22/01/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Theresa May will be the first foreign leader to visit US


President Donald Trump this week - she's promised to hold "very


frank" conversations with the new and controversial


Speaking of the 45th President of America,


we'll be looking at what the Trump presidency could hold


in store for Britain and the rest of the world.


And with the Supreme Court expected to say that Parliament should


have a vote before the Brexit process begins, we'll ask


A party, a property to the TV on the what Labour will do next.


A party, a property to the TV on the election, the public inquiry into


RHI and all the twists and turns of another roller-coaster week in local


And to talk about all of that and more, I'm joined by three


journalists who, in an era of so-called fake news, can be


relied upon for their accuracy, their impartiality -


and their willingness to come to the studio


It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer


and Tom Newton Dunn, and during the programme they'll be


tweeting as often as the 45th President of the USA in the middle


So - the Prime Minister has been appearing on the BBC this morning.


She was mostly talking about Donald Trump and Brexit,


but she was also asked about a story on the front of this


It's reported that an unarmed Trident missile test fired


from the submarine HMS Vengeance near the Florida coast in June


The paper says the incident took place weeks before a crucial Commons


Well, let's have listen to Theresa May talking


The issue that we were talking about in the House of Commons


It was about whether or not we should renew Trident,


whether we should look to the future and have a replacement Trident.


That's what we were talking about in the House of Commons.


That's what the House of Commons voted for.


He doesn't want to defend our country with an independent


There are tests that take place all the time, regularly,


What we were talking about in that debate that took place...


I'm not going to get an answer to this.


Tom, it was clear this was going to come up this morning. It is on the


front page of the Sunday Times. It would seem to me the Prime Minister


wasn't properly briefed on how to reply. I think she probably was, but


the Prime Minister we now have doesn't necessarily answer all


questions in the straightest way. She didn't answer that one and all.


Unlike previous ones? She made it quite clear she was briefed. You


read between the Theresa May lines. By simply not answering Andrew Marr


four times, it is obvious she knew, and that she knew before she went


into the House of Commons and urged everyone to renew the ?40 billion


replacement programme. Of course it is an embarrassment, but does it


have political legs? I don't think so. She didn't mislead the Commons.


If she wanted to close it down, the answer should have been, these are


matters of national security. There's nothing more important in


that than our nuclear deterrent. I'm not prepared to talk about testing.


End of. But she didn't. Maybe you should be briefing her. That's a


good answer. She is an interesting interviewee. She shows it when she


is nervous. She was transparently uneasy answering those questions,


and the fact she didn't answer it definitively suggests she did know


and didn't want to say it, and she answered awkwardly. But how wider


point, that the House of Commons voted for the renewal of Trident,


suggests to me that in the broader sweep of things, this will not run,


because if there was another vote, I would suggest she'd win it again.


But it is an embarrassment and she handled it with a transparent


awkwardness. She said that the tests go on all the time, but not of the


missiles. Does it not show that when the Prime Minister leaves her


comfort zone of Home Office affairs or related matters, she often


struggles. We've seen it under questioning from Mr Corbyn even, and


we saw it again today. Absolutely. Tests of various aspects of the


missiles go on all the time, but there's only been five since 2000.


What you described wouldn't have worked, because in previous tests


they have always been very public about it. Look how well our missiles


work! She may not have misled Parliament, but she may not have


known about it. If she didn't know, does Michael Fallon still have a job


on Monday? Should Parliament know about a test that doesn't work? Some


would say absolutely not. Our deterrent is there to deter people


from attacking us. If they know that we are hitting the United States by


mistake rather than the Atlantic Ocean, then... There is such a thing


as national security, and telling all the bad guys about where we are


going wrong may not be a good idea. It was her first statement as Prime


Minister to put her case for renewal, to have the vote on


Trident, and in that context, it is significant not to say anything. If


anyone knows where the missile landed, give us a call!


So Donald Trump's inauguration day closed with him dancing


to Frank Sinatra's My Way, and whatever your view on the 45th


President of the United States he certainly did do it his way.


Not for him the idealistic call for national unity -


instead he used Friday's inaugural address to launch a blistering


attack on the dark state of the nation and the political


class, and to promise to take his uncompromising approach


from the campaign trail to the White House.


Here's Adam Fleming, with a reminder of how


First, dropping by for a cup of tea and a slightly awkward exchange


Then, friends, foes and predecessors watched


I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear...


The crowds seemed smaller than previous inaugurations,


the speech tougher then any previous incoming president.


From this day forth, it's going to be only America first.


In the meantime, there were sporadic protests in Washington, DC.


Opponents made their voices heard around the world too.


The President, who'd criticised the work of


the intelligence agencies, fitted in a visit to the CIA.


There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community


And, back at the office, in the dark, a signature signalled


the end of the Obama era and the dawn of Trump.


So, as you heard there, President Trump used his


inauguration to repeat his campaign promise to put "America first"


in all his decisions, and offered some hints of what to expect


He talked of in America in carnage, to be rebuilt by American hands and


American Labour. President Trump has already started to dismantle key


parts of the Obama Legacy, including the unwinding of the affordable care


act, and the siding of the climate action plan to tackle global


warning. Little to say about foreign policy, but promised to eradicate


Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth, insisting he would


restore the US military to unquestioning dominance. He also


said the US would develop a state missile defence system to deal with


threats he sees from Iran and North Korea. In a statement that painted a


bleak picture of the country he now runs, he said his would be a law and


order Administration, and he would keep the innocents safe by building


the border war with Mexico. One thing he didn't mention, for the


first time ever, there is a Eurosceptic in the oval office, who


is also an enthusiast for Brexit. We're joined now by Ted Malloch -


he's a Trump supporter who's been tipped as the president's


choice for US ambassador to the EU, and he's


just flown back from Washington. And by James Rubin -


he's a democrat who served Let's start with that last point I


made in the voice over there. We now have a Eurosceptic in the oval


office. He is pro-Brexit and not keen on further European Union


integration. What are the implications of that? First of all,


a renewal of the US- UK special relationship. You see the Prime


Minister already going to build and rebuild this relationship. Already,


the bust of Winston Churchill is back in the oval office.


