10/12/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning everyone and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith and I'll be bringing

you your essential briefing

on all the top political

stories this week.

She's done the easy bit,

now comes the hard part.

As we move on to trade

and transition talks with the EU,

just what sort of deal

is the Prime Minister aiming for?

The issue of trade across the Irish

border is likely to dominate

those talks, we'll speak

to the Northern Ireland

Secretary James Brokenshire

about what he thinks a solution

to the problem could look like.

Momentum, the group set up

to support Jeremy Corbyn,

is facing allegations it's trying

to take over the Labour

And here - Sammy Wilson of the DUP

and John O'Dowd of Sinn Fein discuss

the Brexit border deal.

We'll also have the UUP,

SDLP and Alliance and expert

analysis in an extended programme -

in half an hour.

Is the government doing enough?

in half an hour.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to try to make

sense of is all, three journalists

who are in full alignment with this

week's political developments.

Tim Shipman, Helen

Lewis and Toby Young.

The cliche that a week is a long

time in politics has

never been more apt.

As Theresa May first appeared to be

the brink of collapse,

and then claimed victory with a deal

to allow Brexit talks to move

on to the next phase.

Deal or no deal?

The question that took

Theresa May to Brussels not

once but twice this week.

On Monday it seemed

it was all sorted.

Time to move onto talks about trade.

Then in stepped Arlene Foster.

Northern Ireland must

leave the European

Union on the same terms as the rest

of the United Kingdom.

So lunch was left to go

cold in Brussels as the

PM rushed home to try

and save the deal.

The problem ran along

the Irish border.

Did promises of regulatory

alignment mean Northern

Ireland would operate differently

from the rest of the UK?

Unionist alarm bells

could be heard in

Westminster where Theresa May

relies on their support.

While others saw their

chance to tell their own

bespoke Brexit deal.

So back to the drawing

board and a chance for

Labour to stick the boot in.

What an embarrassment.

Shambles.

The last 24 hours have

given a new meaning to

the phrase coalition of chaos.

There was a tricky

moment for the Brexit

secretary as he was quizzed over his

economic impact studies that don't

actually exist.

So there isn't one,

for example, on the automotive

sector.

On the automotive sector.

Is there one on aerospace?

No.

One on financial services?

I think the answer is

going to be no to all of

them.

Right.

By the Chancellor admitted

the Cabinet has not yet

debated future European

trading relations.

The Cabinet has had general

discussions about how Brexit

negotiations but we haven't had

a specific, er, mandate of the

position.

At Prime Minister's Questions

Brexiteers reminded the PM

they too had lines

they wouldn't cross.

Will she apply a new coat of paint

to her red lines because I

fear on Monday they were beginning

to look a little bit pink.

Talks through the night

on Thursday and

finally, white smoke.

Tweeted by Jean-Claude

Juncker's chief of staff

to signal a deal had been done.

4am Friday.

The red eye back to Brussels,

the Brexit Secretary's

face told the story of a long night.

A tweak of the words

and a deal agreed.

Sufficient progress has now

been made on the strict

terms of the divorce.

Not everyone was happy.

There are still matters

there that we would have liked

to have seen clarified.

The whole thing is a humiliation.

In a letter yesterday

Environment Secretary Michael Gove

said voters could change the deal

if they don't like it.

At the next general election.

Let's unpack a week of remarkable

political developments with our

panel.

Tim, the papers are claiming a

marvellous victory for Theresa May,

but this is a problem of her own

making she managed to dig herself

out of?

The government announced

immediately they had got a deal and

it took them two and a half weeks to

nail it down. It is worth

remembering that when she went off

to Brussels to Jean-Claude Juncker

who said, don't come here unless you

are ready to go. Theresa May kicked

him out of his office for an hour

while she begged Arlene Foster to

get in line and initially, it wasn't

happening because they hadn't nailed

it down. People say, why weren't all

these civil servants and people who

know about how to deal with these

guys, engaged in this process? The

separation between the Northern

Ireland Office and Downing Street,

the whip office was negligent and

they should have been holding hands

with the DUP and Tilly was taken

over the line. Disaster was only

narrowly averted. They were saying

earlier in the week, this is a

catastrophe and Theresa May needs to

go.

But she pulled it out in the

end. We were talking about takeover

plots, Theresa May might lose her

job and now it is a victory.

When

you are talking about this, you have

to divorce the theatre around it and

the last-minute concessions, which

will not end. The question is what

happens when the Forge recedes.

Everyone has something out of this

deal because there is no clarity.

Arlene Foster said they wanted

clarity. Both sides when they get

the clarity will be unhappy, but the

question is what they will do about

it.

Toby, both people on both sides

of the Brexit debate in the Tory

party, who are claiming they are

very, very happy. They can't all be

happy.

I am not surprised the

Brexiteers our content. There are

various things the remain as

predicted couldn't be achieved. They

thought they would be a backbench

rebellion. Now that looks like the

divorce bill will sail through. A

lot of Remainers thought the state

is of EU nationals would remain

uncertain for long time. This makes

no Deal Brexit less likely that was

always the Remainers best of

reversing the result of the

referendum.

Now we're left with the

question, what does full alignment

mean. David Davis asked that that

this morning.

It means outcomes.

It means...

If I arrived in two

cars, they are next

to each other.

Well, Northern Ireland is next

to the Republic of Ireland.

Yes, and it will have next

to regulations, it will be very

similar.

There will be some similarities.

Again, the Prime Minister

laid this out in her

Florence speech.

She said there are areas

where we will want similar

outcomes and we'll have similar

methods to achieve them.

There will be areas

where we have similar

outcomes where there will be

different methods to achieve them.

That's going to be true of a lot

of product areas, a lot of

manufacturing.

There will be areas where we want

different outcomes and

we will use different methods.

That was clear as mud, Toby, what do

you think full alignment means?

I

don't think we should spend as much

time as you seem to want to,

discussing it. As Michael Gove

clarified, it doesn't have any legal

force. It doesn't have any binding,

legal force. It hasn't got to the

stage of the treaty. It might be

difficult to unwind because it is

the basis of an agreement. But

nonetheless, it is not binding and a

lot is left to play for.

It is what

got the DUP on-board, finding a form

of words which could be what you

wanted them to.

