16/07/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

With Cabinet divisions over Brexit, spending and leadership spilling

onto the front pages, we'll be talking to international

trade secretary Liam Fox about Britain's future

Jeremy Corbyn's been to Brussels to set out

Labour's vision for Brexit - but with the party suffering its own

divisions on Europe, are they being entirely clear

And as Ukip searches for another leader, will taking an even more

hard-line stance on Islam make the party relevant again,

If Ukip goes down the route of being a party that is anti

the religion of Islam, frankly it's finished.

The First Ministers of Scotland and Wales met

Michel Barnier this week - so is Northern Ireland missing out

when it comes to influencing the Brexit negotiations?

Yes, all of that to come, and I'm joined for all of it

by three journalists whose every word is as closely followed

And much like the Liberal Democrat leadership contest, they've

won their place on the panel because no-one else wanted the job.

It's Steve Richards, Isabel Oakeshott and Tom Newton Dunn.

First today, for a supposedly private gathering, the meeting

of the Cabinet on Tuesday has generated rather a lot of headlines,

most of them featuring Chancellor Philip Hammond.

Yesterday there were disputed claims in the Sun over what he may or may

not have said about women driving trains, and today the Sunday Times

says colleagues picked him up for describing public sector workers

as overpaid, although some dispute that version of events.

Well, Mr Hammond was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning,

and he took the unusual step of suggesting that the source

of the stories may be people unhappy at his position over Brexit.

If you want my opinion, some of the noise is generated by people

who are not happy with the agenda that I have,

tried to advance of ensuring that we achieve a Brexit

which is focused on protecting our economy, protecting

our jobs, and making sure we can have continued rising living

So what do you make of that, Isabel? The Chancellor thinks he's being

undermined by Cabinet colleagues who don't trust him on Brexit. That's

quite remarkable to say that in public. I also think it's completely

true. That's the least controversial part of it! The briefing is his

position on Brexit and also frustration on his position over

public sector pay then it is over any kind of leadership manoeuvrings.

We saw on the Andrew Marr Show that he was doubling down on the issue of

public sector pay rises. He didn't categorically deny using the words

of overpaid, in fact he reiterated the fact he sees them as whether

they are overpaid or not so I believe he did use that phrase but

clearly he's got the tone wrong and I don't think he's done himself any

favours. He's a pretty wealthy man himself, multimillionaire. He must

have some kind of political deafness if he thinks it's OK for someone in

his position to say, in a number of cases, lowly paid public sector

workers are overpaid? I think he is politically deaf, and not

emotionally intelligent. He has a great head for figures but very poor

at expressing himself. It was a crass remark over women train

drivers. He may be in the right place on some arguments, he's just

extremely poor at expressing and that's what gives his opponents the

chance to rip his head off. He should have worked out by now that

it is clear whatever... Because of the dim munition of Mrs May's

authority that whatever you see in the Cabinet now is likely to become

public in some shape or form. I think this is the profound lesson of

the story, that Cabinet discussion is almost impossible now, and

Hammond will go away this summer thinking I can't engage in a proper

debate in Cabinet because they will leak it. It sounds as if they were

having quite a grown-up conversation about public sector pay with a

spending department ministers putting the case for breaking the

cup and Hammond saying from the Treasury perspective this is what's

happening. Which is what normally happens in Cabinet. He would hope

so, not any more. He won't be able to speak his mind in Cabinet because

he knows it will be leaked and that is another sign of fragility of this

Government, when you cannot have a grown-up discussion about public

sector pay even in Cabinet, and that means Cabinet discussion which is

urgently needed on Brexit and the rest of it cannot happen in an open

way because leaking is happening. Mrs May is not exactly top of the

Pops with her own party at the moment but doesn't help her in the

fact that her Chancellor is even less top of the Pops? The key thing

is that backbenchers don't want a leadership contest at the moment.

There are a number of Cabinet ministers or more senior figures who

have been around longer who may feel this is their last chance of the

leadership and they are urgently wanting it happen now. Backbenchers

don't want it, I don't think it will happen. Will it happen? I don't

think it will. There are egos clashing in the Cabinet and also

many who just want things to stay the way they are, so they will. We

will talk more about this leadership matter later in the programme, but

let's move on. This week the government passed

another Brexit milestone when in introduced the Repeal Bill

to the Commons. It will incorporate all EU law

into the UK's domestic And although a vote on the Bill

isn't due until the autumn, the government still has plenty

on its plate when it Brexit secretary David Davis

and the EU's negotiator Michel Barnier will sit down

for another helping of Brexit negotiations in Brussels

this week. Progress now needs to be made

on some big questions. They include: the rights of EU

citizens living here, How to maintain an open border

between Northern Ireland And the size of the financial

settlement or so-called divorce bill Previous estimates have included a

figure of The British government has put no

figure on it, simply saying it This week, Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson said the EU could "go whistle" if it was

