02/10/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



This programme contains some flashing images.


We're live from sunny Birmingham on day one of


the Conservative Party Conference, where, three months after Britain


voted to leave the European Union, the Prime Minister has given


us her first inkling of how she plans to do it.


Morning, folks - welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she will trigger Article 50, starting the two year


process of negotiations that will culminate in Britain


leaving the EU, before the end of March next year.


So Brexit by Easter 2019 - but what kind of relationship


A Great Repeal Bill will also be voted on next Spring,


but won't be enacted until we leave, at which point EU laws will be


And coming up here, an agreement to resolve a bitterly


disputed parade is hailed as a watershed moment.


Jeffrey Donaldson of the DUP and Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly


will join me in studio with their thoughts.


will join me in studio defined by the conservatism of the


Notting Hill set, what now? We explore the potential rise of Sidcup


So far no Great Repeal Act to get rid of the Sunday Politics Panel -


Steve Richards, Rachel Sylvester and Tom Newton Dunn.


It's 100 days since we voted to leave the EU and the clamour has


grown for the Government to tell us what Brexit would look like.


This morning, as the Tory faithful gather in Birmingham,


we still don't expect to be told what Brexit means but we do know


more about the timetable and the extrication process.


A Bill will go before parliament this spring to repeal the 1972


European Communities Act, which legalised our membership


But it won't actually come into force until we leave.


Theresa May also told the Andrew Marr Show that


Article 50 would be invoked by March of next year -


starting the two year process of renegotiation before we leave.


I have been saying we would not trigger it before the end of this


year, so that we get confirmation in place. I will be saying in my speech


today that we will trigger before the end of March next year. The


remaining members of the EU have to decide what the process of


negotiation is. I hope, and I will be saying to them, that now they


know what the time is going to be, it is not an exact date, but they


know it will be the first quarter of next year, that we will be able to


have some preparatory work so that once the trigger comes we have a


smoother process of negotiation. Theresa May, on this channel, just


over an hour ago. What do you make of it? Saggy as you said, we know


more about when but we don't know what Brexit is going to be. We don't


know how the relationship will work out, we don't know what the Prime


Minister's negotiation position will be, we haven't worked out anything


about the free market access and freedom of movement. All of the


substance. It is a significant announcement but we don't actually


know anything really big about what our lives are going to be like in


future. Is there a risk from the Prime Minister? Is there a risk


putting this before Parliament to repeal the 1972 Communities Act?


Undoubtedly. Anything you put before the House of Commons or the House of


Lords, where there is no Tory majority, let alone a Brexit


majority, risks getting amended. She runs the risk. There is also a risk


of not saying this, not having the greater appeal, which is actually a


great repeal act, when is being repealed, but she needed to throw


the Tory right red meat, and they got it this morning. There is always


the potential of a constitutional crisis. If the Lords were to dig in


over this, or even digging over Article 50, demand a vote on that,


lawyers are arguing whether you need it or not, it may not be plain


sailing when you have a majority of 12? It definitely isn't going to be


with a majority of 12. The scope for constitutional crisis is many.


Clashes with the Lords, clashes with the Commons, Scotland is still there


in the background allows a significant factor. It will always


be there, but perhaps in a different context. I don't think this will be


the trigger for a constitutional crisis. You have to admire the


elegant choreography. I was told ages ago that she knew she could not


keep carry on saying Brexit means Brexit, there will have to be new


lines. This is beautiful. We kind of knew that Article 50 was going to be


triggered early in next year. David Davis even said that. It was a fair


bet it would be before Easter. They couldn't spend the next two years


negotiating Brexit and refocusing the entire legislative programme to


spend the next two years rejigging the mountain of legislation we are


affected with. They have turned a logistical, unavoidable


inevitability into a sense of momentum this weekend. Very clever


presentation. There are going to be huge crises to come over this.