Interestingly, Martin Luther King's bust is also there, so there is an


act of unity in that first movement of dusts. Donald Trump will be


oriented between bilateral relationships and not multilateral


or supernatural. Supranational full. What are the implications of someone


in the White House now not believing in it? I think we are present in the


unravelling of America's leadership of the West. There is now a thing


called the west that America has led since the end of World War II,


creating supranational - we just heard supernatural! These


institutions were created. With American leadership, the world was


at peace in Europe, and the world grew increasingly democratic and


prosperous. Wars were averted that could be extremely costly. When


something works in diplomacy, you don't really understand what the


consequences could have been. I think we've got complacent. The new


president is taking advantage of that. It is a terrible tragedy that


so many in the West take for granted the successful leadership and


institutions we have built. You could argue, as James Rubin has


argued in some articles, that... Will Mr Trump's America be more


involved in the world than the Obama won? Or will it continue the process


with running shoes on that began with Mr Obama? President Obama


stepped back from American leadership. He withdrew from the


world. He had a horrendous eight years in office, and American powers


have diminished everywhere in the world, not just in Europe. That


power will reassert. The focus will be on America first, but there are


foreign interests around the world... How does it reassert itself


around the world? I think the institutions will be recreated. Some


may be taken down. There could be some new ones. I think Nato itself,


and certainly the Defence Secretary will have discussions with Donald


Trump about how Nato can be reshaped, and maybe there will be


more burden sharing. That is an important thing for him. You are


tipped to be the US ambassador to Brussels, to the EU, and we are


still waiting to hear if that will happen. Is it true to say that Mr


Trump does not believe in EU integration? I think you made that


clear in the speech. He talked about supranational. He does not believe


in those kinds of organisations. He is investing himself in bilateral


relationships, the first of which will be with the UK. So we have a


president who does not believe in EU integration and has been highly


critical of Nato. Do the people he has appointed to defend, Secretary


of State, national security, do you think that will temper this


anti-NATO wretched? Will he come round to a more pro-NATO situation?


I think those of us who care about America's situation in the world


will come in to miss President Obama a lot. I think the Secretary of


State and the faculty of defence will limit the damage and will urge


him not to take formal steps to unravel this most powerful and most


successful alliance in history, the Nato alliance. But the damage is


already being done. When you are the leader of the West, leadership means


you are persuading, encouraging, bolstering your leadership and these


institutions by the way you speak. Millions, if not hundreds of


millions of people, have now heard the US say that what they care about


is within their borders. What do you say to that? It is such


an overstatement. The point is that Donald Trump is in a Jacksonian


tradition of national populism. He is appealing to the people first.


The other day, I was sitting below this page during the address, and he


said, everyone sitting behind me as part of the problem. Everyone in


front of me, the crowd and the crowd on television, is part of the


solution, so we are giving the Government back to the people. That


emphasis is going to change American life, including American


International relations. It doesn't moving the leak back -- it doesn't


mean we are moving out of Nato, it simply means we will put our


national interests first. There were echoes of Andrew Jackson's


inauguration address of 1820. That night, the Jacksonians trashed the


White House, but Mr Trump's people didn't do that, so there is a


difference there. He also said something else in the address - that


protectionism would lead to prosperity. I would suggest there is


no evidence for that in the post-war world. He talked about protecting


the American worker, American jobs, the American economy. I actually


think that Donald Trump will not turn out to be a protectionist. If


you read the heart of the deal... This is referring to two Republican


senators who introduce massive tariffs in the Hoover


administration. Exactly. If you read The Art Of The Deal, you will see


how Donald Trump deals with individuals and countries. There is


a lot of bluster, positioning, and I think you already see this in


bringing jobs by the United States. Things are going to change. Let's


also deal with this proposition. China is the biggest loser of this


election result. Let me say this: The first time in American history


and American president has set forth his view of the world, and it is a


mercantile view of the world, who makes more money, who gets more


trade, it doesn't look at the shared values, leadership and defends the


world needs. The art of the deal has no application to America's


leadership of the world, that's what we're learning. You can be a great


businessman and make great real estate deals - whether he did not is


debatable - but it has nothing to do with inspiring shared values from


the West. You saying China may lose, because he may pressure them to


reduce their trade deficit with the US. They may or may not. We may both


lose. Right now, his Secretary of State has said, and I think he will


walk this back when he is brief, that they will prevent the Chinese


from entering these islands in the South China Sea. If they were to do


that, it would be a blockade, and there would be a shooting war


between the United States and China, so US - China relations are the most


important bilateral relationship of the United States, and they don't


lend themselves to the bluff and bluster that may have worked when


you are trying to get a big building on second Ave in Manhattan. Is China


the biggest loser? I think the Chinese have a lot to lose. Gigi and


Ping was in Davos this week -- Xi Jin Ping was in Davos.


