29/01/2017 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven


mainly Muslim countries sparks protests at several US airports.


Here in the East - Milton Keynes celebrates its 50th anniversary.


But will a government plan for new garden towns really


Should she have spoken out more strongly?


We'll ask former Ukip leader and Trump confidant Nigel Farage


what he makes of the travel ban and the Prime Minister's


In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,


has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze


and why it doesn't apply to everybody.


And with me, the best and brightest political


panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


It was soon after Theresa May left the White House on Friday that


Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven


President Trump's 90-day ban covers Iran, Iraq,


Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from


where refugees are banned from until further notice.


Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban


on all refugees coming to the US for the next 120 days.


Mr Trump said that the ban would keep radical Islamic terrorists out


But the ban has sparked protests across the US,


as people affected and already in the air were detained


US laws have begun legal action to challenge the ban, which many


At a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, Theresa May was asked


about the refugee ban three times before giving this response...


Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'


The United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy


on refugees, and our policy on refugees is to have a number


of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.


Downing Street later issued a statement saying:


This morning, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was asked why


Theresa May had refused to condemn the travel ban at yesterday's


The Prime Minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip


She wants to see the evidence, she wants


to understand precisely what the implications are.


She'd been in a series of very lengthy meetings with


President Erdogan, and she's someone who wants to see the briefing and


understand it, and then will respond to that.


I think there are times where, you know, there's always


pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.


The important thing is, we are saying we disagree with it


We're joined now from North London by the Conservative


Should the Government in general and Theresa May in particular be more


vocal in their criticism of Donald Trump's travel bans? Well, as David


just said, it is obviously right that Theresa has now said this is an


appropriate and not something we agree with in our Government, but I


wish she had said something at the time, not least because it affects


our own citizens. One of our own MPs, Nadhim, for example, because it


is also a global crisis. She had clearly built an excellent with


Donald Trump -- she had built an excellent relationship with him, but


she could have been firmer. Mrs May hasn't said any word of criticism


about the travel bans. She refused to say anything three times in


Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street


spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have


not heard from the Prime Minister at all on this matter in terms of


criticism. No, but the spokesperson will be speaking with her blessing,


so it is clearly something she has acknowledged. As I said before, I


wish she had said something at the time. The global climate at the


moment is delicate and we need our leaders to work together to address


things like the refugee crisis. Potentially, this plays into the


hands of Daesh. It is absolutely not the right message. What would you


like the Prime Minister to say? As with any new relationship, it is


about testing the boundaries. They had clearly got on well, so she


should have felt braver to say something there and then. I would


have preferred her to say, for example, I need to talk to Donald


Trump about this. It is not something I support and I want to


understand why because I believe there is a better way to deal with


the terrorist threat. I would have liked her to suggest that she would


engage with him to do that. The president has instituted a 90 day


temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority


population countries. The seven were on President Obama's list of the


biggest terrorist threats to the United States. Mr Trump wants this


temporary ban until he puts tougher vetting procedures in place. What is


wrong with that? Because it appeared to me that it wasn't thought through


and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.


It can't be right that a president in that position of power can


arbitrarily come up with executive powers like that. It has already


been challenged by his own courts. So it is not the considered approach


I want to see in a global leader. Who do you believe will be hurt by


this, given that there can be exceptions on a case-by-case basis?


I think potentially, our global reputation is going to be hurt by


this. I have been to the refugee camps in Europe myself. There are


desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by


this. We are trying to heal the wounds in this country not only


because of Brexit. This is a time of coming together, not about saying it


is located discriminatory against race and religion in this way. Do


you believe that Mr Trump's state visit should go ahead? Well, he is


the leader of America, so it does need to go ahead and we need to work


with him. I believe Theresa has started in a positive manner was


that she just needs to continue in that vein. If he comes to our


country, he needs to respect the way we feel about things. But yes, he is


the president, so he does need to come to the UK. There is some debate


within Westminster as to where it is appropriate for him to speak to MPs,


but it is right that he comes. But if he does come on a state visit,


should he be granted what this country has always thought of as a


great honour, which is a joint address to both Houses of


Parliament? I haven't been an MP long enough to understand the


protocol of where is the right location for him to do that, but I


believe in the past, it has been the greatest leaders, when they have


achieved great things globally, it is Westminster Hall. But there are a


number of MPs saying that is not the most appropriate place and I am


inclined to agree. You don't think he should be accorded the privilege


of speaking to a joint session of Parliament? I think there are places


where he can do that, but Westminster Hall is not yet the


right place. Thank you for joining us.


