03/12/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics -

your essential guide to the biggest

political stories of the week.

Coming up on today's show...

Ahead of a crucial EU summit,

is Theresa May on the brink

of a breakthrough on Brexit?

Or, after a slightly torrid week,

is she in danger of being

overtaken by events?

The ex-Labour minister

Alan Milburn quits as chairman

of the Social Mobility Commission,

saying he has "little hope"

the current government can make

the "necessary" progress.

What does this mean

for a Prime Minister who vowed

to fight against the "burning

injustice" of inequality?

And, we speak to the academic who's

carrying out economic "wargaming"

scenarios for the Labour party,

in the event it wins power.

People are going to trust us

with their jobs and their pensions

and their livelihoods.

We've got to show we

know what we're doing.

And coming up here -

the UK is to make its final offer

on Brexit tomorrow -

but has enough work been done

on dealing with the Irish border?

I'll be talking live to Sinn Fein's

Martina Anderson and a Tory MP.

Yes, all that coming

up in the programme.

And to help guide me

through all the week's

twists and turns, I'm

joined by Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott,

and Steve Richards.

Now, the breaking news this morning

is the resignation of Alan Milburn -

the ex-Labour minister who,

for the last five years, has chaired

the Social Mobility Commission.

He says the Government is too

preoccupied with Brexit

to focus on social justice.

We'll be assessing the significance

of that in a moment.

But first, if that relationship has

turned sour for the Prime Minister,

it wasn't the only one this week.

Like all relationships, our liaison

with our European neighbours

has had its ups and downs.

Theresa May wants a deep and special

partnership after Brexit.

Thus far, money has been

the main obstacle to

an amicable divorce.

This week, a possible breakthrough.

He once said "the EU

could go whistle if they

asked for too much," now he's

practically dancing with joy.

It's a fantastic opportunity

now to get going.

Others are always harder to please.

It is not worth nearly

50 billion sterling.

No deal is better than a bad deal

and this is a very bad deal indeed.

Brussels may be on board

with the divorce bill but

there's trouble over

the Irish border.

If the UK offer is unacceptable

for Ireland, it will

also be unacceptable for the EU.

Reports suggest Stormont could be

given more power to agree bespoke

trading arrangements

with the Republic but that, in turn,

enraged Theresa May's

partners in Parliament.

The DUP could walk out

of their marriage of convenience

with the Tories if the Government

allows Northern Ireland to diverge

from the rest of the UK.

If there is any hint that in order

to placate Dublin and the EU,

they are prepared to have

Northern Ireland treated differently

than the rest of the United Kingdom,

then they can't rely on our vote.

But it was the "special

relationship" that came

under most strain.

As Donald Trump re-tweeted

Islamophobia videos,

posted by the far right

group, Britain First.

Denounced by Downing Street,

the President took to Twitter again,

telling Theresa May directly,

"Don't focus on me,

we are doing just fine."

The Prime Minister on a surprise

trip to the Middle East was plunged

into a very public row.

I'm very clear that

re-tweeting from Britain

First was the wrong thing to do.

The May-Trump mini break

in the UK might be off.

I certainly don't think he should be

should be coming next year.

Next year is supposed to be a happy

event for the Royal family.

We certainly don't want Trump

turning up in the middle

of all of that.

Meanwhile, Labour leader and GQ

magazine cover model declared

himself to be an enemy

of greedy bankers.

So, when they say, we're

a threat, they're right.

We are a threat to

a damaging and failed

system that's rigged for the few.

The Prime Minister's

closest political

friend stood in for her

at the dispatch box on Wednesday

while she was abroad but fresh

questions emerged later

in the week about

whether he'd used a Parliamentary

computer to view pornography

some nine years ago.

Theresa May will meet be EU

Commission President

Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow.

They will discuss the revised

offer on the divorce

bill and whether talks

can now move on to trade

post-Brexit.

It has not been an easy

relationship with leaks from

previous meetings finding their way

into the German press.

Hopefully, they can put

all of that behind them.

So, we will talk through one of the

top stories for the week with our

panel in the studio. We are going to

be looking ahead to what is

happening in Brussels. The Prime

Minister is going over for a working

lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker

tomorrow. We are always saying we

have reached a critical stage in the

negotiations.

Is it a critical

point? It is. It is endgame of

chapter one. There are two chapters,

divorce and then trade. This is the

end of the first half, at the 43rd

minute. It is probably 0-0. We need

to get over the line and into

half-time and into the second half.

Wyatt is so critical is the Prime

Minister, in the next few days, she

cannot wait till the 14th or 15th of

December, have to choose to govern

is to choose. One side is saying

this is what we will act set to move

on to the second phase and the

Eurosceptics will say, we will not

access to any of that. She has to

get off the fence. One is what they

will do about easy JN the other

about the Irish border. To divert or

not diverged?

This is only the end

of the first half of the process. If

the EU agrees we can move onto the

second half. That is not guaranteed,

is it?

Tom's analogy, I will not go

too far with it because I'm not a

football expert. Brexiteers feel it

is more like 1-0 to the EU. There is

a circulation today, leave means

leave, which is signed by eminent

business people and academics. Only

a few MPs, about five of them on

now. We were discussing this earlier

and Tom made the point it is quite a

hostile thing for a Tory MP to sign

a letter like this. Many more agree

with the contents of the letter,

which sets out the set of conditions

the PM must not agree to, in their

view, must not capitulate to as the

negotiation goes forward. It is

about when free movement of people

ends and we retain the power to go

to WTO if all else fails.

We be

discussing this further with our

guests and find out what the EU had

think about it. The other big news

of the morning is that Alan Milburn

resigned from the social mobility

commission. He told and remarked

earlier why. -- Andrew Marr.

In various social mobility roles,

I've served a Labour Prime Minister,

a coalition Prime Minister,

and now, a Conservative one.

I've done so because I care deeply

about the issue and I believe

that it matters profoundly

to the country.

I've reached the conclusion, sadly,

that with the current government,

there is little if any hope

of progress being made

towards the fairer Britain

that the Prime Minister

has talked about.

The Government, probably

for understandable reasons,

is focused on Brexit,

and seems to lack the bandwidth

to be able to translate the rhetoric

of healing social division

and promoting social justice

into a reality.