Is Germany the second biggest loser in the sense that I understand he


hasn't agreed time to see Angela Merkel yet, also that those close to


him believe that Germany is guilty of currency manipulation by adopting


a weak your row instead of the strong Deutschmark, and that that is


why they are running a huge balance of payments surplus with the United


States. American - German relations may not be great. There is a point


of view throughout Europe. You only have to talk to the southern


Europeans about this question. It seems like the euro has been aligned


to benefit Germany. Joe Stiglitz, the famous left of centre Democrat


economist, made the same case in a recent book. In this case, I think


Germany will be put under the spotlight. Angela Merkel has shown


herself to be the most respected and the most successful leader in


Europe. We who care about the West, who care about the shared values of


the West, should pray and hope that she is re-elected. This isn't about


dollars and cents. We're living in a time whether Russian leader has


another country in Europe and for some inexplicable reason, the


American president, who can use his insult diplomacy on everyone,


including Mrs Merkel, the only person he can't seem to find


anything to criticise about is Mr Putin. There are things more


important than the actual details of your currency. There are things like


preventing another war in Europe, preventing a war between the Chinese


and the US. You talk about the Trident missile all morning, nuclear


deterrence is extremely important. It doesn't lend itself to the bluff


and bluster of a real estate deal. I understand all that, but the fact we


are even talking about these things shows the new world we are moving


into. I'd like to get you both to react to this. This is a man that


ended the Bush Dynasty, a man that beat the Clinton machine. In his


inauguration, not only did he not reach out to the Democrats, he


didn't even mention the Republicans. These are changed days for us. They


are, and change can be good or disastrous. I'm worried that it's


easy in the world of diplomacy and in them -- for the leadership of the


United States to break relationships and ruin alliances. These are things


that were carefully nurtured. George Schultz, the American Secretary of


State under Reagan talked about gardening, the slow, careful


creation of a place with bilateral relationships that were blossoming


and flowering multilateral relationships that take decades to


create, and he will throw them away in a matter of days. The final


word... I work for George Schultz. He was a Marine who stood up


America, defended America, who would be in favour of many of the things


that Donald Trump and the tramp Administration... Give him a call.


His top aide macs that I've spoken to are appalled by Mr Trump's


abdication of leadership. He is going to our radically -- he's going


to eradicate extremist Islam from the face of the year. Is that


realistic? I know people in the national security realm have worked


on a plan. They say they will have such a plan in some detail within 90


days. Lets hope they succeed. We have run out of time. As a issues.


Thank you, both. -- fascinating issues.


So Theresa May promised a big speech on Brexit, and this week -


perhaps against expectation - she delivered, trying to answer


claims that the government didn't have a plan with an explicit


wish-list of what she hopes to achieve in negotiations with the EU.


To her allies it was ambitious, bold, optimistic -


to her opponents it was full of contradictions


Here's Adam again, with a reminder of the speech and how


There are speeches, and there are speeches.


Like Theresa May's 12 principles for a Brexit deal leading


to the UK fully out of the EU but still friendly in terms


This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade


in goods and services between Britain and the EU's member states.


It should give British companies the maximum


operate within European markets and let European businesses do


She also said no deal would be better than the wrong deal,


We want to test what people think about what she's just said.


Do we have any of our future negotiating


As the European Parliament voted for its new


president, its chief negotiator sounded off.


Saying, OK, if our European counterparts don't accept


it, we're going to make from Britain a sort


of free zone or tax haven, I


The Prime Minister of Malta, the country that's assumed the EU's


rotating presidency, spoke in sorrow and a bit of anger.


We want a fair deal for the United Kingdom, but


that deal necessarily needs to be inferior to membership.


Next, let's hear from some enthusiastic


leavers, like, I don't know, the Daily Mail?


The paper lapped it up with this adoring front page.


For Brexiteers, it was all manna from heaven.


I think today means we are a big step closer to becoming


an independent country again, with control of our own laws,


I was chuckling at some of it, to be honest, because


There were various phrases there which I've used myself again and


Do we have any of those so-called Remoaners?


There will, at the end of this deal process,


so politicians get to vote on the stitch-up, but


We take the view as Liberal Democrats that


if this process started with democracy last June,


We trusted the people with departure, we must trust them


Do we have anyone from Labour, or are you all


watching it in a small room somewhere?


Throughout the speech, there seemed to be an implied threat that


somewhere along the line, if all her optimism of a deal


with the European Union didn't work, we would move


into a low-tax, corporate taxation, bargain-basement economy on the


I think she needs to be a bit clearer about what


The Labour leader suggested he'd tell


his MPs to vote in favour of starting a Brexit process if


Parliament was given the choice, sparking a mini pre-revolt among


Finally, do we have anyone from big business here?


Of course, your all in Davos at the World Economic


Clarity, first of all, really codified what many of us have been


anticipating since the referendum result,


particularly around the


I think what we've also seen today is the Government's


willingness to put a bit of edge into the negotiating dynamic, and I


Trade negotiations are negotiations, and you have to lay out, and you


have to be pretty tough to get what you want.


Although some business people on the slopes speculated


about moving some of their operations out of Brexit Britain.


We saw there the instant reaction of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn,


but how will the party respond to the challenge posed by Brexit


Well, I'm joined now by the Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott.


People know that Ukip and the Tories are for Brexit. The Lib Dems are


four remain. What is Labour for? For respecting the result of the


referendum. It was a 72% turnout, very high for an election of that


nature, and we believe you have to respect that result. You couldn't


have a situation where people like Tim Farron are saying to people,


millions of people, sorry, you got it wrong, we in London no better.


However, how the Tories go forward from here has to be subject to


parliamentary scrutiny. Is it Shadow Cabinet policy to vote for the


triggering of Article 50? Our policy is not to block Article 50. That is


what the leader was saying this morning. So are you for it? Our


policy is not to block it. You are talking about voting for it. We


don't know what the Supreme Court is going to say, and we don't know what


legislation Government will bring forward, and we don't know what


amendment we will move, but we're clear that we will not vote to block


it. OK, so you won't bow to stop it, but you could abstain? No, what we


will do... Either you vote for or against all you abstain. There are


too many unanswered questions. For instance, the position of EU


migrants working and living in this country. You may not get the answer


to that before Article 50 comes before the Commons, so what would


you do then? We are giving to amend it. We can only tell you exactly how


we will amend it when we understand what sort of legislation the


Government is putting forward, and in the course of moving those


amendments, we will ask the questions that the people of Britain


whether they voted to leave remain want answered.