Steve, within 24 hours, we have seen the difficulty of becoming Donald


Trump's best friend. On the one hand, it could have huge advantages,


particularly for a Brexit Britain. On the other hand, if you are going


to be his best friend, you don't have to give a running commentary on


every major thing he does. Yeah. We have learned a bit about Theresa


May, that when she has to produce a set piece speech which she has time


to prepare, she can get it totally right and sometimes more than right.


When she is faced with a fast-moving story, she is leaden footed and


can't think quickly on her feet. We know, did she regret not saying


more? Evidently she did, because we got a statement from the Downing


Street spokesperson saying more. So she can't think quickly. She's going


to have to think very quickly in response to some of the things he's


going to be doing, because she will be asked about it all the time. It


does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special


relationship is always a safe and fertile place to be has been proven


wrong before and I think it will be proven wrong big-time in this case.


You're shaking your head. I don't see why we are responsible for


American domestic policy. I am as appalled as the next person by what


Donald Trump has done. He said he was going to do this, which was why


I did not want Americans to vote for him. In fact, what he has


implemented is much less than what he said he would do when he was


campaigning. I have always felt that the campaigning Trump was the real


Trump. But what he has done is actually constitutional. He has the


executive power to issue this order. It is within the rules in terms of a


class of aliens deemed to be a risk to the United States. It is a 90 day


limited ban. The last president who did this was a Democrat president,


President Carter. He did it in the aftermath of the Iranian crisis.


Well, given the spate of terror attacks on American territory in


recent years, you could argue that he meant well. I don't agree with


Donald Trump. But have people from these countries that he has banned


been involved in terrorist attacks? That is the absurdity. He has not


included Egypt or Pakistan. But I don't remove everyone getting in


such a state about President Carter. The reality is that it is a legal


thing for him to do. I don't like it. But it is not my territory. It


is illegal, because they have been given a right to remain by a judge


in Brooklyn and another judging Alexandra. That is a different issue


for people who have already gone through the vetting. I don't agree


with this. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Theresa


May, because she wants to do a deal with Donald Trump, I don't give is


reasonable to say she have to agree with each of his policies. It is


nonsense. But the issue, Janan, is not whether she needs to agree with


him. The question is that she will be questioned about him all the time


now. And although these are matters of domestic policy, the refugee


policy is international. They speak to issues that affect Britain as


well, and I would suggest that she will not get away with this


anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she


says something on the record. She would get away with it indefinitely.


These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does


something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her


administration from his. She will probably be in a better logistical


situation to do so. She has spent a big chunk of the past 72 hours in


the air. She flew from Washington to Ankara, than from Ankara to London.


We don't have Air Force One, we don't have those frictionless


communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for


large periods of time when this story was breaking. That doesn't


excuse the stiff response when she landed and issued a statement via


Downing Street. But during that delay, she did have a plausible


excuse. She has also got a much more tricky geopolitical situation than


many other world leaders. She has to strike a favourable trade deal with


the new US president. It is all very well people saying Justin Trudeau of


Canada was much more vociferous in his criticism of Donald Trump. He is


already in Nafta, he is not striking a new deal. For how long, we don't


know. Exactly, he's trying to stay in Nafta, but he is in a less tricky


situation than she is. Now, Theresa May's was the first


foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit


was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,


keen for a new trading relationship with the United States


in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated


the new US President for his "stunning election victory"


but might not have intended to be pictured walking


through the White House with him That picture of Donald Trump helping


Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade


will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President


told her he was "100% behind Nato". And for her part, the Prime Minister


said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries


increased their defence spending It's been announced


that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,


with high-level talks The hope is that this will lead


to a new trade deal between the two countries as soon as


Britain leaves the EU. Mr Trump said he believed "Brexit's


going to be a wonderful thing". On Russia, Theresa May made clear


to Donald Trump her continued


backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over


the President's support for torture, Mr Trump said he would defer


to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, who argues


that the practice doesn't work. And I'm joined now by the former


Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Do you agree with Mr Trump's


decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the


United States? I agree with the concept of democracy, a point which


appears to be missed by almost all commentators including the BBC. He


was elected to get tough and say he would do everything in his power to


protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven


countries on that list. He's entitled to do this. I didn't ask if


he was entitled, I asked if agree with it. I do, because if you just


look at what's happening in France and Germany, if you look at Angela


Merkel's policy which was to allow virtually anyone in from anywhere,


look what it led to. You said in 2013 there's a responsibility on all


of us in the free west to help some of those people fleeing Syria


literally in fear of their lives. That's the Christian community in


virtually all of those country, it is almost too late because many have


been wiped out but if you are looking for a genuine definition of


a refugee, going back to 1951, it is someone in direct fear of


persecution of their life because of their race, religion or beliefs. But


you didn't talk about only Christians, and in January 2014 you


said, I seem to recall it was Ukip who started the debate on allowing


Syrian refugees, you seem to be in favour of allowing proper refugees


into this country. If they can be defined. Mr Trump won't let any in.


He is running American policy, not British policy. Since I made those


comments, we have had the Angela Merkel madness and I think Trump's


policy in many ways has been shaped by what Angela Merkel did. He is


fully entitled to do this, and as far as we are concerned in this


country, I would like to see extreme vetting. Since 9/11 can you name any


terrorist event in the United States that has involved refugees that have


been allowed into the country? No, in fact the terrorist events have


been US citizens radicalised. When you have a problem already, why


would you wish to add to it? I would remind you that of the eight people


that committed those atrocities in Paris, five of them had got into


Europe posing as refugees so there is an issue here. But perhaps not


for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening


process in the world, especially for Syrians. You have to register with


the UN agency for refugees, which then recommend certain names to


America, they then go through biometric screening, database


screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence


agencies screening you. How more rigorous would you want it to be? It


is much more rigorous than we are or the rest of Europe. This is why we


have elections, so voters can make choices and they voted for Donald


Trump to become president and he said he would put bans in place and


then move towards extreme vetting. As far as the Syrians are concerned


he's made that decision but that's what he was voted in fourth. Since


you know him, you have met him, you are confident of his, I'm testing


you on the logic of it. Not that he's democratically elected, I'm not


asking about that, I'm trying to get the case, particularly since if you


take the seven countries of which the ban applies for 19 days, again,


of these seven countries, its citizens have not been involved in


terrorist attacks in the United States. It would be a mistake to say


it is just Muslim countries because the biggest Muslim countries in the


world have not been included in this. The point is they have made


this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about


the policy. This is exactly what Trump's voters would have wanted him


to do. You said the President's rhetoric on immigrants made even you


feel very uncomfortable. Because he started by saying there was a total


ban, then amended it to say there would be vetting. My guess is that


what he will do is try to genuinely help Syrian people and he will be


talking about the creation of some safe zones. Let's see. He hasn't. We


will see. I suspect something like that is coming down the trap. What


advice did you give to the president and his advisers ahead of Theresa


May's visit? That I wanted us to talk about trade and to give the


Prime Minister the impression that actually... When she has been


surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who


say that everything takes five years or seven years or ten years, to make


it clear to the Prime Minister that if there is will, these things can


be done quickly. Isn't there a danger of a British Prime Minister


who has to deal with the president of the United States, to Ally


herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial


president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building


a war with Mexico, threatening trade was with other countries, thinking


of ending sanctions against Russia? I missing something here, what is


controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke


in tough terms, George Bush built six miles of fence, and because it


is Donald Trump there is uproar. So you think there is no risk of the


British by Minister being the best friend of this type of president? I


think there is no risk in putting together a trade deal and no risk in


her being the bridge between America and the rest of Nato to say to Nato


members if you don't pay your 2% he is serious so on those things there


is no risk at all. It was clear from her Lancaster house speech that the


Brexiteers in the Government had won pretty much every argument in terms


of negotiations to come out. What you want from her? She was very good


as Home Secretary, Tory party conferences, the Tory press saying


this was the new Thatcher and she failed. She even failed to control


immigration from outside the European Union so yes, it was a good


speech and for many on the Eurosceptic side of the argument, I


could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying


things which I had been roundly abused and vilified for. But I have


a feeling we may be in for a very frustrating 2017. The mood as I can


see it in Brussels is that negotiating with Britain is not a


priority, they are far more worried about Dutch elections, French


elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I


worry that by the end of this year we may not have made much progress


and that's why the Trump visit suddenly things brings into focus.