People wanting

immigration cut without the economy

taking a hit. The same thing with

the DUP, they want to stay aligned

to prison, but they don't want their

agriculture, Northern Ireland is one

of the biggest industries, to take a

massive hit from a hard border. So

you are trying to reconcile two

contradictory impulses. That Philip

Hammond clip is extraordinary saying

the Cabinet have a discuss where

they think this ends up in the end.

That is where the row will be.

Number Ten is specifically briefing

full alignment, so we haven't solved

anything.

It is a verb, he converge,

I don't do converge, we have full

alignment. The Conservative Party

managed to get through a general

election where they had half of

their supporters hardline. This may

help them keep the show on the road.

We will be talking to all three of

you throughout the programme.

So it was the arrangements

to avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic that

threatened to scupper progress

in the Brexit talks.

And there remains confusion

over exactly what it

is that's been agreed.

Hopefully we can clarify some

of that with the Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland

James Brokenshire.

Thanks for coming in. Can we go back

to the beginning of the week and the

discussions with the DUP. Where you

involved in that?

It is worth

stressing this is a fast-moving

situation. When the Prime Minister

was in Brussels at the start of the

week, the text hadn't been agreed.

That is why we've got the conclusion

with the text effectively now being

able to go on to the second phase.

Where you part of the back and

forward between Number Ten and the

DUP?

I don't want to get into the

details, but I have been involved,

supporting the Prime Minister and

making sure we have got sufficient

progress and why we have the benefit

of moving into phase two, which is

worth we can solve the issues with

relation to Northern Ireland.

He was

a significant failure at the

beginning of the week to flight to

Brussels without the DUP agreeing on

the text.

It was a fast-moving

situation.

Why go for lunch with

Jean-Claude Juncker if there wasn't

agreed text?

It was to continue the

discussions.

The Prime Minister

didn't think she had a deal on

Monday, she went to Brussels knowing

there wasn't an agreement with the

DUP.

The text wasn't agreed, as I

have underlined on a few occasions

already in this interview. It is how

we have secured what we needed to

do. We needed to give that assurance

in relation to Northern Ireland's

constitutional status in ensuring

trade between Northern Ireland and

Great Britain could remain

unfettered. That is important and we

can now solve this on phase two.

The

agreement said there would be full

alignment with the EU in the event

of no deal. It doesn't say anything

how you will avoid a hard border if

there is a trade deal with the EU.

You are looking at paragraph 49 of

the agreement. First and foremost,

this is about securing a free trade

agreement. Secondly, if that isn't

sufficient you move onto specific

solutions to deal with the unique

circumstances of Northern Ireland.

Only through an agreed outcome, do

you move on to the issue of

alignment, which I'm sure we will

discuss further.

Your preferred

option is to have the free trade.

Absolutely.

Nothing has been solved

on how you avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland and the

republic if you have a free-trade

deal.

We were never going to solve

this in the first phase how this

agreement, we want to secure is

firmly in Ireland's interest, given

the nature of trade between Ireland

and the whole of the United Kingdom.

That is why we go into this second

phase with confidence we can secure

the positive outcome, which is the

best way to solve this.

The Irish

Taoiseach says it is clear in which

way it is going. He says we believe

the UK and Northern Ireland will

remain in alignment with the EU. Is

that your understanding?

I think he

underlines we could come to

different arrangements. It wasn't

about the same, somehow we would

stay within the customs union, the

single market. We are not. The text

says clearly, we are leaving and

Northern Ireland will be part of

that. Having shared outcomes may

mean we may achieve that to the same

or substantially the same way, or

very differently.

It cannot be too

different if you have to maintain

this idea you don't have a hard

border between Northern Ireland and

the republic. How does this allow

you to strike free trade deals with

the United States for instance, if

you have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some of the

United States for instance, if you

have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some other

border solution?

Let's take a couple

of examples. In relation to data

daylight, have your prescription

service nor those -- north or south

of the border. How that can converge

between Ireland and the UK. Things

like agriculture.

Let's talk about

agriculture. If we were to strike a

free trade deal with the US, they

have made it clear we will have to

diverged from EU rules on some

agricultural standards, like

chlorine washed chicken, how can we

do the kind of deal the US will

insist on and still maintain these

border arrangements?

We are yet to

get into those discussions.

They

have been to London and they have

said, if we stay too closely aligned

with the EU we will be able to get a

deal with the US.

We're not going to

somehow compromise our food safety

standards to have a race to the

bottom. That is why knowing the

integrated nature of the food sector

on island, is why we said we are

proud to look at alignment with

agricultural standards.

That tie

your hands. Why does the former

Brexit minister himself say it will

handicap our ability to enter into

free-trade arrangements?

We have

difference across the United Kingdom

over some of these devolved issues.

It doesn't create barriers within

the UK market. We are compliant with

the same rules as the EU and it is

positive decisions we might take.

When it comes down to this issue,

there won't be this race to the

bottom in relation to standards.

It

is important to understand. You are

tying the government's hands in its

ability to strike the free trade

deals that was supposed to create

the optimistic post Brexit future

proclaimed by the government.

It is

why we want to yes, secure the

positive free-trade agreement, Abbas

Bogue agreement with our EU

partners, but equally, which we

don't have, the flexibility to

negotiate trade deals around the

world so have the benefit of having

to do that.

The answer to this free trade deals

is how you manage the border between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland, that has not been answered.

We've set up the framework, we've

not been able to have these

discussions yet. That's why it was

so important, where it was a really

positive achievement that Theresa

May secured by moving into phase two

where we can do just that. To look

at all these different elements we

been working hard on with the EU

that need to be solved whether

through the free trade agreement,

whether through specific

circumstances to meet these issues,

and protecting the ability from

people to move from Northern

Ireland's, into the Republic, really

importantly underlining the

significance of the Good Friday

Agreement.

The Prime Minister

significantly said no deal was

better than a bad deal. What this

means in Brussels as if there is no

do we have to stay in full alignment

with the rules and regulations, is

that the possible?

Is the document

states, nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed.

In the

situation of no deal, nothing would

be agreed and that is the

circumstance in which this deal

kicks in...?

This document doesn't

commit in that way. We are not

contemplating a notable situation.

The Prime Minister has frequently

contemplated that, saying no deal is

better than a bad deal.