expecting an extortionate fee Brussels wants this set

of negotiations focusing on the principles of separation

to be done by the end of the year. They can then turn to the main

event, the future trading relationship between the UK

and the EU. While the UK remains a member

of the EU customs union, it cannot But it can hold advanced discussions

with other countries. This week, Australian Prime Minister

Malcolm Turnbull said his country was very keen for a deal

as quickly as possible. And at the G20 summit, Donald Trump

said he wanted to sign a very powerful UK-US trade

deal very quickly. But as trade deals normally

take years to negotiate, it is unclear when the first ones

will be ready for post-Brexit So there will be plenty

for both sides to digest, as negotiations continue

over the summer. I'm joined

by the International Trade Your brief is to agree new free

trade deals but you cannot sign any until Brexit is done, can you even

begin proper negotiations this side of Brexit or is that illegal too? We

cannot negotiate and conclude a trade agreement but we can scope

them out. We can get our preparatory work done. We have got ten working

groups established across the world with countries from Korea to the

United States to Australia. I know scoping the out is fine, you can

talk about trade but you cannot begin formal trade negotiations

until after Brexit. No, but we have trade working agreements. Free trade

agreements are not the only thing that are in the mix as it were, they

are what people think about but we also have mutual recognition

agreements where we can reduce some of the barriers to trade, the

technical barriers, in that process. We have a number of other things

going on. We have got to get our trading schedules in Switzerland and

Geneva and the World Trade Organisation organised. We then have

40 EU free trade agreements and we have to get them ready because if we

were not to negotiate those and be ready on the first day of Brexit,

there would be huge market disruption. Although you can clearly

do a lot of technical work and you can talk till the cows come home,

there will be no free trade deals on the shelf ready to sign come March

2019 when we are leaving the EU, that's correct isn't it? Technically

there will be new ones... There will be no free trade deals ready to say

right, we are out, here is a deal I have baked earlier. Not right away

because we are not permitted to do that as part of our membership of

the European Union and one of the things I want to get is greater

freedom to be able to negotiate on behalf of the UK. That's not

possible when you are inside the customs union. There's much talk of

a transition after 2019. You told Bloomberg you didn't mind a few

months, the Chancellor this morning said it would be a couple of years.

What is it? The key thing is why would you have a transitional

arrangements, how long would it be and what would the conditions be.

For me first we have to leave the European Union in March 2019 so

there can be no case of extending EU membership. At that point as a third

country we can have a transition agreement which keeps as little

disruption as possible but it has to have an end date. You said a few

months, the Chancellor said a few years, why the difference? As the

Chancellor said, it is more a technical argument, because for

example how do we get new border equipment in place, how do we get

the arrangements for immigration put in place, but for me, you know, I've

waited a long time and campaigned long time to leave the European

Union. As long as we leave in March 2019 I'm happy, as long as we have a

time-limited transitional period to make it work for business. The

Chancellor doesn't deny the transition could take up four years.

The Brexit Secretary David Davis says it could be a maximum of three

years, you are talking months. Shouldn't you sort this out around

the Cabinet table instead of all three of you sending mixed messages?

We are dependent on for example what HMRC Tal us, how investment is

going. It's also a question of negotiating with our European

partners. We know what's involved, why are you sending out these mixed

messages? I don't have a problem with the transition period as long

as it is time-limited. It is not just the time, it is the conditions.

I want in the transitional period to be able to negotiate agreements at

that point. We cannot have a putting off over the freedom to negotiate

trade agreements. At the moment is it clear you would be able to sign

any free trade deals during a transition period? No, that's to be

negotiated. So if Mr Hammond or Mr Davies is right, up to three or four

years, it could be 2021 before you get to sign a free trade deal. We

don't now how long any would take to negotiate. They don't happen

overnight. Would you even be able to negotiate during a transition

period? I would hope so, that is one of the conditions we might set. It

is certainly something I would want to see because otherwise it makes it

much more difficult to take advantage of the opportunities that

Brexit itself would produce. Your ink will run dry before you get to

sign one of these agreements. We have a huge amount to do and it's

not just at the free trade agreement level. We have for example what we

get at the World Trade Organisation because the real game for the UK is

to get a global liberalisation in the services sector -- the real

gain. And I want to come onto that in a minute but before do, are you

group of the Cabinet ministers that seems to regularly be briefing

against Philip Hammond? No, I deplore leaks from the Cabinet, I

think my colleagues should be quiet, stick to their duties, and I expect

discipline to be effective. The only people smiling that this will be

people in Berlin and Paris. Why are people doing it? The need to have

less prosecco. They don't trust Philip Hammond, do they? I don't

think that is true. I read in the press we have very different views,

in fact our views are very similar on things like transition. I don't

know where it is coming from but I think it should stop.

But it is happening? It is happening and I think it undermines the

position of the government. We do not need an interim leader or an

alternative leader. We have a very good competent leader in Theresa

May. But he thinks it is being done by fellow Brexiteers? I do not know

who is doing it and they should stop. Let's come back to the tariff

free trade. There is much talk about that. The Chancellor says much of

our trade with the world is in services and free trade deals won't

make any particular difference. Do you agree with him? They can make a

difference. It has been estimated with the OECD that free trade deals

with the United States could add ?42 billion to our bilateral trade by

2030. There is a game to be made. In an economy like the UK which is 80%

services, what we would benefit from is a range of global liberalisation.

One example is data. We have an economy where we talk about freedom

of movement of goods and services, but you also have to have the

freedom of movement of data. One thing I would like the UK to lead on

is to look to a global agreement on that. But the talks have come to an

end. There is no great global movement. That is not true. We have

just had a multilateral agreement, the trade facilitation was signed

this year which seeks to diminish friction at customs around the world

and will add 70 billion to the economy. But it leaves plenty of

nontariff barriers in place. The moment you start to talk about these

complicated rules and regulations that hinder services, it does not

make free trade deals impossible, it makes them much more on placated and

prolonged to do. Correct? You need to look at what is happening in the

global economy. According to the OECD, in 2012, the G7 and G20

countries were operating about 300 nontariff barriers. By the end of

2015, they were operating nearly three times that number. The silting

up of growth and global trade is being done by the global economy. We

need to be looking at how we can remove some of those barriers,

because otherwise our prosperity becomes limited. Is it still your

view that no deal would be better than a bad deal? Anyone who goes

into that negotiation without that is foolish. We will not accept any

deal they will give us. That is the problem David Cameron had before the

referendum. I think our partners believed we would accept a bad deal

rather than none. But Philip Hammond has given the game away. He said no

deal would be a very, very bad outcome. The Europeans know that we

have realised no deal would be a very bad outcome. Is he right? I

think you can argue on what the outcome would be. It is very

important as a negotiating tool, and the Prime Minister is 100% right.