When you come to a collective view, will there be a three line whip? I


can't tell you, because we have not seen the government 's legislation.


But when you see it, you will come to a collective view. Many regard


this as extremely important. Will there be a three line whip on


Labour's collective view? Because it is important, we shouldn't get ahead


of ourselves. When we see what the Supreme Court says, and crucially,


when we see what the government position is, you will hear what the


whipping is. Will shadow ministers be able to defy any three line whip


on this? That is not normally the case. But they did on an early vote


that the government introduced on Article 50. Those who voted against


it are still there. In the Blair years, you certainly couldn't defy a


three line whip. We will see what happens going forward. I remember


when the Tories were hopelessly divided over the EU. All these


Maastricht votes and an list arguments. Now it is Labour. Just


another symptom of Mr Corbyn's poor leadership. Not at all. Two thirds


voted to leave, a third to remain. We are seeking to bring the country


and the party together. We will do that by pointing out how disastrous


a Tory Brexit would be. Meanwhile, around 80 Labour MPs will defy a


three line whip. It's too early to say that. Will you publish what you


believe the negotiating goal should be? We are clear on it. We think


that the economy, jobs and living standards should be the priority.


What Theresa May is saying is that holding her party together is her


What Theresa May is saying is that holding her party together is her


priority. She is putting party above country. Does Labour think we should


remain members of the single market? Ideally, in terms of jobs and the


economy, of course. Ritt -ish business thinks that as well. Is


Labour policy that we should remain a member of the single market?


Labour leaves that jobs and the economy comes first, and if they


come first, you would want to remain part of the single market. But to


remain a member? Jobs and the economy comes first, and to do that,


ideally, guess. So with that, comes free movement of people, the


jurisdiction of the European, and a multi-million never shipped thief.


Is Labour prepared to pay that? Money is neither here nor there.


Because the Tories will be asked to pay a lot of money... The EU has


made it clear that you cannot have... I am asking for Labour's


position. Our position is rooted in the reality, and the reality is that


you cannot have the benefits of the member of the European Union,


including being a member of the single market, without


responsibility, including free movement of people. Free movement,


is remaining under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Is


that the Labour position? You've said that Labour wants to remain a


member of the single market. That is the price tag that comes with it.


Does Labour agree with paying that price tag? We are not pre-empting


negotiation. Our goals are protect jobs and the British economy. Is it


Labour's position that we remain a member of the customs union? Well,


if we don't, I don't see how Theresa May can keep our promises and has


unfettered access... You said Labour's position was clear. It is!


It is clear that Theresa May... I am not asking about Theresa May. Is it


Labour's position to remain a member of the customs union? It is Labour's


position to do what is right for British industry. Depending on how


the negotiations go, it may prove that coming out of the customs


union, as Theresa May has indicated she wants to do, could prove


catastrophic, and could actually destroy some of her promises. You do


accept that if we are member of the customs union, we cannot do our own


free trade deals? What free trade deals are you talking about? The


ones that Labour might want to do in the future. First, we have to


protect British jobs and British industries. If you are talking about


free trade deals with Donald Trump, the danger is that Theresa May will


get drawn into a free-trade deal with America that will open up the


NHS to American corporate... The cards are in Theresa May's hands. If


she takes us out of the single market, if she takes us out of the


customs union, we will have to deal with that. How big a crisis for


Jeremy Corbyn will be if Labour loses both by-elections in February.


I don't believe we will lose both. But if he did? I am not anticipating


that. Is Labour lost two seats in a midterm of a Tory government, would


that be business as usual? I'm not prepared to see us lose those seats,


so I will not talk about something that will not happen. Thank you.


You're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Coming up here in 20 minutes, The Week Ahead,


when we'll be talking to Business Minister Margot James


about the government's new industrial strategy and that


crucial Supreme Court ruling on Brexit.


First, though, the Sunday Politics where you are.


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.


By any standard it's been a momentous political week here.


The local parties are preparing for a snap election -


of electoral politics and there IS to be a public inquiry


So what do the smaller parties make of the pace of political change?


We'll hear from Steven Agnew, the leader of the Green Party,


Eamonn McCann from People before Profit and the TUV's Stephen Cooper.


And with their thoughts on a fast-changing political


landscape, my guests of the day are Allison Morris from the Irish


Hello - there's been no shortage of politically significant weeks


here in recent years - but there have been few with as many


twists and turns as we've seen in the last seven days.


We'll hear what Allison Morris and Pete Shirlow make of it


all in just a moment - but first, could we squeeze


everything that happened this week into 60 seconds?


Thursday the 2nd of March... This is the way the Assembly ends. You know,


not with a bang but with a sort of whimpering diminuendo of interest.


Time is short. To move any sort of inquiry I would have to be an


Assembly next week. The only possible if public inquiry. We very


much welcome the change of heart from Sinn Fein and we will get due


process in and around these matters and we will get to the truth.


Obviously I will not be ever again an elected representative but I


would hope that I will have a key role to play in terms of continuing


to build support for a peace process, build support for unity. I


can say thank you to him honestly and thank humbly -- honestly I wait


and recognise that the remarkable journey that Martin McGuinness went


on as not only save lives but made countless people's lies in Northern


Ireland better because of the partnership government that we


worked on. That was the political week that


was. Let's hear the thoughts


of my guests. You says he emerged from this crisis


unscathed. Do you remember so much significance happening so


concentrated a time? Not at all. Earlier this week, I did a political


review for a website, a review of the year so far. Can you imagine


that in the third week of January? But it was quite appropriate, there


was so much to talk about. In 17 years I have been a journalist, I


can you imagine that in the third week of January? But it was quite


appropriate, there was so much to talk about. In 17 years I have been


a journalist, I cannot member any week like it. On Friday, the three


events that happened, any one of them would have been a front page


news story and we were left to decide between which one we would


put to the front. I think it has been an absolutely mad and shocking


weekend in some ways quite depressing. Politically.


