise their

party. I know how to do that. Ukip under my

leadership will be the same page about it, common-sense, radical

party it has always been, just even more successful. Thank you, Suzanne

Evans, Paul Nuttall. I'm standing on a platform of unity and experience.

I believe the party must come together if it is to survive and

prosper. I believe I'm the best candidate to ensure that happens, I

am not part of any faction in the party, and beyond that I have done

every single job within the party, whether that is as head of policy,

whether that is Party Chairman, deputy leader for Nigel for the past

six years. I believe Ukip has great opportunities in Labour

constituencies where we can move in and become the Patriot invoice of

working people, and beyond that we have to ensure the government's feet

are held to the fire on Brexit and we get real Brexit, not a

mealy-mouthed version. How will you get a grip on this? People have to

realise that the cause is bigger than any personality, we have to get

together in a room and sort out not just a spokespeople role but roles

within the organisation, Party Chairman, party secretary, and

whatnot. But as I say, Ukip must unite, we are on 13% in the opinion

polls, the future is bright, there are open goals but Ukip must be on

the pitch to score them. He says he's the only one that can get a

grip on this party. I disagree, I have a huge amount of experience in

the party as well and also a background that I think means I can

help bring people together. I have always said nothing breeds unity

faster than success and under my leadership we will be successful.

There is concern about the future of our National Executive Committee

going forward. Mr Farage called it the lowest grade of people I have

ever met, do you agree? I think he must have been having a bad day I

think we need to make it more accountable to the membership, more

open, more democratic. What would you do with the National Executive

Committee? I have been calling for the National Executive Committee to

be elected reasonably since 201 giving the members better

communication lines and make it far more transparent. Would you have a

clear out of the office? I wouldn't, I think the chairman of the party,

Paul Upton, the interim chairman, is doing a good job and the only person

who has come out of the summer with his reputation enhanced. Let me show

you a picture we have all seen of your current leader, Mr Farage, with

President-elect Donald Trump. Paul Nuttall, you criticise Mr Farage's

decision to appear at rallies during the American election and called Mr

Trump appalling. Do you stick by that? I wouldn't have voted for him.

I made it clear. Do you still think he's appalling now that he is

President-elect? Some of the things he said were appalling during the

campaign that he said. But he would be good for Britain, trade,

pro-Brexit and he is an Anglo file and the first thing he did was put

the bust of Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office. You, Suzanne

Evans, called Mr Trump one of the weakest candidates the US has had. I

said the same about Hillary Clinton. They cannot both be the weakest The

better candidate on either side would have beaten the other, that is

quite clear. Do you stand by that, or are you glad that your leader Mr

Farage has strong ties to him? I am, why wouldn't I be? For Ukip to have

that direct connection, it can be only good for a party. Were you not

out of step and Mr Farage is in step because it looks like your vote is

according to polling I have seemed like Mr Trump and his policies? Let

me finish. If I am the leader of Ukip I will not be involving myself

in foreign elections, I will because in trading here in this country

ensuring we get Ukip people elected to council chambers and get seats in

2020. The other thing your leader has in

common with Mr Trump is that he rather admires Vladimir Putin. Do

you? I don't. If you look at Putin's record, he has invaded Ukraine and

Georgia. I am absolutely not a fan. I think that Vladimir Putin is

pretty much a nasty man, but beyond that, I believe that in the Middle

East, he is generally getting it right in many areas. We need to

bring the conflict... Bombing civilians? We need to bring the

conflict to an end as fast as possible. The British and American

line before Donald Trump is to support rebels, including one is

affiliated to Al-Qaeda, to the Taliban. We need to clear these

people out and ensure that Syria becomes stable. This controversial

breaking point poster from during the referendum campaign. Mr Farage

unveiled it, there he is standing in front of it. You can bend it - do

you still? Yes, I think it was the wrong poster at the wrong time. I

was involved with the vote Leave campaign as well as Ukip's campaign,

and I felt strongly that those concerned about immigration were

already going to vote to leave because it was a fundamental truth

that unless we left the European Union we couldn't control

immigration. I thought it was about approaching those soft wavering

voters who weren't sure. I don't think I said it was racist, but it

was about sovereignty and trade and so forth. That was where we needed

to go. I was concerned it might put off some of those wavering voters.