Those we are negotiating with, need to believe that we would walk away

rather than accept a bad deal. But if you're going to walk away you did

not say the consequences would be very, very bad. You do not agree

with the key is what is our negotiating position? You simply do

not hand it away. So he is wrong? He says very, very bad. We have to

accept we have a right to walk away and those we are negotiating with

have to understand that. No businessman would go into a deal and

say whatever the outcome, we will accept it. And no business would go

into a major negotiation with six different voices but your government

is. David Davis speaks for the government not the Sunday

newspapers. Not Philip Hammond. Philip Hammond was very clear this

morning on the issue of transition. We are leaving the single the --

market, we are leaving the customs union. Let me just quote to some

other issues. It would be good to get some clarity. Is there a

contingency plan for no deal? Yes, government departments are all

working for their contingency plans for what would happen if we got to

the end of negotiation with no deal. Why did the Foreign Secretary say

there was no plan for no deal. There are contingency plans across

Whitehall. Is he wrong or out of the loop? As dead no. There are

contingency plans and my department and other departments have

specifically been tasked... He said it this week. Well, that is not

correct. We would be foolish not to have such contingency plans. I

understand the argument, you need to bring the Foreign Secretary in. He

is only the Foreign Secretary that you would need to bring him in, I

would have thought. You want is full deal with the EU as possible. Would

you be prepared to pay for that kind of open access? It depends what you

mean by pay. We have to start with where we are with the European Union

at the moment. We already have a tariff free arrangement. I know what

we already have. The only reason why we would not continue with that is

if the politicians on the other side of the channel wanted to put

politics before economics. What they said they want an annual fee? If

they are talking about Britain continuing to pay for those

international arrangements... I am not talking about that and I think

you know I am not. If we get a full access trade deal, that they say you

have to pay an annual fee for this full access, should we pay it? I

would not want to make a public position while our negotiations are

coming on but I think you would find it difficult to square with WTO law.

Has there ever been a free trade deal where you pay the other side

for access? Not that I am aware of. Nor me. It would be unprecedented.

Are you ruling it out? I am not going to say anything. I see say we

should not have a number of different cabinet voices ahead of

our negotiations so I will not do that. We will have a

negotiation. We will try and get as free deal as possible. Let me tell

you why it is important. I know why it is important. I have another

question. You said the EU has trade deals with a number of other

countries at the moment of which we are part of, South Korea and Canada

are two examples. Will they continue to trade with us on the existing

basis, or will we have to do new deals or change these deals after

Brexit? We are negotiating with his third countries so we have something

so that deals are translated into UK law so there is no disruption to

trade. It is not clear. It is break clear. The Canada deal has not yet

been ratified by the European Union. So we do not know if we can carry on

trading with those countries which the EU has a free trade deal with on

the same basis. We have not spoken to a single country and we have

working groups with Switzerland and career which make up 82% by value.

Not a single one of those has indicated they did not want to carry

out this transitional adoption. In the case of Canada, in the case of

Singapore, where that agreement has not yet been reached by the EU, we

will have to think then about a Plan B and how we go into a bilateral

agreement. The EU now regards as may as a lame duck leader. It is true in

Brussels, Berlin and Paris -- the EU now regards Mrs May as a lame duck

leader. There is a hung parliament. Labour will not save your bacon on

Brexit. They want a quick election and they will vote to bring that

about. This election result has severely undermined Britain's

negotiating position. If you are looking at European governments,

they are looking at dealing with minority governments all the time.

They are dealing with coalitions formal and informal. The key is we

have something stronger than that. We have the will of the British

people behind us clearly expressed in the referendum that we are going

to leave the European Union, whatever Tony Blair or anyone else

says. We will leave in March 20 19. Now the job of the government is to

get the best deal and that is best done by my colleagues getting on

with their departmental work, not involving themselves in things they

do not need to be involved in, giving our backbenchers the

reassurance that we have a united Cabinet. Liam Fox, thank you.

Jeremy Corbyn went to Brussels this week to meet with the EU's

chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier.

We're told Mr Corbyn wanted to set out Labour's

But on some of the big questions - like Britain's relationship

with the single market and the customs union -

Here's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell speaking earlier.

I believe we have to try and maintain the benefits

of the customs union, and that's one of the issues

Does it mean staying inside or leaving?

Keep all the options open, keep all the options...

Under Labour we could stay inside the customs union?

We are concentrating on the objectives rather

than the structures and that seems to have a resonance

I'm joined now by the Shadow Business Secretary

Rebecca Long-Bailey, she's in our Salford studio.

Good morning to you. Good morning. If there is a snap general election

it could well be Labour negotiating Brexit, so let's try and get some

answers to some fundamental questions. Is Labour in favour of

Britain remaining a member of the single market? What we have said it

want to retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union.