I think the good have filled this edition of Sunday Politics with any


one of those men stories under normal circumstances, Pete. Let's


take one to get us started. Those warm words from Ian Paisley about


Martin McGuinness on Thursday night. Will they help or hinder the DUP in


the run-up to the election? It is interesting because it earlier on,


Martin McGuinness, you very -- Martin McGuinness said he very


rarely heard members of the DUP talking about reconciliation within


a few minutes later you had this much more magnanimous conversation


with Ian Paisley Jr. That is all fine and well as one of the things


that have happened in the Assembly is there in many ways much better


relationships than 20 years ago. We would hope they would be better


nearly 20 years after the establishment of the Assembly! The


point about this is the conflict transformation is not just about


making friends but it means much, much more. For example, we live in a


highly segregated society. For arguments sake, let's say it would


cost ?400 million, we are spending that amount of money on segregated


education and segregated housing. That is a much bigger scandal within


our society. What that tells us is that this type of scandal, with this


sort of corruption, brings down the Assembly. But the fact that we are


spending vast amounts of money on a segregated, sectarian society does


not tell those that we have not lived that our forward in 20 years,


never mind magnanimous words or otherwise. What about the


significance of Martin O'Neill talking about fitting of a public


inquiry, which was a U-turn, because earlier that day Declan of Sinn Fein


was arguing on radio Ulster demerits of doing precisely that. They have


been arguing about it for the past six or seven weeks then be public


inquiry was not that for purpose. Penzing at lunchtime and then you


assume that that statement that Mairtin O Muilleoir but it must have


taken about one and a half hours to read so in the space of half an


hour, they changed policy or Declan was not briefed. Why did they not


call it several weeks ago and maybe we could have saved the political


institutions? If they were going to eventually do turn their position,


why was this not call them? Why did Claire Sugden not call it? Why did


somebody not take some sort of action to save the political


institutions, instead of doing it now because it is looking cynical,


then we are taking steps to change this. I think he wanted to take that


Simon Hamilton at that stage. Very briefly, it has been called right at


the end of this mandate, because they are now heading towards an


election on March the 2nd, is it too little too late? First of all, for


those of us not as close to the establishment, the question of why


this is happening, this inquiry comfort the day before we started


the programme about the historical abuse inquiry. This was a major


initiative by the Assembly which has been buried in this big's news, a


really emotional situation. People who have had traumatic experiences,


who really need help and care and that is submerged within this tittle


tattle, who said what, who did what? It shows you the lack of function


within the Assembly at times. OK, we will hear a lot more from both of


you later in the programme. Thank you very much.


Let's hear now from Stephen Agnew, the leader of the Green Party,


Eammon McCann from People Before Profit


and Councillor Stephen Cooper from the TUV.


Welcome to you all. Inman, first of all, you talked about the whimpering


diminuendo of interest in the Assembly as this term glossary


close. But you will be out in the street asking people to vote for you


for much the second. There is a contradiction there, is there not?


No, I want people, and I have been urging them every minute between now


and polling day, it is to vote for a different setup. To vote for a


different party. That is all I can do, that is all we can achieve in an


election. I know that the cynics, or who would describe themselves as


realists, say that as a dream world that nationalists will vote for the


DUP, you're not want to change that, I do not accept that. We will be


making a pitch directly to voters for the DUP and asking them to take


a look at the DUP's performance, to say what has been revealed about


their record and to consider an alternative. Do you think that the


smaller parties, if People Before Profit is returned again in five


seat constituencies will be able to make a difference you have made no


secret of your frustration over the past eight months.


Absolutely. The main thing we want out of Stormont, I want more of us.


I want more people generally defending themselves, either


unionist and Nationalist as over. I want more people from my party to be


elected and we will be going all out to come back with more than two


Maxine and if we do that, I think we did have effect in the short eight


months that we were there and if we come back in greater numbers, with a


film and it, there is no doubt that we will be able to shift the focus


of debate that Stormont. We have done that if it already. -- a firmer


mandate. If the election and opportunity or a total waste of


time? I think it is an opportunity for my party because they are one of


the few parties whose vote is increasing and one of the few who


are not predicted to lose seats. We will come back stronger within the


electoral setup. You hope you will, you cannot be sure. I would be


confident that we will. The reality is that most people will see this as


a waste of time and in that regard, I have some sympathy. I would much


rather that we had the public inquiry before the calling of the


election. I would much had come forward with a budget that did not


see many people put on protective notice because they do not know if


the organisation is going to be funded post much. This fiasco is


going to inevitably cost jobs. And ultimately, it seems to be about a


power struggle between the DUP and Sinn Fein and I do not think that is


what politics should be, how it should be played. The RHI scheme,


which we can talk about in a little bit more detail in just a few


moments, is a green skin. Why did you not spot the flaw then it?


Arlene Foster and figures above servants have been accused of being


asleep at the wheel, where you are slippers? I raised the issue of


perverse incentives on public record, to a written question, years


ago. Also as part of the consultation, the wider green


movement was then that energy efficiency should come first. The


department's answer back was, "We assume people will be energy


efficient before we install these systems." It was not good enough


then, it is not good enough now, 490 million. Happy listening, we could


avoided that. But it does show the limitations of the small parties.


You may have raised that in the public record, the point is, only


after the huge brewery that has happened in the past few weeks as


the public inquiries only been called. You had very little sleep


over what was happening. And the public now have an opportunity to


give their verdict on those traditional parties who created the


waist, who the institutions and return parties like the Green Party


in greater numbers so that we have more power and can deliver, as we


have done, and the last Assembly I delivered the children's act, we


were the first party and all liberty to raise RHI from the start. We have


a good track record and we can continue that with more MLAs.