Picking off the 1972 Act, putting it all into British law and


legislation, rather than dependent on Europe, that is what the


Brexiteers wanted. To that extent, she has thrown them a bit of red


meat today? Yes, but we still don't know what Brexit is going to be. But


a bit of red meat keeps you going for a while. Maybe get them through


to lunch time. Today or tomorrow? Really just today. The tactic is to


get some stuff about Brexit out, get them talking about that and then


move onto agenda she wants, domestic. What do you think? Good


luck with that! Are you reading my script coming up? It was on the


autocue, I'm sorry! Clearly, she is accessed about not making his


premiership all about Brexit. It will be, but she is desperate. She


needs to define herself away from Brexit, who is Theresa May, what did


she really believe? We have heard whispers, but the next few days as a


chance to do that. The fringe, Liam Fox is talking at two fringes. Two


opportunities for a story. David Davis as well. These two men of


great talent and potentially great ego, they will not be able to stop


themselves having feelings heard. And Boris. Boris who? I have not


seen him on the fringes. Fringe meetings have been quite dull at


party conferences recently. Because of this issue, I think people are


going to pack them out. That is where words might be said, explosive


words. We live for fringe meetings! The PM hopes her announcement


will deal with Brexit on day one so the conference can get on to talk


about other matters. But as you can see from this not


so slim tome - the conference guide- there are plenty of other issues


to talk, maybe even argue about. Our Ellie caught up with two Tory


MPs from different sides of the party before they set off,


to see what they think lies in store # Just can't wait to


get on the road again # The life I love is making


music with my friends # And I can't wait to get


on the road again...# Do you actually enjoy going


to conference? It's not as much fun


as when you're not an MP, because now people want to talk


to you and everybody But do you make contacts,


do you network? Do think Theresa May gets


nervous about conference, I think if you are performing


on a big stage, whoever you are, you ought to have a few


nerves jangling around. But she's a polished performer,


I'm sure she'll know Theresa May will also know she has


several contentious issues she needs It is perhaps not surprising,


then, that day one of We're pretty well balanced


between those of us like myself, representing constituencies


with really high levels of research, science


and agriculture, who will be very keen, but probably pragmatically


understanding that we are not going to hear everything


tomorrow, and the rest of the party who are just


desperate for information. If they don't think the deal


is going in the right way, they will want to say


something about it. I think the time frame


is pretty clear. We are going to trigger Article 50


at some point relatively That means we will get


the negotiations done a good year The rest is going to be


important meat on the bones. But, in terms of the core strategy,


Theresa May goes into this So, a unified front,


albeit perhaps fragile. But then there is the question


of grammar schools. Depends whether we hear


more about it. You know, the concept


in its one-dimensional sense, you can't have a problem


with that, can you? Giving parents choice,


giving bright children the chance But, for me, for many of us,


it has to be a package Our teachers are pretty


stressed and overworked I'm not actually sure


this is the right time. I would rather see emphasis


being put on fairer funding. Constituencies like mine have been


underfunded for decades. If you go into politics


and government scared of your own shadow, unprepared to do


anything bold or brave, I think there is no risk-free


option. Of course, people have different


views on grammar schools and it is a totemic political


issue as well. But I think if you read the green


paper, the Prime Minister has set out a very sensible,


carefully calibrated approach, not just to grammar


schools but the wider The new PM also faces big strategic


decisions on expensive projects like airport expansion,


an area even her Cabinet With all these big infrastructure


projects, HS2, Heathrow, issues around fracking,


nuclear as well, I think we have got to take the right decisions


for the country, make sure Britain Each one of those is


thorny in its own right. But what I think is most important


is we look at it very carefully, That is where we all start to see


the metal in Theresa, Whilst on the one hand,


having a Prime Minister - nobody could have been more


delighted than me that we managed to cut the tax credits changes -


but having a Prime Minister that sticks to her guns,


I'm not for U-turning, How confident are you,


going to this conference, that it is all going to be sorted


and you are going to be Well, people predicted an economic


nosedive after the referendum. People said there would


be political chaos. Actually, the economy


has proved resilient. I think there is a sense of resolve


on all sides of the party on all of these different issues


to get behind this Prime Minister Last year, you got into a bit


of trouble, being quite vocal Some suggestion you weren't


a proper conservative. I think I am absolutely


a proper conservative. I think my party needed reminding


what conservative was. Our job is to help people who need


a leg up. Her opening speech in Downing Street


told me she absolutely is. Like all of these things,


we will hear more about this week. # And I can't wait to get on the


road again. # And we're joined now


by the Transport Secretary, who was a leading Leave campaigner,


Chris Grayling. Welcome back to the programme. The


great repeal act, what exactly does it repeal? It repeal the 1972


European Communities Act. It means the European Court of Justice no


longer has sway in the United Kingdom. It means the European


Commission and Parliament no longer make laws for us. As of today, in


our system, European law is supreme over UK law, and it repeal that.


Except what it does is it consolidates all existing European


legislation into British law. It would be more accurate to call it


the great Consolidation act? Is This is what I argued for during the


League campaign. The remaining campaign said you could not do it,


it will take years, it will be a disaster. My response then is what


it is now, the best way to do it is to consolidate existing legislation,


much of which we will want to keep, the environmental measures, the


workers' rights measures, what we want to do is to make sure we can


get certainty before the event and after the event, for workers,


businesses, but what the legal position will be. Over time, we have


the freedom, outside the European Union, free from the control of the


European Court, to change our legal system in the way that we want. It


does mean we would leave the EU with all of this EU law still part of


British law. Now, what would you wish to change in the aftermath?


There is a whole variety of different things we will be looking


at a change. For example, if you want a practical one, it is unlikely


that after we have left the European Union we will still be paying child


benefits to children that have never even entered the United Kingdom.


That is the kind of thing we will be free to change after we have left.


What else? Much of it we will want to keep, environmental measures, not


all that has been done in the European Union for 40 years has been


bad for Britain. How long will it take to pick all of this after we


leave? Will be down to the Government to decide... Ten years?


20 years? It will take it as long as we choose. What is right and proper


is that on the day after there is a degree of certainty for businesses.


It would not be fair for a company to be operating under a set of


rules, for there to be a cliff edge where they do not know what is going


to happen the day after. Let's make it an evolution, not a revolution. A


lot of the things you have to agree to enter negotiations mean it will


have to remain law even after we leave? This clearly the case that if


a business in this country is continuing to sell a product in the


European Union, it will have to make the standards of the European Union.


Those rules will apply. That is the same if we're selling to the United


States, the rules of the United States would apply to a business


planning to sell a product there. What happens if you lose the vote?


It is inconceivable that Parliament can look at the view of the British


public and ignore it. Parliament voted overwhelmingly for the


referendum to take place in the first place, the people have given a


mandate and I am certain Parliament will fulfil it.


What would happen? You have a majority of only 12 and there was a


majority for remain in the Commons and there is a large majority in the


house of lords. If the parliament does not seamlessly agree for what


you call the great repeal act, what would happen? Both houses are full


of Democrats and they will respect the will of the people. But we could


be faced with a constitutional crisis? We have taken the decision


to leave and parliament voted for the referendum and it is


inconceivable that Parliament would not allow that process to go


forward. If the inconceivable happen, you'd have to cores and --


call an election. Inconceivable is a bit of a stretch. Plenty of voices,


particularly in the House of Lords, would use this as a an opportunity


to thwart you. And I don't think the House of Lords will turn around and


say we should not fulfil that. There may be dissenting voices but they


will view it as a democratic mandate that we have to fulfil. Has your


party don soundings in the Commons to make sure you can get this


through? I've not been involved in that discussion but parliament will


respond to the will of the people. That's the way this country works.