People may well say, it was part of the winning campaign. It was Ukip

shock and all, which is what you stand for and what makes you

different. I said I would know how that I said I would not have gone

for that person and I thought it was wrong to do it just a week out from

the referendum. However, I believe it released legitimate concerns

with a deluge of people making their way from the Middle East and Africa

into the European continent. Where is the low hanging fruit for you,

particularly in England? Is it Labour or Conservative voters? I

want to hang onto the Conservative voters we have got but I think the

low hanging fruit is Labour. Jeremy Corbyn won't sing the national

anthem, Emily Thornbury despises the English flag. Diane Abbott thinks

anyone talking about immigration is racist. Not to mention John

McDonnell's feelings about the IRA. Labour has ceased to be a party for

working people and I think Ukip is absolutely going to be that party.

It is clear, I absolutely concur with everything Suzanne has said. I

first voiced this back in 2008 that I believe Ukip has a fantastic

opportunity in working-class communities, and everyone laughed at

me. It is clear now that we resonate with working people, and you have

seen that in the Brexit result. Would you bring back the death

penalty? It wouldn't be Ukip policy. Absolutely not. Would you give more

money to the NHS and how would your fanatic? You like it is important to

fund it adequately, and it hasn t been to date. We promised in our

manifesto that we would give more money. Where does the money come

from? It is about tackling health tourism. I think the NHS is being

taken for a ride at the moment. That may be right, but where does the

money come from? It is about scaling back management in the NHS, because

that has burgeoned beyond control. They are spending far more money on

management. Where would you save money? We need to look at HS two,

foreign aid. Now we have Brexit and we will be saving on the membership

fee. We need to cut back on management, as Suzanne says. It

cannot be right that 51% of people who work for the NHS in England are

not clinically qualified. The NHS needs money now - where would you

get it? From HS two. That is capital spending spread over a long period.

Where will you get the money now? OK, another one. We spent ?25

million every day on foreign aid to countries who sometimes are richer

than ourselves. Through the Barnett formula. You would take money away

from Scotland? Yes, I think they get far too much. PG tips or Earl Grey?

Colegrave. PG tips. Strictly come dancing or X Factor? Neither.

Strictly. I would love to be on it one day. There you go. Thank you

It's just gone 11:35am, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.

Welcome to a special Sunday Politics East,

devoted to devolution plans for this region.

Here with me are some of the key people involved.

Devolution will now deliver for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

But the plan for Norfolk and Suffolk is over.

The dream began with a handshake on a bridge over the River Waveney

in 2013 and culminated in a 90-minute meeting

in King's Lynn this week that saw the end of it.

We'll hear from both sides and discuss what happens next.

What this is about is, can you be more than a sum-of-parts?

Can you really come together and actually achieve

a level of growth that you couldn't achieve on your own?

It has been such a torturous process.

Yet, on the face of it, devolution seemed such a good idea.

Instead of Westminster runnhng transport and road networks

and deciding when new roads and homes should be built,

a locally elected mayor could make the decisions instead

He or she will be a big character, who can both make sure that

we fight our corner domestically, get the investment we need,

make the decisions locally to improve things.

And also represent East Anglia around the world.

We've agreed that a single, powerful East Anglia

combined authority can headed up by an elected mayor...

The initial plans were rushdd out by the government before thdy had

And it eventually secured its own devolution deal,

leaving Norfolk and Suffolk on their own.

Four of Norfolk's seven authorities pulled out early on.

On Thursday night this week, King's Lynn and West Norfolk

I think people are concerned that the imposition of a maxor

I think they understand that we need infrastructure and we need

But I think they don't need another layer of bureaucracx.

Tomorrow, the government is expected to confirm that the devoluthon deal

for Norfolk and Suffolk is off the table.

All of Suffolk councils were expected to approve

And two authorities in Norfolk South Norfolk and Broadland -

overwhelmingly said yes to a devolution this week.

Devolution is, really, devolving powers from

central government to local government

And that's exactly what people in all the consultations,

and everything that was said, wanted to hear.

I would hate to think we are saying...

"Right, that's it, put it all to bed", and walk away.

That will be a disaster for everybody.