Stephen, is city you be happy to be facing another election so soon


after the last one? In the circumstances, we are. We have been


seeing for quite some time that the Executive is dysfunctional. It


cannot work, it will not work. If the structures remain the same, we


will be left in exactly the same position again after this election.


So, we want, as others have outlined, to give the public a


chance to give their verdict on the field a and structures. It gives


union is a chance to vote for strong negotiating team, because no doubt


after the election there will be a series of negotiations, and it will


be very, very interesting to see what form, and what content, will be


in those negotiations. The difficulty for your party is, with


the greatest respect, last May you sympathise with assembling and were


returned with one MLA. Absolutely. So, people do not listen to you. You


said the system was not working last May, the blood and opportunity to


believe you and to vote for your candidates, apart from Jim Allister


they said no thank you very much, we will not bother. Perhaps this time


will be different and I hope it is because in the last election, the


blackmail by the DUP saying if you do not vote for us, Martin


McGuinness will be joined First Minister, First Minister. People are


seen through that because as we have witnessed... They would deny there


was any blackmail involved. Well, that was your line, if you do not


vote for Arlene, McGuinness will be First Minister. The public have seen


through that because whenever Martin McGuinness has resigned, the thing


has fallen apart because it is a joint others. And that is out of the


Barry Corr of what they had to the public, in my opinion, falsely. --


that is at the very core. Do you welcome the public inquiry into RHI?


I do. So, Mairtin O Muilleoir got that right? It is one thing he did,


yes. I also tabled a motion in my council calling for a public


inquiry. It is interesting to see the DUP flip flopping on this exact


issue, like Stephen has said. I would have liked to have that


inquiry before an election so that we see exactly what happened, he was


brought in whenever the spike happened, who brought in... Who


referred them to the scheme and if they have any connection whatsoever


with the DUP. Those are questions that need them to be answered and


the sooner they are answered, the better. The public inquiry will ask


a lot of questions and presumably can be a lot of answers and


presumably those will be part of that process. To come back to you,


Mr McCann, and the Department of Martin McGuinness from front line


politics this week, you have known him for a very long time. You come


from the same city, you were there on the streets back in the 1960s,


you were doing different things and your careers have gone in different


direction. What do you make of his decision to step back from the front


line at this point? Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is the


simplest thing, that Martin is busily not well. He is obviously...


Gerry Adams is talking to the -- about the threat to his life, a


life-threatening illness, and I think it a bit difficult talking


about Martin. I have known him for many years. We are neighbours, sort


of round the corner. We sometimes get our morning papers in the same


corner shop. I know Bernadette, his wife, and so forth. Maybe I should


not, I am supposed to be a politician above this sort of thing,


but I find it very difficult to talk about Martin and his politics at the


moment. I feel squeamish about it. Why, because you like him and are


frightened of seeing something inappropriate? Bno, I am not worried


at all about what is an appropriate and appropriate. Maybe I should not


have taken... You mean because of illness as a personal matter? Yes,


and I know him, and here's a neighbour.


He is also a political opponent. Politically, we poles apart and that


will remain but that does not mean that they are not human


considerations which come in. I do think one of the things that gives


Martin McGuinness his authenticity is that he does not come from a


republican background of an ideology that has gone out, he is a brother


of the block, from a march or two or a riot or do, and then sort of


into... If you look at the trajectory, the Ark of Martin


McGuinness's career, you will see that for good or ill, and I would be


critical of it of course, it has kept pace with, get in alignment


with developments in the community that he represents. He has got that


which nobody else in the leadership of Sinn Fein has. Stephen, your


order leader was not happy with Ian Paisley's comments about Martin


McGuinness on the view on Thursday. He called it a gushing eulogy. Do


you wish Martin McGuinness recovery from his current health


difficulties? Can you at least concede that point? First and


foremost, I would not wish ill health on anybody. But I do, my


first thought is for the many thousands of victims of the IRA he


commanded. They did not get to see retirement, the age that he has


reached. They also note the journey he has been on, as Ian Paisley did


on Thursday night? If he has been on a journey, it should begin with an


apology. It should, some honesty, which is probably asking too much, I


am sure. If you could come clear on where they disappeared bodies are,


for example, and give closer to the victims, that would be the jester,


it would be a tremendous gesture by McGuinness on the half of the IRA.


You're not proceeded at this point? I wish in the health to come clean


-- to reflect, come clean and tell the truth. 'S quick sentence on the


departure of Martin McGuinness, how significant is it? I think it is


very significant. He has been a stable sector in Northern Ireland


politics since the Good Friday Agreement, the peace process. I do


not think we can or should forget the past but I think we should


recognise what he has done and I can honestly say I find somebody who has


been good to work with. Lots more discussion about the election in


weeks to come, you will be glad to hear. Thank you very much indeed for


me. Let's hear more from


Allison and Pete. How brittle, to quote Arlene Foster,


do you think it is likely to be? Very brittle. Already, you can see


that both of two main parties are reverting back to type, if you like.


One is going hard-core unionist, Sinn Fein is going back to their


roots, which is probably playing out quite well with the electorate but


it will not take us to a good place after the election to negotiations,


because an election, by its very nature, means there are no political


opponents, no longer coalition partners. It will get better and


nasty and where does that leave us after an election? The difficulty


and it is likely to be for the smaller parties, Pete? We know that


roughly about 45 to 50% of people do not forward but Stephen made the


point, and it is the same for Mr McMahon, most of the political


parties have gone backwards or stalled electorally. These are


smaller, younger parties are starting to engage and starting to


capture votes and he will probably see that they will have more cabinet


seats. Hopefully they do not stand against each other, I think there's


some possible to of that happening, which would be a split. One of the


things it is important, within the group of people who do not vote,


there is a significant number of people who are same-sex marriage,


environmentalist, would consider themselves to be leftist or had left


and there are people who field is a significant number of people who are


same-sex marriage, environmentalist, would consider themselves to be


leftist or had left and there are people who feel disadvantaged the


Belfast agreement. -- there are people who feel disenfranchised.


