Andrew Neil and Nina Warhurst with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry.
Browse content similar to 12/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.
David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,
ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process
We'll talk to a Tory rebel and Ukip's Nigel Farage.
Phillip Hammond's first budget hit the rocks thanks to a tax rise
But how should we tax those who work for themselves?
And remember Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama had ordered
We'll talk to the former Tory MP who set the whole story rolling.
And in the North West, local budget reaction.
Has the Chancellor got businesses over a barrel?
Why there could be trouble brewing for Philip Hammond.
And joining me for all of that, three self-employed journalists
who definitely don't deserve a tax break.
It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer
They'll be tweeting throughout the programme with all the carefree
abandon of Katie Hopkins before a libel trial.
BBC lawyers have suddenly got nervous!
So first today, the government is gearing up to trigger Article 50,
perhaps in the next 48 hours, and start negotiating Britain's
Much has been written about the prospect of the Commons
getting a "meaningful vote" on the deal Britain negotiates.
Brexit Secretary David Davis was on the Andrew Marr programme
earlier this morning and he was asked what happens
Well, that is what is called the most favoured nation status deal
There we go out, as it were, on WTO rules.
That is why of course we do the contingency planning, to make
The British people decided on June the 23rd last year
My job, and the job of the government, is to make
the terms on which that happens as beneficial as possible.
There we have it, clearly, either Parliament votes for the deal when
it is done or it out on World Trade Organisation rules. That's what the
government means by a meaningful vote.
I think we get over obsessed about whether there will be a legal right
for Parliament to have a vote. If there is no deal or a bad deal, I
think it would be politically impossible for the government to
reject Parliament's desire for a vote because the atmosphere of
politics will be completely different by then. I take David
Davies seriously. Within Whitehall he has acquired a reputation as
being the most conscientious and details sadly... And well briefed.
Absolutely and well travelled in terms of European capitals of the
three Brexit ministers. It is quite telling he said what he did and it
is quite telling that within cabinet, two weeks ago he was
floating the idea of no deal at all. Being if not the central estimate
than a completely plausible eventuality. It is interesting. I
would suggest the prospect of no deal is moving up the agenda. It is
still less likely than more likely to happen. But it's no longer a kind
of long tail way out there in the distance. Planning for no deal is
the same as having contents insurance or travel insurance, plan
for the worse case scenarios are prepared it happens. Even the worst
case scenario, it's not that bad. Think of the Jeep 20, apart from the
EU, four members of the G20 economies are successful members of
the EU. The rest aren't and don't have trade deals but somehow these
countries are prospering. They are growing at a higher rate. You are
not frightened? Not remotely. We are obsessed with what we get from the
EU and the key thing we get from leaving the EU is not the deal but
the other deals we can finally make with other trading partners. They
have higher growth than virtually every other EU country apart from
Germany. It is sensible as a negotiating position for the
government to say if there is no deal, we will accept there is no
deal. We're not frightened of no deal. It was clear from what David
Davies was saying that there will be a vote in parliament at the end of
the process but there won't be a third option to send the government
back to try to get a better deal. It is either the deal or we leave
without a deal. In reality, that third option will be there. We don't
know yet whether there will be a majority for the deal if they get
one. What we do know now is that there isn't a majority in the
Commons for no deal. Labour MPs are absolutely clear that no deal is
worth then a bad deal. I've heard enough Tory MPs say the same thing.
But they wouldn't get no deal through. When it comes to this vote,
if whatever deal is rejected, there will then be, one way or another,
the third option raised of go back again. But who gets to decide what
is a bad deal? The British people will have a different idea than the
two thirds of the Remain supporting MPs in the Commons. In terms of the
vote, the Commons. Surely, if the Commons, which is what matters here,
if the Commons were to vote against the deal as negotiated by the
government, surely that would trigger a general election? If the
government had recommended the deal, surely the government would then, if
it still felt strongly about the deal, if the other 27 had said,
we're not negotiating, extending it, it would in effect become a second
referendum on the deal. In effect it would be a no-confidence vote in the
government. You've got to assume that unless something massively
changes in the opposition before then, the government would feel
fairly confident about a general election on those terms. Unless the
deal is hideously bad and obviously basso every vote in the country...
The prior minister said if it is that bad she would have rather no
deal. So that eventuality arrives. -- the Prime Minister has said. Not
a second referendum general election in two years' time. Don't put any
holidays for! LAUGHTER -- don't look any.
So the Brexit bill looks likely to clear Parliament this week.
That depends on the number of Conservative MPs who are prepared
to vote against their government on two key issues.
Theresa May could be in negotiations with our European
partners within days, but there may be some
wheeler-dealings she has to do with her own MPs, too.
Cast your mind back to the beginning of month.
The bill to trigger Article 50 passed comfortably
But three Conservatives voted for Labour's amendments to ensure
the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.
Seven Tory MPs voted to force the government to give Parliament
a say on the deal struck with the EU before it's finalised.
But remember those numbers, they're important.
On the issue of a meaningful vote on a deal, I'm told there might have
been more rebels had it not been for this assurance from
I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion
on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses
And we expect, and intend, that this will happen before
the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.
When the government was criticised for reeling back
from when and what it would offer a vote on.
The bill then moved into the Lords, where peers passed it
And the second, that Parliament be given a meaningful vote on the terms
of the deal or indeed a vote in the event of there
The so-called Brexit bill will return to Commons
Ministers insist that both amendments would weaken
the government's negotiating hand and are seeking to overturn them.
But, as ever, politics is a numbers game.
Theresa May has a working majority of 17.
On Brexit, though, it's probably higher.
At least six Labour MPs generally vote with
Plus, eight DUP MPs, two from the Ulster Unionist party
If all Conservatives vote with the government as well,
Therefore, 26 Conservative rebels are needed for the government to be
So, are there rough waters ahead for Theresa May?
What numbers are we looking at, in terms of a potential rebellion?
I think we're looking at a large number of people who are interested
This building is a really important building.
It's symbolic of a huge amount of history.
And for it not to be involved in this momentous time would,
But he says a clear verbal statement from the government on a meaningful
vote on any deal would be enough to get most Tory MPs onside.
It was already said about David Jones.
It's slightly unravelled a little bit during
I think this is an opportunity to really get that clarity
through so that we can all vote for Article 50 and get
We've have spoken to several Tory MPs who say they are minded to vote
One said the situation was sad and depressing.
The other said that the whips must be worried because they don't
A minister told me Downing Street was looking again at the possibility
of offering a vote in the event of no deal being reached.