We have to be flexible in our approach, we appreciate that. The

end goal is maintaining the current benefits we have because we are

standing on the edge of a cliff, quite frankly, on

that matter. But you would concentrate on remaining a member of

the single market? The machinery we use to maintain those benefits is

open to negotiation. We have got to respect the result of the referendum

and the will of the people, in terms of having greater control over our

laws and the border. If we could negotiate staying in the single

market would be fantastic but whether it is likely have to be

seen. We are looking at all the options on the table and getting

access to the single market is one of those. Everybody wants access, I

am talking about membership. It is still not clear whether you would

negotiate to remain as a member of the single market, with all the

consequences of free movement and the European Court that would follow

from that. What is your position? We want to retain the current benefits

we have is a member of the single market, but we appreciate there will

be free movement and we will lose control over our laws. That was one

of the key positions that were set out in the referendum and people

were extremely concerned about that. That has to be negotiated. If we

could negotiate membership of the single market while dealing with the

other issues, that would be great. I think that would be unlikely. We

have to look at a more flexible approach while not being a member.

Is Labour in favour of remaining a member of the customs union? Again,

the position is similar. We want to retain the benefits we have in the

customs union. We want to have our cake and eat it, as do most parties

in Westminster. So you and Boris Johnson or on the same wavelength?

We need to be flexible, not cut our nose off despite our face. I am

asking for your position. Would you be clear to be prepared to sacrifice

not being able to do free trade deals, as the price for remaining in

the customs union? We have to be extremely flexible. We should be

able to carry out and negotiate our free trade deals. You cannot do that

in the customs union? So are you in or out? That is why it is a point

for negotiation, Andrew. We want to retain the benefits of the customs

union will negotiating trade deals as we see fit. That will form part

of the negotiations themselves. We cannot cut our nose despite our face

without coming out of the customs union without any transitional

arrangements whatsoever and send businesses over the cliff. Since you

do want to keep your cake and eat it. You want to stay in the single

market but not have the obligations that go with it, stay the single

union but not do -- stay in the single market but do your own trade

deals. The opposition is untenable. That is the point of the

negotiations... To be untenable? Not to be untenable. We have

negotiations. The machinery we have whether it is through outside

agreements or whether it is about a negotiated form of an amended

settlement, that is a moot point frankly. We need to make sure we

have the same benefits. John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor,

says people would interpret remaining in the single market is

not respecting the referendum but you say it is an option to keep

open, who is right? I think he is right in what he said. It is

automatically assumed that once you leave the EU you leave the single

market and that is generally the case. I would be surprised that we

would be able to negotiate any of the concessions that we want to make

as remaining part of the single market as a member. I am not saying

it is completely off the table because stranger things have

happened, but what we need to focus on is less on the machinery and more

on the outcome. We need to make sure we retain the benefits and we

negotiate some form of agreement to deal with that.

But why would you keep an option open that would not respect the

result of the referendum? People assume that once you leave the EU

you leave the single market. That could be negotiated, but it's

extremely unlikely. I wouldn't rule anything out at this stage because

stranger things have happened and this process so far has been

extremely chaotic. But you would have to decide your negotiating

position. Saying we don't rule anything out is not a negotiating

position. We are clear on our negotiating position, we want to

retain the benefits we currently have as part of the customs union

and the single market, whether that is inside or outside is a moot

point. Rex it means Brexit, we are clear on that. -- Brexit means

Brexit. How can it, if you want to stay inside the single market and

Customs union, and you said access would entail accepting some element

of free movement. That's what you said but your manifesto was

categorical - free movement would end after Brexit, which is currently

Labour policy? The manifesto was clear free movement would end. The

point I was making at the time is there are some areas which are

extremely complex, for example the free movement of scientists. There

is an extreme state of concern regarding that, so the Government

has to look at things like that. There might have to be concession is

made in certain areas like that in order to get an associative

membership for example but the clear position overall is that free

movement would end and we are in favour of reasonable and managed

migration. We are also not in favour of the current undercutting of wages

for example through the Swedish denigration and we want to see that

end immediately because we don't think it is right company cancels

labour overseas and undercut British employees. Let me finish on another

topic. John McDonnell again, the Shadow Chancellor, said this morning

the victims of Grenfell Tower were victims of social murder. What is

social murder? I haven't spoken to John about that but what happened in

Grenfell was absolutely horrific. But were they victims of social

murder? I haven't spoken to John to understand the term but in my

constituency we have a large number of tower blocks that have the same

cladding on and people are living in fear. Following the Lakanal House

fire, the coroner made recommendations the Government

should be installing sprinklers in all housing over 30 metres high and

they haven't done that. I call on than to do that immediately whilst

also making sure the funding is available to carry out necessary

remedial works. One other issue has come light... My question is

important... When John McDonnell says that the people in Grenfell

Tower were murdered, murdered by political decisions, is he right? I

go back to the point I made earlier. I haven't discussed it with John...

Two weeks ago. The Government should have acted on recommendations. Were

they murdered? They should have acted on recommendations to retrofit

sprinklers and they didn't. There was incompetence is no question,

dereliction of duty, some terrible decisions made that resulted in that

appalling event that we saw but does that amount to murder? It is a

simple question. You could look at it case of manslaughter but the fact

is people lost their lives through a failure to conduct adequately a duty

of care. People would assume that is murder if you like, if it was taken

through the courts, and could be classified as corporate

manslaughter. It's not murder? We are going round in circles here. The

point is the Government should have acted on recommendations to retrofit

sprinklers years ago and should have looked at amending building

regulations instead of kicking the issue into the long grass time and

time again. People where I live are living in extreme fear, and we want

the Government to take action immediately. Rebecca Long-Bailey

from Salford, thank you for joining us.