That is a pretty damning statement,

the Government does not have the

bandwidth to do with anything other

than Brexit.

It is true. Brexit is

sucking up all political energy much

practical energy in Whitehall.

Beyond that, the significance of

this is not huge. I think these

commissions float uneasily in

government. If you make policy on

social justice, you can do that

within a government department if

you are serious about it. I think it

was set up partly with good

intentions in the coalition period,

partly to break off the Blairites

from Labour and get them involved

with these so called modernising

Conservative project, and the fact

that it is ending, I don't think in

itself is significant. But he is

absolutely... By the way they were

never entirely clear on policy

terms. The fact he said I am not a

status quo nor am I with Theresa

May, what are going to be the

mediating agencies? There are some

huge issues to address. Whether this

was the appropriate way to do it in

the first place, I have doubts about

it.

Thank you for that.

Well, to pick up on all of that,

I'm joined by the former

Conservative leader, Michael Howard.

Thank you for coming in. Let's start

with the claim by Alan Milburn that

the Government does not have the

time or capacity to do anything

other than Brexit. That must be a

concern to you as well.

I think he

is wrong. I share his concern about

social mobility. When I was the

leader of the Conservative Party

used to make speeches about the

British dream and the importance of

social mobility. There is always

more to be done but we have actually

made a lot of progress. Can I give

you some examples? We would all

agree that education is key to

social mobility. We have 1.9 million

children now, 1.9 million children

more than in 2010 in good or

outstanding schools.

His complaint

was not that nothing has been done

since 2010 but nothing can be done

now.

It is still happening. Income

inequality is at its lowest level

for 30 years. More taxes being paid

than under the Labour years. One of

the worst things that can happen to

a child is to live in a workless

household. The number of workless

households has been shrinking. And

implement is at its lowest level

since 1975.

-- unemployment. Theresa

May, when she became Prime Minister

last year, said this is a country of

burning injustice.

It is. There is

always more to be done. You say it

is in the past. This morning we have

had an announcement that a

considerable amount of extra money

will be devoted in helping children

facing mental health challenges in

our schools. That is important as

well in relation to social mobility.

Of course there is more to be done.

I think quite a lot of progress has

been made on social mobility and

should not forget that.

Let's move

on to wrecks it. You will have read

reports that she will offer a

divorce bill somewhere between 40

billion and 50 billion euros, maybe

slightly more. You said back in

April that you would be astonished

if the bill was anything like 50

billion euros for the you must be

producer prize.

We all started off

with aspirations. -- you must be

pretty surprised. I do not know what

the sum will be. Whatever it is it

will be a fraction of the amount we

have paid into the European Union

over the last 40 years and would pay

into the European Union for the next

40.

You are now fairly relaxed about

something around this mark?

I have

confidence in the Prime Minister and

David Davis. I want to let them

decide what is the best deal. I'm

confident we'll get a good deal. I'm

confident in the Prime Minister and

David Davies.

You know the more

money we spend on the divorce the

more bashes nevertheless many we

have to spend on other things. Our

guest last week felt it had to be

delivered to keep faith in the

process.

In the budget a few days

ago the Government promised more

than an extra £350 million for the

health service, running into almost

£2 billion.

They did not promise

that in the budget?

Over time, more

money will be available when we are

out. These payments, I don't know

what the sum would be, are going to

be spread out over many years. The

annual bill will not be anything

like that. In the end there will be

more money to spend on the health

service and other desirable things

because we will not have to make

this very large, annual contribution

we were making.

You have always been

a committed Eurosceptic. Do not

worry that the European Union seem

to be having it their way? They

wanted to discuss divorce before the

trade deals. We agreed to that. The

divorce bill seems to have gone up

substantially since Theresa May was

speaking in her Florence speech.

They are getting what they want as

we are going through the process and

we seem to be capitulating.

I do not

think that is fair. There is a huge

amount of posturing, which always

goes on in negotiations. The

approach of the European Union is in

breach of Article 50. Article 50

says the arrangements for the

departure of a member state have to

take into account the future

relationship of that state with the

European Union. You cannot take

something into account if you are

not prepared to talk about it. They

are in breach of Article 50. That is

the approach they have chosen. I am

confident. I think we will move

forward to the next phase, to pursue

Tom's analogy, I hope they will not

be injury time at the end of the

first half and I hope we will get an

agreement this month and then we can

start talking turkey.

Do you agree

with the leave means leave letter in

the paper today without demanding

the UK be free to sign employment

trade deals and note end to

restriction is by the European Court

of Justice?

I share the aspirations

contained in the letter.

You did not

sign it.

No.

Did they ask you to?

No. I am not inclined to make

demands at this stage. I think they

should be allowed to get on with the

negotiations. I have confidence in

their ability to do so. I'm

confident that in the end will get a

good deal in the interests of the UK

and of the European Union because

there is a great commonality of

interest between the two of us to

have a good relationship, a deep and

special relationship the Prime

Minister has spoken of.

You are

trying not to be a back-seat driver.

As a former leader of the Tory Party

you probably understand how annoying

that will be that you are an

interested party entitled to your

view on this. Iain Duncan Smith is

in the papers saying how important

it is to end the authority of the

European Court of Justice. Is that a

red line for you?

I have every confidence in the Prime

Minister and in David Davis and I

think they will end up with a good

deal.

They're just going to pick up

with our panel here. Listening to

Michael Howard there, very carefully

trying not to step on the Prime

Minister's toes, but clearly he

shares some sympathy with people who

do want to put some red lines on

her?

I know Michael Howard is a

forensic follower of politics, so

I'm surprised he is completely

confident about Theresa May

delivering this, given that when she

returned from the last summit, when

she made her House of Commons

statement, she was clear, to my

surprise, actually, that during the

transition, I am not surprised in

how it turned out but I am surprised

she was so clear, that the European

court would hold some sway. It has

two, because if the transition is to

be effective, it means one way or

another we will still sort of be in

the single market and Customs union

for a time and therefore the

European court will hold some sway.

And she said it. I saw Jacob

Rees-Mogg's response of horror. But

she did say it. And so that is

already I think part of the

equation. So the response of her

Brexiteers on this will be pivotal.

Iain Duncan Smith is not alone in

being absolutely resolute that the

ECJ will have nothing to do with

Britain?