What if by the middle of June, for argument 's sake, the Americans say


OK we reached this position with the British, compromised on the tough


stuff, food standards and things like that, we are ready to sign a


deal now, and Theresa May is to say actually Mr Juncker says I cannot


sign this until we leave. What will they do? They cannot throw us out,


we are living anyway. But everybody agrees you can talk about the deal,


maybe even do the heads of agreement but you cannot sign a treaty until


we have left the EU. Let me predict that at the end of this year we will


find a European Union who frankly don't want to talk to us and


countries around the world that want to get on and do things and that


will be the big tension for Mrs May over the course of this year. If the


Prime Minister is giving you everything you want on Brexit, you


agree that she's trying to get from your point of view the right things.


If she delivers on that and get Brexit on the terms of which you


approve, what's the point of Ukip? You could argue that about any


political party. If we have achieved the goal that we set out to achieve,


there are right now out there 4 million people who are Ukip


loyalists. They are delighted that by voting Ukip we got a referendum,


they will be even happier if they seek us leave the European Union and


I think there is still a gap in British politics for a party that


says it as it sees it, is not afraid by political correctness and is seen


to be on the side of the little people, and that's why, with the


Labour Party is fundamentally split, and it really is totally split over


this European question, I think Ukip is in good shape. That proposition


will be put to test at the Stoke Central by-election, one of Ukip's


best prospects in the country. Some people call it the capital of


Brexit. Labour is in chaos over Article 50, is picked a candidate to


fight Stoke Central who has described Brexit is a pile of notes.


If your successor, Paul Nuttall, cannot win the Stoke by-election,


there's not much hope for you, is there? I think he will. I've always


been told don't make predictions but I think he will win. If you doesn't


it will be tough, we will still have our 4 million loyalists, but if it


does we can actually see Labour are beatable in their heartlands and


Ukip will be off to the second big stage. Nigel Farage, thank you for


being with us. It's just gone 11.25,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 15 minutes, I'll


be talking to our political panel. Welcome to Sunday Politics East,


I'm Stewart White. Later in the programme -


green fields to become garden towns With us this week -


Essex MP James Cleverly, for the Conservatives,


and Andy Sawford, the former But let's start with that High Court


ruling this week about Brexit. The Article 50 bill has been


introduced to Parliament and in due Labour says their MPs


should back the bill, The Shadow Business Secretary,


Norwich South MP has said he will not vote


against the triggering of Article 50 next week but has not ruled out


voting against the final deal I think that most of the people


who voted for me know that I have my views


on the European Union, and on the relationship


that we should now have with the single market,


and with other areas of Europe. That is what I will be doing


in the coming weeks, as will other MPs,


and that is what the Supreme Court decision was about, giving


Parliament a say on that. I'm going to do that and do it


with the interests of Norwich When it comes to the final vote


on whether we trigger Article 50 and what it looks like,


I will make my decision based Of our other Labour MPs,


Daniel Zeichner from Cambridge says Gavin Shuker from Luton South says


that he will abstain, but the Luton North MP


Kelvin Hopkins will vote for it, it's something


that he's always wanted. Andy, if you were still an MP, what


would you have done? To trigger Article 50. The majority of people


in Corby voted to leave the EU. I would have done so with a heavy


heart because I think we should stay in the EU and try to reform it but


when you have a referendum you should respect the outcome. This


argument that if you are a local party, a local constituency that


voted against Brexit, that you have a mandate therefore to vote against


it, do you approve? I think that referendums are quite unique for MPs


to deal with. I voted on a number of contentious issues where I had


constituents expressing strong views and an example would be marriage


equality or bombing in Syria, but it is difficult to know where the


balance of opinion lies in your constituency. You need to listen and


make a judgment. In the referendum it is different. The public would


feel cheated in the democracy if he did not worry on with that. There


would be some Tory MPs who would have a similar debate? For the


Conservative Party, we are in an easy position, because it was the


Conservative manifesto that said we would have a referendum and that we


would abide by the decision of that referendum. And so, for the


Conservative MPs, even those who campaigned to remain members of the


EU, they are abiding by their manifesto commitment to abide by the


referendum results. For us, it is a lot easier and... Does that mean you


don't expect anyone to be absent? That is not quite what I said! The


vast majority, I think, in the recent, or just before Christmas,


there was a motion which Labour put forward, the government amended, and


one of the lines in it was that Article 50 would be triggered by the


31st of March, 2017. And it was carried by 455 votes against 75. So


50 process will be started by the 50 process will be started by the


31st of March, after a vote in the House of Commons. OK, let's move on.