You may not have noticed but Ukip - the party that once promised

and arguably delivered a political earthquake - is having

The last leader, Paul Nuttall, stood down after the party saw its vote

is one anti-Islam candidate threatening to split what's

Forget the warm prosecco, if there is any plotting going on in Ukip

about who should be in charge, it would be going on over a pint. And

there is plotting. This programme understands Ukip's ruling body could

ban one of the candidates from standing, and that is not going to

go down terribly well. Anne Marie Waters, a former Labour activist,

wants to be the next leader. She believes Ukip needs to talk more

about Islam, a religion she has called evil. She says there is

growing support for her views including among the hundreds of new

members who have joined Ukip in recent weeks. Are you anti-Islam? I

don't like the religion, no, and a lot of people get confused on Islam

and all Muslims. The religion, the Scriptures and how it is practised

in most of the world I find quite frankly abhorrent. There are

millions of people in this country who think as I do. They don't

want... And the real extreme right could rise if people are not allowed

to talk about this. Nigel Farage has already said he doesn't want to be

the leader again, but he still has a clear view of what Ukip 's macro

future should and should not hold. Ukip goes down the route of being a

party that is anti the religion of Islam, frankly it's finished. I

don't think there is any public appetite for that but it is timing

and the party would be finished. If there are some within Ukip who say

the party had already moved to the right at the last election with its

integration agenda. Banning

the burka and physically checking children for female

genital mutilation. If we don't really do something

about FGM now, we never will. Anne Marie Waters wants to go

further but also suspects The party chairman says

there will be due process according to Ukip's constitution,

including the screening process

for its leadership candidates conducted

by an external vetting company. But like the old boss,

he doesn't think Ukip should become What we're going through now

is a process where people can I'm talking about the process

we have, which I think is robust enough to protect the party,

its history, and protect its future. We have always been

about being for something, we are not against something,

and hopefully that will come through in this leadership election

so I'm excited about it. I'm not focusing on one

particular candidate. But it has got senior

party figures worried. Several MEPs have told me

the majority of their colleagues in Brussels would walk away

if Anne Marie Waters Another Ukip senior source

said there would be mass The deadline for leadership

nominations is the 28th of July. So far, around seven people have

said they intend to stand. Of course the bigger the field,

the fewer the votes required to win. One senior MEP told me it would be

the most rancorous contest the party had ever had,

amongst the least stellar cast. The man who led Ukip at its most

successful says direction is one thing but the party must also become

more professional on their current

trajectory, then they will on their current

trajectory, then they will And as I say, if Ukip withers

and Brexit is not delivered, something else will replace it

so I'm saying to what is still my party, unless you change radically,

get your act together, Whatever the direction

the new leader takes Ukip, there are already plenty who think

the party is over. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,

we'll be talking about what's next Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland. The First Ministers of Wales

and Scotland meet the EU negotiator Michel Barnier -

but who speaks for this I'll be asking the Sinn Fein MEP,

Martina Anderson, if the absence of Stormont has reduced our Brexit

influence. And after what's been

described as the most successful Twelfth for years,

has parading finally been That's what I'll be asking

Professor Peter Shirlow It's been called the "most

peaceful" Twelfth of July Thousands of Orangemen

took part in 18 parades across Northern Ireland on the main

day in the marching calendar. The Grand Master of Ireland said it

was the "biggest in a generation". There was no trouble at any

of the traditional flash points and police praised Orangemen

and those watching the parades. However, it was a different story

at several eleventh night bonfires with the Fire and Rescue Service

describing it Firefighters prevented a blaze

spreading to an apartment block in South Belfast,

though the heat cracked The police are also investigating

reports of "distasteful material" And Pete Shirlow and Patricia

MacBride are with me now. Welcome to you both. To the last is

on the politics of the series. It's been judged to have

been a successful and From all points of view that has to

be good. This is a bigger issue. Why was this the case? Why did it not

has become in the Liu what it has becoming recent years? Because I

know some of the people who work behind the scenes to resolve, some

people who would be involved in the holy cross dispute which was also

resolve which tells us of a bigger problem about some of the issues

with the conflict in Northern Ireland. When we have the type of

positivity, this type of engagement we know very little about it, and

doesn't scream from the headlines, it's not the first item, the first

item is something else, you are honourable to do this for the

headline of your programme. The services are constantly overburdened

by people putting a racist blacks or writing offensive things on the

wall, you're constantly looking at crises but the other side, there is

plenty of tasteful negotiation. Do you get a sense from people you talk

to that the parading has a large extent been solved? Peter is right

in the sense that there have been many years of quiet diplomacy which

has brought us to this stage. Certainly Derry City set the model

in that, in negotiations that took part with the parades, with the

apprentice boys, and it is only to be welcomed that we have a series of

parades on the 12th of July this year weather has known major

confrontation. -- weather has been no confrontations. How do we deal

with the bonfires on the 11th which are causing a public danger? It is a

matter of public safety, and anyone who thinks that they are attacking

cultural expression in exciting concerns about bonfires, that is

wrong, the bonfires in and of themselves are the problem, in terms

of the issues that they pose. A lot of people would agree with that,

Pete, not to say that new flash point as far as parading are

concerned might not emerging feature but the bonfire issue is the issue

of the moment. It is a divisive issue part of a broader problem in

the society, if you look at the social media around the bonfires in

the week and you see a tit-for-tat argument between Unionism and

republicanism. Some people posts horrible Chris Langridge around

Glasgow Celtic footballers, and other people respond with names of

people describing black people as inferior and being involved with the

slave trade, all involving homophobia can be Unionism, Castro,

homophobia, there is a issue in our society which we can't resolve,

which is expecting tit-for-tat. A lot of people from this part

of the world might have been on holidays this week,

but in London and Brussels it was business as usual -

and top of the agenda, Theresa May unveiled

the Brexit Repeal Bill, the Scottish and Welsh First Ministers held

meetings with Michel Barnier, while a European committee heard

that Ireland should get more MEPs to represent Irish passport holders

on this side of the border. Here's Guy Verhofstadt

with his proposal. There will be in the future 500

600,000 people, Northern Irish people with an Irish passport. These

people are still EU citizens, these people normally should still have

the possibility in my opinion to participate in our European actions.