Absolutely, and I think

that the concern amongst the harder

line Brexiteers is that this

transitional arrangement is a

continuation of the status quo, and

that it might even slip. Now, the

Prime Minister has try to be

reassuring on that, and there have

been indications it might slip a few

weeks but definitely not longer. But

I think that Brexit MPs want more

assurances that this will not end up

just being kicked into the long

grass.

Will those assurances be

given?

I don't think they will be.

She is going to have to compromise.

The other choice is to walk away. A

perfectly admirable choice but it is

a choice she needs to make. The

interesting question is, what do

these people plan to do about it?

What does Michael Howard plan to do

if the £45 billion bill, which he is

now accepting, it would appear, the

four MPs and some other quite senior

party figures, what do they plan to

do if the Prime Minister

compromises? Will they vote against

it, will they put their considerable

legislative weight, which Michael

Howard could do in the House of

Lords, against it?

Even though

you're being very diplomatic today,

is there a point at which you would

speak out if something you saw as

fundamentally unacceptable occurred?

That is a very hypothetical

question, Sarah!

The idea that you

might find something out of Brussels

being unacceptable is hypothetical?

Lets wait and see. I have said and I

am in danger of repeating myself, I

have every confidence in the Prime

Minister and in David Davis. I think

we will end up with a good deal. You

would in expect in negotiations like

this an awful lot of posturing.

Let

me into you because I need to ask

you about one other thing before we

go. Damian Green, you will know

there have been more stories

reported this week around the

accusation that he viewed

pornography on a Parliamentary

computer, something he absolutely

resolutely denies. If it is

discovered that he wasn't telling

the truth when he told the Prime

Minister he hadn't done this, would

it be a resigning matter?

I don't

know, that is another hypothetical

question. Damian was my

Parliamentary neighbour for many

years, he has denied it and I

believe him and I agree with those

very senior figures yesterday who

condemned the leaking of information

by these retired police officers. I

think that's a very serious matter

indeed. Policing in this country is

based on trust between the police

and the public. And if we have...

Michael Howard, thank you very much

for talking to us.

The EU has warned Theresa May

that she must satisfy Irish demands,

if the Brexit negotiations

are to move forward this week.

But ahead of a crucial

meeting between Theresa May

and Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow,

it seems there is still work to do.

Here's the Irish Foreign

Minister, Simon Coveney,

speaking this morning.

There is no desire in Ireland to

delay this process. But at the same

time we have irresponsibility as a

government to represent the

interests on the island of Ireland,

north and south. Let's not forget

that next year will be the 20th

anniversary of the Good Friday

Agreement, which is the basis for

the peace process, and relations

between Britain and Ireland on the

island of Ireland. And we believe

that as an island, Ireland is

uniquely vulnerable and exposed to a

potential bad outcome from Brexit.

With me now is the Shadow

International Trade

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Obviously, it is absolutely crucial

that a resolution is found to this

problem - what is Labour's position?

I think you have to proceed here on

the basis of principles. The first

principle is, do nothing that

damages the peace process. The

second principle is, do nothing that

averages the economy. And by that I

mean both the economy and Northern

Ireland, in Ireland as a whole and

in the UK and Ireland as a whole.

Now, that means that we have to...

But that's the impossible conundrum,

how to do all of those things at

once?

It can't be impossible,

because we've got to do it. Of

course it is being made much more

difficult by the government's red

lines on this. And the government

has stated very publicly and clearly

that it wants to come out of the

customs union and the single market.

And of course, what actually creates

checks at the border is when you

have regulator we variants and when

you have product standards that are

different. So, that means that you

have to check what's coming in and

out for any tariffs that you wish to

impose. Now, that's why it has been,

I think and my party thinks, foolish

to have removed the structural

possibilities which lie in the

customs union or the single market,

from what the government's

negotiating position is.

That's very

interesting, because I can see

clearly, and so can the Irish

government, exactly how staying in

the customs union and the single

market would help resolve the

question for the island of Ireland,

but also it raises questions for the

United Kingdom. It is also

interesting because if we have a

look at what you say back in July,

who didn't sound quite as pleased

about the single market, when you

said we would in effect become a

vassal state, obliged to pay into

the EU budget and having even less

sovereignty than we do now - you

weren't so keen on the single market

then?

I am not so keen on the single

market membership as opposed to

being a member of the EU. Single

market membership without being a

member of the EU means that you do

not have a say in the rules which

you have to abide by.

But we're

leaving the EU, let's take that as a

given.

Let's talk about where we are

going forward. I was setting out

very clearly, and I don't think you

would disagree with what I said, I

was setting out very clearly the

applications of leaving the EU in

the way that the government had set

out. And those implications are

clear. I believe I set them out

correctly. Where we are now is, we

have to find a solution to this

problem. Simon Coveney was actually

earlier very clear in saying that

you don't have to have a full

solution in phase one, but there has

to be the real expectation that

we're going to be able to resolve it

in phase two. The first thing that

both sides need to say here is that

we will look at the Common Travel

Area, which has existed since 1922,

and that should be part and parcel

of the deal going forward. The

second element that I think is

really important here is to

understand precisely what the peace

settlement was, when in the Good

Friday Agreement in 1998 we set out

that there should be no security

checks at the border. That was

critically important. But of course,

security checks in those days were

in place because of the situation,

the military, paramilitary

situation. But when those security

checks were taken away, because we

were members of the single market

and because we were members of the

customs union, there were no

additional customs checks. Now, to

say that you order the Good Friday

Agreement and have no security

checks, with all the military

paraphernalia that goes with that,

does not mean that you cannot have

typified customs checks. But those

customs checks will only be put in

place if the government wants to

deregulate. My party doesn't. My

party doesn't want to deregulate, we

don't want to impose these

terrorists. The government is in a

bind here, because most of the key

players around of Brexit want to

deregulate, and that means there

have to be tariffs, and that means

they have to be imposed at a border.

Jeremy Corbyn yesterday refused to

rule out the possibility of a second

referendum on our EU membership - is

it now the Labour Party's policy

that we might vote again on this?

No, it's not.

Why did he say we have

not made any decision on a second

referendum?

That precisely says that

it is not, because policy because we

have not made a decision on it!