That's what you hope. We shall see how it works. We've been told by the


Prime Minister this morning that article 50 will be triggered by the


end of March. That means that we are out by Easter 2019. Can you confirm


that those British members of the European Parliament currently in


Strasberg, there will be no more for them after this. If we have left by


the end of the two-year period. It is technically possible to extend


it. After that period, there wouldn't be EP is after that point


in 2019. -- MEPs. For Brexit to mean Brexit, the famous phrase, which is


basically tautology. It would mean the freedom to have our own trade


laws. It would mean the ability to do that? You are leading me to


answer questions about the specific legal structures. It means our own


free-trade deals? Correct. It would mean we are no longer subject to the


rules of the European Court of Justice. Also correct. And we would


have whatever control we desire over immigration? The Prime Minister has


been clear that we need to control the flow of immigration into the


country. Any of these counts as out from being a member of the single


market. So can we agree that there is no way we can remain a member of


the single market? There is no such thing as a member of the single


market. There are a number of different trading agreements within


the EU. We are effectively a member of the single market now but we


can't be after this. The question you have asked me, do we want to be


Norway, Switzerland, Canada when it comes to trading arrangements? We


want to be the United Kingdom. We are the biggest customer of German


car-makers, French farmers... I don't want to have the referendum


fight again. It seems as black as black or as White is white that if


you want all of that we cannot be a member, we can have access on terms


yet to be agreed, we will have a relationship, but why cannot you say


that we won't be a member in the way that we are currently a member of


the single market? We won't be a member of the European Union but


there is no such thing as a member of the single market. There is no


single market in services, for example. There is but it is not as


developed as goods. I believe we will end up with a trading


partnership with the European Union on terms to be agreed that will work


for both of us. Access but not membership. You cannot be a fully


paid-up member of the single market without the European Court of


Justice ruling on it and you don't want that. I don't understand your


problem. Your pre-merging -- prejudging the outcome of


negotiations. We want the best possible trading arrangements with


European neighbours and that is what we will work towards. Where


different to the other countries that have been involved in these


negotiations before. We have heard all that before in the referendum


and we wanted some clarity on what it would mean. Transport, when will


you give is the decision on runway expansion? I'm not going to set a


date today. I've spent the summer looking at the three different


options. We have three very well presented packages. The airport


commission has looked at it carefully and the Prime Minister and


I want to understand the options in detail and understand the strengths


and weaknesses of each and we will reach our decision shortly. I'm not


going to set a date on it. Shortly means in this year, surely. I don't


want to wait unnecessarily long to take the decision but nor do I want


to set a date so to to work towards that. Will there be a free vote? I


need to identify the best option for Britain and take the best possible


approach to get the support of parliament Porritt. Will there be a


free vote? Decisions have not been taken but we will do the best for


the interests of the country. Theresa May has said the options for


an expansion to Heathrow are seriously flawed. Philip Hammond has


described the Heathrow option as dead as a Norwegian parrot. Can you


be sure that the Prime Minister and Anna Chancellor will vote for your


proposal? We are looking at three options that are very new. One of


them is Heathrow. Warrant -- they are very different options to what


has been proposed in the past. They are all very well crafted proposals.


They are interesting and have potential and we need to decide.


That is why I am asking you. HS2, high-speed train, can you state


categorically it will go ahead? It's due to start construction in the


spring. The hybrids Bill Haas to continue its passage through the


house of law -- the hybrid Bill Haas to continue through its passage in


the house of lords. Will it be 2026? Will it be on-time and on budget?


The select committee of MPs said it is unlikely and will certainly be


over budget. I expected be absolutely clear and on -- expected


to be absolutely on-time and on budget. The latest estimate for


phase one, the core cast is ?14 billion but there is contingency on


top of that. How much? It is set to Treasury rules. It is always going


to be over. If you really believed in the Northern powerhouse wouldn't


this money be better spent instead of making it quicker to come to and


Birmingham from London in under 90 minutes, which you already can,


wouldn't it be better to spend the money on state of the art road links


between East and West in the north. I think we need to do both. We can't


get more freight onto rail without creating more space. By taking fast


trains off the West Coast main line which is already busy and put fast


freight trains onto the new route, you create more capacity for places


like Milton Keynes Dons Northampton, Coventry. It is about making sure we


have a transport system that can cope with the demands of the


21st-century. Thank you very much. Now, as we speak, voters in Hungary


are going to the polls to vote on whether to accept mandatory EU


quotas for relocating migrants. The country's government has been


campaigning for voters to reject the EU's proposals and has run


a highly controversial campaign, accusing migrants of terrorism


and crime - and the Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said today he'll


quit if the country votes In response to the ongoing migrant


crisis, the EU wants to establish a permanent European resettlement


programme, under which, member states must take their fair


share of asylum seekers, depending on the size of each


country's population and economy. If countries refuse,


the European Commission has proposed that they would incur a financial


penalty of 250,000 euros per person, to cover the cost of another


country taking them. Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter


Szijjarto said the plan Last year, Hungary rejected


an emergency EU plan that would have seen tens of thousands of refugees


transferred out of the country in return for accepting a quota


of almost 1300 refugees As an EU border country,


Hungary has received 18,500 In 2015, it received the most asylum


applications relative to its population of any EU state -


1800 for every 100,000 local people, though the majority of those then


travelled onwards to other Although the referendum


result will have no affect on the EU's decision,


the Hungarian government hopes the weight of public opinion


will help it resist the plans, running a very controversial


referendum campaign. For example, this poster saying


migrants carried out We're joined now from Budapest


by our Correspondent, Nick Thorpe. I understand that the polls are


pretty clear that the government will win this referendum but it


needs a turnout of at least 50% for it to matter. What indication of


turnout so far? As of 11am, turnout was just over 16% of the electorate.