But that its position was unlikely to change.
And, anyway, government sources have told the Sunday Politics they're not
That those Tory MPs who didn't back either amendment the first time
round would look silly if they did, this time.
It would have to be a pretty hefty lot of people changing their minds
about things that have already been discussed in quite a lot of detail,
last time it was in the Commons, for things to be reversed this time.
There's no doubt that a number of Tory MPs are very concerned.
Labour are pessimistic about the chances of enough Tory
rebels backing either of the amendments in the Commons.
The important thing, I think, is to focus on the fact
that this is the last chance to have a say on this.
If they're going to vote with us, Monday is the time to do it.
Assuming the bill does pass the Commons unamended,
it will go back to the Lord's on Monday night where Labour peers
have already indicated they won't block it again.
It means that the Brexit bill would become law and Theresa May
would be free to trigger Article 50 within days.
Her own deadline was the end of this month.
But one minister told me there were advantages to doing it early.
We're joined now from Nottingham by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.
She's previously voted against the government on the question
of whether Parliament should have a final say over the EU deal.
Anna Soubry, I think it was clear this morning from David Davies that
what he means by meaningful vote is not what you mean by a meaningful
vote. He thinks the choice for Parliament would be to either vote
for the deal and if Parliament doesn't, we leave on World Trade
Organisation rules, on a bare-bones structure. In the end, will he
accept that in the Commons tomorrow? No, because my problem and I don't
think it is a problem, but my problem, the government's problem is
that what I want is then to answer this question. What happens in the
event of their not being any deal? David Davies made it very clear that
in the event of there being no deal, Parliament would have no say. It
means through your elected representatives, the people of this
country would have no say on what happens if the government doesn't
get a deal. I think the request that Parliament should have a say on
Parliamentary sovereignty, is perfectly reasonable. That is what I
want David to say. If he says that, I won't be rebelling. If he does...
They have refused to say that. Sorry. If he continues to say what
he said the BBC this morning, which means that the vote will be either
to accept the as negotiated or to leave on WTO rules, will you rebel
on that question but no, no, sorry, if there's a deal, Parliament will
have a say. So that's fine. And we will see what the deal is and we
will look at the options two years down the road. When who knows
what'll happen in our economy and world economy. That is one matter
which I am content on. The Prime Minister, a woman of her word has
said that in the event of a deal, Parliament will vote on any deal. I
don't difficulty. To clarify, I will come onto that. These are important
matters. I want to clarify, not argue with you. You are content that
if there is a deal, we will come under no deal in a second, but if
there is a deal, you are content with the choice of being able to
vote for that deal or leaving on WTO terms? No, you're speculating as to
what might happen in two years' time. What the options might be.
Personally I find it inconceivable that the government will come back
with a rubbish deal. They will either come back with a good deal,
which I won't have a problem with or they will come back with no deal. To
speculate about coming back with a deal, there is a variety of options.
I understand that that is what the Lord amendments are about. They are
about a vote at the end of the process. Do forgive me, the Lords
amendment is not the same that I've voted for in Parliament. What we
call the Chris Leslie amendment, which was talking about whatever the
agreement is, whatever happens at the end of the negotiations,
Parliament will have a vote. Parliament will have a say. The
Lords amendment is a bit more technical. It is the principle of no
deal that is agitating us. Let's clarify on this. They are
complicated matters. What do you want the government to say? What do
you want David Davis to say tomorrow on what should the Parliamentary
process should be if there is no deal? Quite. I want a commitment
from him that in the event of no deal, it will come into Parliament
and Parliament will determine what happens next. It could be that in
the event of no deal, the best thing is for us to jump off the cliff into
WTO tariff is. I find it unlikely but that might be the reality. There
might be other alternatives. Most importantly, including saying to the
government, go back, carry on. The question that everybody has to ask
is, why won't the government give My fear is what this is about is
asked deliberately, not the Prime Minister, but others deliberately
ensuring we have no deal and no deal pretty soon and in that event, we
jumped off the cliff onto WTO tariffs and nobody in this country
and the people of this country do not have a say. My constituents did
not vote for hard Brexit. You do not want the government to
have the ability if there is no deal to automatically fall back on the
WTO rules? Quite. It is as simple as that. We are now speculating about
what will happen in two years. I want to find out what happens
tomorrow. What will you do if you don't get that assurance? I will
either abstain, or I will vote to keep this amendment within the Bill.
I will either vote against my government, which I do not do
likely, I have never voted against my government until the Chris Leslie
clause when the Bill was going through, or I will abstain, which
has pretty much the same effect because it comes into the Commons
with both amendments so you have positively to vote to take the map.
Can you give us an idea of how many like-minded conservative colleagues
there are. I genuinely do not know. You must talk to each other. I do
not talk to every member of my party. You know people who are
like-minded. I do. I am not doing numbers games. I know you want that
but I genuinely do not know the figure. I think this is an
uncomfortable truth. People have to understand what has happened in our
country, two particular newspapers, creating an atmosphere and setting
an agenda and I think many people are rather concerned, some
frightened, to put their head over the parapet. There are many millions
of people who feel totally excluded from this process. Many of them
voted to remain. And they have lost their voice. We have covered the
ground I wanted to. We're joined now by the Ukip MEP
and former leader Nigel Farage. Article 50 triggered, we are leaving
the EU, the single market and the customs union. What is left you to
complain about? All of that will happen and hopefully we will get the
triggered this week which is good news. What worries me a little I'm
not sure the government recognises how strong their handers. At the
summit in Brussels, the word in the corridors is that we are prepared to
give away fishing waters as a bargaining chip and the worry is
what deal we get. Are we leaving, yes I am pleased about that. You are
under relevant voice in the deal because the deal will be voted on in
Parliament and you have one MP. You are missing the point, the real vote
in parliament is not in London but Strasbourg. This is perhaps the
biggest obstacle the British Government faces. Not what happens
in the Commons that the end of the two years, the European Parliament
could veto the deal. What that means is people need to adopt a different
approach. We do not need to be lobbying in the corridors of
Brussels to get a good deal, we need is a country to be out there talking
to the German car workers and Belgian chocolate makers, putting as
much pressure as we can on politicians from across Europe to
come to a sensible arrangement. It is in their interests more than
ours. In what way is the vision of Brexit set out by David Davis any
different from your own? I am delighted there are people now
adopting the position I argued for many years. Good. But now... Like
Douglas Carswell, he said he found David Davis' performers this morning
reassuring. It is. And just as when Theresa May was Home Secretary every
performance she gave was hugely reassuring. She was seen to be a
heroine after her conference speeches and then did not deliver. I
am concerned that even before we start we are making concessions. You
described in the EU's divorce bill demands, 60 billion euros is floated
around. You said it is laughable and I understand that. Do you maintain
that we will not have to pay a penny to leave? It is nine months since we
voted exit and assuming the trigger of Article 50, we would have paid 30
billion in since we had a vote. We are still members. But honestly, I
do not think there is an appetite for us to pay a massive divorce
Bill. There are assets also. Not a penny? There will be some ongoing
commitments, but the numbers talked about our 50, ?60 billion, they are
frankly laughable. I am trying to find out if you are prepared to
accept some kind of exit cost, it may be nowhere near 60 billion. We
have to do a net agreement, the government briefed about our share
of the European Union investment bank. Would you accept a
transitional arrangement, deal, five, ten billion, as part of the
divorce settlement? We are painted net ?30 million every single day at
the moment, ?10 billion plus every year. That is just our contribution.