You

could make a decision Ameobi not to

have a second referendum?

Let's be

absolutely upfront about this. The

idea that you would have a second

referendum, I think you would say

you were going to have a second

referendum. Like the Liberal

Democrats have done. That would be

to encourage the EU to give you the

worst possible deal that there was,

so that when you're then voted on

it, everybody would say, we can't

possibly go there. The key thing, in

my view, is that it was always

foolish, always foolish, to have a

50% class one referendum. Because if

you are trying to...

That's what we

had, we are now looking at the

future. I'm talking about the

future. It sounds like Jeremy Corbyn

is saying it is a possibility that

Labour might call for one?

I am

trying to answer your question. I am

not trying to avoid it. When we go

forward, if we were to have another

referendum on the same lines as we

have had, and it were to be 52-48

the other way, what would that

achieve hammered absolutely nothing.

It would then be game on for a third

or fourth referendum. The only way

in which in my view you could

possibly contemplate a second

referendum would be if you had a

threshold which I believe should

have been there in the first place

of a two thirds majority. But that I

stress is not Labour Party policy,

it is not something that we've

decided, and Jeremy Corbyn

articulated that yesterday.

Have you

spoken to Diane Abbott, who has

written to two constituents in the

past month saying she would make the

case for a second referendum?

Diane

has already said that letter was

poorly worded Pozzo, as she called

it. I will not make any further

comment on it.

The Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, came in for a bit

of flak recently when he admitted

that Labour was preparing

for possible negative scenarios,

such as a run on the pound,

if it wins power.

Speaking on the fringes

of his party's conference, he said

he was carrying out "war game-type

scenario planning" in the event

of an election victory.

John McDonnell, the man

helping Mr McDonald.

Well, the man helping

Mr McDonnell do that is

the academic Richard Barbrook.

He's also the man behind

'Games for the Many' -

the political gaming studio

that produced CorbynRun.

Ellie Price went along to meet him.

You may have seen some of these

during the election.

In May Bot, the gamer helps the PM

shoot, run and slide

her way to dystopia.

And then downloaded 150,000 times

in the first week of

the campaign alone, Corbyn Run,

which sees Jeremy Corbyn shaking

down bankers to pay

for policy pledges.

And it's one of the things

the Labour leadership think can win

them the next election.

It put an idea out there

that you can actually

engage in politics in a way

which is both a good laugh,

enjoy the game.

But actually it is quite

stimulating as well.

What happened was, that

prompted ideas about a

fair taxation system

and the policies that

were being launched.

It's new creative way into ideas.

Are you worried that

the Tories will catch on?

They most probably will catch on.

But it's not just about the medium,

it is about the message as well.

Richard, what is happening here?

It's a games jam.

Right.

People are coming together

to make app games,

laptop games, board games, getting

ready for the local elections in May

to propagate Labour's message.

And is it really working?

You have 50-odd people here, that's

hardly going to change the world.

No.

I'm from the punk generation.

I'm from the punk generation.

The first time I saw

the Sex Pistols, there were 40 or 50

people in the room.

Then, in the late-80s,

I went to the very early raves

and again there were very

small groups of people.

Yet, in both cases, these

cultures, you start off

with small groups of people

and they can suddenly

become a mass phenomenom.

And, I'm reliably informed,

it isn't just for computer geeks.

Yes, we've got people

here who are activists and have

never coded in their lives

and they're using tools,

with which you can make games

with no coding skills.

I'm not sure I believe

you but here is a challenge.

Can you make me a game?

Yes, I can.

The challenge begins.

OK.

I'm done.

That took less than half an hour.

Can I see it?

Yeah, of course.

You go up to John and he says,

"We're making games to change the

face of politics."

Then you go up to Jeremy

and he says, "for the many,

not the few."

OK, so it's not exactly Super Mario

but Labour are looking

at another kind of gaming,

so-called war-gaming.

Considering possible

future scenarios.

Something John McDonnell

talked about at the last

Labour Conference.

What if there is a run

on the pound, what happens if

there is this concept

of capital flight?

I don't think there

will but you never know

so we've got a scenario

planned for that.

Richard is also part

of the Shadow Treasury

war-gaming team, who are expected

to meet again in the next few weeks.

If people are going to trust us

with their jobs and their pensions

and their livelihoods,

we've got to show

we know what we are doing.

This seems like common sense to me.

From games jams like these,

Labour hoped to create a campaign

tool that will take them to the next

level - Downing Street.

If politics is a game,

there are novel ways to play.

And Richard Barbrook joins me now.

Thanks for coming in. John McDonnell

said the conference he was working

with you are looking at different

scenarios I possibly around on the

pound. It caused huge amount of

controversy. Can you understand why?

I was actually. Surprised that

people are surprised that political

parties are not doing this. The

military, the civil service,

Corporation Banks, they all do this.

The surprise was one would imagine

that a Labour government neither

hoped nor predicted there would be a

run on the pound and capital flight.

Given the fanaticism of the present

government, probably when we get

elected, the pound would likely go

up. You need to think about these

problems beforehand. There are

potential difficulties to foresee.

You can scenario plan for those. You

can read about problems coming up

ahead and you can talk about them

but actually to experience in a game

like atmosphere, the pressures of

making decisions... You can identify

problems and think about solutions,

try out ideas. If it does not work

you can reiterate again and again

and again.

When the Treasury does

something like this, with very

complex statistical models and huge

amounts of data, can you feed it

into a scenario?

You can on that

basis. What you can do more is test

the team coming together and seeing

how it responds under pressure. A

good example, if you think about the

National Health Service. If it were

a flu pandemic they would have to

think about how to reallocate

resources. There would be sickness

amongst staff, more people going to

hospitals and you get together a

group of people responsible for

running the NHS. You put them

together and put them through a

three-hour simulation of it and that

is the same sort of thing we are

doing. We are looking at what

happens when Labour gets in, the

first 100 days in power, for the

first budget, what would you do?

Whether it is a run on the pound or

something, you create pressures and

problems for them to create the idea

of how they have to operate as a

team.

Does that give you the

opportunity to stress test some of

the more radical policies that

Labour came up with in the last

manifesto like nationalising the

water companies or electricity firms

or something like that?

It is only

maybe in this media bubble in

Britain that we think neoliberalism

is the only alternative.