Well, political friends and foes have paid tribute


with many citing his negotiating ability and personal charm


as significant in his role of Deputy First Minister.


Here's a look back at some of the highs and lows


# It's very clear. # Are Love is here to stay. #


If you had told me some time ago that I would be standing here to


take this office, I would have been totally unbelieving! For Ian


Paisley, I want to wish you all the best as we step forward towards the


greatest yet most exciting challenge of our lives. What's the current


state of your relationship with the Deputy First Minister? What it


always was. No change! Not an inch, no surrender. We've been described


as the Chuckle Brothers back home by people who thought that would have


demeaned as in the beginning. We are hoping we can juggle our way through


2008. -- chuckle. I don't think that it's helpful for us to be going into


the final details of these matters but nobody is in any doubt that the


issue of parading was moving forward and was held back from resolution


until the issue of policing and justice was resolved. -- the finer


details. And it is your belief, is it, that he took the agreement to


the wider party and they said no? It is not my belief, it is my


knowledge. He quite clearly crossed a line that she done and he should


not have crossed. We have learnt in the cause of the recent days that


the scheme is being brought forward by the Minister for Social


Development does not give full protection to claimants, or


protection to future claimants. That is absolutely unacceptable. I have


never seen such a dishonourable, ham-fisted statement as the one


issued by Sinn Fein today. My job is to work with whoever is elected by


the DUP. If I can work with Ian Paisley, if I can work with Peter


Robson, I can work with anybody. I'm tired of Stormont being a watchword


for arguing and bickering, and that is not why are people elected us.


They did so to provide a better future for us all. There is a


commitment from both parties to work positively, constructively. With


Arlene and I, we are agreed on many things but on the issue of Brexit, I


speak for the people of the North. I think we jointly speak for the


people of Northern Ireland. What we have fewer artefacts being


disregarded in a fevered quest to build political gallows. Today, I


have told Arlene Foster that I have tendered my resignation.


# Breaking up is never easy, I know # But I have to go


# Knowing me, knowing you # Is the best I can do. #


So, who will take over from Martin McGuinness?


If you were a betting woman, where was your money be, Alison? I have


already stated this week in the paper that my money is on Michelle


O'Neill. I would have said Conor Murphy a couple of months ago but


since the RHI scandal, and the current scandal, she has moved to


the fore and I think that Sinn Fein things she represents the young,


upwardly mobile Sinn Fein and I think she is going to be the person


that fills his shoes. Somebody posted election literature from


sites down on Twitter, with Fein leadership and a picture of Martin


McGuinness, Gerry Adams land her in the middle. If you are to take on


board what you said, that kind of makes sense. That poster is true of


the old joke, somebody went to the Kremlin and stall next week was my


collection revolves. That in the very obvious and symbolic weight


eight was going to be the next leader. Irrespective of that, we


know that the party does have a very centralised structure and a leader


in that party does come with certain limitations, in some ways, but it


doesn't for other leaders of other political parties. Would she do a


good job? I think she will budget will not be the kind of leader that


Martin McGuinness was. Figurehead rather than...


have to do this. Thank you to you Different kind.


have to do this. Thank you to you both.


have to do this. Thank you to you Different kind. Thank you


What exactly is the government's industrial strategy?


Will ministers lose their supreme court battle over Brexit, and,


Well, tomorrow Theresa May is launching the government's


industrial strategy - and to talk about that we're joined


by the Business Minister, Margot James - welcome to the show.


When you look at what has already been released in advance of the


Prime Minister's statement, it was embargoed for last night, it's not


really an industrial strategy, it's just another skills strategy, of


which we have had about six since the war, and our skills training is


among the worst in Western Europe? There will be plenty more to be


announced tomorrow in what is really a discussion document in the


preparation of an industrial strategy which we intend to launch


properly later in the year. Let's look at skills. You are allocating


117 of funding to establish institutes of technology. How many?


The exact number is to be agreed, but the spend is there, and it will


be on top of what we are doing to the university, technical


colleges... How many were lit bio create? We don't know exactly, but


we want to put them in areas where young people are performing under


the national average. But if you don't know how many, what is the


basis of 170 million? That is the amount the Treasury have released.


The something that is very important, we are agreed we need to


devote more resources to vocational training and get it on a par with


academic qualifications. I looked on the website of my old university,


the University of Glasgow, the Russell group universities. Its


spending budget every year is over 600 million. That's one University.


And yet you have a mere 170 million foreign unspecified number of


institutes of technology. It hasn't got equality with the academics? You


have to remember that just as you have quoted figures from Glasgow


University there are further education colleges all over the


country. The government is already spending on 16 to 19-year-olds. But


also, we are going to be adding... This is new money that is all to the


good, because we are already spending a lot. We have already


created 2 million more apprentices since 2010. That many are not in


what we would call the stem skills, and a lot come nowhere near what the


Dutch, Germans and Austrians would have. I'm not clear how another 170


million would do. You said it is more than skills. In what way is


this industrial strategy different from what Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne


did before? It's different because it is involving every single


government department, and bringing together everything that government


does in a bid to make Britain more competitive as it disengages from


the European Union. That is what the last Labour government did. They


will much more targeted interventions. Under the Labour


government, the auto industry got some benefit. A few more sectors


were broached under the coalition government. This is all about


communities all over the country, some of whom have fallen behind in


terms of wage growth and good jobs. The Prime Minister has already


announced 2 billion as a research and development priority in specific


technologies, robotics, artificial intelligence, medical technology,


satellites... So you are doing what has been done before. There is


nothing new about this. Wait until tomorrow, because there will be some


new strands emerging. It is the beginning of the dialogue with


industry and with workers, and the responses will be invited up until


April. That will inform a wider strategy that goes beyond skills. I


have moved on to beyond them. I'm slightly puzzled as to how the


government knows where to invest in robotics, when it can't even provide


the NHS with a decent IT system. Discuss. I have to say I find it


bizarre that the government is making an announcement about an


amount of money and don't know where it's going. This is typical of all


governments over all political shoes, which is total disregard for


technical education, so different from Germany, who actually invest in


the technological side. Germany has a long history. We want to emulate


some of the best of what German companies do. Siemens sponsor


primary schools, for example. We want to get a dialogue on with


business. We don't want to decide where this money is going. By the


way, it was 4.7 billion that the government has agreed to invest in


science and research, which is the most significant increase in


decades. Can you remind us what happened in Northern Ireland, when


the government invested money in state-of-the-art technology for


energy? No one needs to be reminded of that, and that is not what we are


doing. We are inviting business and industry to advise where that money


is best spent. That's very different from government deciding that a


particular technology is for the future. The government's chief


scientific adviser has determined that we will invest a huge amount in


battery technology, which should benefit the electric car industry,


and... This is taxpayers' money. Who gets it? Ultimately, business will


get it, but often only when there is a considerable amount of private


sector finance also drawn in. But who is held to account? Various


government departments at local authorities will hold this list to


account. A lot of it is about releasing private capital as well.


Thank you very much. This week, the Supreme Court, I think we know the


ruling is coming on Tuesday. And the expectation is that the judges will


say Parliament will have to vote to trigger. Is this all much ado about


nothing? Parliament will vote to trigger, and the government will win


in the Lords and the Commons by substantial majorities, and it will


be triggered? Completely. We've known that. Parliament is voted.


Everyone is pretty confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the


High Court's decision and say it has to go to MPs. There will be a bit of


toing and froing among MPs on amendments. You heard Diane Abbott's


slightly car crash interview there. The Lib Dems may throw something in,


but we will trigger Article 50 by the end of March. If it also says


that the roll of Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast should be picked up,


that could complicate matters. Absolutely. That could delay the


planned triggering of Article 50 before the end of March. Not what


they say about the Westminster Parliament, because it is clear that


it was. I never understood the furore about that original judgment,


because every MP made it clear they wouldn't block it. Even though Diane


Abbott was evasive on several fronts, she said they wouldn't block


it. You are right, if they give a vote, or give some authorisation for


the Scottish Parliament and other devolved assemblies, that might


delay the whole sequence. That is the only significant thing to watch


out for. Watch out on Tuesday. Mrs May goes to Washington. It will be


another movie in the making! I would suggest that she has a tricky line


to follow. She has got to be seen to be taking advantage of the fact that


there is a very pro-British, pro-Brexit president in the Oval


Office, who I am told is prepared to expend political capital on this.


But on the other hand, to make sure that she is not what we used to call


Mr Blair, George Bush's poodle. It is very difficult, and who would not


want to be a fly on the wall in that meeting! I can't think of anyone in


the world who would despise Mr Trump more than Mrs May, and for him, he


dislikes any woman who does not look like a supermodel, no disrespected


Mrs May. Most of it is actually anti-EU, and I think we should


capitalise it. Let's get the Queen to earn her money, roll out the red


carpet, invite him to dinner, spend the night, what ever we need...


Trump at Balmoral! Here is the issue, because the agenda is, as we


heard from Ted Malloch earlier, that this is not an administration that


has much time for the EU, EU integration or Germany. I think


Germany will be the second biggest loser to begin with. They will not


even give a date for Angela Merkel to meet the president. This is an


opportunity for Mrs May... It is a huge. It could sideline talks of the


punishment beating from Germany. The Trump presidency has completely


changed the field on Brexit. Along came Donald Trump, and Theresa May


has this incredible opportunity here. Not of her making, but she has


played her cards well. To an officially be the EU emissary to


Washington, to get some sort of broker going. That gives us huge


extra leveraged in the Brexit negotiations. People around the


world think Germany as a currency manipulator, that it is benefiting


from an underpriced euro, hence the huge surplus it runs of America, and


they think it is disgraceful that a country that runs a massive budget


surplus spends only 1.2% of its GDP on defence, and America runs a


massive deficit and needs to spend a lot more. He's going for Germany.


And what a massive shift. I think Obama was quite open, in a farewell


interview, that he felt closer to Merkel than any other European


leader. And Jamie kind of reflected that in our discussion. Yes, that's


very interesting discussion. I think she was the last person he spoke to


in the White House, Obama. And now you are getting the onslaught from


Trump. This Thatcher- Reagan imagery is dangerous, though. Blair was


hypnotised by it and was too scared to criticise Bush, because he wanted


to be seen in that light, and we know where that led. Cameron


similarly with Obama, which presented him with problems, as


Obama didn't regard him as his number one pin up in Europe. I would


put a note of caution in there about the Thatcher - Reagan parallel.


Everything Trump is doing now is different from before, so Mrs May


should not have any of these previous relationships in her mind.


That is not entirely true. Donald Trump aches to be the new Ronald


Reagan. He may be impeached first! He sees her as the new Margaret


Thatcher, and that may her leveraged with him. Thank you.


We'll be back here at the same time next week, and you can catch up


on all the latest political news on the Daily Politics,


In the meantime, remember - if it's Sunday,


The View holds politicians to account and we ask


the questions that our audiences want answers to.


We reflect what's happening in the political world but I think we also


Download Subtitles