Even when they are not living in the European Union but living in

Northern Ireland but with an Irish passport. And with an EU

citizenship. So any allegation of the seats, that problem should be

tackled will stop -- in the allocation.

Joining me now from our Foyle studio is the Sinn Fein

We did ask the two main unionist parties to take

part in the programme, but we were told no-one

Martina Anderson - Do you like the sound of extra MEPs

to represent Northern Ireland citizens who are Irish passport

I wasn't surprised that Guy Verhofstadt said that, because

following a meeting I had with him on Tuesday and building on the case

of special designated status for the north, I presented him with what was

called an essential principle paper, a paper about designated special

status and how all of the elements need to be achieved. He was very

aware and taken by the fact that given that the Parliament has

already seen a preservation of the Good Friday Agreement in all of its

parts, with 1500 MEPs, all of its parts mean that those elements of

the agreement that has afforded us to be Irish passport holders for

example opens up the passport into EU citizenship and EU citizens

rights, and what we had in Article ten it is quite clearly stating that

direct representation is required for those people who have in our

case whether you hold an Irish passport or not that the 1.8 million

people here, that is one the access to the Good Friday Agreement in

shrines for all of us, and Guy Verhofstadt got that will stop in

practical terms, remember of course, there was a rejection of the special

status, it seems your fellow MEPs don't like the idea that. Practical

terms, how would MEPs elected by people in Northern Ireland but

representing the Republic of Ireland actually work, do you think? Let me

explain to you to programme and was took place in the Parliament last

week was really it was a battle, eight resolutions, all resolutions

rejected, each of the groups voted for their own resolution, and no one

else's. It wasn't a resolution to do with designated status or a

resolution to deal with Brexit, the Parliament has a clear position on

Brexit, and 516 MEPs voted to preserve all of the parts of the

Good Friday Agreement. I don't want to go back over that. In practical

terms, how would Guy Verhofstadt's ideal work? Could it work? As I have

said before there are 25 overseas countries and territories that have

a relationship with the EU that have a special relationships are what we

are asking for is not new. North Cyprus, Turkey end of it was the Liu

is not in the EU, but Cypriots can vote in European elections. There

are nearly 100,000 Cypriots Turks oared Turkish Cypriots, however you

want to refer to them as, but they can vote in the European elections

even though the north end of Cyprus is under Turkey occupation. Said

that is the sort of precedent you would quote you think it is

eminently doable? It is deliverable without doubt. The point is that

having an Irish passport means that you have acquired rights and

acquired rights that are absolute rights, and an absolute right under

Article ten is to participate in democratic representation within the

union. It means that you will be treated by EU institutions equally,

so there are a number of acquired rights that people have by virtue of

the fact of the Good Friday Agreement hence the reason they need

to be protected in all of its parts. I want to ask you about the Brexit

repeal Bill, as Theresa May unveiled it would need consent from devolved

assemblies. Where does that leave us here? At the moment we don't have an

assembly, and we don't have a voice at the table. We had yesterday from

Michelle O'Neill, she was very clear that we are obviously up for having

an assembly established on an assembly predicated on good

governance, one predicated on equality and rights. We have heard

this before! Over the past six months, Northern Ireland has

singularly failed in its parties to get anything up and running again.

Part of the responsibility for the rest was Sinn Fein, because Martin

McGuinness Portadown in January. We know about that, we know that Sinn

Fein said that you think that you wanted to get running again as

possible. It is easy to say that but it has been difficult to deliver

that. Where does that leave us? Is has not of course been easy to

deliver but that does not fall upon Sinn Fein. We heard from Michelle

O'Neill yesterday that jazz been in contact with all of the leaders of

all of the parties do try to make that happen. We do know that the

obstacles that we have a leave had been put in the way have been

brought about by the DUP and by the British Government. You know very

well of course that the DUP and Ulster Unionists and the British

Government see it very differently and the Unionist parties say it as

the reason of the bread line that Sinn Fein has -- red line that Sinn

Fein has refused to budge on. I don't want to rehearse that. Martin

McGuinness was right on his expression, exposing himself in a

way that every else has ever done before. He brought the assembly down

based upon all of the allegations that we were facing and because of

how the Unionists in government work treating some sections of the

people. We have researched the Liu rehearsed visage at a lot. We are up

for an assembly. So you are in full agreement with Michelle O'Neill

yesterday? Without is Emily due except we are voiceless? No, because

I think we can see that for instance with the largest delegation in the

European Parliament, Sinn Fein has a severe believe every significant

influence. I will be meeting with Michel Barnier in September and we

will be working and meeting with all of the key players in the European

Parliament. We are looking to the negotiations to start tomorrow,

there are three priorities for the Parliament, one being BAC we have

just been talking about, acquired rights, citizens rights of which we

have got to make sure that they are protected for us here in the north.

The second is the divorce settlement, the prices are going to

be hacked to be paid by Britain to leave the EU and then the third is

Ireland, so we have been talking to Brussels and to the Irish government

because that scenario where negotiations are taking place. We

also know the damage of the Great Repeal Bill, and it is proper that

the legislation be sought, it certainly went begetting legislative

consent by the majority of the people in the assembly, that by the

majority of the parties in assembly. You are in Brussels and Strasbourg a

lot and you are talking to people with the ear to the ground. Is it

your view that the Irish border continues to be one of the issues

right at the top of the agenda as far as Europe is concerned?