Those are

to mainstream for you to bother

about?

I said the initial simulation

as any of the first 100 days we are

looking at how we would put together

a budget. That is not really what

the focus is. It is making it

happen, the decision-making process.

That is what you are trying to train

people for. The military does this,

the civil service does this put up

if you do not do this you are in a

very bad position. The election, the

Liberal Democrats did no contingency

planning as to what would happen if

there were a hung parliament but the

civil service did. They ripped

people into becoming a junior

appendage of the Tory Party with the

disastrous results that came from

that.

Is this the kind of

discussions that a Shadow Cabinet

would be having in the run-up to the

general election anyway? That is

that fundamental job of an

opposition.

This is a fundamental

method of doing it. You are just

surprised that a political parties

doing this. If you are the military

or the civil service you use this

tool. You are just surprised... I am

surprised that you are surprised.

The other thing you are doing

separate from the war game scenario,

the apps and the games go further --

which you say can further political

engagement, are they really

spreading a message?

A good example

is the Jeremy Corbyn ran.

I have

played that. It is about mugging

bankers in the streets.

Why we have

austerities is about the tax cuts.

You reverse that and you campaign

fuel social programme. In doing so,

it shows that you are more

successful in raising revenue can

unlock certain pledges and people

join your campaign.

Stay there if

you will. I will come to the panel.

Do you think this sounds like a

useful, political tool, to sit there

in a game like atmosphere and work

hard to intimate radical programme

for government?

Yes. It sounds

sensible and not the only thing they

are doing. I can see them Maya city

of John McDonnell was to speak aloud

in any context about a potential run

on the pound. -- naivete. To prepare

for eventualities, prepare for the

first 100 days by using all kinds of

devices, is highly sensible.

Even if

it has been publicised to working

with games developers.

You kept

going on about military, war-gaming

exercises. I am co-authoring a book

on defence at the moment. In one of

the most important recent war-gaming

exercises we did with the Americans,

we were wiped out within a day

because our targeting policy was so

outdated. I think the fear in the

city is exactly that would happen

economically

policy is so outdated.

I will let

you respond to that and ask you

another question as well.

She is

just the Tory Troll.

I'm not a

member of the Tory Party. No reason

to be impolite to people. If Morgan

Stanley came here and said we want

to game out what a Labour government

would mean for business, would you

do that?

I would not do it but I

would be very surprised if they are

not

not already doing that.

Thank you

for coming in to talk to us.

It's coming up to 11:40am.

You're watching

the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme...

We sent the Sunday Politics moodbox

- our unscientific poll

featuring plastic balls -

to South West London.

After polling suggested

the Conservative Party

aren't seen as "caring",

we asked people in

Putney what they value

more in politicians -

competence or compassion?

I think that anybody

who is in parliament

should be confident,

otherwise they shouldn't be an MP in

the first place,

whatever party they are.

-- competent.

Do they have enough compassion?

Hm?

Hello and welcome

to Sunday Politics.

Irish politicians been

involved in plenty

of negotiation deadlines

over the years -

but nothing quite like this.

This is why the key to the UK future

lies in Dublin in some ways.

At

least as far as negotiations were

wrecked it go. A shrug for Brexit

go.

As we enter into a crucial phase

in the future relationships

between these islands and Europe.

I'll be speaking

to the Sinn Fein MEP,

Martina Anderson, and

Conservative MP, Nigel Mills.

my studio guests are Newton Emerson

and Patricia MacBride.

As the talks between

the British government

and the European Union enter what's

been described as a critical phase

ahead of Thesea May's meeting

with European Commission President

Jean-Claude Junker tomorrow -

are we any closer to getting

a deal on the border?

The European Council President,

Donald Tusk, stood side-by-side

with the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar,

in Dublin on Friday and made it

clear that if the UK offer

is unacceptable for Ireland it

will be unacceptable

for the European Union too.

So can negotiators come up

with a form of words

that IS acceptable to both sides?

I'm joined from our Foyle Studioby

the Sinn Fein MEP, Martina Anderson,

and from Nottingham

by the Conservative MP,

Nigel Mills...

Welcome.

What is your reaction to

Donald Tusk's statement? Does it put

pressure on Theresa May?

It is

heightening the rhetoric. Not sure

it was constructive or a positive

way forward, we accept the Irish

government don't want Brexit and

they are entitled to act in their

own national interest but it is

clear to all that the way we get the

best possible border on the island

of Ireland is to have the most

combines a free trade deal that we

can. If we can't move on to those

talks it looks like the UK

Government will have to say well, if

there is no progress if the aren't

serious about the trading coalition

then we will have to work for no

deal.

Just because you don't like

what Mr Tusk has disabled doesn't

mean it is rhetoric of course.

I

think it is a strong use of words to

try and say there hasn't been enough

progress, the UK Government has

pretty clearly said we don't want a

border, we won't put one on the

island of Ireland, and we want free

trading arrangement and the EU have

made no alternative suggestions but

keep asking for more forms of words.

Suggestions are supposed to come

from the UK Government because it is

the UK that are leaving the EU, that

is the point. You can't have a

negotiation where once I put up

ideas and just says no the other

side.

We have come up with creative

ideas, with creative solutions do no

terrace and we are beds to enforce

them, and in business premises away

from the border, and prepared to

exempt all small regional businesses

about 80% of more of businesses. We

have come up with creative ideas

that we think could be done and it

has always been met with known, say

something else. We can't progress

unless the other side says something

else.

It's not just the EU, it's not

just Leo Varadkar Alan Donald does

cut are saying this. The House of

Commons committee on the exit is not

happy either. It says it is

understand speculative.

That was a

split report where half of the team

said...

That was the rule of the

committee.

The EU have said we want

creative and flexible negotiations

because this hasn't done before so

by definition we have to come up

with is ideas that haven't been

tested. This seems a unique

situation do have a member state

leaving the EU rather than joining

it so it makes sense we have a

different solution. I think what the

EU wanted was something more

radical, and unless we do that there

is criticism it hasn't been tested.

Let me bring in Martina Anderson. It

is time for the Irish government or

the EU to come up with some

proposals of their own. The UK

Government has done all it can do at

this stage in the process. Well, if

that is the measure of what the

British Government has done then it

is little wonder that we are the way

that we are today.