I think it

says this in a good way, to secure

this positive outcome that agreement

with our EU partners. We will only

do that if it is acceptable. Under

the no deal statements that the

Prime Minister has made.

When this

agreement says, in the event of no

deal, we will maintain full

alignment, you say this doesn't mean

no deal?

This document doesn't deal

with no deal. That's what I'm

saying. Paragraph five...

So in the

absence of agreed solutions the UK

will maintain full alignment with

the rules of the customs union?

Paragraph five scissors and

agreement being reached...

So you

need an agreement before you have

absence of agreed solutions.

It is

about the three tiered approach will

take, free-trade agreements, dealing

with unique circumstances and then

moving onto the alignment issues. It

is this three tiered approach that

will inform the negotiations. This

is why I say this provides us with a

positive backdrop to go into phase

two, to get positive outcomes in

ensuring there is no barrier between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland. I take the positive

viewpoint, around getting agreement,

securing that bright positive future

for Northern Ireland and the UK as a

whole which is what that does.

James

Brokenshire, thank you. Tim, are you

a clearer? On what has been agreed?

Much less clear. What is the scope

of this alignment issue? If you

listen to government ministers, and

David Davis earlier and James has

said nothing that contradicts that,

you are talking about big areas like

agriculture and energy. David Davis

said it would cover four areas, is

put to someone in the Irish

government has said and covered 142

areas, there's quite a big gap

between them and we haven't yet

bridged that intellectually, it

seems.

And not much clearer on what

if there is no deal.

We would crash

out which would be definitely worse

than a bad deal. An appalling

outcome. I think the whole issue of

these agricultural standards is

fascinating because it reveals the

difference between the average Leave

voter and the average person on the

right, the free trader who is not

worried about safety standards and

is fine with chlorine tipped chicken

but we no one that free-trade Dale

got bounced out of contention one

thing that revolted people with the

idea of lower animal safety

standards, food covered in bacteria

then washed in chlorine. So you have

one wing of the Tory party who are

OK with that and people who voted

Leave who are not.

Is it still on

the table, this idea of no deal?

It

has to be, until we've concluded a

deal, because otherwise our

negotiating position is weaker. In

some ways the way that we've managed

to agree on what the status of EU

National 's would-be and what the

role of the ECJ would be for eight

years after we leave, suggest that

even in the absence of a trade deal

or even a transition deal being

successfully negotiated we could

nonetheless put a minimal deal in

place which could guarantee the

rights of UK National is here and

British nationals in Europe. So in

that way it makes no deal a little

less unpalatable but I think we will

still get a deal.

Thanks for that.

Well, discussions of

what the government wants its final

deal to look like also brings

into focus what Labour's

plans would be.

Speaking this morning Labour's

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer

argued that Britain should remain

as close to the EU as possible.

How we negotiate that agreement

with the EU is a matter for

negotiation.

It doesn't mean it's cut

and paste, but we do have a

choice, do we want to stay aligned

so we can trade successfully or do

we want to tear apart?

And I say we should stay aligned.

We are talking about

what sort of Britain we are

going to be and what the next 40

or 50 years might look like.

I don't think anybody

voted to make it

harder to trade with Europe.

Emily Thornberry, Labour's shadow

foreign affairs spokesperson, is

with me now. Thank you for coming

in. That was Keir Starmer this

morning. I don't want to put words

into his mouth or yours but I

interpret that as saying, we are not

staying in the single market, that

is not the Labour position but we

want to maintain many of the

arrangements we have with the single

market. Is that right?

We've always

said we have to accept the results

of the referendum, we have some

tests to be abided by to get a good

deal so we need to be able to get

the full advantage of access to the

single market and the customs union.

To achieve that what Keir Starmer

seemed to be saying was that was a

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU, possibly even

pay for access to the free market

and while free movement of people

wouldn't he said they should be easy

movement of people from the UK to

the EU and vice versa. Is that

really respecting the referendum

result?

We have to leave the

European Union that there's no

reason why we don't need go a long

way. It would not be respecting the

referendum and the sentiment that

has expressed during the referendum

if we did not move, after leaving

the European Union, to a system

where we had fair rules and managed

migration, so people could easily

travel across Europe and those that

we need to have an ox economy - this

we need an our economy can stay and

that will help us.

If we are staying

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU why we have no

say in the formation of those rules

how is that taking back control?

We're going to leave and it seems to

us that people wanted to leave, they

wanted some form of control over

migration and fair rules and managed

migration is what we want but they

did not vote to lose their jobs

offer their neighbours to lose their

jobs. We need to prioritise the

economy and trade when it came to

negotiations and people should be in

no doubt that our biggest trading

partner is the European Union. It

would be economically ridiculous for

us to march off into the Atlantic

and say, we are turning our backs on

the European Union. To go into deals

with them we'd need the same rules

when it came to our exporting of

carrots or anything else. If you

want to export vacuum cleaners to

Europe they need to have the same

safety standards as the rest of

Europe.

Do you think people who

voted to leave will be happy that we

would follow and mirror the rules

and regulations of EU when we have

no say in their creation now, we

become will takers and not makers?

What we've said is that we need an

interim period when we negotiate

properly and have a long-standing

relationship with EU. When it comes

to exporting goods clearly we need

the same standards and don't want to

undercut European standards, nobody

wants and implement controls, we

need all these things to be less in

Britain than in the rest of Europe,

well, some Tories do but we don't

and we are clear about that.

That

would constrain our ability to sign

free trade deals with other

countries. The more closely aligned

we stay with EU the less movement we

will have to sign a new deal with

the USA for example.

What we need is

a custom-built arrangement between

Britain and the rest of Europe. We'd

need to be in a form of the customs

union and closely aligned to the

single market and that might give us

room to make the that is something

we need to be involved in

negotiation...

That is clearly of

secondary importance to you, the

ability to strike new deals with

third countries.

We've always been

pragmatic, most of our trade has

been with EU. We're just stating a

fact and we shouldn't put the kibosh

on that.

Are you happy with the

agreement Theresa May struck this

week?

Really don't understand it.

I've looked at it, I don't

understand. I think probably what

she is doing is she's rubbed at some

of her red lines, and that's good

because you shouldn't go into

negotiations with hard red lines

like she has. I don't understand how

on one hand she is saying she's

going to align and on the other hand

will be out of the single market on

the customs union. It doesn't really

make any sense to me.