Absolutely. It is something that we heard from them last week, from

Michel Barnier, who actually put to bed those that have been told,

farmers, SMEs, universities or others, that there is such a thing

as frictionless trade. He actually said there is no such thing as

frictionless trade so the case that Sinn Fein has made for designated

special status for the north to remain within the EU has been

presented, we have been told how it could be secured, we have presented

a central principles, we are getting legal advice to demonstrate how that

can be achieved. The UK Government doesn't want that whether you like

it or not, and they are the body negotiating with the European Union.

It isn't Sinn Fein, it's not down to Martina Anderson to make this called

it is down Theresa May and David Davis. They see a very differently

from you. It is down to myself, the Sinn Fein delegation and are parties

to make deliveries for the people, particularly the 52% of people,

across tradition, across our society, who have been arrogantly

described as Remoaners. We rendered all those people who voted to

remain, and we leave that the people who didn't vote to remain are now

seeing the devastation and damaged that can be caused by a Brexit to

the north and a lot of people are now reflecting how they feel.

Interesting to hear your thoughts, Martina Anderson. Thanks very much

for joining us from Derry this morning.

Let's get reaction to that from Patricia and Pete.

It is interesting to hear her perspective on that are clearly not

giving up on the status designation for Northern Ireland. You heard her

say right at the end to remain within the EU, Northern Ireland,

even though nobody from the UK perspective is talking about that.

If you saw the newspapers this morning, a former cabinet secretary

is talking about how the British Government's response to Brexit is

disorganised, and there was no agreement internally. They don't

have the resources to drive this programme forward. The British

Government not wanting special designated status for the north is

probably more a case of the British Government not really having thought

that far ahead because they don't appear to be well planned. It is

very far down their list of priorities, isn't it? The very huge

issues they had to grapple with as far as Europe is concerned, Northern

Ireland is not probably in the top ten issues for Theresa May. There is

so much disagreement with the Conservative Party internally so

they don't even know what the top ten issues are. We had to play some

hope in terms of people in the north around two issues. First of all what

was said about the vote within the Parliament to support the Good

Friday Agreement and that secondly the very clear direction of the

travel of the Irish government, ensuring there is no negative impact

on Ireland and in order to do that, that is the entire island of

Ireland. People I think are jumping ahead of themselves here. First of

all you see British politics being galvanised by the referendum. There

is greater commitment to reducing the impact of this decision was one

thing we will see and the argument Lib Dems are taking, this is going

to be softer than we think. It is nobody's interest in being outside

the trading unions, or that Tizer partnerships, for financial reasons

with Europe. If you look at the impact for universities and stuff,

Northern Ireland is in the top ten list of issues here, there is no

hard border being desired. The relationship between two states,

Ireland and Britain is not at the best, despite this friction over

Brexit, so we need to be careful here not to rattle issues that

haven't come to the fore yet. Before decisions are made. Let's park that

one. With the Stormont discussions now

parked for several weeks, the Prime Minister has been urged

by two Northern Ireland Office veterans to get more

personally involved. They made the comments

in the House of Lords this week. Every single agreement in northern

Ireland has been successful because of the direct involvement of the

Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. Isn't it about time the Prime

Minister goes to Belfast and talk directly with the parties and the

Irish government, and until that happens I feel we will make little

progress. The noble Lord raised this point in a statement ten days ago or

so and indeed the noble Lord he raised it as well but can I reassure

him that the Prime Minister is taking a close interest close

involvement in this. Should she see fit she will indeed travel to

Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister clearly has a close interest, nobody

would suggest that she hasn't, but there is no substitute for a visit

full stop to go to Northern Ireland to talk on the spot in Hillsborough

with the various parties involved, and when she's talking to them

bearing in mind the most Avril suggestion of my friend Lord Trimble

who has made Tyneside that -- many times has said that the delay in

sets in at the assembly that the assembly cannot meet.

Lord Cormack and before that Lord Murphy, the former

Northern Ireland Secretary, speaking in the Lords on Thursday.

Is that what it will take? This is around the engagement of the British

Government in the north, a great test of the DUP confidence and

supply agreement, the DUP are serious about getting power-sharing

running at all and then they need to insist the bar minister comes here.

Look at the challenges that Theresa May has in her injury at the moment.

Dealing with the whole Brexit issue is a nightmare, holding onto her own

job seemed like a real challenge of you read today by the papers. What

chance her coming to Northern Ireland, taking an interest that she

Frankie hasn't shown before? The leaders are essentially exhausted,

like in the 70s, government is falling apart. Theresa May coming

here when shift the dynamic was a bit is clear where the issues are,

this isn't like the peace process with Tony Blair, we know where the

issues are, they can be resolved by imaginative thinking and the removal

of hostile behaviour and deadlines, between each other. It's a fairly

simple problem. Simple perhaps but intractable to.

Let's pause there for a moment and take a look back

at the political week gone past, with Mark Devenport.

The annual 12th of July celebrations passed off without major incident.

There is a huge change of atmosphere. There is a communication

across the lines. We are seeing that the downward trajectory in terms of

trouble and disorder has continued downwards today. There were problems

on the 11th night, particularly in south Belfast. Cruise saw one

appliance come under attack, very disappointing. The majority of these

have passed peacefully, I have attended one myself. James

Brokenshire announced he is ready to make financial decisions here.