Of course, both of you are from areas where the government says it


It is the latest scheme to try to address the chronic


Ten years ago, 26,000 houses were built in the east,


but the figure fell dramatically during the financial crisis.


In 2014, 17,000 new homes were built.


That went up to 21,500 last year, but is still well below the 30,000


The new proposal is for three new developments in this region,


with 10,000 new homes near Harlow, and smaller garden villages


near Brentwood and at Deenethorpe near Corby.


Of course, the most successful new town is Milton Keynes,


which celebrated its 50th anniversary this week.


One of the answers to London's housing crisis of the late 1960s


Now it has a population of more than a quarter of a million.


The proposed new developments nearby are on a much smaller scale


When it comes to housing, here are the home truths.


By far of the biggest developments proposed


for our region is at Gilston Park, just outside of Harlow,


where they are planning 10,000 new homes made out


All of them self-contained, with their own shops and schools.


The thing is, it will be on green belt.


For some, that is crossing a red line.


It's grade 2 arable land, amongst the best lands in Hertfordshire.


For Spike Hughes, the new garden town would be over his garden fence.


Plans to build here were batted away ten years ago because of questions


over sewage, but he says they are back like a bad smell.


There are a number of reasons why we should build up.


First of all, because we can and we couldn't in the 1930s.


The second thing is, if you put the population


where the infrastructure already exists, in other words,


you build in the vicinity of the stations and the shops


and everything else, you don't get the


Imagine having 25,000 people in these fields,


getting up in the morning, and migrating out to find


employment, then coming back in the evening.


We are walking towards what will be one of the first villages


Harlow is set to grow 20% in the next 15 years, so people


The leader of East Herts Council took me to an old quarry


at the edge of Gilson Park, to point out it isn't


all luscious fertile green belt, but she does concede that green belt


Within East Herts, we know that in the next 20-30 years we have


The only way to do that, within the government planning


guidance, is for it to be put into areas where you already


And sadly, some of it has to go on to green belt.


A two-hour drive from Gilston is the Deene Park Estates


near Corby, owned by the Brudenell family for 500 years.


The former Deenethorpe Airfield is part of the estate,


and that is where they are planning a garden village.


In the Second World War, this was home to the 401st bombing


of the United States Air Force, the flying fortresses


Now, it will become home to a new village of 1500 houses,


Nearby Corby Borough Council is concerned the new development


will put pressure on its services, but Mark Coombs, the estate manager


There will be infrastructure put in, such as a school and so on.


It is not designed to be a dormant village.


It is designed to live and breathe within its own context.


Of course there will be cross boundary interface, if you like,


of course people will be using facilities within


the locality, but equally, people with the locality can use


This is no done deal, there is plenty of talking to be


done before the lands are cleared for take-off and the hard hats


move in, and some hard questions to answer too.