I thought that

was the position you said Labour

win, leaving the single market on

the customs union but wanting to

stay aligned to Europe and is

regulations...

They say they've

swept any form of customs union of

the table. That's what I understand.

She is swept away any suggestion

that the European Court of Justice

would have anything to do with any

rules. She seems to be busily

putting them back on the table

again. That's probably a good thing.

What a waste of time. Because

wouldn't it have been good to have

began on a pragmatic, realistic

basis and we might have got further

than we have now. We are running out

of time.

What is Labour's answer to

the question of the border between

the northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland, how do you

avoid hardboard?

The further we go

from the EU, the harder it is to

have a soft border. What we have

said without that a form of customs

union is a viable option. Melbourne

has come up with any other

suggestion.

This idea, it says in

the agreement that was struck with

EU in the absence of any other

agreement, this idea that we would

maintain the full alignment with the

rules and regulations come you are

satisfied that it works well for the

UK and EU and solves the border

question?

Of course there has to be

a form of alignment, of course the

European Court of Justice need staff

an ongoing relationship with British

justice in the way we put forward

rules when we are working with the

rest of the EU. Why have we denied

at all this time, it is self-evident

and continues to be so.

It is

proposed that an amendment be put

forward that would give MPs a

meaningful vote on this while there

is still time for more negotiation

rather than at the end of

negotiations, will Labour support

that?

We have always said this. From

the outset we have said, why should

parliaments across the rest of

Europe have a vote on this, and the

European Parliament have a vote, the

people of Walloons will have a lot

in it, why not the British people?

That has to be a meaningful vote. --

one at the British Parliament. They

will have to factor in what the

British Parliament thinks. And many

people in the British Parliament

will not accept no deal, for

example. If they think they are

going to come to the British

Parliament with no deal is an option

they have another think coming.

There's another amendment to the Lib

Dems want, to put forward the option

of remaining in the single market.

Vince Cable has said it is

specifically designed to flush out

the Labour Party by asking straight

out will you support this amendment

or not with the option of staying in

the single market. How would Labour

vote on that?

We are leaving the EU,

we need a custom made deal with the

EU. We need to be able to respect

the views of the British people as

expressed in the referendum and one

debate was about ensuring that we

have more control of migration.

We've been told that the four

freedoms mean we can't stay in the

single market as it currently is so

we need a different deal. Those

other things we should have focused

on rack from the outset.

Emily

Thornberry, thank you very much for

coming in this morning.

There have been a number of reports

in the press recently accusing

the Labour pressure group Momentum

of forcing serving Labour

councillors off the ballot paper

for re-election in favour

of their own candidates.

Sources close to Momentum argue

they are simply helping to reflect

the new make-up of the Labour Party.

So is there any truth

in the allegations?

Elizabeth Glinka has been

to Brighton to find out.

They say to keep your

friends close and your

enemies closer, and in

the

Labour Party in Brighton they are

very close indeed. Here, as in many

other parts of the country,

there are suggestions that Momentum

is attempting to seize control and

ultimately replace sitting

councillors with candidates of their

own choosing.

Two weeks ago Momentum won

all nine positions on the

committee which will organise

the selection of candidates

for the next City Council

elections in 2019.

Local activists have spoken

about installing the first Socialist

council in the city, the implication

being that the current Labour

council is not quite

socialist enough.

If you talk to people from Momentum,

they will say to you, we

have brought in all these

new members, they're

full of enthusiasm,

why shouldn't we have our people

moving in to take over the party,

we are the future of the party.

Is there bullying

going on in Brighton?

I think there has been.

And I think that has

predominantly been from people

outside the Labour Party

and it is not acceptable.

Wouldn't be accurate to say that

Momentum members and

some of the new Labour Party members

are mobilising against the existing

councillors?

I think there has been some chatter

about that and a lot of

that has been from those who are not

in the party at the present time.

Once people are not members

of the Labour Party,

they can't share our values

and therefore they should be

excluded from Momentum.

And that would be a way

to unify the party in

Brighton and Hove and

around the country.

As a former minister in the Blair

government you might expect of

a captain to take that view.

I spoke to a number of Labour Party

members who said they had

experienced intimidation and that

Momentum was authoritarian

and brutal to existing councillors.

None would agree

to appear on camera.

While I was in Brighton a Momentum

activist posted this video and

social media.

The faces of three Labour

councillors including the

council leader had

been superimposed.

Something I put to a local

Momentum organiser Greg

Hadfield, who is currently suspended

from the Labour Party.

I haven't seen it so I'm not

going to comment on it.

And you think that is?

I'm happy to get

back to you and have

considered view but

I haven't seen it.

I have spoken to a number of people

across the party in Brighton

and Hove, some of them tell me that

Momentum are using bullying tactics,

that the party is very divided

and they feel not able to speak up

and air their views.

They are saying that on the record?

Because I think that's

shocking smears.

What we have seen in

Brighton and Hove in the

last 18 months is a massive upsurge

in democratic, decent democratic

engagement with party members.

Anyone who says that,

first of all they are lying,

but also they don't have the best

interests of the party.

Would you like to get

rid of the current

cohort of councillors

in Brighton and Hove,

the Labour councillors.

I would love it for

members to elect the best

representatives of this

Labour Party that they can.

If that is bullying,

if that is not democratic, if that

is deselecting, then people

saying that have a very

strange view of democracy.

Overnight Labour suspended

the member who posted the video.

He denied was anti-Semitic

and issued an apology.

Away from Brighton

the deselection of Labour

councillors in Haringey

and in other London boroughs has

made the national press.

There have been deselection

is in other places as

well including Hastings

and by just aware the

former mayor is among

the casualties.

I think we need a cultural

message from the top.

Momentum clearly have a place

in the Labour movement now

although they are not affiliated

with the party

formally they have brought energy

and ideas to the party.

That is no bad thing.

But Jeremy Corbyn is not just

the party leader but the

figurehead of momentum,

he has to send a message

to all his troops,

if you like around the country,

saying perhaps, not in my name.

Having spoken to people

from across the

Labour Party in Brighton,

there are those that

will tell you that the party is more

united than ever before

and they are incredibly positive

about the future.