And, this weekend, people are talking about

Of those in Norfolk and Suffolk who really want devolution

But there are still some people hoping

On Friday, the government ptlled out of the devolution deal for Norfolk

and Suffolk worth ?750 millhon over 30 thirty years,

The decision followed the vote at King's Lynn District Council

The town's MP, Sir Henry Bellingham, has spearheaded the campaign

against devolution and a directly elected mayor.

He told Andrew Sinclair that he doesn't think

We are seeing cuts to lollipop ladies, gritting on winter roads,

And so, to actually have put money, a lot of money, into setting up

with all the bureaucracy that entails -

would have been completely unacceptable.

?750 million over 30 years for infrastructure.

Norfolk and Suffolk have just turned their backs

George Osborne said he would devolve money to combined authoritids

that would, otherwise, have been spent by

It is old money being delivered in a new way.

What we said in the manifesto was that we would devolve money

to combined authorities and have elected mayors

There's nothing in the manifesto about rural areas.

What is interesting is that a lot of shire counties have rejected

Yorkshire has rejected it. Lincolnshire as well.

So, basically, elected mayors do not go in shire counties.

I have an affinity to Norfolk, I love Norfolk.

I have no affinity to East @nglia or Norfolk and Suffolk.

But what is the problem with the mayor?

Why are people so fearful of the idea of a mayor?

First of all, this would have been a Suffolk mayor, because, already,

four Norfolk councils were out of the process.

So it wasn't Norfolk and Suffolk, as everyone kept saying.

So, by definition, it would have been a Suffolk mayor.

And the mayor would have had power over regional planning.

He could have set up a land commission, which could havd looked

We were going to see powers going away from our borough council

So, I don't want to have that power given away.

I don't want to have a fifth tier of bureaucracy.

I think the idea of having loney given to local authorities,

or to a new combined authorhty without a mayor, is a good hdea

But I'm dead against the idea of an elected mayor.

The public would not have found that acceptable.

Nick Daubney, the former leader of King's Lynn Counchl

"Norfolk is so often at the bottom of the pile.

"Devolution will make things happen".

Isn't there a danger that Cambridgeshire will move ahdad

with devolution and Norfolk and Suffolk

will, once again, be left at the bottom of the pile?

If you look at the big-ticket items...

Under this devolution deal, we were talking about 13 million

a year, with a bit more for housing and a bit more for infrastrtcture.

The Ely North Junction, which actually isn't in either

Norfolk or Suffolk, by the way, is going to cost 100 million.

The schemes on the A47 - we are talking about roundabouts -

These schemes are in the programme already.

What could the elected mayor and the combined authority

It might have got things built quicker.

I don't think it would have done,

because the money is already committed.

I don't accept what people are saying about

And how Norfolk will go back into the dark ages.

We will get a deal in futurd that will suit Norfolk much better.

And it may well not entail an elected mayor.

So, what sort of a deal do you envisage in future?

The government have made it very clear

They want the devolution deals to go through.

But, in phase one, they had to be elected mayors,

because that's what Sajid Javid inherited.

"Look, if you reject this ddal, I won't take it personally.

And we can look at a new de`l. That's what he said.

Listening to that is one of the main architects of the plans,

West Suffolk MP and Minister for Culture and Digital Polhcy,

Henry Bellingham is very confident of a new deal

I am not sure about that. What I do want to see is the continuation of

the principle behind devolution which is one that many people back,

including right across Norfolk and certainly here in Suffolk. That is

the more decision should be made locally. More local Seo for those

decisions. Of course it is disappointing when more mondy

locally is put on the table or decisions to be made locallx is put

the table, and we have been working on this pan for several years. And

some councils have decided to reject it. But I think we should continue

to work to get decisions made locally. The mayor seems to be the

main sticking point. Why has the government insisted

upon something that, quite frankly, lots

of people at a local I'm not sure that is true, `ctually.

I think the idea of having ` single person who is accountable as well as

responsible is a very strong one. It certainly worked in lots of areas

around the world and countrx. And it really puts a place on the lap. So,

I think that it is a popular idea and a good idea. And I think that it

will work. What we've got to do now is take away that this is about

getting decisions made locally. If the council decides locally that

they don't want those powers, that is their decision. I think we should

continue to work with those who want to go forward with the deal and

thumping close of the deal that is on the table. And try to make that

work. These decisions should be m`de on

the deal should be made loc`lly unsupported locally. Right `cross

Suffolk, people are very supportive of having extra money coming into

their area and extra powers so decisions can be made locally. I

want to see that happen. We will be working with the decision that was

made in Norfolk on Friday. We will be working next week to see if we

can land a deal amongst those who want to support it. How significant

is all of this? We had the accusation that it is just old money

being spent on a different way. It is extra money coming to our area.

That is the point. Of coursd, all government money ultimately as tax

payer's money. But that is `t a national level. I want to sde extra

what was being proposed. And I hope what was being proposed. And I hope

that we can keep that on thd table. So, I think there is a good deal of

support for continuing with this. And that is amongst those who want

a. Those who don't, that fine. Thank you very much. -- those who wanted.

Here in the studio, we have the former Labour ldader

of Norfolk County Council, George Nobbs, who was for

Colin Noble, Leader of Suffolk County Council,

John Fuller, the leader of South Norfolk District Council,

who has spent a great deal of time trying to make it work.

And Norfolk MP, Richard Bacon, who added his name

to a letter supporting devolution last month.

George Nobbs, you were in f`vour, but you're not now?

But hasn't Norfolk missed ott on all this money and the chance

I don't think so. A lot of things that Matthew said... He said, for

example, this is about decisions being made locally. Yet the decision

which has scuppered the stedl is one which we cannot make locallx. The

whole problem with this as H have been in favour from the beghnning of

devolution, but it has been dictated to us. I remember going to leetings

with ministers where they h`ve said in the past we have imposed a model

that was a mistake. It is up to you that was a mistake. It is up to you

to devise exactly the deal xou want. And then, as soon as we went to them

and said, can we change this? No. So, the government had handled this

badly. Well, the government has had badly. Well, the government has had

to deal with diametrically opposed interests. I supported it bdcause I

didn't want extra money to comment Norfolk and Suffolk. This ddal was a

route to making that happen. I thought there was a chance to

streamline it later on and lake it streamline it later on and lake it

more acceptable. John Fuller, extra money that could have slippdd

through your fingers. You fdeling a bit despondent this morning? Yes, I

am disappointed that if you have a am disappointed that if you have a

winning lottery ticket and xour neighbour's dog eats it. But that

lottery ticket was worth ne`rly ?1 billion. So long, that taxp`yer s

money from this region has gone on to London. We could have got that

back, but also retained a greater proportion going forward. And that

seems, to me, it is a government forcing a man upon us, that seemed

to me a price worth paying. Colin Noble, Sir Henry Bellhngham

took a strong objection to ` mayor Seriously, though, the concdrns

in Kings Lynn are very diffdrent I think for me, as long as H've been

a councillor, this has alwaxs been about more local decision-m`king. As

higher had more senior roles, we have gone to Whitehall and pointed

what we should be doing. -- as I what we should be doing. -- as I

have had more senior roles. You are sitting with council leaders and

business people who know thd area know what needs to be done `nd make

decisions and better decisions than are made in Whitehall. John made the

point about the amount of money on offer. For me, this has alw`ys been

about more local decision-m`king. Whether the mayor came from Norfolk

Suffolk, I don't accept the point at all. I think the combined atthority

on the way we work together shows that we can make the decisions for

knowledge of it, which is a far knowledge of it, which is a far

better way of making decisions than doing it by going down to Whitehall.

You are nodding in agreement. But you could not make it work. I am not

in agreement with Henry Bellingham. It is not an objection to the

scheme. Henry says he has no affinity with East Anglia. H find

that hard to believe. I don't mind whether the mayor comes frol Norfolk

Suffolk. I just don't want there to be one. And I don't want ond

imposed. John says the government imposing one is a price worth

paying. If the money was sufficiently good and you could

convince councils it would work they would have voted for it. Five

out of seven districts in Norfolk voted no. The whole with thhs.. You

remember the meeting in Cambridge. Out of the blue, we were told that

Norfolk and Suffolk deal is dead. The Cambridge deal is dead. This new

deal, which we have announcdd as a surprise today is the only deal

town. They have changed backward and forward and it has been top,down.

John Fuller? There have been changes. It would have been more

straightforward, the governlent just told us what they were doing. There

have been bumps along the road. -- have been bumps along the road. --

away from the main point. Rhchard away from the main point. Rhchard

and I were opposed on the ET debate. We need to have an outward looking

economy after Brexit. We have to compete on a geography that makes

sense to inward investors. @nd having somebody, a mayor, who can go

out and represent our interdsts it is a good thing. We are net

contributors to the Exchequdr. I would rather have them spent in

Norfolk and Suffolk. Even if it is not quite enough as George light say

to start with, the point of this was it was the start of something that

could have grown. You could have seen the PCC being merged into the

elected county commissioner. There is every reason why this should have

evolved. Strategic decisions could then be made, regarding bro`dband

local level. And you have gdnuine local level. And you have gdnuine

local decision-making. And xou don't have concerns about more tidrs of

government. We have 782 councillors across Norfolk and Suffolk. It

sounds a bit heavy for me. We were sounds a bit heavy for me. We were

not going to stream all of that through this deal. But I thhnk it

would have led to a local government that for purpose.

Because, whereas everyone here is very interested

in all the details, I'm wondering whether people in the street

are going to notice any difference at all,

I think they would notice the difference if it was devolution

This is the argument many of us happy forward. This has nothing to

do with devolution. You mentioned the meeting on the bridge. That was

nothing to do with this deal. That was Norfolk and Suffolk county

councils and to do users -- two leaders coming together voltntarily.

Colin, I want to hear your response. Doesn't matter to the ordin`ry

people in the street? Yes, because it is about growth and jobs. We re

of Whitehall and bringing them of Whitehall and bringing them

locally and making better ddcisions to help grow our economy. When we

looked at this after Juma Rdel took the decision go out and talk to the

public and talk to businessds, some themes emerged. Very clear themes.

When you were asked, do you want a mayor? They didn't want another

layer of government. And ard you OK with a mayor? The answer was yes.

Business people said yes overwhelmingly. Business, when you

go out and talk to federations and Chambers and board members `nd wider

than let board members, all of them are unanimous in their opinhon that,

yes, a mayor would help drive growth. Let's move this and look

forward to stop what next? John Fuller. You have talked abott the

coalition of the willing. Those of us who do wish to get on...

The moral case for building homes is good tomorrow as it was last week.

The case for new jobs and infrastructure and training

youngsters and the skills that they need to grow the economy is still

going forward. That is what devolution was all about. I'm yet to

meet anybody who does not w`nt infrastructure to go along with the

building of new homes or jobs. That is what devolution is about. Those

areas that want to get on should be able to. I think what this has shown

us is that the people in West Norfolk have a completely dhfferent

economy to those closest to Norwich. They look to Cambridge and

Peterborough and, although we have a single county in Norfolk, there are

different areas with differdnt aspirations. They need to bd

accommodated. Does the government need to go back to the drawhng

board? You have to start from where we are. A local councils in Norfolk

and a similar number in Suffolk and far too many councils. That needs

streamlining. Taxpayers expdct it. And they have every right to expect

a local government that is fit for purpose. Even a small housing

development can take ten to 15 years. We have got to get a local

system for decision-making that works. And we need a strongdr local

government that is steered by central government.

Colin Noble, how confident are you of securing

Yesterday, all of the leaders, we all sat down as we do every month,

because we have a regular mdeting. And we discussed it and we decided

that next week all about cotncils were meeting and we would go back to

our councils with the results of the work that we done and talking to the

public and talk to the councils to make a decision. Among the leaders,

there's a feeling that we would like to go ahead and to put to the

Secretary of State a Suffolk only deal. But it is not just Suffolk

only. It is Suffolk -based. Other areas can see the advantage of

devolution and the advantagd it will make and bring infrastructure

spending, we want to talk to those areas. The SDP is north Essdx as

well. Talk to all of our potential partners about how we would take a

Suffolk -based devolution ddal forward. It is not over unthl it is

over. Thank you very much. Before we go,

something a little bit fishx in our political

round-up of the week. A better deal for the fishing

industry in this region was called for in Parliament this week. He said

Brexit presented a opportunhty to regenerate communities like

Lowestoft. This is the very least they deserve in the most dangerous

trade in Britain. Labour's party faithful heard that membership has

raised since last's General Election. The government is to spend

?27 million on developing the case for a fast road link between Milton

Keynes and Cambridge. The ddcision will be announced in next wdek's

Autumn Statement. And Norfolk MP Richard Bacon prompted the PM into a

response less to -- Theresa May and more may West. What reassur`nce does

she have for fat, middle-agdd white men that may feel we have bden left

behind? Perhaps he would like to come up and see me sometime?

We're back at the same time next week.

never happened and will not happen in four years. It is subject we

should spend more time on. Back to you.

What will the Chancellor have to say in his first big economic statement?

What impact will the forecasters say Brexit will have on the economy

And who will face the Front National's Marine Le Pen in

Well, the Shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor have both been

touring the television studios this morning.

Let's be clear, a lot of this is going to be gimmicks and press

As I've said, in the pipeline, we've only

seen one in five delivered to construction, that's all.

So a lot of this will be a repeat of what

I'm not going to reveal what I'm going to say on

We don't have unlimited capacity, as one might

imagine from listening to John McDonnell, to borrow

hundreds of billions of pounds more for discretionary spending.

That simply doesn't exist if we're going to

retain this country's hard-won credibility in the financial markets

if we are going to remain an attractive place for business to

We didn't learn very much, Helen, but the papers were briefed this

morning that there will be another ?1.3 billion for roads and things

like that. ?1.3 billion is 0.08 of our GDP. Not exactly an

infrastructure investment programme, is it? Yellow like I have to say, it

was not thrilling to read the details. -- I have to say... It is

the first big financial statement that is going to come and I think

there will be a big row about the OBE are forecast because they cannot

set out a range, they have to commit to one forecast. Everything they do

is incredibly political. DOB are is on a hiding to nothing. -- DOB are

-- the Office for Budget Responsibility. I don't know how

they will square the circle. It is an interesting week. It is all about

the economy and public finances and we don't have to talk about Brexit

until next Sunday, but no, I have a terrible feeling that by the end of

Wednesday afternoon we will be screaming and shouting about how

Brexit is going to be for the economy. Just imagine the Treasury

comes out with his forecast that it is going to collapse growth and

collapsed Treasury takings, people will be apoplectic. Until now, the

economy has continued to grow strongly. Pretty well. They cannot

say, we have noticed it slowing down and that will continue. They have to

take a punt if they think it will slow down. It affects the

Chancellor's figures, because the more they say it is slowing down,

and I have seen that it will go from 2% down to 1.4%, the more the

Chancellor's deficit rises even without any more tax cuts and

spending. Absolutely. I think Tom is right. What we will see this week is

a continuation of the debate we have been having all along. If the Office

for Budget Responsibility has negative and gloomy predictions

there will be howls of agony, and rightly howls of frustration from

Brexiteers who will say that all the dire predictions from before the

referendum have not come to pass and now you are talking things down in a

way that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The money for roads, you

were dismissive about it, but every little helps. I don't dismiss it, I

say it doesn't amount to a fiscal stimulus in macro economic terms.

I'm sure if you are on that road, it will be useful. They are going to

build a super highway between Oxford and Cambridge. I would like to see

them go out to Japan and learn how to fill a hole in two days. I would

suggest the road from Oxford to Cambridge is not for the just

managing classes, even though it goes through Milton Keynes, and that

simply freezing due freezing fuel duty isn't going to hack it, either.

These just about managing people are potentially quite a big band. With

income tax rises, it means anything you do to help them is incredibly

expensive. The universal credit freeze is an interesting example of

that. Philip Hammond sounded ambivalent about it after

pre-briefings that it might not the cuts might not go ahead. There are

people who are in work but because they are low paid don't have the

number of hours, they require welfare benefits to top up their

pay, and these welfare benefits as it stands, are frozen until 202 ,

and yet inflation is now starting to rise. That's a problem for the just

managing people. Correct. It is worse than that, because we are

talking about April 2017 when tax credits become universal credits, so

the squeeze will be greater. We will get a small highway between a couple

of university towns, but if he has any money left to spend at all, it

will be on some pretty seismic jazzman for the just about managing

people. I am so glad we're not calling them Jams on this programme,

because it is a patronising tone. What the Chancellor and Shadow

Chancellor did not confront is that Mr Trump's election is a watershed

in terms of being able to borrow cheaply. The Federal Reserve is

about to start raising rates. The days of cheap borrowing for

governments could be coming to an end. You can feel a bit sorry for

labour here because after having had six years of being told that we need

a surplus and these things are important, we can't deny the

deficit, we have switched now and the first thing that Philip Hammond

did was to scrap George Osborne s borrowing targets. He has given

himself more wriggle room than George Osborne had. He has and it

will cost them more. Debt servicing will now rise as a cost. Where is

the next political earthquake going to happen?