We are going to make a massive saving on this. What do you make of
what Anna Soubry said, that if there is no deal, and it is being talked
about more. Maybe the government managing expectations. There is an
expectation we will have a deal, but if there is no deal, that the
government cannot just go to WTO rules, but it has to have a vote in
parliament? By the time we get to that there will be a general
election coming down the tracks and I suspect that if at the end of the
two-year process there is no deal and by the way, no deal is a lot
better for the nation than where we currently are, because we freed of
regulations and able to make our own deals in the world. I think what
would happen, and if Parliament said it did not back, at the end of the
negotiation a general election would happen quickly. According to reports
this morning, one of your most senior aides has passed a dossier to
police claiming Tories committed electoral fraud in Thanet South, the
seat contested in the election. What evidence to you have? I read that in
the newspapers as you have. I am not going to comment on it. Will you not
aware of the contents of the dossier? I am not aware of the
dossier. He was your election strategists. I am dubious as to
whether this dossier exists at all. Perhaps the newspapers have got this
wrong. Concerns about the downloading of data the took place
in that constituency, there are. Allegedly, he has refuted it, was it
done by your MP to give information to the Tories, do you have evidence
about? We have evidence Mr Carswell downloaded information, we have no
evidence what he did with it. It is not just your aide who has been
making allegations against the Conservatives in Thanet South and
other seats, if the evidence was to be substantial, and if it was to
result in another by-election being called an Thanet South had to be
fought again, would you be the Ukip candidate? I probably would. You
probably would? Yes. Just probably? Just probably. It would be your
eighth attempt. Winning seats in parliament under first past the post
is not the only way to change politics in Britain and I would like
to think I proved that. Let's go back to Anna Soubry. The implication
of what we were saying on the panel at the start of the show and what
Nigel Farage was saying there would be that if at the end of the process
whatever the vote, if the government were to lose it, it would provoke a
general election properly. I think that would be right. Let's get real.
The government is not going to come to Parliament with anything other
than something it believes is a good deal and if it rejected it, would be
unlikely, there would be a de facto vote of no confidence and it would
be within the fixed term Parliaments act and that be it. The problem is,
more likely, because of the story put up about the 50 billion, 60
billion and you look at the way things are flagged up that both the
Prime Minister and Boris Johnson saying, we should be asking them for
money back, I think the big fear and the fear I have is we will be
crashing out in six months. You think we could leave as quickly as
six months. Explain that. I think they will stoke up the demand from
the EU for 50, 60 billion back and my real concern is that within six
months, where we're not making much progress, maybe nine months, and
people are getting increasingly fed up with the EU because they are told
it wants unreasonable demands, and then the crash. I think what is
happening is the government is putting in place scaffolding at the
bottom of the cliff to break our fall when we come to fall off that
cliff and I think many in government are preparing not for a two-year
process, but six, to nine months, off the cliff, out we go. That is my
fear. That is interesting. I have not heard that express before by
someone in your position. I suspect you have made Nigel Farage's date.
It is a lovely thought. I would say to Anna Soubry she is out of date
with this. 40 years ago there was a good argument for joining the common
market because tariffs around the world was so high. That has changed
with the World Trade Organisation. We are leaving the EU and rejoining
a great big world and it is exciting. She was giving an
interesting perspective on what could happen in nine months rather
than two years. I thank you both. It was Philip Hammond's first
budget on Wednesday - billed as a steady-as-she-goes
affair, but turned out to cause uproar after the Chancellor appeared
to contradict a Tory manifesto commitment with an increase
in national insurance contributions. The aim was to address what some see
as an imbalance in the tax system, where employees pay
more National Insurance The controversy centres
on increasing the so-called class 4 rate for the self-employed who make
a profit of more than ?8,060 a year. It will go up in stages
from 9% to 11% in 2019. The changes mean that over one
and a half million will pay on average ?240 a year
more in contributions. Some Conservative MPs were unhappy,
with even the Wales Minister saying: "I will apologise to every
voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto
in the 2015 election." The Sun labelled Philip
Hammond "spite van man". The Daily Mail called the budget
"no laughing matter". By Thursday, Theresa May
said the government One of the first things I did
as Prime Minister was to commission Matthew Taylor to review the rights
and protections that were available to self-employed workers
and whether they should be enhanced. People will be able to look
at the government paper when we produce it, showing
all our changes, and take And, of course, the Chancellor will
be speaking, as will his ministers, to MPs, businesspeople and others
to listen to the concerns. Well, the man you heard mentioned
there, Matthew Taylor, has the job of producing
a report into the future Welcome. The Chancellor has decided
the self-employed should pay almost the same in National Insurance, not
the same but almost, as the employed will stop what is left of your
commission? The commission has a broader frame of reference and we
are interested in the quality of work in the economy at the heart of
what I hope will be proposing is a set of shifts that will improve the
quality of that work so we have an economy where all work is fair and
decent and all jobs give people scope for development and
fulfilment. The issue of taxes a small part. You will cover that? We
will, because the tax system and employment regulation system drive
particular behaviours in our labour market. You approve I think of the
general direction of this policy of raising National Insurance on the
self-employed. Taxing them in return perhaps for more state benefits. Why
are so many others on the left against it from Tim Farron to John
McDonnell? Tax rises are unpopular and it is the role of the opposition
parties to make capital from unpopular tax rises. I think as tax
rises go this is broadly progressive. There are self-employed
people on low incomes and they will be better off. It is economic league
rational because the reason for the difference in National Insurance --
economically. It was to do with state entitlements. The government
is consulting about paid parental leave. A series of governments have
not been good about thinking about medium sustainability of the tax
base. Self-employment is growing. But it is eroding the tax base. It
is important to address those issues. A number of think tanks have
said this is a progressive move. Yet, a number of left-wing
politicians have been against it. And a number of Tories have said
this is a progressive move and not a Tory government move, the balance of
you will pay more tax, but you will get more state benefits is not a
Tory approach to things. That a Tory approach will be you will pay less
tax but entitled to fewer benefits as well.