But on the other

side even people who

describe themselves as being

on the left say they feel despondent

and that the atmosphere can only be

described as toxic.

Well we asked Momentum if someone

could come on to discuss the issues

raised in that film but no

one was available.

Never mind, we have our panel of

experts. Helen, is it perfectly

legitimate for momentum to get their

own candidate selected. They are in

the ascendancy now, so why shouldn't

they have more candidates?

They have

a legitimate position and they are

entitled to push it forward. But it

is controlled by two Private limited

companies and the data is in the

hands of one man. They talk about

progress and the Fabians, it is

around Jeremy Corbyn as a person.

The third thing, they are very

successful in terms of making viral

videos and they are an effective,

organising force and that is why

people are so worried.

Momentum do

show the way politics is going, they

are fantastic at mobilising people,

reaching their supporters and doing

it in different ways, are centrists

in the Labour Party frightened by

their success?

Definitely and that

is why they haven't been able to put

up a better fight. To claim this is

an undemocratic, because votes have

been taken before Momentum takes

control like the Brighton & Hove

Albion are to, is absurd. It isn't

democratic because a small neo-Nazis

calls will be holding the Labour

Party to ransom. It doesn't matter

whether they can sit out at these

meetings until 2am until moderates

have to go home. It doesn't make it

a takeover, it is definitely not

democratic as it would be if Britain

First took over the Labour Party.

Is

that fair?

The problem is calling it

tiny. It isn't tiny any more. The

last lot of people campaigning on

the streets for Labour were involved

in Momentum. If you look at their

social media, 60% of voters saw a

Momentum video on their Facebook

feeds during the general election

and Momentum spent £2000 on it.

Everything else spread virally.

There is a popularity and yes they

are a bunch of old leftie Marxists,

but on the other side there is

people cheering the Jeremy Corbyn,

they have come together and it is a

powerful force and no wonder the

Blairites and motorists are worried.

It is a form of bullying?

You have

these optimistic people who want to

change the world, tied up with a

group of people who are effective

organisers and behave in a

substandard way a lot of the time.

To compare them with Britain First

is over the top. To compare it with

an organisation whose explicit

purpose is to

Hello and welcome

to Sunday Politics.

So as the debate goes on over

who's come out on top

after the government's last-minute

deal with the EU,

we'll hear from the DUP

and Sinn Fein on what it means

for Northern Ireland,

and its place in the UK and Europe.

We'll also hear from the UUP,

SDLP and Alliance and throughout

this extended programme,

we'll have analysis from Professors

Pete Shirlow and Cathal McCall.

So, work is now under way

to establish what precisely our

trading and political relationships

will look like - both

north-south and east-west -

in future, and where Stormont should

fit in to it all.

And no-one expects it to be plan

sailing from here on,

despite Friday's dramatic deal.

Joining me now are the DUP's Sammy

Wilson and Sinn Fein's John O'Dowd.

SAMMY -In the run-up to Friday's

deal a DUP source was quoted

In the run-up to the deal, a DUP

source was quoted as saying, this is

about who brings first and we have

cut at out our eyelids. A

climb-down? Not a climb-down, we set

out at the beginning of the week to

say our objectives. We'll face with

a green document which the prime

ministers shared with us. We told

her forcefully that we could not

support if she moved forward with

that document. Over the week,

through protracted negotiations with

the government, we succeeded in

getting a document which now first

makes it clear that the United

Kingdom is leaving the single market

and the customs union and Northern

Ireland will be included in that.

Secondly, that there will be no

barriers put on trade between

Northern Ireland and the rest of the

UK now or in the future. Thirdly,

the government will support the free

and unfettered access for Northern

Ireland businesses to the GB market,

which is the appalled market for us.

And in future negotiations where

there are specific interests will

Northern Ireland, there will be deep

involvement by Northern Ireland and

the DUP and Northern Ireland

politicians.

But the reality was

there were no -- two special

demands, that there should be no

special status and to achieve demand

two, number one has been sacrificed.

No, for Northern Ireland, there will

be no regulations put in place that

will treat Northern Ireland

differently from the rest of the UK.

If there is to be any regulatory

alignment because a free-trade deal

is not struck, the regulations will

affect the whole of the United

Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland.

So the UK

stay in the single market customs

union, it has just been forced to

act as if it has. How better as Mac

but even that term regulatory

alignment is elastic.

As the

secretary of state said in the House

of Commons this week, regulatory

alignment, if it is required, and it

is only in that narrow area of

North-South cooperation...

Six major

areas, 142 subsections.

If you look

at the analysis done, over half of

those areas do not require

regulations which mirror the

regulations in the rest of the EU.

So that bit was over eggs.

You're

not talking about some Northern

Ireland economy...

We are not.

You

pull the plug on Monday, why not on

Thursday night?

Because the

negotiations you have a main goal.

Our main goal was that a document

which gave little or no recognition

to Northern Ireland's position in

the UK and staying in line with the

rest of the UK when we left the EU,

that was changed. We succeeded in

getting that.

You avoided a hard

border so the whole of the UK to --

have to align to allow Northern

Ireland its special status. The

holiday UK is now affected, so how

is that a better deal?

Let's look at

that particular paragraph. The first

option is that we get a free-trade

arrangement with the rest of the EU.

That is what the government will be

aiming for and what we will be

aiming for. And if it get a proper

free-trade arrangement, there is no

need to worry about regulations

being aligned. The second one is

that if that is not possible, there

will be special arrangements put in

place as the government put in its

August paper to the EU, to ensure

that there is the trade -- free

trade across but the bottom line is,

if you can't improve on this... And

the last backstop is that if a

free-trade arrangement is not agreed

or is the special arrangements

cannot be put in place, then we will

look at what alignment on a UK wide

basis is required. And that's

alignment, the Secretary of State

made it clear in the House of

Commons, could be recognition of

standards, could be equivalence...

It is not special status for

Northern Ireland.

Is it special

status?

Will already have special

status because we are treated

differently. So it is what happens

next. The DUP have found out that

they are a big fish in the small

pond. They don't want to be small

fish in a large pond with sharks.