Scotland and Wales raised concerns with Michel Barnier. It is crucial

that Brexit works for Wales, not just the city or some parts of the

UK. Mark Devenport there -

and let's have a final word Pizza, an awful lot of what happens

next depends on what James Brokenshire does next. How would you

rate his performance so far? I feel sympathetic for the Secretary of

State, the idea of devolution was out of their hands. RHI, Irish actor

and should -- Irish language, etc, the victim is the state. Broken shy

had a joints when the talks collapsed -- broken shy had a choice

between legislating and extending the deadline, and he did none of

those things was that this week he will allocate funding. Let's see

where it goes. We're back in mid-September,

see you then. This is the last Sunday Politics

before Parliament breaks up for the summer recess, and most MPs could

definitely do with some time away from the political hothouse at

Westminster. But when they come back

in September, both the Conservatives and Labour face some big questions

over how to win an overall majority We'll talk about that in a moment,

but first let's have a look at what's been happening to Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn since polling day And what we are saying is the

Conservatives are the largest party. Note they don't have an overall

majority at this stage. She who dares doesn't always win.

Now let's get to work. The party that has lost in this election is

the Conservative Party. The arguments they put forward in this

election have lost. I think we need a change. That's not quite true,

Labour is a party that lost. The Government failed and her coming

over here to try to speak to... Who? Who do you want to speak to you had

your chance. Now everyone will go angry and crazy.

I think the public will want us to get the broadest possible consensus

in looking at those issues. If the Prime Minister would like it, I am

happy to furnish her with a copy of our election manifesto.

You are now playing for Arsenal! The comments we were getting back that

were passed on to me were that we were going to get a better results

than we did. Devastated enough to shed a tear? Yes, a little tear at

that moment, yes. Let's start with Mrs May. Another

day, another leadership rumour, challenge. She is tired, she wants

to fight on, she doesn't. Is this corrosive to her leadership? Hugely

corrosive. My estimation of what's really going on in the party, and

Tory MPs in Westminster, is the vast majority and by that I mean probably

around 300 don't want a contest. They want her to stay and finish

Brexit, see it through, because of the incredible Pandora's box that

would open. Who's putting these incredible column inches in the

papers? They are giant egos, they have been at this for several years

if not decades and they are keen to manoeuvre themselves into the

position to be the leader. In their own interests? Because most Tories I

speak to think the risk of another leadership election is horrendous

for them because they fear it could lead to a general election and they

will lose. The ones you are talking about, they put their own

self-interest above the interest of their party. Without a doubt. They

are funny bunch, we know them very well, but they are simply incapable

of putting their own interests underneath those of the country. The

problem for Mrs May is this won't stop. They are going to carry on

doing this I think unless she says something about her own leadership

and conference is the time to do it. She needs to spell out a timetable

for herself, when she will stay and go. She almost did that, didn't she,

in her interview with you. She came very close. I agree with almost

everything Thomas said, but those on the backbenches who don't want a

leadership contest, it's not purely for the good of the country, there

is self-interest there too and that is because they are eyeing up the

top job and they need a few years to build up a following. My view is

people like Boris Johnson 's and Amber Rudd for their own reasons

think they stand a better chance once Brexit is done. At the moment

Mr Johnson too toxic for the Remainers, Amber Rudd too toxic for

the Leavers. Last time Mrs May went walking in the hills, in Wales, she

came back and called an election. She's about to go walking in the

Swiss mountains I understand in the weeks ahead for a break. Is there

any chance she comes back and says I'm not going on with this? No

because although I think being a human being she will be deeply

traumatised by what's happened, and it will probably hit her more

intensely when she moves away for a few days from the cocoon drama of

the whole situation, you just have to keep going and she will be

walking and thinking what have I done? But she is clearly trying to

hold on and she's built up a new Number Ten. Almost an entire new

personnel in there. She's brought Damian Green in as a deputy so

there's no sign she plans to go in the short-term but leadership is

partly about a spell on us and her ministers. The fact that her

ministers, even in her interview when she was being robust in two

years, they know that she won't fight part of the next election

which means part of the spell has gone. When Tony Blair gave a date

for his departure, you could feel the power losing away from him. The

fact that assumption is there means this feverish speculation will carry

on until she goes. Let me come on to Mr Corbyn who would seem to be in a

much better position after the election. What does he now do

though? Because if you cannot provoke an election quite quickly,

you never know how long your day in the sun will be. But he does have a

mission or he and the people around him, they want to take control of

those parts of the Labour Party they don't already take control, and they

will probably do it. Absolutely, so Jeremy Corbyn has established he's a

very good campaigner. Everybody now agrees on that. Look at the clip, he

now dresses in a white shirt and a dark suit, and he actually looks I

won't say Prime Minister Arial but like he could possibly lead the

whole country. -- prime ministerial. But the whole thing is built on

protests, there isn't a fully established policy set up where he

is ready to take over the Government if this election comes. The

challenge for him is to turn the huge generation of support he's got

over protest into the ability to govern. You heard from Rebecca

Long-Bailey on Brexit alone, the party now admitting their policy is

cake and eat it, that is not electorally satisfying. Final word

from Isabel. The fact is Mr Corbyn has been a transformative figure for

the Labour Party. If and when he goes, it's not going back to normal.

It is transformative for the Labour Party and the country. I disagree

with Tom, they put forward a more detailed programme than the

Conservatives at the election and be costed it to some extent. I think to

be facing two weighs on Brexit is the only place for a Leader of the

Opposition to beat and he has been smart on that. Tony Blair when he

was a leader faced to microwaves on single currency, outside of

Parliament he single currency, outside of

Parliament he seemed be more robust, but he's played it very smart. All I

would say is for Brexiteers we want more Tony Blair saying it won't

happen. You think he's such a toxic figure that whatever side he

supports damages that side? Absolutely, yes. As a leader of an

opposition party you cannot advance things. All right, we will have to

leave it there. Enjoy your summer. That's all for today, and that's

all from us until September. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics - unless it's parliament's summer

recess. But for me it is thank you and

goodbye. When I think of the world

we inhabit, everyone will think,