They are hard questions, but actually, are you in favour of


building on green belt land? I think that the proposals that were put


forward for these new garden villages and garden towns are a


really good balance, protecting rural Britain as much as possible


but recognising there are areas of the country, in the East of England


in particular, where there is a massive surplus of demand for new


homes. If you want to address that, you can either shoehorn extra homes


on the edges of villages and towns, and put additional pressure on the


infrastructure already there, or be bold and build new developments, and


preload both of the physical infrastructure, the roads and things


like that, but also soft infrastructure, like schools and


surgeries. Corby is the fastest growing town in the country, and a


lot of it is on Brownfield land, like the former steelworks. This is


an airfield. This is a great idea. I would say to James and his party,


get on with it. They have announced other initiatives in the past. But


both parties do that, don't they? They announce things... The


responsibility to move forward lies with the party in government right


now, if you are a young person watching this programme in the


region who cannot see a time where they can afford a home, you are


looking to the party in power to get on with it. Isn't there a danger


that you will have urban sprawl if we keep building houses, which will


take us all the way from the A12 almost to the M1? Good design is


essential, if you have a perspective where they should not be more


housing in the region, you will let down all of those people... That is


what some people would want? It is unfortunate and I would say to those


people you may have children or grandchildren yourself, think about


how they will be able to live in their own communities. We don't want


people to think that they cannot live in our region, we need to


develop sensibly and there are great examples that this region is home to


some of the original garden cities, and new towns, like Harlow, Corby


and Milton Keynes. If you do it well, and I hope this covenant gets


on it -- hopes the government can get on it. And Braintree is a


fantastic example, we have a garden village just outside, and it is


love. The architecture is great and the community is cohesive. It


functions very well as a community so I do think that there are


opportunities. I take Andy's criticisms on board, but we've been


through a prolonged period of economic downturn, and the


government has set aside ?2.3 billion to kick-start developments.


I do think that when you say that people are uncomfortable with some


of these developments... They think we need it, but they do not want it


near them. I hear them say that, and often I hear them say that their


children or grandchildren have to move to London or Cambridge to get


jobs. If we can keep those young families, the people who will be


employing other people locally, in the region, that is good news for


the area. Do you agree on this? You can build public support if you do


it in the right places, there are examples in the region. With garden


cities and garden villages committee can get the local communities on


board. Now our round up of the political


week, in Sixty Seconds, Chelmsford Prison in the news


after a prisoner there killed himself was raised in the house this


week by the city's MP. He called on the Justice


Secretary to come and see And I will say I'm keen to visit


Chelmsford myself to come and meet the honourable gentleman


there and see the situation The Science Minister came to Norwich


to unveil the government's new industrial strategy,


which could see millions of pounds worth of investment coming


to our science parks. We've always said we would put


science and innovation at the heart of the industrial strategy


and today, with the publication of this important green paper,


you can see we've done just that. Plans to widen the A12


in Sussex have been unveiled The scheme would increase the road


to three lanes each way And visiting sixth formers


in Cambridge this week to talk about the importance of voting,


the constitution minister heard one student hit out at the portrayal


of young people in the media. With millennials in the media,


they talk about how they are almost lazy and unwilling to do stuff,


and that has a huge impact on why young people,


especially 18-24-year-olds, We have an industrial strategy, what


do you make of it? It is window dressing from the government, they


have a massive problem. Huge cuts to university funding will affect the


region, they talk about more research funding, no idea as to


where it will come from. Significant issues with trade coming out of us


leaving the EU and industrial strategy has a lot of warm words.


And the green paper is nowhere near being put into practice. It means


very little. Tell him he is wrong! He would say that... We are an


incredibly exciting point in our history. Brexit means that we have


to look at other markets, and be more competitive. I think the


investment in training and skills is... You are unsure about it


either? It is absolutely the right direction of travel. And where is


the industry in it? The big difference is that we will try and


pick and choose, that is where industrial strategy is as the four


night. That is one of the most vacuous documents I've seen in a


long time! Thank you to both of you for being


with us this week. air-pollution. Thank you for being


here. Welcome back and let's get back


to Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven


mainly Muslim countries. Earlier, the Labour leader,


Jeremy Corbyn, told ITV that a state visit by President Trump to the UK


should not go ahead I think it would be totally wrong


for him to be coming here while that situation is going on. He has to be


challenged on this. So until the ban is lifted, you don't think he should


come? I am not happy about him coming here until the ban is lifted.