Because this is moving into trade

talks. The trade talks will

concentrate, unfortunately, because

this is a difficulty of the EU, the

trade talks will concentrate on the

needs of big business rather than

people. That is why the DUP will

find out that the interest of the

banks in England, of multinationals

in England, will overwrite any

interest or influence they think

they have with Theresa May. One of

the reasons why Theresa May stepped

on the plane in the early hours of

Friday morning and started

negotiating with the DUP at that

stage is that she has now realised

that this has moved on to a bigger

agenda.

At least we are in the pond,

you are not in the pond! And it is

significant that on Monday, the

prime ministers shared with us the

document, certainly, when we showed

we were interested, she stopped the

meetings in Brussels. Leo Varadkar

did not do this with you. You are

not in the pond!

Leo Varadkar and

Simon Coveney have been very busy

and some people say that they played

their difficult and very well.

We

have given a cautious welcome to the

document. The principles of

protecting northern Ireland remain

on the principle of no Brexit border

and protecting people's rights

remains. It will await the formal

implementation of an agreement to

assure that those principles become

legally binding requirements.

Everybody except that's what we have

had from Friday is a communique from

the UK Government to the EU. The

principles are good.

Do you regard

this as special status for Northern

Ireland? That is a yes or a no.

It

is a difficult question to answer

because until we see the enforcement

of the deal of the legislation and

guidance and all those things which

enforce a deal, it is difficult.

It

is difficult for you because you

don't want to say that, because the

SDLP said you didn't want special

status and you opposed it and now

that means you are taking an SDLP

policy. You have outmanoeuvred

yourself.

No, this is where you need

to know the background.

You argued

against it.

Let me give you the

background. At that time, the Irish

government were lobbying Sinn Fein

to back down on our position which

was much beyond and in advance of

the SDLP.

So what you want? I have a

quote here and I can read it if you

want to. In October 2016, you are

saying,

I suspect that, in there somewhere,

the Irish Government and the SDLP

are moving away from the position

that "Remain" must mean "Remain".

you're given this cautious welcome.

We need to see how this is going to

be implemented.

You are trying to

remedy Fox and hunt with the hound.

There is no other way of achieving

regulatory alignment with the

customs union unless you are in the

single market.

But the document

makes it clear that the UK will be

leaving the customs union and the

single market and that Northern

Ireland will be going with the UK

when that happens. So there is no

question of the special status which

are asking for. That is one of the

things that we were very keen to get

included in the document and have

succeeded in.

You base your policy

on opposition to what Sinn Fein

wanted.

We base our policy on what

we fought for in the referendum,

namely that the United Kingdom

should leave the EU and leaving the

EU necessarily meant to...

That is

an interesting point. Let me ask

you, in this deal that you did not

oppose and did not pull the plug on,

the protection afforded to Northern

Ireland...

Let's make it clear, we

chose...

You didn't choose anything.

We chose not to pull the plug

because we thought that the main

objection off-macro so why did you

pull the plug on Monday, but not

Friday? Does anybody come out of

negotiations getting everything that

they want? The main thing we wanted

to secure... And we would have liked

to see more, but the main thing we

aimed to secure was that Northern

Ireland would not be treated

differently than the rest of the

United Kingdom. And that is peppered

throughout this agreement so we

achieved that.

But the part of the

deal with the Tories is that you

would give support under your

confidence and supplied motion on

Brexit deals?

And to date, we have

honoured that.

Today, but in future?

The negotiations will go on...

So it

is under question now? You won't

honour the deal?

Any confidence and

supply arrangement is under the

assumption that people will...

So

you would walk away from 1 million

-- £1 billion?

Some of it has been

delivered. A lot of that money is

dependent on...

Theresa May has said

you had your day in the sun on

Monday, but you're not going to get

that again.

Please give me the

option to answer. The money is

dependent on their being plans for

broadband roll-out. There are no

plans for that at present. It is

dependent on the plans for reform of

the health service. Those plans are

not in place at present. It depends

on infrastructure projects which are

not -- which do not all have

planning permission. You should at

least listen to the answer. You

should at least listen to the

answer.

A final question to you and

then to John. The protection

afforded to Northern Ireland to

ensure it is not isolated from the

UK means that the UK as a whole as

to stay close to the EU integer. You

wanted the former, not the latter.

What kind of Brexit deal is that?

That is not the case. The document

makes it clear that regulatory

alignment and whatever necessary

regulatory alignment there is on

those narrow areas of North-South

co-operation will be done on a UK

wide basis but in the context of the

UK's leaving the single market and

customs union.

Is that how you see

it, John?

They told us they would

not pay the divorce bill, they are

paying it. They told us they would

not ensure the rights of a European

citizens, they have. They tell as

they are leaving the customs union

and single market, that is yet to be

decided. In the trade talks, we will

see what comes out of the alt of

that. The best Euro involves being

in the customs union and single

market.

Thank you for that.

Thanks to both.

Listening to that,

Professor Pete Shirlow

of the University of Liverpool

and Professor Cathal McCall

from Queen's University.

What do you make of the deal and

what we have heard from the main

parties so far today? Certainly the

deal would suggest that we are

heading in the UK for a suspect it

rather than a hard Brexit.

Mrs Grove

Johnson and Fox would prefer the

latter. Although there seems to be

some form of attack on this document

from certainly gof and the Telegraph

article.

A bit fightback and

certainly. Hardline rector tears

don't see that that way. --

brigadiers. -- brexiteers.

We happen

to me about narrow regulatory

alignment between north and south

cooperation. It suggests to me that

you would need border inspection to

decipher what is not aligned and not

aligned in terms of goods coming

across the border. There is also the

question of the whole island economy

that has developed since 1998, the

agricultural foods sector here is

massively integrated by in large

throughout the island. In terms of

milk production for example. The

fine detail of that will emerge as

we go through these trade

negotiations.

Can I bring Pete in.

What is your initial thoughts on

where we might be, at this stage in

the process?

I think John has picked

it up exactly. What has happened it

was what was always going to happen

all, a re-trade arrangement. A soft

trade arrangement. Global capital of

Europe, in London, you can't have

that outside of the economy of

Europe. The captains of industry and

of the financial systems obviously

want this as soft as possible and

with the UK gone you don't have the

same time of ferocious and is on

this debate. -- with Ukip gone there

was no process this. At the end of

the day those who are in charge know

that you need to have a soft landing

but one thing important that Sammy

said is that if you look at

devolution, border for example isn't

a devolved issue, this is a UK

Ireland border. It happens to be

Northern Ireland and the Republic

but it is an international border.