We have an electrode of 8.3 million, the government is campaigning


strongly for a no vote. The government have framed the question


in such a way that it is hard to vote, yes, we do want this imposed


on us. The issue of turnout is important because the opposition


have campaigned not to vote or to spoil votes. Even if the government


wins on the numbers, if more people vote against the quotas, is it a


symbolic defeat for the government if that was to happen? Some people


will argue it would be a symbolic defeat if they don't get 50%. We've


heard that ministers are backing off the whole issue of turnout. They are


hoping for at least 3 million people to vote. Even 4 million which would


be the 50%, voting no to migrant quotas. They say that all of those


votes will give them a strong moral hand. In the words of the Prime


Minister, it will sharpen the Hungarian sword in the battles


ahead. Thank you very much. Malin Bjork is Swedish


MEP and Vice Chair of the Confederal Group


of the European United Left Welcome to the programme. The quota


system proposed already seem to be dying if the Hungarians vote the way


they are expected to today, that will kill it, will it not? I think


we should have it as a point of departure whether we have seen that


Hungary is a model in any of the fields that we want hungry -- Europe


to be. I don't think Hungary is the model. I don't think we should give


him the kind of weight that he actually claims. He wants more


weight to this referendum. I don't think we should give it to him.


It is not just Hungary, is it? There are meant to be 100,000 migrants


covered by the quota system, fewer than 5% have been covered by it. It


is just not happening, whether Hungary votes for or against? No, it


is totally... But that means it is not operational, it is simply not


working. There are serious criticisms to have towards


implementing partners in this. But I do think when it comes to the


political course, Hungary is playing a very dangerous, racist and right


nationalist game. I don't think we should adapt to it. If it comes to


it, we have to be prepared to be behind those that do not want to be


the Europe that is taking responsibility globally. Let me


clarify what you mean by that. The Foreign Minister of Luxembourg has


already said that Hungary should be expelled from the European Union. Is


that what you are saying as well? No, no. You know what I think? As a


progressive politician on the left side, I do have a lot of criticisms


to the European Union. But there are planets apart from the kind of


models that Viktor Orban is trying to build, where he does not respect


human rights, laws and media freedoms, and now he attacks refugee


rights. Given all of that, let's accept what you say is true about


that, others may dispute it, but let's accept that as true, why


should Hungary remain a member of the European Union? Well, it is up


to each country that has voted to stay, and voted to become members,


voting to stay, I don't think Orban has any intention of leaving EU. I


think he wants more influence in the EU. I think he wants more influence


domestic league through the referendum and more influence in the


EU. The question the rest of the countries have to ask themselves is


if we are going to give it to him or adapt to his politics in any of


these fields he is active in? I think we should make a stand against


it. We should have political forces in other countries that have exactly


the same kind of agendas, which we don't want to see strengthened.


Isn't the problem that may be Hungary is on the trend, and you are


not? We have seem the right, some may call it the far right even, on


the march in Austria, Poland and in Hungary, even in Germany, with the


recent elections in Berlin and Angela Merkel's backyard, even


progressive social Democratic Sweden, your third biggest party is


now the Sweden, Democrats, a hard right nativist party. Why are forces


on the move, and while the forces used and four on the defensive? The


more progressive forces, I think they are growing in many countries


also, such as Spain, Ireland and other countries. It is not just for


the left, it is for the broader political spectrum to counteract


nationalist, right-wing and racist forces. We know where they lead, a


dead end. It is a challenge in the European countries. Why is Europe


going in this direction? In 2016, why are the forces of the rights so


strong? To be honest, I think we have to be a little bit more humble


and say are we failing people in some way? Yes, austerity policies


are not working. Inequalities have grown for over 20 years in Europe.


Of course it is a failure. We are capable of saving banks, but not


refugees. People see this. It is political failure and I think we


have to sit down and create different pacifists. What is


happening now is worrying. I see some of the political forces in


Europe. -- create different patterns. I see parties in Europe


adapting to racism nationalist voices. I think we have to be the


different parties that will not adapt to nationalist stories. They


paint imaginary enemies. A huge chunk of Hungary's public spending


comes from the European Union, net contributors like Sweden and the


United Kingdom. If Hungary votes this way, should that continue?


Should we continue to bankroll it? The way Europe and the European


Union, individual members develop, of course we should lead discussions


about money and heel spending to the respect for rule of law, the respect


for human rights and the respect for international rights that are being


infringed by the Hungarian government. Of course, we have to


have such a discussion and it has to be frank.


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.


An agreement to resolve a bitterly disputed parade has been hailed


We ask, how can the two communities in North Belfast


And is this deal a sign that perhaps all contentious parades


That's what I'll be discussing with Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly


And our commentators, Chris Donnelly and Lesley Carroll -


both, of course, with strong links to North Belfast -


And we'll hear live from Stephen Walker in Birmingham


Does the ending of one of the most contentious parades in recent years


mean that all disputes can now be dealt with and agreed locally?


Just over 24 hours ago an Orange Order parade past Ardoyne


shops ended the three-year protest camp at nearby Twaddell Avenue,


with a residents' organisation and the Orange Order


committing themselves to a forum which will agree


With me now to reflect on the wider implications of yesterday's


resolution of such a seemingly intractable problem


are Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly - an MLA for North Belfast,


of course - and the DUP's Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.