I preferred in and policies to politics -- I prefer policies. When
people look at the policy and when they look the fact that there is no
real historical basis for that big national insurance differential,
they see it is a sensible policy. I don't have to deal with the
politics. There has been a huge growth in self-employment from the
turn of the millennium. It's been strongest amongst older workers,
women part-timers. Do you have any idea, do you have
the data in your commission that could tell us how many are taking
self-employment because they like the flexibility and they like the
tax advantages that come with it, too, or they are being forced into
it by employers who don't want the extra costs of employment? Do we
know the difference? We do, broadly. Most surveys on self-employment and
flexible forms of employment suggest about two thirds to three quarters
enjoy it, they like the flexibility, they like the autonomy and about a
third to one quarter are less happy. That tends to be because they would
like to have a full-time permanent job. It is not necessary that they
don't enjoy what they are doing, they would like to do other things.
And some of the protections that come with it? Yes. There are some
people who are forced into southern employees by high-risk but also some
people feel like they can't get a proper job as it were. --
self-employment by people who hire them. It is on the narrow matter of
tax revenues but if you are employed on ?32,000 the state will take over
?6,000 in national insurance contributions, that is quite chunky.
If you are self-employed it is ?2300. But the big difference
between those figures isn't what the employee is paying, it's the
employer's contributions up to almost 14%, and cupped for as much
as you are paid. What do you do about employers' contributions for
the self employed? -- it is uncapped for as much. What I recommend is
that we should probably move from taxing employment to taxing labour.
We should probably have a more level playing field so it doesn't really
matter... Explained that I thought it was the same thing. If you are a
self-employed gardener, you are a different tax regime to a gardener
who works for a gardening firm. On the individual side and on the firm
side. As we see new business models, so-called gig working, partly with
technology, we need a more level playing field saying that we're
taxing people's work, not the form in which they deliver that. That is
part of the reason we have seen the growth of particular business
models. They are innovative and creative and partly driven by the
fact that if you can describe yourself as self-employed there are
tax advantages. Coming out in June? Will you come back and talk to us?
Yes. We say goodbye to viewers
in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,
we'll be talking to the former Tory MP who was the root
of Donald Trump's allegation I'm Nina Warhurst, coming up
in the North West... Has the Chancellor got
businesses over a barrel? That's the problem I've got
with this government at the minute - they used to be the government
of business, now they're Well, stirring things up
here in the studio are two Jeff Smith is the Labour MP
for Manchester Withington. David Mowat the Conservative
for Warrington South and also Minister responsible
for Community, Health and Care. It's budget week!
How was it for you, David? Well, I think it was
a good budget on the whole. I suppose that the things that sort
of hit me most were the growth forecasts have increased.
That means more jobs. And, as you say, I'm
the Minister for social care, so I was very pleased
that the Chancellor came up with No doubt a different
take for you, Jeff? Well, I thought it was
very disappointing? Well, I thought it was
very disappointing. Not just because of the broken
promises on national insurance, but I don't think it has
the long-term answers. I think the long-term outlook
is not as optimistic OK, and you're not alone in that
Jeff, because even some of Philip Hammond's Conservative
colleagues said that tax rises for the self-employed would hardly
have the white van man popping So was there anything
at all to toast? Well, that was more money
for social care, as David said, a bit of help for business rate
payers, and a small boost for pubs. Guess where Stuart Pollitt chose
to go to see if it's cheers Market day and
Budget day in Lancaster. All eyes on the man
controlling the money. As pints were pulled
in the Sun Hotel, the boss was as interested in business rates
as he was in beer prices. The rates on this place
have gone up ?70,000. Have you seen anything
there that helps you? No, it was a very
disappointing budget for me. There were three options
that the Chancellor mentioned. So the last one is discretionary,
so Lord knows what that means! In the same bar, two councillors -
one Tory, one Labour - The report that we had done last
year by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows we've got a ?90 billion spending gap
for adult social care and, on the figures announced today,
we're looking at perhaps ?30 million may come to Lancashire,
although we need to see I think there was some really
important things for Lancashire, particularly the ?90 million
for highways in It's money coming up from London
and, with the announcement on social care, I think that's a huge step
in the right direction. This brewery runs the Sun
and four other pubs. The rates on one of them
has gone up nearly 500%. They feel like a business
under attack. We've got the pension rights coming
soon, national minimum wage. It's hitting the traders,
the high street traders, the most - the retail and leisure sector -
the actual guys that go out there and then
there's their companies and actually And that's the problem I've got
with this government at the minute. They used to be the government
of business, now they're Well, they won't be raising a glass
here at the brewery to this budget, but what's the view across the city
for those who want to make a living, These students in the catering
college have big ambitions. Eventually, like, I want to move to
London and have my own restaurant. I really want to go ahead
and work in a kitchen, I really want to go
ahead and push myself. The Chancellor announced new money
for technical education like this, creating what some have dubbed
T-Levels for 16 to 18-year-olds. That will materialise
in '19, maybe 2020, so, I mean, that would be
a really valuable investment. The technical qualifications
are exactly what the employment But what the college needs,
like a lot of educational establishments, is more cash
to help you deliver. -- establishments, is more
cash to help it deliver. Within the schools, you'll find that
sixth form students are funded far better than a student that
comes to college. The Chancellor didn't have much
of that to dish out, but was his approach
the right recipe for this region? David, the brewery director
there summed up the attitude You;ve stopped being the government
of business, now you're I mean, he did say that
and he was concerned about business rates,
and I understand that, but I would say this that in general
the re-evaluation that's taken place, which is a net neutral thing
across the whole country, has benefited the North
and the North West Clearly, the guy that you spoke to,
in terms of the package that you did, wasn't in that place,
but in general... But there were 6000 start-ups
in Warrington last year. They will struggle, won't they,
with these increases in national insurance contribution
and also with dividends? Well, in terms of, first of all,
on the business rates point, Warrington is a net winner
on the changes to business rates that the government has brought in,
and I'm pleased about that. The point you just raised
on national insurance, um, yes, it does affect people that
are self-employed and it puts them on a similar tax bases to those
that are not self-employed and it's actually a progressive change
and it's a change that I think probably had to be made.