It's not a devolved matter, it is a

matter that relates to two Southern

countries and I think it's not a

special status argument it is that

that border can be accommodated as

is currently will be done

differently.

Do you except we are

now heading to a soft Brexit, and

are relaxed about these such?

I hate

these terms soft and hard Brexit.

You either leave or you don't. I am

still convinced the government

because of the commitments it has

made and indeed because of the

commitments to other parties made to

their supporters, that we will not

be in the custody union and the

single market, you can call out

whatever you want...

You still have

to act in the way that you are.

When

you are trading with any country you

have you give acknowledgements to

some of the regulations which exist

in those countries. When we sell

aircraft parts to the United States

we have 2p cognisant of the

regulations in the States and

ignoring those we couldn't sell.

There is was going to be an element

of that in any trade.

Sammy says he

is relaxed about the concept of this

soft and hard Brexit. You see this

is different and except more of a

soft Brexit.

We are going towards

what is known as a soft Brexit but

there was lots of negotiation to be

done over the next number of months

and perhaps years. This is not a

done deal and tell as at the end of

this like the end of this what's the

legal binding document says with a

direction of tribal moving forward.

-- travel.

Thanks for now.

We'll be hearing from the SDLP,

Alliance and Ulster Unionists

in just a moment -

but first, a look back at the week

gone past in slightly

more than 60 seconds.

We have been very clear, Northern

Ireland must leave the European

Union on the same terms as the rest

of the United Kingdom. This is a

start of the very last stage.

We

will reconvene before the end of the

week and I am also confident that we

will conclude this positively.

We

are surprised and disappointed they

haven't been able to follow through

today and on that agreement but

there is still time.

We have said

from the beginning that the pact

between the DUP and the Tories in

landing would end in tears and so it

has.

When we looked at the wording

and have seen the import of all that

we knew we couldn't sign up to

anything that was in that text that

would allow a border to develop in

the Irish Sea.

Can you guarantee the

government won't accept any deal

ensuring the north doesn't remain in

the customs union and the single

market?

Someone forgot to share the

details with the DUP. Surely there

are 1.5 billion reasons why the run

is there really shouldn't have

forgotten to share with the DUP?

We

will ensure there is no hard border

between the north and the south of

Ireland. We will do that while we

respect the constitutional integrity

of the United Kingdom.

Do you feel

you are making any progress

whatsoever?

I'm not making any

comment at this stage. Thank you

very much.

There will be no hard border and we

will uphold the Belfast agreement.

I

am satisfied that sufficient

progress has now been made on the

Irish issues. The parameters have

been set and they are good.

We have

the very clear confirmation that the

entirety of the United Kingdom is

leaving the European Union leaving

the single market and the customs

union.

Joining me now are Claire Hanna

of the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist

MEP Jim Nicholson,

and the Alliance Party's deputy

leader, Stephen Farry.

Claire, first of all, a good deal so

far or... Not so much? I think we

are very glad of a breakthrough for

a start because tensions were high

and that is never a good thing for

anybody and I think in terms of what

has been agreed we think it is yes

broadly positive. You concerned it

could slip away? Of course it

occurred. Hardline Brexit is --

brexiteers are already making their

pitch. In terms of the future deal

we should be watched, if the prime

ministers says the deal is not

binding... I think it is positive

that in the bottom line if the

magical solution that the brexiteers

don't actually materialise,

essentially single market actors

seem to be back on the table and I

believe that over time there are

many people who will grab that with

open arms. We are glad that there is

a move on through this particular

gate that the potential for a

catastrophic no deal is essentially

off the table but there is a long

way to run and it is important to

say that Northern Ireland should not

sit here like babies as it goes on

over our head and we have agency and

this and we should do whatever we

can.

Jim Nicholson you have a voice

in Brussels and can influence the

discussions. Bats in a way that

others can't because you are an MEP.

Is it so far so good, eight good

start, something to be built on?

There is something to be built on. I

have always maintained that you

couldn't have solved the problem of

the border which becomes a border

when the UK leaves Europe, a border

between the European Union and the

United Kingdom, that is what for me

a lots of people didn't understand

and I think for me now this could

have been better but there is no

point dwelling upon that because we

want to go to the next phase and you

bet your bottom dollar as we sit

here today in Brussels they are

drawing up who is going to be in

charge of the next agenda, next ago

sitting position and Hugh will be

looking at the last one while Mr

Davies said on every occasion he

lost the argument to Michel Barnier,

and the last negotiations were

conducted on a total EU agenda. If

the UK doesn't get some reality back

into the situation on the next

negotiations if they continue to

allow looking at the situation Boris

Johnson saying as far as Europe was

concerned they could go whistle for

their money, it is 40 billion,

that's a big whistle.

An expensive

one. Briefly on this, some people

are now making the case that there

is a need perhaps in future for

Northern Ireland MEPs do continue to

have a voice in Brussels because if

we are looking at alignment and

there are changes in future who

would speak up for Northern Ireland

in that situation? The only person

could do it with out the UK being

there would be Leo Varadkar or the

Taoiseach, would you still like to

be in Brussels making that case?

That's an interesting point. It

relates to some of these things

indeed because for me as we go

forward we had to see what full

alignment means, how it will be

implemented, how it would be

implemented and I understand this

morning there have been calls of

that into question and yes you are

right, that once the UK leaves as

far as we would be concerned there

would be nobody at the Council for

us.

That is a yes? Go on, spit it

out, Jim.

I am not going to accept

that Dublin will be sitting at the

table representing on this issue.

Is

there a case for the keeping of the

MEPs of Northern Ireland?

There was

a case for a lot of things an the

road. We are only at the starting

line as far as these negotiations

are concerned. This has taken 18

months and if we don't go along the

next one the next one will take a

long time, I don't think it is a

given us for as Europe is concerned

talking to Europeans, not my own

personal view but as far as

Europeans concerned they won't let

us have our cake and eat it.

Stephen

Farry I think the deal on Friday has

been given a welcome by your party.

How consonant are you that the way

things turn as they often do in high

politics that the whole thing could

be unfixable for it is dry?