It could be Italy, or the French elections coming up next spring

Now, who will face the Front National's Marine Le Pen in next

year's French Presidential elections?

Well, France's centre-right part, Les Republicans,

are selecting their candidate in the first round of

Well, France's centre-right part, Les Republicans,

are selecting their candidate in the first round of

Let's speak to our correspondent in Paris, Hugh Schofield.

Welcome to the programme. Three main candidates, the former -- two former

prime ministers and Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president. It is not

clear who the front runner is. Robbins it is quite an exciting

race, because four weeks it did look as if it was going to be Juppe. It

is a two round race. Two go through and the idea is that they rally all

the support together. It looked like the first round would be dominated

by Juppe and Nicolas Sarkozy, and there was a clear binary combination

there, because Sarkozy was looking for squeamish far right voters. In

other words, veering clearly to the right and far right on immigration

and identity issues. And Juppe is the opposite, saying we had to

appeal to the centre. That was what it looked like. But the third

candidate has made this really quite staggering surge in the last few

days. There was a debate on Thursday and he was deemed to have won it on

television. He is coming up strongly, and I wouldn't be at all

surprised to see him go through which would be interesting from a

British perspective, because if the becomes president, he will be the

first president with a British wife. His wife Penelope is Welsh.

We will have to leave it there. I would suggest that the reason it is

fascinating is that whoever wins this primary for the centre-right

party is likely to be the next president, and who the next

president is will be very important for Britain in these Brexit

negotiations. Nothing will really happen until it is determined. Then

after the German elections in October. I would add one more

constituent part. The most important thing about the race is who can stop

Marine Le Pen. Marine Le Pen will almost be one of the ones in the

run-off. The Socialists don't expect much. Francois Hollande is done

There is too much of a cliff to climb. Which one of these three

centre-right candidates can stop Marine Le Pen? We have had Brexit

and Trump, but we could also have Marine Le Pen. If it is Sarkozy it

is the battle of the right. In some areas, he has moved to the right of

marine Le Pen. I suppose he feels he has do in order to take the wind out

of our sails. You wonder if she could succeed later on if she does

not this time. Talking to French analysts last night, there was

suggesting that she could not do it this time but could win the next

time. All the events in France over the last year seemed to provide the

most propitious circumstances for her to do well, and particularly if

you throw in Trump and Brexit. Suppose it is Mr Sarkozy, and he

goes through and wins the Republican nomination, and he and Marine Le Pen

go through to the second round, that would mean, think about it, is that

a lot of French socialist voters and those on the father left would have

to grit their teeth and vote for Nicolas Sarkozy. They might not do

it. We might see what we saw in America, where lots of potential

Clinton voters did not turn out You got politicians like Melanchon on

the far left saying there are foreign workers taking bread out of

French workers' mounts. We sometimes forget, because we tend to emphasise

the National of the National front, but actually, there are economic

policy is quite Bennite. Sarkozy is the Hillary Clinton of the French

elections. He is Mr establishment. Juppe and the other third candidate

are the same. You have to re-establish candidates running

against an antiestablishment candidate. There are populist

economic policies from the National front. The other three want to raise

the retirement age and cut back on the 35 hour week, which are not

classic electoral appeals. Mr Juppe used to be the Mayor of Bordeaux.

And we are the biggest importers of claret, so that could have an

effect. In 2002, it was Jack Shear against John Marine Le Pen, and the

socialist campaign slogan was, vote for the Crook, not the fascist. We

will see what they come up with this time.

The Daily Politics is back at noon tomorrow on BBC Two,

where on Wednesday I will have full coverage of the Chancellor's Autumn

But remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.