Does it not jar, though...? In general, those that are poorly
paid, you know, under ?20,000, But does it not jar
with the Conservative spirit of encouraging the entrepreneurial
spirit, supporting small businesses? Giving them the financial
freedom to thrive? Look, we are the party of low tax,
so we would prefer lower taxes for everybody,
but we're also the party of fair tax, and it just isn't fair
if somebody that is employed, and is earning ?30,000 a year,
is paying a significantly different amount of tax than somebody
that is self-employed and earning ?30,000 a year, possibly working
side-by-side with them. That is what the Chancellor
has been fixing. Did we need to level
the playing field? Well, I don't think it has
levelled the playing field, I think the problem is that we're
taking money from the lower and middle income earners
at the same time as we are giving ?3.8 billion in cuts
to corporation tax. And I think the Labour Party
would make different choices. I mean, the national
insurance change hits those that are paid the most.
It's a very progressive thing. And the Resolution Foundation
and others have accepted that. But what about the dividends,
tax-free dividends coming down from ?5,000 to ?2000?
Yes. That's going to affect medium
business owners, isn't it? Well, it's also a very
progressive thing. I mean, the people that are affected
mostly by that, the most by that, are those with share portfolios
outside of ISAs worth Now, if those are the people
that the Labour Party think ought to be the government's priority,
the Labour Party has changed even But why has the Federation
of Small Businesses said that this will not help Warrington's upwards
turn when it comes to business? Well, I mean, because it is a tax
increase, and there are people, like I say, who are earning ?30,000
at the moment, who are paying significantly lower amounts of tax,
because they're self-employed, than they would've been
had they been employed. But it undermines the government's
own mission for the UK to be Well, look, if I was self-employed,
and I had a historic tax anomaly, which is what it is,
that was beneficial to me, and the government took it away
from me, albeit in a progressive way, yes, I would be saying those
sorts of things too. If this was a Labour policy,
you'd be right behind it. It's redistribution, isn't it?
I don't think it is redistribution. If you take it in conjunction
with the class two abolition, then that's where you could see
it is as a redistribution, but the class twos have
already been introduced, so these changes to class four
are not really redistributed. And just going back to your business
rate question, I met with the Chorlton traders last week
in my constituency, You know, I welcome the money
that's going into the pubs for their business rate,
but it's not enough to allay the worries of the businesses
in South Manchester. They've said
it's good for businesses. I mean, the facts are,
on the business rates, it's overwhelmingly neutral and
it's overall of benefit to the North versus the South, and the reason
for that is because the change that's been made in the revaluation
follows what the properties are worth and, on the whole,
places like London have seen values And like I say, my constituency
will benefit from it. OK, I'm sure we'll be
back to that topic. Now, in the run up to the Budget,
there was one issue dominated, though -
it was that of social care. Here's how three of our MPs reacted
to the ?2 billion over three years that Philip Hammond has found
for local councils. The NHS and social care needs
between 8.5 and 15 billion, just to get by, quite frankly,
so there will be a lot of people in my constituency that'll be
worried about their future, and whether they're going to get
the care they need! The social care budget breaks down
to about ?40 per head. Yeah, but we've already got
the Better Care Fund, This is additional funding
to recognise that more needs to be done to help with social care,
and it's not just about money. I think we've talked in the past
about how we need to be more innovative about joining up
social care and the NHS together. The Chancellor is -
at the same time, it's worth bearing in mind -
giving away something like ?6 billion in tax cuts
through capital gains, through, for example,
inheritance tax cuts for people That's giveaways
he didn't need to give. He could've been spending
that money on social care. David, you are the minister
responsible for Community, Did you really think,
did the Chancellor really think that 2 billion over three years
would even touch the sides? 2 billion is the gap
that we've been asked for by the LGA and others,
in terms of meeting I was in Liverpool at
a conference on Thursday. I mean, that city is getting
an increase just by the announcement at the budget
of almost 10%, in terms of an uplift,
to its social care budgets. But because of the redistribution
of their budget, they're having to do things like get rid
of foster carers? Well, we're talking
about the budget. ?2 billion is a great deal of money
and it's going to make a great deal of difference
and, as a matter of fact, that money also, in terms
of where the allocation formula works, is a particular
benefit to the North West, because the precept
is of less benefit here. But let's talk about some
of the cuts in social care We've been told they'll have
to reduce respite care, which will put
a greater burden on carers. They'll have to increase charges
for hospital transport, reduce money for end-of-life care,
disabilities - these are important elements that affect people's lives,
their health and happiness. And all those points are right,
but Warrington, two days ago, were informed that they're getting
?4 million extra for social care, that is a significant
amount of money for any council I was responsible for
lobbying, amongst others, But Pat Wright, the councillor
in charge of social care in Warrington, says,
"No, we are at rock bottom, "we don't have enough money to do
what we want to do in order I mean, just on the facts,
42% of all councils, 42% of all councils in the country,
increased their social care budget OK, Jeff, the truth is, despite this
being desperately unpopular, the Tories are still well ahead
in the polls. Yeah, but just going back
to the social care, the King's Fund have said that we need ?2 billion
straightaway just to sustain things. Per year.
Per year. So I think probably David
is secretly disappointed this But we've taken 4.6 billion out
of social care since 2010, During the course of this
Parliament, social care In Manchester, we've had to take
?17 million out of social care. We've had to change
the criteria in Manchester. So people who were getting help
and though not getting help, -- So people who were getting help
are now not getting help, because of the actions
of this government. I mean, just on the point of fact,
Manchester has got... It is illegal for Manchester
to change the criteria. The criteria was set out
in the Care Act of 2014, which set out what the statutory
criteria are for social care, and Manchester, like every other
local authority in the country, has got a statutory duty
to provide care packages Yeah, and we used to provide extra
to the statutory duty and now, a couple of years ago,
we had to reduce that David, we've got the King's Fund,
we've got the LGA, the Conservative local councils,
the opposition, all saying... Lots of Conservative MPs
saying this is a shambles, I don't think they are saying
that post the announcement They've all said that
post announcement. Can you name which Conservative
MPs have said that since the announcement?
I think you'll struggle. We could probably find
lots of other MPs... Well, I'm sure Jeff will say it!
I will, I will! You said I was secretly
That was an extremely good settlement, in the context
of the overall public finances, which we are still trying
to pay off the deficit, and that is an overriding point
that is still there, that we inherited in 2010.
But this settlement exceeded expectations and, frankly,
I spoke to a number of stakeholders in charities and the care home
sector after the announcement that was made, and they were
pleased by this. Jeff...
And I... Sorry, yeah.
Austerity lives on - that was the message
He stood up and said this will go on, it has to go on,
44% of people think that the current way austerity is being dealt with
is unfair, but only 8% would prefer Jeremy Corbyn
And we clearly need to get our message across.
I think what is clear... What is the message?
Well, what is clear is that austerity is not working, is it?
And the government keep having to revise their figures.
They said they'd get rid of the deficit by 2015.
It now looks like it will go to at least 2022.
So the government's plan is not working.
But hang on, hang on, people don't believe there's
a credible opposition to the government, do they?
Well, so we need to communicate better, we need to make sure
that our policies will... Do you need a different leader?
Look, I don't think the public would welcome a leadership contest now,
when we've got Brexit happening, we've got lots of major problems.
I think for the Labour Party to be in the middle of a leadership
I think people would see that as a dereliction of duty
to the job we've got to do, which is to take the opposition...
And it doesn't worry you that only 8% of the public think that
McDonnell would've done a better job on the budget?
And our trailing in the polls worries me.
You know, we shouldn't hide from this, this is a problem for us,
so we just need to redouble our work and make sure that we take
I mean, Labour's position is that we need to borrow another
?500 million and presumably borrow it, if it's not from
the magic money tree. Well...
And, you know, Jeff said that we have revised the figures
this week and that is true, the Chancellor has revised
the borrowing figures this week, because the economy is growing
faster than expected, borrowing is coming down
during the rest of this Parliament more quickly than expected, that is
true, and I'm pleased about it. Jeff?
Well, we've never said we want to borrow ?500 million.
What we have said is that interest rates are at a record low,
now is the time to borrow to invest for the long term,
to invest in the infrastructure and the productivity that
would make our economy recover, because, at the moment, it's not.
So, there is some help for social care, but that leaves the small
matter of how local councils protect the rest of their services.
Kevin Fitzpatrick has an update on one council's attempts to keep
them afloat by getting local people to play their part.
Swimming pools and libraries, Sure Start centres and museums -
Swimming pools and libraries, children's centres and museums -
many have closed their doors to the public as austerity
But in Wigan, everything has remained open.
Facilities, like this one in Tyldsley, are now
It's part of a policy shift, which has seen the council reduce
costs by keeping hold of buildings, but transfering responsibility
to the community. It's become known as the Wigan Deal.
We thought that there was enough interest from groups who are already
using these buildings to take some of the responsibilities
on and we put money in there, which was like an investor save,
in terms of helping people to start up, and it's worked well
in terms of the usage now of these facilities.
Like many councils in the North West, Wigan will have lost
around 40% of its 2010 budget by 2020.
Others do now have some facilities run by volunteers,
but Wigan has handed over as many as possible.
26 community buidlings and 18 playing field
areas are now currently, or soon to be,
Under its new volunteer management team, the Sunshine House community
centre in Scholes appears to have thrived.
I think that they are doing a wonderful job.
They are giving back to the community what
You get the right person in, you know, Barbara
is doing a marvellous job at handling her staff.
I'm told I'm always talking about it.
I said, "Well, you talk about things you enjoy."
Ten times as many people now come through their doors every week
and they're expanding into an empty building next door.
We are a successful business, you know, and I think the fact
that the council give us the freedom and the opportunity to do
Last year, Lancashire County Council closed 26
In Cheshire East, four Sure Start centres have gone.
While currently, in Bury, they're considering shutting up
We would make a genuine effort to find out what people
want the council to run, what they want them to fund.
This is something that people want the council to fund,
which is why we would fight to keep this library and others.
With Manchester among other councils now following in Wigan's footsteps,
it could be that, in future, we'll see more communities running
facilities themselves, if they want to keep them.
Jeff, that put a smile on all of our faces.
What's wrong with local communities, with the community spirit being used
Well, nothing wrong with community spirit, that's great,
and my local swimming baths has been taken over by a community.
Yeah. They do a fantastic job.
But the trouble is, it's not necessarily
a sustainable solution long-term, is it?
So they are working hard to keep the bus going,
-- So they are working hard to keep the baths going,
but they are always scrambling around.
And it's happened with libraries and other committee
Groups take them over, have to work really hard,
they're always scrambling around for that future long-term funding,
and if they have a big problem, capital problem, that isn't
and if they have a big problem, a capital problem, there isn't
Say the water pump broke in our local baths,
they'd have a big problem. That's it.
It's not even the big jobs. It's the little jobs.
The tiles falling off in the swimming pool.
What happens then, David? Well...
You can't rely on people's good nature for ever.
I mean, it was a nice package. And no, you can't.
I mean, I think it's good the community steps forward
sometimes, and we've seen that with our libraries in Warrington.
Public services also do need to be properly funded and we started this
whole programme by people complaining about business rates
when, unfortunately, you know, we do have to pay rates and taxes
which, in the end, fund our public services and there's no
getting away from that, and there isn't a magic money
tree, and we just need to get the right balance.
And that's what the government are doing.
Oh, that there were a magic money tree!
With tributes to a landmark of literature and the rest
of this week's news, now here's Carol Lowe
The Vice Chair of the Wallasey Labour Party could face
Paul Davies has been referred to the party's disciplinary body
Labour and the Lib Dems in Pendle were accused of turning a blind eye
to racism amid claims of a deal with the British National Party's
Doing deals with the British National Party is utterly
repugnant and unacceptable, whether at local council
18 months after water contamination affected hundreds of thousands
of people in Lancashire, the organisation investigating says
it's still not ready to announce its findings.
500 animal deaths in less than four years, and now no license.
Councillors in Barrow ruled that South Lakes Safari Zoo
And remembering a giant of political literature.
It's 80 years since George Orwell exposed the grimness of life
for millions in The Road to Wigan Pier.
Before we go, there were concerns this week for car workers
from General Motors. PSA Group bought Vauxhall
The plant currently employs 2,000 people, making the Astra,
It's thought the group could have too many plants across Europe,
and Brexit might impact which of them ends up closing.
The problem really is that Ellesmere Port,
like the British industry, is heavily dependent on imported
It would be easier, after Brexit, to do that on the European mainland.
We'll be triggering Article 50 before we know it.
David, this is the beginning, isn't it, that we need to really about?
Well, the takeover in Ellesmere Port isn't to do with Brexit.
I mean, I voted to Remain, but the country didn't.
No, but 57% of our imports are from the EU.
And what I'm about to say, though, is that one of the things that
will benefit the competitiveness in Ellesmere Port is that
our exchange rate has gone down post-Brexit,
it's actually gone down by more than the tariffs would be,
and that would make them more competitive vis-a-vis some
of the plants in Europe that they will have to compete
But it's extremely important, and Greg Clark knows there's,
it's extremely important that we keep Ellesmere.
But there will be tariffs when it comes to import and export?
Yes, but actually, the tariffs will be lower than the exchange rate
However, I don't want to minimise it.
You know, it's vital that companies like Nissan in Sunderland,
Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port, Jaguar in Liverpool,
it's vital that all of these companies stay with us and grow
and, actually, up till now, that is what's happening.
Our economy is growing faster than anybody else
in Europe at the moment and growing faster post-Brexit.
Jeff, how do we make sure these countries are protected
-- Jeff, how do we make sure these companies are protected
in these uncertain times? Well, it's going to be difficult.
In terms of the Astra, it imports more parts, but we need an
intervention and this government helping out the car industry and
whether that is help with business rates, investment in training and
skills to improve productivity, that is how we sustain the future for the
and Greg Clark has spoken to the and Greg Clark has spoken to the
management of Ellesmere Port, and not much difference tween Jeff and
me on that. Lovely and we end on that point of agreement.
Phil McCann has the onerous task of heading to Cannes for us next
week, as local council leaders look for funding in the South of France.
Now the government plans for new grammar schools.
The Education Secretary Justine Greening was
speaking to a conference of headteachers on Friday.
They're normally a pretty polite bunch, but they didn't
Broadcasters weren't allowed into the speech,
but this was captured on a camera phone.
And we have to recognise actually for grammars, in terms of
disadvantaged children, that they have, they really
do help them close the attainment gap.
And at the same time we should recognise that
..That parents also want choice for their children and that
those schools are often very oversubscribed.
I suppose it is a rite of passage for and education secretaries to
have this at a head teachers conference book the head are usually
more polite. Isn't part of the problem, whether one is for or
against the expansion of grammar schools, the government plans are
complicated, you cannot sum them up in a sentence. The proof of that is
they can still get away with denying they are expanding grammar schools.
They will find an alternative formulation because it is not as
simple as a brute creation of what we used to know is grammar schools
with the absolute cut-off of the 11 plus. I am surprised how easy they
found it politically. We saw the clip of Justine Greening being
jeered a little bit but in the grand scheme, compared to another
government trying this idea a decade ago they have got away with it
easily and I think what is happening is a perverse consequence of Brexit
and the media attention on Brexit, the government of the day can just
about get away with slightly more contentious domestic policies on the
correct assumption we will be too busy investing our attention in
Article 50 and two years of negotiations, WTO terms at
everything we have been discussing. I wonder if after grammar schools
there will be examples of contentious domestic policies
Theresa May can slide in stock because Brexit sucks the life out,
takes the attention away. You are a supporter. Broadly. Are you happy
with the government approach? They need to have more gumption and stop
being apologetic. It is a bazaar area of public policy where we judge
the policy on grammar schools based on what it does for children whose
parents are unemployed, living on sink estates in Liverpool. It is
absurd, we don't judge any other policy like that. It is simple, not
contentious, people who are not sure, ask them if they would apply
to send their child there, six out of ten said they would. Parents want
good schools for their children, we should have appropriate education
and they should be straightforward, this is about the future of the
economy and we need bright children to get education at the highest
level, education for academically bright children. It is supposed to
be a signature policy of the Theresa May administration that marks a
government different from David Cameron's government who did not go
down this road. The signature is pretty blurred, it is hard to read.
It is. She is trying to address concerns about those who fail to get
into these selective schools and tried to targeted in poorer areas
and the rest of it. She will probably come across so many
obstacles. It is not clear what form it will take in the end. It is
really an example of a signature policy not fully thought through. I
think it was one of her first announcements. It was. It surprised
everybody. Surprised at the speed and pace at which they were planning
to go. Ever since, there have been qualifications and hesitations en
route with good cause, in my view. I disagree with Juliet that this is...
We all want good schools but if you don't get in there and you end up in
a less good school. They already do that. We have selection based on the
income of parents getting into a good catchment area, based on the
faith of the parents. That becomes very attainable! I might been too
shot run christenings for these. -- I have been.
Now, you may remember this time last week we were talking
about the extraordinary claims by US President Donald Trump,
on Twitter of course, that Barack Obama had ordered
And there was me thinking that wiretaps went out
Is it legal for a sitting President to do so, he asked,
concluding it was a "new low", and later comparing it to Watergate.
Since then, the White House has been pressed to provide evidence for this
It hasn't, but it seems it may have initially come from a report on a US
website by the former Conservative MP Louise Mensch.
She wrote that the FBI had been granted a warrant to intercept
communications between Trump's campaign and Russia.
Well, Louise Mensch joins us now from New York.
Louise, you claimed in early November that the FBI had secured a
court warrants to monitor communications between trump Tower
in New York at two Russian banks. It's now four months later. Isn't it
the case that nobody has proved the existence of this warrant?
First of all, forgive me Andrew, one takes 1's life in one's hand when it
is you but I have to correct your characterisation of my reporting. It
is very important. I did not report that the FBI had a warrant to
intercept anything or that Trump tower was any part of it. What I
reported was that the FBI obtained a warrant is targeted on all
communications between two Russian banks and were, therefore, allowed
to examine US persons in the context of their investigation. What the
Americans call legally incidental collection. I certainly didn't
report that the warrant was able to intercept or that it had location
basis, for example Trump tower. I just didn't report that. The reason
that matters so much is that I now believe based on the President's
reaction, there may well be a wiretap act Trump Tower. If so,
Donald Trump has just tweeted out evidence in an ongoing criminal case
that neither I nor anybody else reported. He is right about
Watergate because he will have committed obstruction of justice
directly from his Twitter account. Let me come back as thank you for
clarifying. Let me come back to the question. -- and thank you. We have
not yet got proof that this warrant exists, do we? No and we are most
unlikely to get it because it would be a heinous crime for Donald Trump
to reveal its existence. In America they call it a Glomar response. I
can neither confirm nor deny. That is what all American officials will
have to say legally. If you are looking for proof, you won't get it
until and unless a court cases brought. But that doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. The BBC validated this two months after me in their
reporting by the journalist Paul Wood. The Guardian, they also
separately from their own sources validated the existence of the
warrant. If you are in America, you would know that CNN and others are
reporting that the investigation in ongoing. Let me come onto the wider
point. You believe the Trump campaign including the president
were complicit with the Russians during the 2016 election campaign to
such an extent that Mr Trump should be impeached. What evidence did you
have? That is an enormous amount of
evidence. You could start with him saying, hey, Russia, if you are
listening, please release all the Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That's
not evidence. I think it rather is, actually. Especially if you look at
some of the evidence that exists on Twitter and elsewhere of people
talking directly to his social media manager, Dan should be no and
telling him to do that before it happened. There is a bit out there.
The BBC itself reported that in April of last year, a six agency
task force, not just the FBI, but the Treasury Department, was looking
at this. I believe there is an enormous amount of evidence. And
then there is the steel dossier which was included in an official
report of the US intelligence committee. You've also ... Just to
be clear, we don't have hard evidence yet whether this warrant
exists. It may or may not. There is doubt about... There are claims
about whether there is evidence about Mr Trump and the Russians.
That is another matter. You claimed that President Putin had Andrew
Breitbart murdered to pave the way for Steve Bannon to play a key role
in the Trump administration. I haven't. You said that Steve Bannon
is behind bomb threats to Jewish community centres. Aren't you in
danger of just peddling wild conspiracy theories? No. Festival, I
haven't. No matter how many times people say this, it's not going to
be true -- first of all. I said in twitter I believe that to be the
case about the murder of Andrew Breitbart. You believe President
Putin murdered him. I didn't! You said I reported it, but I believed
it. You put it on twitter that you believed it but you don't have a
shred of evidence. I do. Indeed, I know made assertions. What is the
evidence that Mr Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart? I said I believe
it. You may believe there are fairies at the bottom of your
garden, it doesn't make it true. I may indeed. And if I say so, that's
my belief. If I say I am reporting, as I did with the Fisa warrant
exists, I have a basis in fact. They believe is just a belief. I know you
are relatively new to journalism. Let me get the rules right. Andrew,
jealousy is not your colour... If it is twitter, we don't believe it but
if it is on your website, we should believe it? If I report something
and I say this happened, then I am making an assertion. If I describe a
belief, I am describing a belief. Subtlety may be a little difficult
for you... No, no. If you want to be a journalist, beliefs have to be
backed up with evidence. Really? Do you have a faith? It's not a matter
of faith, maybe in your case, that President Putin murdered Andrew
Breitbart. A belief and a report at two different things and no matter
how often you say that they are the same, they will never be the same.
You've said in today's Sunday Times here in London that you've turned
into" a temporary superpower" where you "See things really clearly".
Have you become delusional? No. I am describing a biological basis for
ADHD, which I have. As any of your viewers who are doctors will know.
It provides people with unfortunately a lot of scattered
focus, they are very messy and absent-minded but when they are
interested in things and they have ADHD they can have a condition which
is hyper focus. You concentrate very hard on a given subject and you can
see patterns and connections. That is biological. Thank you for
explaining that. And for getting up early in New York. The first time
ever I have interviewed a temporary superpower. Thank you. You are so
lucky! You are so lucky! I don't think it's going to happen again.
Please don't ask us to comment on that interview! I will not ask you,
viewers will make up their own minds. Let's come back to be more
mundane world of Article 50. Stop the killing!
Will it get through at the government wanted it? Without the
Lords amendment falling by the way that? I am sure the Lord will not
try to ping-pong this back and forth. So we are at the end of this
particular legislative phase. The fact that all three Brexit Cabinet
ministers, number ten often don't like one of them going out on a
broadcast interview on a Sunday, they've all been out and about. That
suggests to me they are working on the assumption it will be triggered
this week. This week. The negotiations will begin or at least
the process begins. The negotiation process may be difficult, given all
of the European elections. The Dutch this week. And then the French and
maybe the Italians and certainly the Germans by the end of September,
which is less predictable than it was. Given all that, what did you
make of Anna Soubry's claim, Viacom on her part, that we may just end up
crashing out in six months question -- fear on her part. It was not just
that that we made that deliberately organising. I want us to get on with
the deals. Everyone knows a good deal is the
best option. Who knows what is going to be on the table when we finally
go out? Fascinatingly, the demand for some money back, given the
amount of money... Net gains and net costs in terms of us leaving for the
EU. It is all to play for. That will be a possible early grounds for a
confrontation between the UK and the EU. My understanding is that they
expect to do a deal on reciprocal rights of EU nationals, EU nationals
here, UK citizens there, quite quickly. They want to clear that up
and that will be done. Then they will hit this problem that the EU
will be saying you've got to agree the divorce Bill first before we
talk about the free trade bill. David Davis saying quite clearly,
no, they go together because of the size of the bill. It will be
determined, in our part, by how good the access will be. The mutual
recognition of EU residents' rights is no trouble. A huge amount of fuss
is attracted to that subject but it is the easiest thing to deal with,
as is free movement for tourists. Money is what will make it
incredibly acrimonious. Incredibly quickly. I imagine the dominant
story in the summer will be all about that. This was Anna Soubry's
implication, members of the governors could strongly argue,
things are so poisonous and so unpleasant at the moment, the
dealers are advancing -- members of the government. Why not call it a
day and go out on WTO terms while public opinion is still in that
direction in that Eurosceptic direction? No buyers' remorse about
last year's referendum. The longer they leave it, view more opportunity
there is for some kind of public resistance and change of mind to
take place. The longer believe it, the more people who voted for Brexit
and people who voted Remain and think we didn't get world War three
will start being quite angry with the EU for not agreeing a deal. In
terms of the rights of EU nationals he and Brits abroad, by all
accounts, 26 of the 27 have agreed individually. Angela Merkel is the
only person who has held that up. That will be dealt with in a matter
of days. The chances of a deal being done is likely but in ten seconds...
It would not be a bad bet to protect your on something not happening, you
might get pretty good odds? The odds are going up that a deal doesn't
happen. But, as I said earlier, the House of Commons will not endorse no
deal. We are either in an early election or she has to go back
again. Either way, you will need us! We will be back at noon tomorrow on
BBC Two ahead of what looks like being a big week in politics. We
will be back here same time, same place.
Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.
They're calling it an entertainment extravaganza
audience fun and frolics and outrageous shenanigans.
And I don't even know what those HONK words mean.
Andrew Neil and Nina Warhurst with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry. Guests include Matthew Taylor of the Independent Review of Employment Practices and journalist Louise Mensch. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.