I think

there is a lack of realism as Italy

with the DUP and the UK Government

as to what they are signed up in

practice. Sammy Wilson was pretty

relaxed this morning. But if they

are relaxed I am prepared to be a

lot more generous, and protecting

the Northern Ireland economy that is

a good thing. What has been agreed

here it is first of all the

protection of the Good Friday

Agreement and secondly avoidance of

a hard border, those are innocent of

the two fixed points in this

discussion.

Is it possible to

achieve both.

It is possible but

that is the point I'm trying to

stress. It is useful to talk this in

terms of the three red lines of the

UK Government. The mini customs

union and single market, ruling out

special measures for Northern

Ireland, and they want avoiding a

hard border. Only two of those can

be true at anyone time. They have

now said firmly there will be no

border sites unless they give on

either one of those issues, the EU

don't want regulatory alignment and

they have to recognise this will be

fairly broad. Unless you have

something that is very comprehensive

then you will see a border returning

in some shape or form. And that

means potentially in essence full

participation in the single market

which we are calling for. This is a

not a case of voluntary alignment of

the UK as a whole, trying to meet

the single market and it is a

two-way process so there has to be

recognition. Investors coming into

Northern Ireland in future need to

know what type of legal governments

then the regime will be invested in.

Claire Hanna when you look at some

of the things in the papers over the

weekend lots of people have been

saying, people involved in the

negotiations and commenting upon

them with a lot of experience of the

process up to now have been saying

this deal is a political deal as you

have said yourself rather than a

legal deal. But it tries to be all

things to all men and women. And it

is not actually possible at the end

of the day. We aren't sure how it

will be shaped and summary will be

disappointed.

Yes if you look at the

history of the last few months I

think it is clear who will end up

disappointed because as was

articulated before, the London

government had a number of red

lines, all of which they have had to

accept circles can't be squared.

Part of the problem for London is

that they don't have an opening

position, if the trade talks are

ready to talk in the New Year, they

have never worked out what will be

want to add the other side of them,

they have only gone so far as sound

bites. This negotiation provides

bottom lines, and some fundamentals

that we don't think can be breached

and yes you are right, the flesh has

to be put on these bones that have

come out this week but I still think

they won't have been able to sell

that anyway. I think single market

would be best, we don't want any

border north-south we don't want any

border East-West either. Well it is

a soft or hard Brexit lots of people

will wonder why you pay the divorce

bill and cohabit will stop why would

you go to this process and end up

with something that is Brexit light,

all of the pain that will be

involved with the coming years with

the £40 billion that Claire has

referred to, something where you are

following the regulations in the

single market and the customs union

anyway?

That's a question would have to go

back... No point trying to refight

the recommend am. With the benefit

of hindsight, if we look at it now,

both sides in the referendum did not

do themselves an awful lot of

justice with the money coming back

from the health service etc. But we

are where we are today. The people

of the UK spoke and made it very

clear. I made my position clear at

the time and as Sammy Wilson said

earlier on, in life you don't always

get everything you want. We are in a

situation where we are going to have

to go forward and what will be the

end result, remains to be seen.

Is

it worth going to refight that

battle again and was the customs

union -- was worth leaving in the

first place?

My hunch on this is

that we will end up with a little

Brexit to satisfy the first

referendum and in that is important

to separate the politics from the

economic. Northern Ireland will be

exiting in a political and

constitutional way. But the key

thing is to separate the economics

in Northern Ireland. It has to

recognise east-west and north-south

access. We need to have both in

unison to survive and to really

succeed as a society. Alone -- a lot

of the talk has been about defending

things. We have to recognise that

our economy is still underperforming

with infrastructure we --

weaknesses. We need spending to help

us develop things. Turning our backs

on the world will not help.

I want

to go back to the document which has

been referred to, there are

contradictions in it. Is it possible

for everything contained in it to be

delivered? Or will one phrase, one

element of its knockout another?

There is a lack of clarity in the

document. It is purposely vague...

Full of constructive ambiguity.

We

know all about this with the Good

Friday Agreement and have the types

of agreements work. Or at least

survive opposition.

Is that

necessarily a bad thing?

No, but as

we have seen with the previous

speakers, there is already a

difference of opinion certainly on

the EU and British side with regard

to what this term, full alignment,

means. Does it mean very limited

areas of? Six areas, orders are

applied to 146 areas of plus the all

Ireland economy that has developed

since the 1998 agreement? All that

will be fleshed out. This document

is almost aspirational. The

Taoiseach use the Tama bullet-proof.

I have heard future proof mentioned,

and I don't agree because the

opening caveat is that nothing is

agreed until everything is agreed.

And significantly and not

surprisingly, we have heard

Unionists saying that that is the

key phrase. All of this is

hypothetical but at the end of the

day it has to be agreed for it to

move forward.

Of course it has too,

for unionism because Unionism has to

have the best representation for

Northern Ireland in the UK. But

Brexit is going to be largely

apolitical process. That is the

divorce. The trade issue will often

be the soft side of things. The soft

side of Brexit will be how we put

together the trade arrangement. This

has been a good week for Theresa May

and for the DUP in the sense that

they have had things that were

already there but they have acted be

able to say that to their

supporters. And a good week for Leo

Varadkar. Fine Gael have risen to

40% in the polls. Interesting that

the politics around this is creating

winners and losers and very clearly,

when we heard Jim Allister on Friday

night and the Nigel Farage, this

Brexit is not what those who voted

for it are naturally going to get.

It will not be that. A quick word on

the return to Stormont. Does it put

pressure on the parties in Stormont

to shape the debate?

Most of us

would say this is above our pay

grade but it does put pressure on

them. Brexit is not about trade

alone, it is about interdependence,

relationships, taking those

questions as to whether you look

East - West and North- South.

Jim,

on that, doesn't put pressure on

Stormont coming back sooner rather

than later?

Beyond doubt. If you

have to have full alignment, you

need a parliament to enact it. No

matter what it is.

Whenever we

publish our own paper -- when we

published our own paper we said that

this agreement was devolution max.

Ensuring we work to find that we can

do things differently when needed to

get the best both worlds.

That is a

huge challenge. Then we get into the

transition talks and then the trade

talks. Thank you all very much

indeed.

That's it for now -

we've got a special edition

of The View coming up this Thursday.

We'll be live from Brussels as EU

leaders meet, we presume,

to ratify the deal and move

discussions on towards the all

important trade talks.