That is

potentially heading towards a mess.

Many of us want to move into the

next phase of negotiations but

Europe has been very clear and

particularly the European Parliament

as has the council that the Good

Friday Agreement needs to be

protected in all of its parts. And

what the British Government has

proposed or so far proposed to put

on the table has been contradictory

impositions. One hand it has said it

wants to pursue the Good Friday

Agreement but then goes onto say

that it pulling the north out of the

customs union and the single market.

Sinn Fein has presented a reasonable

and rational case that can be

delivered and that is for the north

to remain within the EU.

You know

very well that Unionists do not want

to consider anything that would lead

to in their eyes the demolition of

the constitutional position of

Northern Ireland. You have a problem

with the proposals that you up on

the table because that is piously

what they do.

-- precisely. It is

political union is that is the

problem.

It's the British

Government?

No, an opinion poll

recently stated quite clearly that

the majority of the unionist people

would accept a border in the Irish

Sea. We already have a border in the

Irish Sea of trade that takes place

between the north and Britain. There

is already in practice in place, a

system in place whether it is for

plants and plant produce or animals

or animal produce, whatever it is

there our borders controls already.

At Belfast Harbour and Belfast City

Airport. So therefore there is a

solution to this problem that

ensures that the north stays in the

single market and the customs union

and the majority of the unionist

people and the nationalist People's

support that as the way forward. Let

me put that to Nigel them. It is a

reasonable and deliverable case.

Nigel, how do you respond to that?

There is nothing different at all in

the proposals coming from the Irish

side as far as solving this issue

concerns, that are anyway different

in what is in practice. That is a

stretch, isn't it.

The UK is

committed as a whole to the union

and its is what will happen. I don't

think there is any precedent for any

country to be an other parts of a

customs union.

That is wrong. There

are 25 overseas territories in the

EU and each of them have a different

relationship with Europe. Greenland

for example, Ford Denmark for

example, what, for instance the

legal advice has shown that could

have Denmark refreshed. What I'm

concerned about is the ignorance

from people like yourself that you

don't know that Europe is quite

willing to have a flexible and

imaginative solution which results

in special status. Or whatever one

wants to call it. That would be

afforded to the people of Northern

Ireland in this context.

What is

wrong, Nigel Mills was the bespoke

solution for Northern Ireland that

actually advantages people who live

here rather than disadvantages them?

This hasn't been done to have two

parts of the same country in two

different customs unions. In actual

fact the Northern Ireland should

come economy dart come on, Martina,

Denmark is a different country.

Northern Ireland has an extremely

large and important trading link. If

you create a customs border between

them that is a serious advantage to

the Norwich Irish -- Northern Irish

economy. I don't think splitting a

country economically is a realistic

solution and would be bad for the

economy was it will be impossible

politically.

That is what you are

trying to do with the island of

Ireland. What we have proposed is a

situation.

We don't need a border.

Let's live in the real world. Let's

talk about the free trade

arrangements, the EU has made clear

that if you want to leave the EU you

cannot expect to have its cake and

eat it, at can't go and retain all

of the benefits of membership. What

part of that is difficult to

understand.

We aren't asking to

retain membership but asking for the

best free-trade deal in the interest

of all members, in the same way that

they have done with many other

countries. The EU has a trade

surplus with the UK. We aren't

asking for anything particularly

difficult but to carry on trading as

previously. Everyone is agreed that

there will be no border on the

island of Ireland, no passport

controls or anything, that won't

happen, but it is the trading

relationship that needs to work in

the best way. I don't see how we

can't work that out if we can't even

talk about trade nearly nine months

of the way through this period we

can't start talking about what the

trading deal will look like, or how

to make it work.

Have you read the

Good Friday Agreement? Do you

understand strand two?

How do you

understand of what Nigel has said

that, the way it will be sorted out

is to move on to substantive trade

talks, phase two of the negotiations

and then we will see the colour of

people's money and then we can start

to find solutions. To continue stuck

on this seemingly intractable point

doesn't take anyone anywhere? Surely

there is a logic to what he is

saying.

Of course we need to move on

to but sufficient no leg progress

needs to be made on Northern

Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement,

strand two, the all Ireland Ireland

part of the agreement, 142 areas of

cooperation. What a Brexit border

would do would be to damage for

instance we have a situation where

in now Gavin Hospital in Derry

because of critical mass, and the

island of Ireland in the north-west

we have a radiotherapy unit

servicing the island. We also have a

children's heart surgery carried out

in Dublin but there are all Ireland

electricity markets and 142 areas of

cooperation of which 100 of them all

more are dependent on EU law and the

European Court of Justice. We have

to have, it is a no-brainer, to

preserve and protect the Good Friday

Agreement of the British Government

is a co-guarantor. We have to have a

special relationship with the EU in

order for us to do no more than

standstill.

How do you respond to

that, Nigel. The relationship that

Martina has just raised, 150 Dillie

Malherbe hundred and 42 -- 142

specific bespoke arrangements. How

do you deal with that their hard

border?

Let's look at the

Londonderry hospital referred to.

That is the main hospital is parts

of the Republic of Ireland. That is

based on an actual deal is not

reliant on any EU treaties so all

those things can be worked through

but strand one of the Good Friday

Agreement gives the UK gives the lap

sole competence on these affairs.

What we are trying to do is find the

best possible solution. If we can't

talk about the very issues we need

to resolve, we can't find a

solution.

Sammy Wilson of the DUP

said last week that any attempt

duplicates Dublin and the EU could

be a withdrawal of DUP, the supply

and confidence motion could be

withdrawal. Is he bluffing? I am in

no doubt he is entitled to his view.

The DUP might be angry if the

Northern Irish territories became a

separate part of the United Kingdom

and the EU. It is not practical

however, so on issues like farming

we could perhaps devolve powers to

the Northern Irish assembly and they

could have harmony and consistency

with the European Union, that seems

like a sensible way of going forward

on those issues. It won't work with

the fundamental constitutional laws

and the problem is Martina knows is

Sinn Fein have crashed the Northern

Ireland assembly so there is no

assembly to devolve powers to. It

doesn't make it any easier?

Let's be

very clear. Why we are where we are

today is because of allegations of

corruption and difficulties that we

have had in the assembly and on many

many issues, and what we need is a

good and practical city of

governments that will deliver for

all people. Sinn Fein will go into a

rights -based assembly in the

morning and what we have in partners

in government are Brexit is who

aren't even listening to their own

people. Their own people who will

accept a border, a deepening of the

relationship that is already there,

in practice that is there so that we

don't have a ball border on the

island. That is who the DUP needs to

listen to as well as all of the

people and represent all of the

people of the north who voted

overwhelmingly to remain.

Nigel,

final question, this summit on the

14th and 15th of December, that is

where the big decisions have to be

taken. Apparently. We need real

movements tomorrow if we are to hit

that target state in the middle of

the month. What do you expect to be

on the table by Theresa May in her

meeting with Jean-Claude Junker

tomorrow?

I think we reiterate the

fact that we have no plans to have a

hard border and we think that the

best way of thinking that is to move

to those trade talks. There has

apparently been progress on the

divorce Bill for example, and there

is a commitment to no hard border,

that is what we need to say and what

we have done is responding to those

offers and explain why they are

acceptable.

Thank you both.

Let's hear what our studio

guests think of that.

Newton Emerson and Patricia

MacBride are with me.

Newton, can you square the circle

after that? There was a lot of

confused issues there.

142 issues

for example those won't all Ireland

policies. They are devolved powers,

and restrictions will be left up to

us.

And there is a political point

behind that.

The practical issue is

trade however. Both were confused by

the idea of a sea border meaning is

staying in the customs union, but

these are not either or situations.

Port and border systems would allow

us to leave the customs union but

keep the land border open. That is

the point, we're not talking about

customs checks at the port Belfast

but rather extra electronic

paperwork that allows us foods to

flows freely with minimal

interference.

Patricia, do you think

bureaucrats who are quietly working

away on proposals on both sides in

this process of negotiation will

come up with some kind of solution

as Newton seems to suggest? Or

duplicitous and is -- do politicians

just not want to talk about it?

I

think there are three scenarios that

are apparently not to be accepted.

Not staying in the customs union,

except a hard border on the island

of Ireland or in the sea. One of

those has given that is the reality

of it. Newton talks about additional

paperwork at the ports when goods

are moved around. That may be the

case in terms of checking the bona

fides goods or whatever it is that's

being moved but it doesn't address

the issue of tariffs. I am certain

that there is a lot of work going on

in the background in terms of civil

servants in Ireland and I would hope

that the difference and the

difficulty is that in terms of Irish

diplomats they know the party line,

they have a clear steer from the

Irish government and the civil

servants aren't sure what the

ministers want and even today we

hear confusing messages from people

like Jacob Rees Mogg who doesn't

really understand what's happening

in Irish politics and is trying to

throw a spanner into the works based

on something that was settled five

days ago regarding a no-confidence

motion in the government.

Are you an

optimist in this? Are you saying

that mutually exclusive positions

are being set up, strawmen are being

built but ultimately things will be

resolved?

Looking at Donald Tusk's

statement in the Republic last week

everyone focused on his support

unity and strength for the Republic

but also in that speech he conceded

the UK to's main point is that trade

talks can begin only with out a

detailed answer on the board. That

makes the sea border the big idea

within which all the details can be

hammered out and that will take a

long time. Mostly what we need at

this stage is a different term to

see border, point of eight Unionist

antagonism right now. It doesn't

need to be is described that way.

That's pause for

Let's pause for a moment

That's pause for a moment.

and take a look back

at the political week in 60 Seconds

with Enda McClafferty...

It appears there is no life left in

the docks as Stormont goes into cold

storage.

We don't have a basis to

enter into talks process.

In the

Dail it is all change on the front

bench. Double jobbing Simon Coveney.

Don't detect any changes to Dublin's

stance on the border.

No one can

pretend Northern Ireland is

indifferent. We need an incredible

set of parameters within which we

can solve the border issues.

But the

DUP is adamant.

There won't be any

special arrangement for Northern

Ireland keeping us in the rules of a

customs union or the single market.

As politicians debate is just how

special we are, did we get the first

crack in the DUP Conservative pact?

If there is any hint that an order

to placate Dublin and the EU, they

are prepared Northern Ireland trade

differently than the rest of the

United Kingdom than they can't rely

on our vote.

Let's go back to our guests

for some final thoughts.

That's talk about the DUP and their

influence over the Conservatives at

the moment, and it's stated position

that it does not want to negotiate

or resile from its public position

on this critical issue for it as a

Unionist party.

Sammy Wilson's

comment there is very telling. He

sees that any negotiation or any

issue around the border and

concessions as he eased -- sees them

would be to placate Dublin but the

reality is it should be about

protecting living here. That is

where they need to focus. Something

has to give therefrom my

perspective. As the DUP said, the

idea of rebranding some sort of

control over the people and moving

in the Irish Sea, that is perhaps

the only solution. The DUP might

have to come round to thinking them.

If it involves a sweetener to move

them, to say it is going to happen

but it will be managed in such a way

where it will be still in control,

the idea of evolving regulatory

powers to Stormont will not fly in

my view because there is no workable

assembly and that will effect a good

change on the DUP.

Do you agree,

some kind of deal could be

forthcoming, a financial package for

Northern Ireland, and a way of

explaining yet that doesn't look

like a devolution of the union? That

is critical clearly.

There are

practical objections, the cost of

people's paperwork, hundreds of

pounds, and ways of funding extra

facilities at the border. One-off

payments or ongoing payments to

cover that... I disagree with

Patricia that this may ignore

Stormont's absence. It puts pressure

on both party to come in and manage

their situation. In terms of the DUP

you need to listen to the range of

opinions coming from them. Sammy

won't believe there was and is

trying to bring down the government

but Nigel Dodds dodges the subject.

He says he won't leave the customs

union. Those things are not

opposites and when you look at the

range of opinions and see how the

DUP leadership in particular are

sounding I think they are getting

ready for a fudge as well.

What do

you think, Patricia, we will see in

the meeting between Theresa May and

Jean-Claude Junker?

I don't think we

can parallel this to the

negotiations, where deadlines keep

getting shifted. I think the British

will have deep pits down a clear

marker as to the heads of agreement

on the key issues around the border

and around the divorce Bill as it

were so that is what we have CC

tomorrow in order to get to the

14th.

Interesting to see what

happens.

That's it.

Now back to Sarah in London....

Welcome back.

Tom, Isabel and Steve

are still with me.

Let's talk about a couple of the

interviews we heard earlier in the

programme. Let's start with Michael

Howard. He was putting up a very

strong defence of Damian Green and

harsh criticism of the police who

had been speaking out saying they

had reservations about what Damian

Green had been doing with his

Parliamentary computer. We surprised

at that, is about?

Not at all. There

is much support for Damian Green,

including Labour MPs. It is in

relation to how the police have

behaved over this. There is

discomfort among MPs about how the

police were involved in this. Most

people will have forgotten the

various dramas around that some

years ago when police were invited

into the Commons over a leak

investigation. MPs feel that was no

place for officers to be and they

are uncomfortable about the leaking

of this confidential information. I

think the question now is whether

Damian Green has lied about what he

did although she is ago. To me,

personally, and too many Tory MPs,

whether or not he viewed pawn ten

years ago or however long it was

ago, it was clearly inappropriate

behaviour on an office computer.

Perhaps if he had acknowledged it

and said he was going through a hard

time, he might get away with it. If

it is proven he lied and he is

finished, whether or not there are a

lot of sympathetic MPs over the way

he is being treated here.

It is

interesting how many MPs are

sympathetic. David Davis has

threatened to resign from the

Cabinet is Damian Green went.

This

goes back ten, 15 years of Tory

Party history. David Davis, Damian

Green and Theresa May or worked very

closely together. They were

horrified about the immigration

papers leaks. It was proven to be a

pretty bad thing that was done and

the police apologise. Moving on to

where we are now, it strikes me that

Theresa May is downed if she does

find Damian Green for being a

cover-up rather than the crime

himself, he has made a series of

statements about pornography on his

computer, it is not the possession

but how he tried to disguise it was

there. If she fires him, then she

will have terrible troubles with the

likes of David Davis and people

furious in the party, Andrew

Mitchell furious that the police are

calling the shots. If she does not

fire him, as some ministers in

government, some Tory MPs, who think

it is impossible for him to stay on

with the mess as it currently is and

his inconsistencies. She has made

this worse for herself by sitting

on, if not the full report but the

substance of it for some time now.

You think surely has the report that

has not looked at it yet.

She has

not seen the full report but has

been kept up to date with where it

is going and what the findings are.

She has been forced to take a very

tough decision, like Angela Merkel

always has and survived in politics

very well, by simply not taking that

decision, sometimes it works

brilliantly and events work-out but

sometimes it gets deeper.

Barry

Gardner was talking about Labour's

EU policies was that he would not

rule out a second referendum. He

made it clear it was not party

policy at the moment. I was asking

about Jeremy Corbyn saying he would

not rule out a second referendum.

Saying it was a possibility if there

was a two thirds threshold on it,

which is a new idea.

The position of

the Labour Party, and the smart one

for the time being, is to do what

Harold Wilson used to call keep all

options open. If there are big cries

for another referendum, opinion

polls from some of them who voted

Brexit when they see a deal, the

Labour leadership will come around

and say they will support a

referendum. They are being wholly

pragmatic about this, as most

opposition parties are when dealing

with Europe. Before 97, Tony Blair

was in favour of the single currency

but loving the pound. This ambiguity

is a feature of politics in Europe.

They are in a broadly smart position

for now.

Ambiguity, some might call

it inconsistency.

I call it cynicism

myself.

Can it work for them?

It is

extraordinary cynical. I have seen

some lame polls of small samples

which purport to show there is a

contingency of people who want

another referendum. It comes down to

how you phrase the question. This

was the biggest democratic mandate

for a decision to be taken that we

have had in history. Most people

just want Brexit to get gone. I

think there is an extraordinary 50

quid Brexit at the moment, even

amongst the people who wanted to

happen. People wanted over with nets

get on with building the new feature

for the country. -- and let's get

on.

Now, you know how the old cliche

goes: if you're not a Liberal

when you're young then

you've no heart.

And if you're not

a Conservative when you're old,

then you've no brain.

Well, it seems the Conservative

Party might be getting a bit

worried it's true.

According to a report

in The Guardian this week,

party chiefs were concerned

after surveys of public opinion

showed that while Conservatives

are seen as more credible

on their policies, Labour are well

ahead amongst voters when it

comes to compassion.

But can that be right,

and which matters more

to the British public ?

We sent reporter Emma Vardy out

into the cold with our rather

unscientific moodbox.

Tories have been told that polling

suggests that people think

Conservatives are competent when it

comes to their policies but not

caring enough when it

comes to their values.

So, we're in the Tory marginal

of Putney to ask people

what's more important,

competence or compassion?

Compassion.

Why is that?

Because it affects all of us.

Compassion.

I think they forget

that it is real people they are

governing, it is not

just about the budget.

It is about the budget, obviously,

balancing the books, but

I think you need to think about

the little people, like these two.

Like these.

Competence, surely.

Because if they are not,

then we're going to

need even more compassion because

there will be even more people

suffering.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

There are a lot of competent people

who can take care of a job

but a lot of these competent people

don't really have compassion.

It has to be competence.

It has to be.

Why competence?

At the end of the day,

obviously compassion is

extremely important but due

to the state our finances are in,

competence has to be the way

to go, unfortunately.

Competence, I think.

Why's that?

Well, because they seem to be paid

very well and don't have a lot

of competence and fail this country

miserably.

People need to have a heart.

If they're competent and don't

have a heart, it's worthless.

Competence.

You can't have fools

running the country.

Well, I think that anybody

who is in parliament

should be conpetent.

Otherwise you shouldn't

be an MP in the first

place, whatever party they are.

Do they have enough compassion?

No.

But then who does have enough

compassion these days?

Hardly anybody, my dear.

Should politicians do it

from the heart, do you think?

No.

And I think they should

do it from the heart.

I think they just swerve everything.

I am a heart on my sleeve man

and I love that honesty,

that genuine feel, enthusiasm.

I can tell you are.

I'm feeling the warmth.

Thank you very much.

Pleasure.

Seems like it could be time

for the Tory Party to