Welcome to the programme. Gerry Kelly, first of all.


Is that the Twaddell issue dealt with once and for all in your view?


Interestingly, the last commentary was seemingly intractable and that


has been a difficulty, we never thought of it as tractable. A line


runs through all the local issues about having conversation, people


have been in conflict for a long time. There have been conversations,


we have an agreement around evening parades which were most contentious


and it augurs well for expanding out, into wider conversations about


what we can do in the wider area without the issue of contentious


parades jumping into the middle every time you try to talk with


someone of a different opinion. What is your understanding about the


agreement on future parades? The agreement says there is a moratorium


and a forum will be setup and if there is an agreement, the


moratoriums... But if that is an agreement, presumably unionists


would point out to be an agreement that isn't the case that


nationalists will never reach such an agreement? There is a chance the


two interpret it differently. You wore a journalist and will try to


interpret this. I know that's what people are saying on but the general


view of people in Ardoyne is that the parade cause all sorts of


difficulties in the area, especially in community relations. The view of


the Orange Order is that they want to move on, why do we have an


agreement? There was talk about trust but agreement either because


there is a lack of trust. We have an agreement that says one will do a if


the other does B, so we're at the point of conversations meaning


something. The Orange Order did what they said they would do, the Crumlin


Ardoyne Residents' Association did what they said they would do and we


will move on, but I hope the wider issues will be dealt with without


this difficulty. To be clear, is it your understanding that those from


the nationalist side of the hosts who go into that forum understand


that it is a possible outcome that there would be a future or future


parades home in future? Everybody understands that if you have a forum


and the dialogue, and it will be face to face, they will discuss the


outcomes. And all outcomes are on the table? Yes, and it is up to CARA


and the Orange Order to deal with that. I do not want to start dealing


with what will be a job for them to do, but as a politician in the area,


there are wider issues we can now hopefully have relationships which


are not just one or two but 50 people from Ardoyne were from


Twaddell Avenue talking to each other. Jeffrey Donaldson, you


believe the forum will make progress of the outstanding issues like


return parades? I believe it can. I think dialogue and local


accommodations are the way forward. In 2010 when we last brought forward


proposals for dealing with parades in its wider context, this is the


kind of template we envisaged for dealing with local parade disputes


and I welcome this. I think it is a good sign, I hope both sides will


not engage in good faith and I have no reason to believe they weren't,


and they will find an accommodation that addresses the Parades


Commission. But you will be aware that the charge against the


agreement is that there is a healthy dollop of constructive ambiguity in


their and it is possible for the two sides to read it differently. And


that has been the case with many agreements. Yes, we are very good at


it here. The big challenge is whether people make the most of what


is in front of them. I am encouraged by what I have heard, I think people


will make the best of it, people are approaching this with the best


intentions, there isn't a hidden agenda to overcome the immediate


problem, you walk off the road and that is the end of it. I don't think


that is where we are coming from. You are now a fan of constructive


ambiguity? In the past you railed against it, you wanted everything to


be out in the open and no subtext, now you are saying it isn't bad. I


said it has been a reality that has marked the peace process. What we


have done is make the best and to draw upon what is available to make


things work in Northern Ireland and that is what we have done. Different


people will interpret agreements in different ways, even if there wasn't


constructive ambiguity that would be the case anyway and that is the


reality of life here. The question of where we go now, people honoured


what they said they would do yesterday and that is encouraging


and they followed through. Secondly it is about leadership and I believe


there is good leadership on both sides that can help resolve this


issue for the longer term in North Belfast, but also there were lessons


we can draw from this for the wider parading issue. Let me disagree on


this, it's not constructive ambiguity. There is a statement in


the agreement which says that there is a moratorium from yesterday,


that's not constructive ambiguity. It is if the two sides read it


differently. But they aren't reading it differently. You said you were


also hearing on the grounds that different individuals read things


differently. If I didn't say it clearly, is I said it was obvious on


the ground that people of the Ardoyne did not want the parades


through and the Orange Order want the parades through, that is a fact.


The agreement is understood by both sides to mean exactly what it says


and all these agreements are pretty well crafted. Let me bring in the


commentators and hear what they have to say. Chris Donnelly, you read


that statement with a degree of constructive ambiguity? Can't you


see how both sides of the dispute could interpret it differently or do


you think it's black and white? I think it's important to be honest,


technically speaking the GARC spokespersons said that had Sinn


Fein not offer a disparate, there would never have been returned


parade, because then it begins to shape why they made this offer of


the steel and I think it was because of the perspective of Sinn Fein are


the DUP, they wanted to be seen to reach a hand-out, the loyalists and


the Orange Order had dug themselves into a hole, by making themselves 81


and done deal, this parade will not be repeated, this is where the


ambiguity comes in, because of the term moratoriums it is very unlikely


there will be a deal and only the Irish News has mentioned that


publicly because politicians have been dancing around it. I do not


envisage return parades for the foreseeable future. I think the


reason why this parade offer was made was to create the ground in


which he linked and reconciliation can take place and we can move on.


That is the point I am trying to get that, that for unionists who are


party to this agreement, they still hope there will be future parades.


Chris seems to suggest there is no appetite for that in the nationalist


community, hence make use of the phrase constructive ambiguity. Yes,


and that may be the case but both sides to this understand that this


is not all about parading, there are a lot of issues underneath which


contribute to how each of the sides feel and what they expect in the


future, so what I understand this agreement to do is creating that


space in which all those issues can be addressed, parading as part of it


but when you were in a forum where 50 people will encounter each other,


they will talk about education and social deprivation, information


sharing, a big issue for the loyalist committee, they don't feel


they get information and that now needs to happen inside the forum.


Maybe that is the point Jeffrey was making, it is not just going to be a


forum discussing future return parades, it's a much bigger agenda.


In my opinion it has to be, not necessarily in the forum but the


dialogue, the process of conversation has to be broadened


out. There are good relationships, and Lesley and Chris know this,


there have always been good relationships across the political


views but they are nearly individual relationships. What I want to see,


and I think this gives the start to it, is the ability for people on a


weekly basis to be talking about all things like Lesley said which mean


something to people and that is what has been difficult to get in North


Belfast. Interesting, Jeffrey, it's good to have you with us. We were


not able to find a single unionist who would take part in the


discussion on The View on Thursday night. We have heard claims recently


and going back several years of an absence of leadership by the main


unionist parties on this issue. Do you accept that? Know, and I think


people may have been reluctant to speak on Thursday because before the


events of yesterday people did not want to be drawn into saying


something... Gerry Kelly was happy to take part. That is a call for


Sinn Fein to make but I do not think it is about the lack of leadership.


Behind-the-scenes there have been unionist representatives in North


Belfast who have been encouraging this process. But not standing up in


public and defending it. I'm here today and doing that. You weren't on


Thursday. We wanted to see how things went. In the past week had


this a few weeks ago and the wheels came off and we didn't want that to


happen. So the unionist leadership didn't back itself to come on and


support the deal. I'm not saying that, I am saying there was a


feeling, let's leave the airways clear for a few days to let this


event takes place and then we can comment, and let me be clear, we


support what has happened, we believe that the accommodation that


has been reached here is something that could be repeated in other


areas. We want to see a broader solution, we recognised that


disputes over parades are symptoms of a deeper problem that we need to


address, we're up for that, the Fresh Start agreement outlines


measures that we intend to take to address these things, so far from


shying away from this, the Fresh Start agreement creates the context


in which we can continue to progress and reach local accommodation as


occurred this weekend. And does that mean the Parades Commission can be


done away with and the Executive office run by your parties can come


up with an alternative to which? I think you are ahead of it there.


That is part of the conversation. I do not think it is time for the


Parades Commission to go away, I would argue this was the hardest


issue we dealt with, we have moved into a new era. I don't like to


overemphasise this but locally and throughout Belfast this is a great


move forward. There are still others and there risk at the red that you


cannot put one on top of another because there are always local


issues but that the red running through it, every negotiation we


have been involved in, once you start talking you work on the right


road. Do you think the time has come for the end of the Parades


Commission? I think there is a basis for moving forward. We outline ideas


in 2010 and I think we can build on those ideas and what happened


yesterday. It's just a couple of hours


until Theresa May's opening address to the Conservative Party conference


and she certainly has everyone's attention with this morning's


announcement that the process to begin withdrawing from the EU


will be triggered before the end of March next year.


At the conference in Birmingham is our political correspondent,


Stephen Walker. That's the date in the diary


everyone's been waiting to hear. How's that announcement


gone down in Birmingham? This morning I have been speaking to


some Conservative Party activists and they were delighted that the


reason of May have said this. We have been having this debate for


months, when with things move forward? She kept saying Brexit


means Brexit and people in the party and media were getting bored by


that, they wanted a new life and people felt she couldn't come to


this conference, she had to say something new. People felt she


couldn't go into the debate today without saying something new so she


said Article 50 will be triggered before March and people in the


Conservative Party are generally pleased and I think she will get a


good reception this afternoon. You've been speaking to Theresa May


about Brexit and its impact on Northern Ireland and,


of course, what it will mean Yes, we had an interview in Downing


Street before the conference, we talked about Brexit and the border,


our first interview talking about Northern Ireland and let's look at


part of that. What we are both clear about, myself and the Irish


government, and the government in Northern Ireland, is that we don't


want to see a return to the borders of the past but we will work closely


together to make sure we can see movement across the water. But you


campaign in Northern Ireland to remain and said a leave vote would


result in some form of tariffs and controls, so have you changed your


mind? I don't think I used those words, I said of course if we leave


and have land border with the EU, that changes that relationship


across the border but what I am clear about what might you said it


would be inconceivable that there wouldn't be some kind of change.


There would be a land border with a country in the EU, but I think all


parties are very clear that there is the intent and will to make sure we


have an arrangement that isn't a return to the borders of the past.


How do you police that? We're discussing how we can develop these


ideas to make sure we deliver on the intention of all parties that we


don't return to the borders of the past. We're looking at Brexit


negotiations and these will take time, there are complexities in


those negotiations but we want to ensure we continue to have a good


relationship with Europe. I want to see over all the UK having the right


deal in terms of trades and goods and services.


What else should we be looking out for over the next few days?


Will the new Secretary of State get his moment in the sun?


Yes, that will be on Tuesday, it will be a busy day. We have that


traditional Ulster fry on Tuesday morning, of -- Arlene Foster and


Francie Molloy and James Brokenshire will be there, he will talk to the


conference and then at lunchtime something unusual, a champagne


reception being hosted by the DUP. That may not have happened in Ian


Paisley's day, I've heard of champagne socialists but this is the


first time I have heard of champagne unionist. An interesting move away


from the Devil's buttermilk, as Ian Paisley would have had it.


Stephen Walker in Birmingham, thank you.


Time now for a look back at the political week in 60


The opposition and set the Assembly, to keep the focus on Nama. People


need to know Northern Ireland is a clean place to do business.


The blame game began as it was revealed that a report


We had a missed opportunity for a party discussion. The party didn't


block it and some of the allegations made like saying Northern Ireland


would take an immediate economic hit have been shown to be false.


And the result of that referendum is causing problems


We have 120 million euros of offers for cross-border prospects and they


are logjam. And as the BBC charter was debated,


one MLA suggested the Assembly It might be interesting to study the


viewing figures of Stormont Today for insomniacs and burglars.


A chippy Danny Kennedy ending Gareth Gordon's look back


And let's have a final word from Chris and Lesley.


To go back to Birmingham, Lesley, and Theresa Walker talking about


Theresa May saying she will trigger Article 50 by the end of next March,


so we know what timescale we are looking at. Its news and it's not


news, we all knew it would soon happen but we now want to know


content. It's great that the snap the beginning and the end but I


would like more content. And more information about the issue of


border controls. She was keen in that interview to stress a different


tone to the one she had before the referendum, she wants to work with


the Irish government to minimise the impact of the border, and also this


week other Tory ex-ministers, John Redwood and Iain Duncan Smith,


prepared their own Brexit blueprint and it shows the path is fraught


with dangers fought to reason makes because other sides want to


emphasise angles. Enda Kenny has said he wants to have this


All-Ireland Brexit conversation in Dublin. The DUP and Full Street


unionists are not going. Is that a mistake? I think it is in that


Brexit matters to the Irish greatly in terms of the border, it has to


matter to us as well and it's better if they all have a conversation.


Edwin Poots was an the view on Thursday night, not interested and


said it was a waste of his time. I think it's the instinctive unionist


hostility to anything All-Ireland but there will be voices that might


open the week unionists, perhaps involved in the CBI for agricultural


interests, who will be keen on having their views expressed and


have another chance to take forward their concerns. It will be


interesting to see when it happens and we will be sitting around the


table. Back to Andrew in London.


a much better job than And we're joined now by the former


Work and Pensions Secretary and Leave campaigner,


Iain Duncan Smith. it you said we could be out of the


European Union by 2018? My senses if you keep their process as simple as


possible and don't try to get special pleading and try to be a


member of the single market which they are not going to grant you, if


you go for a clear and simple position on trade and find an


agreement then the more complex issues then disappear. Theresa May


has said that when she brings the act forward to repeal the 1972 act,


at the same time you binding the European Law and you speed the


process up. Keeping it simple, keeping up pace is what we


recommended. It allows you to get the end point quicker.


You talk about member of the single market, Chris Grayling told me there


was no such thing, which slightly puzzled me. You clearly think that


there is. What you want, as I understand it, is a free-trade


agreement with the European Union. That could not be done by 2018? We


want free trade. There are two approaches to getting free trade


with the European Union. The first is that you say, OK, in this


process, if we sympathise and ask ourselves, if we now have a new


relationship, we have left, we want capital goods, we want to access


each other's markets, it benefits you more than us, but we are happy


not to have tariff barriers on your trade, we have an agreement of no


tariff barriers. Financial services are outside, a separate issue, more


of a regulatory issue. That is also approaching a deal on equivalence


that we could accelerate. The point I am saying is if you do not go down


the road trying to nominate individual bits and pieces and say


it is a good agreement for us both, you could reach that by agreement.


If you don't and you can't, you could fall back on the WTO


arrangements and say, well, later on, we will continue that


negotiation discussion to decide whether or not we want a free-trade


position. If you fall back on that, what you say to the boss of Nissan,


who says he will not invest again in this unless the government back row


compensates him, he faces tariffs? The answer to that is that first of


all I did not believe we will end up in a situation where it is, in any


way, a financial benefit for the European Union to want to impose any


kind tariff. Right now you are 12% better off anyway. The level of the


pound has made it 12% more competitive with European partners,


even if you slapped on 10% tariff. It goes up and down, but you asking


him to take investment decisions, multi-billion pound decisions, head


of Jaguar, saying roughly the same thing, at a time of real


uncertainty. Until it is resolved, investment in Britain will slow


down, if not dry up? They invest because this is a darn good place to


sell your businesses. You heard from the head of the publishing sector in


Germany, he said Britain in five years' time will be much more


profitable than anywhere else and will be the boom place. Outside the


European Union it will be more flexible to set out arrangements. I


am with him on this. I was in business before I came into


politics. Nobody knows what the future holds for anything. For car


makers and others that want to build stuff, they are here because they


want a flexible workforce, much lower levels of cost, and a much


better contract law base. 85% of Nissan's output goes to the single


market. That is right, they also sell here. 15%? You are not suddenly


going to meet a massive tariff wall, a closet is not in the interests of


the European Union to set up a massive tariffs. Guess who sells


more to us than we do to them? The European Union. The Germans


themselves are behind-the-scenes talking to us. We had a lot of that


during the referendum. Let me move onto some other things. Damian Green


is now running your old department. He is scrapping repeated tests for


the seriously disabled, people that you know are not going to be able to


improve. Why didn't you do that? We wanted to change this, it was a


programme given to us by the last Labour government, we did quite a


lot to improve it. The big problem, the programme as it exists at the


moment, it does not deal with health conditions, it deals with ability to


work. That is the problem. If you want to scrap it for people with


health conditions, you have to change the criteria by which they


are being assessed. That has always been the issue. For disability


payments, it is a different matter. They are assessed on their


condition. The problem for that... He will stop the assessments of


people that are seriously disabled, why didn't you do that? This is not


seriously disabled, it is people that suffer from sickness


conditions, not necessarily full-time disability. There are two


elements. When I was in Government, we have always set out a process


that said we needed to change the way the sickness benefit system was


assessed. That was so you could rule out conditions, some progressive,


some absolute, on a medical basis, on the approval of the Health


Service, so they would say this is a condition that will change, it will


mean they cannot work now but they might be able to work for a bit. You


put it into a box marked medical conditions. That was already on the


box. He has just done that, to acclaim. Why didn't you do it, if it


is that simple? We needed to get agreement in Government and we have


not reached the Provo ease approval. It is a wider plan. This could have


been incremented on its own? But you have to change the way you do it. I


was in favour of a bigger plan that brought in changes all into one,


because they are competing with each other and do not have the kind of


effect that you want. It is the right thing to do. Until now, there


have not been a huge number of assessments taking place because the


system has not been able to cover it. There is a lot of talk about


trying to reposition the Tory party on the centre ground, even the


centre-left, talking about worker's rights and so on. It is not credible


until she does something. 6 million people earn less than the Living


Wage, after six years of Conservative government. 6 million


people earn less than the Living Wage. That is the reality, not Tory


erect a wreck that we are hearing in the hall. -- that is the Tory


rhetoric. Raising the minimum wage was making sure that you identify


that and raise the blood. There are still 6 million below. The mantra of


this government was to make work pay. 50% of families in poverty have


at least one family member working. They are still in poverty, waiting,


doing difficult and unpleasant jobs, long hours, they are still in


poverty. Many people in this country work and still it is the equivalent


of poverty. That does not pay, work does not pay for them. Huge problems


down the low skill level of work. This is the one area, the level of


skills at that point is arguably some of the lowest in the Western


world. Companies too often do not invest in skills because of the


nature of the tax credit system, you have them in packets of 16 hours, it


is not worth investing. Universal Credit will change all of that quite


dramatically. It allows people to work more of the hours, invest more


in them. The second aspect is back to the migration issue. That has had


a very damaging effect on low workers. There are two elements of


this. It is not just the statutory migration, it is that what happened


is that a lot of people come for under one year. They do part-time


work, they claim full benefits, Migration Watch proved it is over 4


billion per year. That allows them to go and do cash in hand work. It


is a big problem, it has only now become clear how damaging that has


become to British people working at low income level. What does this


party, if it is this self-styled Workers Party, what does it have to


do in a country where 6 million people get less than the Living


Wage, 50% of people in poverty are already in work and poverty levels


among those in work are at record levels. So much for the worker's


party? The answer is it has to do a lot, we have been talking about


Brexit a lot, Theresa May has dropped a lot of hints about what


she wants to do. The announcement yesterday morning about this massive


review, led by a Blairite, Matthew Taylor, to completely re-examine


employment rights. Thereby meaning, for the low paid and the casual


workers, holiday pay for Uber drivers, it opens a massive area of


things, grammar schools... You need high-quality technology schools to


up-skill its? She has all of this on her agenda, possibly more


interesting than even Brexit. I was planning not to mention Brexit in


this segment, but I think I did. There was a lot of flesh to be put


on his bones before it is convincing? Theresa May is playing a


political game of trying to dump the nasty party image, become a more


compassionate conservative. She is changing from the David Cameron era,


instead of being the bottom 10% or 15% of people that he was focusing


on, as well as the wealthier elite, she is looking at the people earning


more than ?16,000, up to ?21,000, those who have children that are not


on free school meals, not the most deprived, she calls them the just


managing classes, they might have one for holiday each year, they


might want to send their kids to piano lessons or the local Football


Club, they are not the poorest people on welfare. That could have


an impact on what you're saying, it could also undermine her reputation


for being compassionate if she is seen to be abandoning the people


that need help most. There is always a political case for doing something


for Middle Britain, where most people are. They call at Middle


America over there and so on. But these are not the in work but in


poverty. Being a worker's party, one that dines out on its support for


work, if it is to do anything, it has to do something about these


people? The key issue is what the economic policies are in this new


government. Nobody on the programme this morning has talked about the


deficit, which George Osborne framed everything around, to the point


where, as they know better than anyone, he struggles to get welfare


reforms affected because of our budget cuts that hit those on low


income in work. Until we know the degree to which the framing of that


deficit strategy has changed, we will not really know the space they


will have to make sure that does not happen over the next few years and


the opposite happens. That applies to all of these issues, actually.


The economy will provide the space, or not, to do these things. The


Treasury is telling the Chancellor that the slowdown in the economy,


not as slow as they thought, but still a slowdown, that, in itself,


will widen the deficit. Therefore, he is not going to have a tonne of


money to throw around on top of that, which would widen the deficit


even further. There is room for manoeuvre which may be quite slight?


Not quite true. He has abandoned George Osborne's fiscal targets.


Having already taken this into account by what they think is the


slowing of the economy. They have been wrong in the past, but that is


why they have done that. There is not a turn of money around to spend


billions on infrastructure, unless, of course, like Mr Corbyn, you want


to borrow it. When you say you are not going to eradicate the deficit


by 2020, that is what you mean. If he needs to cushion the Brexit


impact, if there is one, I don't think we could pay off the deficit


by 2020. Then you'll have all of this money to do what you want with.


Final thought? There is also the attitude about business and the


attitude to the super rich and well. I think Theresa May will concentrate


on that more than David Cameron, alleviating concerns. The Autumn


Statement from the Chancellor will be as big as any of the statements


we hear this week. I am glad to hear it, it will be coming up live on a


Daily Politics special. at the Conservative Party


conference here in Birmingham. Fear not, I'll be back tomorrow


at 11am for a two-hour special as Chancellor Philip Hammond


takes to the stage. We are back on Tuesday and Wednesday


bringing Theresa May's speech on Wednesday just before lunch. We will


be back next Sunday as well. In the meantime, remember -


if it's Sunday, it's


Download Subtitles