Look at what is happening with those countries. What will be the long


term effect of this on the rest of the world? Is this state visit going


to become a matter of huge political debate in this country? It would be


anyway, but it is a temporary ban, so Jeremy Corbyn is on safe


territory. It will be over by April and he is not due to come until


summer. But there are three bands. There is the 90 day ban on people


coming from the southern countries. There is the 120 day ban on refugees


from anywhere in the world, and there is the indefinite ban on


Syrian refugees. So there may still be some bans in place. But bear in


mind the number of Syrian refugees and refugees from around the world


that President Obama took over his eight years. There were years when


it was not even up to 50 Syrian refugees that were taken since the


civil war has started. This is an ongoing American policy. 12,500


Syrian refugees have come in the last year. Before that, it was a


hundred and sometimes under 50. But they are reasonable numbers now,


although not something America couldn't absorb. Donald Trump is


discovering that being a president is different from being a business


man. And Jeremy Corbyn has to learn the art of leadership, having been a


backbench MP, and has struggled to do it, as we are about to discuss


with article 50. With this, you have to dramatise the politics of this,


and this is what he has done with that statement. Most controversial


ever state visit now? I would imagine so. Even regardless of any


opposition from the opposition to trump's physical presence in the


streets, the presence of demonstrators will be an


international new story. If trump's demands for the details of the visit


are quite as extreme and as picky as some of the Sunday papers have


suggested, that could also be the source of controversy. What do you


have in mind? Isn't he anxious that only certain members of the Royal


Family turn up? He doesn't want a one-on-one with Prince Charles. Who


would, though! Some people may be sympathetic on that. It is the one


subject where he is in line with British opinion. Playing golf in


front of the Queen may be a higher priority. We have to be realistic.


Given the other people from around the world that the Queen has played


host to, like the Chinese president and Saudi kings and the like, we


have had a lot worse come to visit than Donald Trump. Brexit - how


serious our neighbour's problems on this? Very serious, but they often


are with Europe. Labour were splits when we joined in the 70s, and still


won general elections, in 1974 and 1975. There were all over the place


in terms of the single currency. Blair said one thing one day and the


opposite the next day. Brown did the same.


Brown usually set the opposite of what Blair said! They won landslide


because they have the political skills to put all of the pressure on


the major government, even though their position on the single


currency was the same as major's. It is about with Europe the art of


leadership. You have to be a political conjuror, you have to


dissemble authoritative leak when you lead a divided party over


Europe, and Jeremy Corbyn to his personal credit cannot dissemble,


but he's not an individual person on this. He's leading a split party in


danger of falling apart, and you need the skills of a political


conjurer. Clearly self-evidently he's not displaying it because we


are talking about the chaotic split which will manifest itself in that


vote on Article 50. Labour and the SNP and the Lib Dems too I would


have thought will all put amendments down to the short Article 50 piece


of legislation. Do they have any chance of succeeding? No substantial


world is changing amendments. I don't think Theresa May has much to


worry about actually. I think if anything the reason she's pushed the


legal appeal is that it helps her to have a big chunk of the media and a


big chunk of public opinion worrying that the popular will of last year


is in danger of being overturned and so even if it was a completely


hopeless legal appeal, it generated headlines for a week that as an


incumbent Prime Minister trying to execute believe vote suits you


politically. I think it is a much bigger problem for Labour, we've


already seen some Shadow Cabinet issues in the previous week. You


have got to remember it's not just a majority of Labour MPs that want to


stay in the European Union, but a majority of Labour constituencies,


and a majority of labour macro voters wanted to stay as well so we


have three lines of division. One amendment that might get through if


it was called, and it is in the hands of the Deputy speaker who will


be chairing these debates, and that will be an amendment that said


regardless of how the Europeans treat our citizens in Europe, all EU


citizens here will be afforded full rights to remain. That might get


through. It may indeed and lots of backbench MPs would backpack. We all


know there will not be mass deportations, it is not legal, it


won't happen, it is simply a negotiating tactic. I agree with


those who say you shouldn't be using people as a negotiating tactic, but


the reality as it is the EU leaders that are doing that because it's


already been offered. The remain as should be attacking the EU


governments for not offering that in return. Article 50 is the easy bit


for her. I agree with other members of the panel that she will get it


through and the court case almost helps her by getting an easy journey


through Parliament, then it gets really difficult. All of this has


been a preamble and once she begins that nightmarish negotiation, there


will be opportunities for a smart opposition to make quite a lot of


the turmoil to come. Whether Labour are capable of that, let's wait and


see. The divisions in Labour are nightmarish for them but by no means


unprecedented. Arguably it was much more complicated in the early 1970s


when you had Titans on either side, big ex-cabinet ministers... Tony


Benn... Michael Foot, they were all at it. The fundamental issue of in


or out, and they won two elections, so you have got to be really clever.


But also how money more Labour MPs will resign. We shall find out this


week. The Daily Politics is back


tomorrow at midday and all I'll be back here


on BBC one next week. Remember - if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles