Sarah Smith and Gordon Brewer are joined by the Northern Ireland secretary James Brokenshire and shadow first secretary of state Emily Thornberry.
Browse content similar to 10/12/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Morning everyone and welcome
to the Sunday Politics.
I'm Sarah Smith and I'll be bringing
you your essential briefing
on all the top political
stories this week.
She's done the easy bit,
now comes the hard part.
As we move on to trade
and transition talks with the EU,
just what sort of deal
is the Prime Minister aiming for?
The issue of trade across the Irish
border is likely to dominate
those talks, we'll speak
to the Northern Ireland
Secretary James Brokenshire
about what he thinks a solution
to the problem could look like.
Momentum, the group set up
to support Jeremy Corbyn,
is facing allegations it's trying
to take over the Labour
party, we'll investigate.
And on Sunday Politics
Scotland at 11.35am.
The budget is coming,
the threat of taxes getting fat.
What will we get for all those extra
pennies in the old man's hat?
All that coming up in the programme.
And with me today to try to make
sense of is all, three journalists
who are in full alignment with this
week's political developments.
Tim Shipman, Helen
Lewis and Toby Young.
The cliche that a week is a long
time in politics has
never been more apt.
As Theresa May first appeared to be
the brink of collapse,
and then claimed victory with a deal
to allow Brexit talks to move
on to the next phase.
Deal or no deal?
The question that took
Theresa May to Brussels not
once but twice this week.
On Monday it seemed
it was all sorted.
Time to move onto talks about trade.
Then in stepped Arlene Foster.
Northern Ireland must
leave the European
Union on the same terms as the rest
of the United Kingdom.
So lunch was left to go
cold in Brussels as the
PM rushed home to try
and save the deal.
The problem ran along
the Irish border.
Did promises of regulatory
alignment mean Northern
Ireland would operate differently
from the rest of the UK?
Unionist alarm bells
could be heard in
Westminster where Theresa May
relies on their support.
While others saw their
chance to tell their own
bespoke Brexit deal.
So back to the drawing
board and a chance for
Labour to stick the boot in.
What an embarrassment.
The last 24 hours have
given a new meaning to
the phrase coalition of chaos.
There was a tricky
moment for the Brexit
secretary as he was quizzed over his
economic impact studies that don't
So there isn't one,
for example, on the automotive
On the automotive sector.
Is there one on aerospace?
One on financial services?
I think the answer is
going to be no to all of
By the Chancellor admitted
the Cabinet has not yet
debated future European
The Cabinet has had general
discussions about how Brexit
negotiations but we haven't had
a specific, er, mandate of the
At Prime Minister's Questions
Brexiteers reminded the PM
they too had lines
they wouldn't cross.
Will she apply a new coat of paint
to her red lines because I
fear on Monday they were beginning
to look a little bit pink.
Talks through the night
on Thursday and
finally, white smoke.
Tweeted by Jean-Claude
Juncker's chief of staff
to signal a deal had been done.
The red eye back to Brussels,
the Brexit Secretary's
face told the story of a long night.
A tweak of the words
and a deal agreed.
Sufficient progress has now
been made on the strict
terms of the divorce.
Not everyone was happy.
There are still matters
there that we would have liked
to have seen clarified.
The whole thing is a humiliation.
In a letter yesterday
Environment Secretary Michael Gove
said voters could change the deal
if they don't like it.
At the next general election.
Let's unpack a week of remarkable
political developments with our
Tim, the papers are claiming a
marvellous victory for Theresa May,
but this is a problem of her own
making she managed to dig herself
The government announced
immediately they had got a deal and
it took them two and a half weeks to
nail it down. It is worth
remembering that when she went off
to Brussels to Jean-Claude Juncker
who said, don't come here unless you
are ready to go. Theresa May kicked
him out of his office for an hour
while she begged Arlene Foster to
get in line and initially, it wasn't
happening because they hadn't nailed
it down. People say, why weren't all
these civil servants and people who
know about how to deal with these
guys, engaged in this process? The
separation between the Northern
Ireland Office and Downing Street,
the whip office was negligent and
they should have been holding hands
with the DUP and Tilly was taken
over the line. Disaster was only
narrowly averted. They were saying
earlier in the week, this is a
catastrophe and Theresa May needs to
But she pulled it out in the
end. We were talking about takeover
plots, Theresa May might lose her
job and now it is a victory.
you are talking about this, you have
to divorce the theatre around it and
the last-minute concessions, which
will not end. The question is what
happens when the Forge recedes.
Everyone has something out of this
deal because there is no clarity.
Arlene Foster said they wanted
clarity. Both sides when they get
the clarity will be unhappy, but the
question is what they will do about
Toby, both people on both sides
of the Brexit debate in the Tory
party, who are claiming they are
very, very happy. They can't all be
I am not surprised the
Brexiteers our content. There are
various things the remain as
predicted couldn't be achieved. They
thought they would be a backbench
rebellion. Now that looks like the
divorce bill will sail through. A
lot of Remainers thought the state
is of EU nationals would remain
uncertain for long time. This makes
no Deal Brexit less likely that was
always the Remainers best of
reversing the result of the
Now we're left with the
question, what does full alignment
mean. David Davis asked that that
It means outcomes.
If I arrived in two
cars, they are next
to each other.
Well, Northern Ireland is next
to the Republic of Ireland.
Yes, and it will have next
to regulations, it will be very
There will be some similarities.
Again, the Prime Minister
laid this out in her
She said there are areas
where we will want similar
outcomes and we'll have similar
methods to achieve them.
There will be areas
where we have similar
outcomes where there will be
different methods to achieve them.
That's going to be true of a lot
of product areas, a lot of
There will be areas where we want
different outcomes and
we will use different methods.
That was clear as mud, Toby, what do
you think full alignment means?
don't think we should spend as much
time as you seem to want to,
discussing it. As Michael Gove
clarified, it doesn't have any legal
force. It doesn't have any binding,
legal force. It hasn't got to the
stage of the treaty. It might be
difficult to unwind because it is
the basis of an agreement. But
nonetheless, it is not binding and a
lot is left to play for.
It is what
got the DUP on-board, finding a form
of words which could be what you
wanted them to.
immigration cut without the economy
taking a hit. The same thing with
the DUP, they want to stay aligned
to prison, but they don't want their
agriculture, Northern Ireland is one
of the biggest industries, to take a
massive hit from a hard border. So
you are trying to reconcile two
contradictory impulses. That Philip
Hammond clip is extraordinary saying
the Cabinet have a discuss where
they think this ends up in the end.
That is where the row will be.
Number Ten is specifically briefing
full alignment, so we haven't solved
It is a verb, he converge,
I don't do converge, we have full
alignment. The Conservative Party
managed to get through a general
election where they had half of
their supporters hardline. This may
help them keep the show on the road.
We will be talking to all three of
you throughout the programme.
So it was the arrangements
to avoid a hard border
between Northern Ireland
and the Republic that
threatened to scupper progress
in the Brexit talks.
And there remains confusion
over exactly what it
is that's been agreed.
Hopefully we can clarify some
of that with the Secretary of State
for Northern Ireland
Thanks for coming in. Can we go back
to the beginning of the week and the
discussions with the DUP. Where you
involved in that?
It is worth
stressing this is a fast-moving
situation. When the Prime Minister
was in Brussels at the start of the
week, the text hadn't been agreed.
That is why we've got the conclusion
with the text effectively now being
able to go on to the second phase.
Where you part of the back and
forward between Number Ten and the
I don't want to get into the
details, but I have been involved,
supporting the Prime Minister and
making sure we have got sufficient
progress and why we have the benefit
of moving into phase two, which is
worth we can solve the issues with
relation to Northern Ireland.
a significant failure at the
beginning of the week to flight to
Brussels without the DUP agreeing on
It was a fast-moving
Why go for lunch with
Jean-Claude Juncker if there wasn't
It was to continue the
The Prime Minister
didn't think she had a deal on
Monday, she went to Brussels knowing
there wasn't an agreement with the
The text wasn't agreed, as I
have underlined on a few occasions
already in this interview. It is how
we have secured what we needed to
do. We needed to give that assurance
in relation to Northern Ireland's
constitutional status in ensuring
trade between Northern Ireland and
Great Britain could remain
unfettered. That is important and we
can now solve this on phase two.
agreement said there would be full
alignment with the EU in the event
of no deal. It doesn't say anything
how you will avoid a hard border if
there is a trade deal with the EU.
You are looking at paragraph 49 of
the agreement. First and foremost,
this is about securing a free trade
agreement. Secondly, if that isn't
sufficient you move onto specific
solutions to deal with the unique
circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Only through an agreed outcome, do
you move on to the issue of
alignment, which I'm sure we will
option is to have the free trade.
Nothing has been solved
on how you avoid a hard border
between Northern Ireland and the
republic if you have a free-trade
We were never going to solve
this in the first phase how this
agreement, we want to secure is
firmly in Ireland's interest, given
the nature of trade between Ireland
and the whole of the United Kingdom.
That is why we go into this second
phase with confidence we can secure
the positive outcome, which is the
best way to solve this.
Taoiseach says it is clear in which
way it is going. He says we believe
the UK and Northern Ireland will
remain in alignment with the EU. Is
that your understanding?
I think he
underlines we could come to
different arrangements. It wasn't
about the same, somehow we would
stay within the customs union, the
single market. We are not. The text
says clearly, we are leaving and
Northern Ireland will be part of
that. Having shared outcomes may
mean we may achieve that to the same
or substantially the same way, or
It cannot be too
different if you have to maintain
this idea you don't have a hard
border between Northern Ireland and
the republic. How does this allow
you to strike free trade deals with
the United States for instance, if
you have got to maintain either
alignment or come to some of the
United States for instance, if you
have got to maintain either
alignment or come to some other
Let's take a couple
of examples. In relation to data
daylight, have your prescription
service nor those -- north or south
of the border. How that can converge
between Ireland and the UK. Things
Let's talk about
agriculture. If we were to strike a
free trade deal with the US, they
have made it clear we will have to
diverged from EU rules on some
agricultural standards, like
chlorine washed chicken, how can we
do the kind of deal the US will
insist on and still maintain these
We are yet to
get into those discussions.
have been to London and they have
said, if we stay too closely aligned
with the EU we will be able to get a
deal with the US.
We're not going to
somehow compromise our food safety
standards to have a race to the
bottom. That is why knowing the
integrated nature of the food sector
on island, is why we said we are
proud to look at alignment with
your hands. Why does the former
Brexit minister himself say it will
handicap our ability to enter into
difference across the United Kingdom
over some of these devolved issues.
It doesn't create barriers within
the UK market. We are compliant with
the same rules as the EU and it is
positive decisions we might take.
When it comes down to this issue,
there won't be this race to the
bottom in relation to standards.
is important to understand. You are
tying the government's hands in its
ability to strike the free trade
deals that was supposed to create
the optimistic post Brexit future
proclaimed by the government.
why we want to yes, secure the
positive free-trade agreement, Abbas
Bogue agreement with our EU
partners, but equally, which we
don't have, the flexibility to
negotiate trade deals around the
world so have the benefit of having
to do that.
The answer to this free trade deals
is how you manage the border between
the Republic of Ireland and Northern
Ireland, that has not been answered.
We've set up the framework, we've
not been able to have these
discussions yet. That's why it was
so important, where it was a really
positive achievement that Theresa
May secured by moving into phase two
where we can do just that. To look
at all these different elements we
been working hard on with the EU
that need to be solved whether
through the free trade agreement,
whether through specific
circumstances to meet these issues,
and protecting the ability from
people to move from Northern
Ireland's, into the Republic, really
importantly underlining the
significance of the Good Friday
The Prime Minister
significantly said no deal was
better than a bad deal. What this
means in Brussels as if there is no
do we have to stay in full alignment
with the rules and regulations, is
that the possible?
Is the document
states, nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed.
situation of no deal, nothing would
be agreed and that is the
circumstance in which this deal
This document doesn't
commit in that way. We are not
contemplating a notable situation.
The Prime Minister has frequently
contemplated that, saying no deal is
better than a bad deal.
I think it
says this in a good way, to secure
this positive outcome that agreement
with our EU partners. We will only
do that if it is acceptable. Under
the no deal statements that the
Prime Minister has made.
agreement says, in the event of no
deal, we will maintain full
alignment, you say this doesn't mean
This document doesn't deal
with no deal. That's what I'm
saying. Paragraph five...
So in the
absence of agreed solutions the UK
will maintain full alignment with
the rules of the customs union?
Paragraph five scissors and
agreement being reached...
need an agreement before you have
absence of agreed solutions.
about the three tiered approach will
take, free-trade agreements, dealing
with unique circumstances and then
moving onto the alignment issues. It
is this three tiered approach that
will inform the negotiations. This
is why I say this provides us with a
positive backdrop to go into phase
two, to get positive outcomes in
ensuring there is no barrier between
the Republic of Ireland and Northern
Ireland. I take the positive
viewpoint, around getting agreement,
securing that bright positive future
for Northern Ireland and the UK as a
whole which is what that does.
Brokenshire, thank you. Tim, are you
a clearer? On what has been agreed?
Much less clear. What is the scope
of this alignment issue? If you
listen to government ministers, and
David Davis earlier and James has
said nothing that contradicts that,
you are talking about big areas like
agriculture and energy. David Davis
said it would cover four areas, is
put to someone in the Irish
government has said and covered 142
areas, there's quite a big gap
between them and we haven't yet
bridged that intellectually, it
And not much clearer on what
if there is no deal.
We would crash
out which would be definitely worse
than a bad deal. An appalling
outcome. I think the whole issue of
these agricultural standards is
fascinating because it reveals the
difference between the average Leave
voter and the average person on the
right, the free trader who is not
worried about safety standards and
is fine with chlorine tipped chicken
but we no one that free-trade Dale
got bounced out of contention one
thing that revolted people with the
idea of lower animal safety
standards, food covered in bacteria
then washed in chlorine. So you have
one wing of the Tory party who are
OK with that and people who voted
Leave who are not.
Is it still on
the table, this idea of no deal?
has to be, until we've concluded a
deal, because otherwise our
negotiating position is weaker. In
some ways the way that we've managed
to agree on what the status of EU
National 's would-be and what the
role of the ECJ would be for eight
years after we leave, suggest that
even in the absence of a trade deal
or even a transition deal being
successfully negotiated we could
nonetheless put a minimal deal in
place which could guarantee the
rights of UK National is here and
British nationals in Europe. So in
that way it makes no deal a little
less unpalatable but I think we will
still get a deal.
Thanks for that.
Well, discussions of
what the government wants its final
deal to look like also brings
into focus what Labour's
plans would be.
Speaking this morning Labour's
Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer
argued that Britain should remain
as close to the EU as possible.
How we negotiate that agreement
with the EU is a matter for
It doesn't mean it's cut
and paste, but we do have a
choice, do we want to stay aligned
so we can trade successfully or do
we want to tear apart?
And I say we should stay aligned.
We are talking about
what sort of Britain we are
going to be and what the next 40
or 50 years might look like.
I don't think anybody
voted to make it
harder to trade with Europe.
Emily Thornberry, Labour's shadow
foreign affairs spokesperson, is
with me now. Thank you for coming
in. That was Keir Starmer this
morning. I don't want to put words
into his mouth or yours but I
interpret that as saying, we are not
staying in the single market, that
is not the Labour position but we
want to maintain many of the
arrangements we have with the single
market. Is that right?
said we have to accept the results
of the referendum, we have some
tests to be abided by to get a good
deal so we need to be able to get
the full advantage of access to the
single market and the customs union.
To achieve that what Keir Starmer
seemed to be saying was that was a
closely aligned to the rules and
regulations of the EU, possibly even
pay for access to the free market
and while free movement of people
wouldn't he said they should be easy
movement of people from the UK to
the EU and vice versa. Is that
really respecting the referendum
We have to leave the
European Union that there's no
reason why we don't need go a long
way. It would not be respecting the
referendum and the sentiment that
has expressed during the referendum
if we did not move, after leaving
the European Union, to a system
where we had fair rules and managed
migration, so people could easily
travel across Europe and those that
we need to have an ox economy - this
we need an our economy can stay and
that will help us.
If we are staying
closely aligned to the rules and
regulations of the EU why we have no
say in the formation of those rules
how is that taking back control?
We're going to leave and it seems to
us that people wanted to leave, they
wanted some form of control over
migration and fair rules and managed
migration is what we want but they
did not vote to lose their jobs
offer their neighbours to lose their
jobs. We need to prioritise the
economy and trade when it came to
negotiations and people should be in
no doubt that our biggest trading
partner is the European Union. It
would be economically ridiculous for
us to march off into the Atlantic
and say, we are turning our backs on
the European Union. To go into deals
with them we'd need the same rules
when it came to our exporting of
carrots or anything else. If you
want to export vacuum cleaners to
Europe they need to have the same
safety standards as the rest of
Do you think people who
voted to leave will be happy that we
would follow and mirror the rules
and regulations of EU when we have
no say in their creation now, we
become will takers and not makers?
What we've said is that we need an
interim period when we negotiate
properly and have a long-standing
relationship with EU. When it comes
to exporting goods clearly we need
the same standards and don't want to
undercut European standards, nobody
wants and implement controls, we
need all these things to be less in
Britain than in the rest of Europe,
well, some Tories do but we don't
and we are clear about that.
would constrain our ability to sign
free trade deals with other
countries. The more closely aligned
we stay with EU the less movement we
will have to sign a new deal with
the USA for example.
What we need is
a custom-built arrangement between
Britain and the rest of Europe. We'd
need to be in a form of the customs
union and closely aligned to the
single market and that might give us
room to make the that is something
we need to be involved in
That is clearly of
secondary importance to you, the
ability to strike new deals with
We've always been
pragmatic, most of our trade has
been with EU. We're just stating a
fact and we shouldn't put the kibosh
Are you happy with the
agreement Theresa May struck this
Really don't understand it.
I've looked at it, I don't
understand. I think probably what
she is doing is she's rubbed at some
of her red lines, and that's good
because you shouldn't go into
negotiations with hard red lines
like she has. I don't understand how
on one hand she is saying she's
going to align and on the other hand
will be out of the single market on
the customs union. It doesn't really
make any sense to me.
I thought that
was the position you said Labour
win, leaving the single market on
the customs union but wanting to
stay aligned to Europe and is
They say they've
swept any form of customs union of
the table. That's what I understand.
She is swept away any suggestion
that the European Court of Justice
would have anything to do with any
rules. She seems to be busily
putting them back on the table
again. That's probably a good thing.
What a waste of time. Because
wouldn't it have been good to have
began on a pragmatic, realistic
basis and we might have got further
than we have now. We are running out
What is Labour's answer to
the question of the border between
the northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland, how do you
The further we go
from the EU, the harder it is to
have a soft border. What we have
said without that a form of customs
union is a viable option. Melbourne
has come up with any other
This idea, it says in
the agreement that was struck with
EU in the absence of any other
agreement, this idea that we would
maintain the full alignment with the
rules and regulations come you are
satisfied that it works well for the
UK and EU and solves the border
Of course there has to be
a form of alignment, of course the
European Court of Justice need staff
an ongoing relationship with British
justice in the way we put forward
rules when we are working with the
rest of the EU. Why have we denied
at all this time, it is self-evident
and continues to be so.
proposed that an amendment be put
forward that would give MPs a
meaningful vote on this while there
is still time for more negotiation
rather than at the end of
negotiations, will Labour support
We have always said this. From
the outset we have said, why should
parliaments across the rest of
Europe have a vote on this, and the
European Parliament have a vote, the
people of Walloons will have a lot
in it, why not the British people?
That has to be a meaningful vote. --
one at the British Parliament. They
will have to factor in what the
British Parliament thinks. And many
people in the British Parliament
will not accept no deal, for
example. If they think they are
going to come to the British
Parliament with no deal is an option
they have another think coming.
There's another amendment to the Lib
Dems want, to put forward the option
of remaining in the single market.
Vince Cable has said it is
specifically designed to flush out
the Labour Party by asking straight
out will you support this amendment
or not with the option of staying in
the single market. How would Labour
vote on that?
We are leaving the EU,
we need a custom made deal with the
EU. We need to be able to respect
the views of the British people as
expressed in the referendum and one
debate was about ensuring that we
have more control of migration.
We've been told that the four
freedoms mean we can't stay in the
single market as it currently is so
we need a different deal. Those
other things we should have focused
on rack from the outset.
Thornberry, thank you very much for
coming in this morning.
There have been a number of reports
in the press recently accusing
the Labour pressure group Momentum
of forcing serving Labour
councillors off the ballot paper
for re-election in favour
of their own candidates.
Sources close to Momentum argue
they are simply helping to reflect
the new make-up of the Labour Party.
So is there any truth
in the allegations?
Elizabeth Glinka has been
to Brighton to find out.
They say to keep your
friends close and your
enemies closer, and in
Labour Party in Brighton they are
very close indeed. Here, as in many
other parts of the country,
there are suggestions that Momentum
is attempting to seize control and
ultimately replace sitting
councillors with candidates of their
Two weeks ago Momentum won
all nine positions on the
committee which will organise
the selection of candidates
for the next City Council
elections in 2019.
Local activists have spoken
about installing the first Socialist
council in the city, the implication
being that the current Labour
council is not quite
If you talk to people from Momentum,
they will say to you, we
have brought in all these
new members, they're
full of enthusiasm,
why shouldn't we have our people
moving in to take over the party,
we are the future of the party.
Is there bullying
going on in Brighton?
I think there has been.
And I think that has
predominantly been from people
outside the Labour Party
and it is not acceptable.
Wouldn't be accurate to say that
Momentum members and
some of the new Labour Party members
are mobilising against the existing
I think there has been some chatter
about that and a lot of
that has been from those who are not
in the party at the present time.
Once people are not members
of the Labour Party,
they can't share our values
and therefore they should be
excluded from Momentum.
And that would be a way
to unify the party in
Brighton and Hove and
around the country.
As a former minister in the Blair
government you might expect of
a captain to take that view.
I spoke to a number of Labour Party
members who said they had
experienced intimidation and that
Momentum was authoritarian
and brutal to existing councillors.
None would agree
to appear on camera.
While I was in Brighton a Momentum
activist posted this video and
The faces of three Labour
councillors including the
council leader had
Something I put to a local
Momentum organiser Greg
Hadfield, who is currently suspended
from the Labour Party.
I haven't seen it so I'm not
going to comment on it.
And you think that is?
I'm happy to get
back to you and have
considered view but
I haven't seen it.
I have spoken to a number of people
across the party in Brighton
and Hove, some of them tell me that
Momentum are using bullying tactics,
that the party is very divided
and they feel not able to speak up
and air their views.
They are saying that on the record?
Because I think that's
What we have seen in
Brighton and Hove in the
last 18 months is a massive upsurge
in democratic, decent democratic
engagement with party members.
Anyone who says that,
first of all they are lying,
but also they don't have the best
interests of the party.
Would you like to get
rid of the current
cohort of councillors
in Brighton and Hove,
the Labour councillors.
I would love it for
members to elect the best
representatives of this
Labour Party that they can.
If that is bullying,
if that is not democratic, if that
is deselecting, then people
saying that have a very
strange view of democracy.
Overnight Labour suspended
the member who posted the video.
He denied was anti-Semitic
and issued an apology.
Away from Brighton
the deselection of Labour
councillors in Haringey
and in other London boroughs has
made the national press.
There have been deselection
is in other places as
well including Hastings
and by just aware the
former mayor is among
I think we need a cultural
message from the top.
Momentum clearly have a place
in the Labour movement now
although they are not affiliated
with the party
formally they have brought energy
and ideas to the party.
That is no bad thing.
But Jeremy Corbyn is not just
the party leader but the
figurehead of momentum,
he has to send a message
to all his troops,
if you like around the country,
saying perhaps, not in my name.
Having spoken to people
from across the
Labour Party in Brighton,
there are those that
will tell you that the party is more
united than ever before
and they are incredibly positive
about the future.
But on the other
side even people who
describe themselves as being
on the left say they feel despondent
and that the atmosphere can only be
described as toxic.
Well we asked Momentum if someone
could come on to discuss the issues
raised in that film but no
one was available.
Never mind, we have our panel of
experts. Helen, is it perfectly
legitimate for momentum to get their
own candidate selected. They are in
the ascendancy now, so why shouldn't
they have more candidates?
a legitimate position and they are
entitled to push it forward. But it
is controlled by two Private limited
companies and the data is in the
hands of one man. They talk about
progress and the Fabians, it is
around Jeremy Corbyn as a person.
The third thing, they are very
successful in terms of making viral
videos and they are an effective,
organising force and that is why
people are so worried.
show the way politics is going, they
are fantastic at mobilising people,
reaching their supporters and doing
it in different ways, are centrists
in the Labour Party frightened by
Definitely and that
is why they haven't been able to put
up a better fight. To claim this is
an undemocratic, because
an undemocratic, because votes have
been taken before Momentum takes
been taken before Momentum takes
control like the Brighton & Hove
Albion are to, is absurd. It isn't
democratic because a small neo-Nazis
calls will be holding the Labour
Party to ransom. It doesn't matter
Party to ransom. It doesn't matter
whether they can sit out at these
meetings until 2am until moderates
have to go home. It doesn't make it
a takeover, it is
a takeover, it is definitely not
democratic as it would be if
democratic as it would be if Britain
First took over the Labour Party.
The problem is calling it
tiny. It isn't tiny any more.
tiny. It isn't tiny any more. The
last lot of people campaigning on
the streets for Labour were involved
in Momentum. If you look at their
social media, 60% of voters saw a
Momentum video on their Facebook
feeds during the general election
and Momentum spent £2000 on it.
Everything else spread virally.
There is a popularity and yes they
are a bunch of old leftie Marxists,
but on the other side there is
people cheering the Jeremy Corbyn,
they have come together and it is a
powerful force and no wonder the
Blairites and motorists are worried.
Blairites and motorists are worried.
It is a form of bullying?
It is a form of bullying?
these optimistic people who want to
change the world, tied up with a
group of people who are effective
organisers and behave in a
substandard way a lot of the time.
substandard way a lot of the time.
To compare them with Britain First
is over the top. To compare it with
an organisation whose explicit
purpose is to advance racist
propaganda is unfair.
We will leave
that therefore now.
Good morning and welcome
to Sunday Politics Scotland.
Coming up on the programme.
Will Scotland's Chancellor really
hike taxes just before Christmas?
I'll be speaking to two
politicians who hope he does.
And with support growing
across business and politics,
is it time for Scotland to start
running its own immigration system?
It's that time of year again
when peace, love and understanding
plans through Parliament
and continue to govern.
In a moment we'll hear
from Scottish Lib Dem
leader Willie Rennie,
but first, with me now, is Scottish
Green Co-convener Patrick Harvie.
Have you already done a deal?
have set out very clearly what we
think the priorities are for the
Scottish Government, we took accept
the party conference and our members
indoor our key priorities around
fair taxation, to revenue for public
services and close the inequality
gap, investing in carbon
infrastructure and protecting local
Have you had talks with
the Scottish Government about the
Yes, I think the last time I
spoke to Derek, he mentioned he had
spoken to all the political parties.
This is normal, political parties
should talk all the time. Especially
in a minority government.
So what is
your one red line, your thickest red
We have said clearly that we
want to seek an innovation based as
minimum pay increase in the -- and
inflation -based pay increase in the
public sector, protect public
services which we managed to hold
last year and we need to reverse
cuts, we can do that with fairer
taxation. On tax we have an
interesting position where in 2016,
we were the only party saying we
don't just need to tweak the income
tax system, you can restructure it
by protecting the low earners and
making people like me pay a bit
more. We have won that argument
already, labour and the Liberal --
and the Conservatives have already
agreed, I don't know what Willie
will see but we think they are going
in that direction.
Your idea of a
pay increase of at least inflation
for public sector workers would be
paid for by your proposal in tax but
have you worked out how much of 3%
pay rise would cost?
We have said
all along it is for the Scottish
Government to produce the figures...
You must have a guess.
So what the
Scottish Government has put in the
public domain has said you are
talking about 100 million per
Which is more than any of the model
tax increases that the Scottish
Government produced in its
That depends on when you
are taking the most pessimistic idea
of tax avoidance, and the evidence
for that is shaky. Also in 2016, the
tax proposals we put forward were
about raising revenue party from
income tax and partly from a form of
local tax. The SNP have stalled on
reforming local taxation, that is
really regrettable. They have made
the choice to stall on local tax
reform, they need to come forward
with tax policies that though they
have two centre the fiscal
commission. I am not allowed to do
that, Derek is the owner person who
can do that and run the system and
decide what they will put the
If you're going to have
a negotiation, by definition, you
have to be prepared to concede. And
they must be prepared to concede as
well. Have you had any indication
from the Scottish Government that
they have any indication of putting
any taxes up?
Your first question
was, have we done a deal, we have
not. The Scottish Government have
not told me what the budget is that
they're going to oppose this week in
the budget. We will find out on
Thursday but their budget plan is on
spending but also what their tax
plans are, their proposals for tax
rates and bands on income tax, as
well as a public sector pay policy.
We will have to look at all of that
detail together and not react
But no tax rises would
not be accidental to you?
how we -- acceptable to you? I do
not see how we could fund the
Scottish Government's own parties on
four example the health service
being funded by an extra £500
million over the course of the
Parliament, I do not know how you
could find that if the UK Government
is imposing a cut on the revenue
side of the budget, and you don't
So there would have to
be, even if it is not your
proposals, there would have to be
some tax rises?
I don't see how
Derek Mackay could present a budget
which even meets SNP policies if
it's a standstill on tax and seeing
a reduction of the revenue side, it
doesn't add up.
In the documents
they produced, your right to say
there was a range of suggestions
depending on how people reacted to
tax rises, but the figures they
produced and the analysis they
produced suggested that if you put
an additional 5p on the additional
rate, people earning over 150,000
pounds, only 20,000 of them, if you
put 5p on, you a chilly lose money.
But you're proposing to put 15p on
which seems entirely self-defeating.
The focus on the additional rate is
something that keeps coming back in
this tax discussion. A very small
proportion of the population pay
that top rate of tax. There is a
question about whether those people
are going to find ways to dodge
taxes if you increase the rates. The
evidence for that is mixed. The only
way to find out if the evidence is
correct is to attempt a change. You
can make a bigger change by reducing
the threshold. Some people in Labour
have suggested going through further
in reducing that tax threshold than
What would you like to
reduce it to?
Pick on anyone of
these measures, and say what's your
order before then, -- what is your
number for that, it doesn't make
It does if you are going to
implement a tax system.
You have to
think across the piece, you have to
think about the tax rate across the
higher rate and the basic rate, you
split that up. We are likely to see
what rates and bands of income tax
being proposed by the Scottish
Government because we seem to have
one but argued.
The air passenger
duty, is that a Red Line?
-- we cannot support a cut to air
passenger duty. We already know
that's not going to happen, if you
are cynical, you could say that they
have found a way to blame
Westminster for the fact that they
can't change it this year. If you
are more generous, you could say
that they got a technical problem
they did not anticipate. Whichever
view you take, that's not going to
happen this week and it's clear that
the SNP should drop the policy
overall, not just a ferret down road
a year, they should drop the policy
and if there's any tax giveaway, it
should be cutting public transport
fares on buses and trains.
you reply to people saying, of
course but Greens are going to give
in and vote for the budget, they are
just puppets of the SNP.
they have been looking at bad Tory
memes on the Twitter.
The fact that
you voted for it last year is a bad
We have voted for some
budget and against, the Tories voted
for every single SNP budget.
not a puppet, that's the gist of it.
Every party should drive as hard
bargain we can for their voters.
Thank you very much.
Shortly before we came on air
I spoke with Willie Rennie.
Have you already done a deal to
support the Scottish budget?
certainly have not. We will wait to
see what the budget comes up with on
Thursday and we will be prepared to
talk to Derek Mackay and his
colleagues about whether an
agreement can be reached. The top
priority for us is to have a
transformation of investment for
education which will help of the
economy which has been stuttering
over recent months and years. We
need to invest in people skills to
make things change.
Have you not had
any talks with them?
We have had
discussions with him but we have not
reached any agreement.
You say your
Red Line is how you much you want
spent in education.
We want to
invest £500 million in education. We
think there should be an investment
in colleges, schools and nurseries
and we would do that by putting a
penny on the basic rate of income
That would not raise £500
million, though, would it?
It would, if you put a penny
on the rate from how much, from
12,000 right way up?
Yes, because of
the personal allowance changes at
Westminster, it would be that you
wouldn't pay any more tax unless you
work earning over £80,800 so it
would be attracting those on the
-- £18,800. Does
that go along with the Scottish
Government's economists cultivation?
I thought the maximum they came up
with with all the various
calculations they had was £290
They have come up with a
limited number of options which
involves creating different bands
and taking those on low incomes out
of the tax increases. We are
proposing a different system, so
there four options, I think the
maximum is about to 90.
But have you
had any indication from Derek Mackay
or anyone else in the Scottish
Government that they would be
prepared to contemplate a raise in
of the basic rate?
We haven't got
down to that kind of detail yet, we
have got to see what they come up
It's a pretty obvious come up
We've covered a lot of issues,
one is whether we can make the
necessary education we think is
needed. We are unnecessary nursery
education, they are clearly trying
to expand the number of hours for
three and four years old, we have
gone to that detail. In mental
health, we want to make sure we get
investment in the front line by
recruiting and training more
personnel for mental health
officers. In GP surgeries, also with
the police and accident and
emergencies. Those of things that we
have set out what we have not got
down to the specific details in tax.
Your big issue is Europe, the
Liberal Democrats are campaigning
for a second referendum on the
European Union. You seem to think
that's more important almost, that
anything else, the economic impact
of leaving the European Union is the
biggest issue. Why not say to this
Scottish Government, we will support
your budget if you support a second
referendum on the European Union?
There are a number of different
priorities that the Liberal
Democrats have, yes, we want to
avoid the dangerous impact of
Brexit. But this is about the
budget. This is about trying to get
a package of finances for Scotland
that will boost the economy, because
we have been sluggish over recent
months. That's the focus we've got
and that's why we believe investing
in mental health, also education,
should be the priority.
also say, the impact of Brexit will
overwhelm any of these detailed
discussions on education or
whatever, we need to not leave the
European Union, back our son having
a -- back second referendum and we
will back your budget.
more than that for us to back the
budget, we want to have a
transformational on education but
tackling also problems mental
health. It is interesting idea and
it's something I will raise the
Derek Mackay perhaps but that on its
own is not sufficient. We need to
have a transformational education to
make real change.
A while back on
this programme, you said you would
like the SNP to back your second
referendum on Europe, and make
Russell, the Brexit secretary, was
interested in that, and said he
would like to meet you and discuss
Where are there any meetings?
Yes, Tavish Scott and make Russell
have had a discussion, we have been
encouraging them to
encouraging them to move from
considering to supporting our
proposal. We think it is the best
way of avoiding dangerous Brexit and
the impact on the economy. We have
to get the SNP over the line to
What is your
problem with the idea? It would seem
an obvious thing for them to support
it on one level.
Yes, it would. We
do not understand why they are not
fully supporting at.
One reason is
presumably because a lot of yes
voters in the independence
referendum voted leave, so might not
be pleased if they backed the second
It could well
be, I cannot read the minds of the
SNP very well these days, but
hopefully they will come on board
and support the move.
discussions still going on?
not had discussions this week.
mean about the Europe issue.
what I mean, yes.
Is the reality
that you will not back the budget?
There is nothing in it for you. At
times you have been the most
critical party of the whole idea of
independence for Scotland, and the
wall idea at the second referendum,
what possible motive would you have
in propping up an SNP Government?
are reasonable and pragmatic people,
we always try to hunt for agreement
when we can, and if we can find
common ground we will do that. We
want the transformation investment
in education, we want a change in
mental health services for the
better, and we want to make sure
that we get a fairer funding package
for ferries in Orkney and Shetland,
which the finance secretary is being
Were not going to go
into that, last point, you said a
minute ago you had not had
discussions on Europe this week with
the SNP. Are you implying these are
regular discussions that are
I think there has been one
meeting, but I visit frequently with
Scottish Government ministers, and I
am open to having further
You still hope to wind
Yes, I do, I am ever
Willie Rennie, we have
to leave it there, thank you very
So, at last, a deal in Brussels this
week means that Britain will be able
to move to stage two
of the Brexit negotiations.
Theresa May remains adamant
that Britain will leave
the European single market
and control its own immigration,
with a view to bringing
the numbers down.
But the debate is very
different here in Scotland.
Faced with an ageing population,
there've been growing calls
to maintain, or even boost,
the numbers of EU
migrants coming here.
And now that the real negotiations
over Brexit are about to start,
the think tank, the Institute
for Public Policy Research,
has said that devolving
control over immigration
to the Scottish Parliament
is an "idea whose time has come".
We'll debate the merits
of that in a moment,
but first here's Graham Stewart.
Hello, everybody, it is great to see
you all here as we are about to turn
on the Christmas tree lights in
Downing Street once again.
To help us do this...
Five, four, three, two, one.
Five, four, three, two, one.
Theresa May got what she wanted this
Christmas, or key, maybe Europe did
anyway. There was a deal on the
so-called divorce bill, no hard
order in Ireland. And to the reef of
many European citizens living here,
they will get to stay here and work
as they do now. That is good news
for Simon, originally from Poland,
who has run his own landscaping
business across Fife in the Lothian
is for the past ten years, employing
a mix of European and Scottish
workers. But the UK Government is
still intent on reducing immigration
once we're out of the EU, and he
believes that would make hiring
workers a lot more difficult in the
It would definitely restrict
the amount of skill and experience
we have access to. I think the ideal
scenario is that there is still a
free flow of workers and skill.
it is in black and white. A plan for
a tighter system of control for
after we leave the EU. The
government document, which was
leaked in August, says freedom of
movement with an unlimited number of
EU citizens can come here, we'll
end. New arrivals after 2019 would
have to register to remain
long-term. There would be tighter
rules for lower skilled workers to
prioritise British employees,
perhaps even a cap on numbers. For
EU citizens who do come to the UK,
it would be harder to bring family
along. But could Scotland take a
different path? The Institute for
Public Policy Research in Scotland
says it is time to rethink the UK's
one size fits all immigration policy
and post Brexit is the ideal time to
Immigration has not been
working across the UK for a long
time, but devolving immigration to
us could be one of the answers to
this an offence, places in Scotland
we are immigration is lower, the
need for immigration is greater, in
terms of economic son demographics,
to go ahead and get the levels that
are right, and allow other parts of
the UK we are immigration is
greater, to restrict immigration,
which would bring coherence to the
UK wide immigration matters not they
are right now.
Similar to concerns
in Ireland this week over the
prospect of a hard border, there are
questions about how Scotland did
have a separate immigration system
while maintaining an open border
with England. Questions Lord Smith
of Kelvin doubtless considered three
years ago when he proposed evolving
further powers to Holyrood in the
wake of the independence referendum.
He stopped well short of
recommending power should be
devolved, but he suggested
politicians explore the possibility
of post-study work visas for
students. Something Scotland's
universities are even more keen to
explore in the week Brexit.
benefit hugely from being able to
attract students from across the
from over 100 countries. At the
moment we're rather unmapped by UK
immigration policy. We would for
instance like to be able to offer a
competitive ability for students to
stay on and work a period after they
have graduated so that they can
contribute something to our economy
and call back to their own countries
with work experience as well as a
fantastic Scottish degree.
going to be celebrating? No. Still
more work to do.
As the EU's chief
Brexit negotiator made clear, any
celebrations over this week's
agreements are premature. Britain's
future with Europe let alone the
Immigration bills have not even --
immigration rules have not even been
Shortly before we came on air
I spoke to the SNP's Deidre Brock
and the Conservative's Paul
First of all, tell us the story of
the problem is one of your
constituents has been having?
she has been 24 years in Britain,
she married a Marine who served in
Bosnia and Northern Ireland, and
went on to become a member of what I
could term Queens bodyguard, and is
now Regius keeper at the botanic.
She replied for a residency card and
was refused, despite the fact she
has lived here all that time, and
stayed at home bringing up their
three children while Simon was
serving, and she could not prove her
income levels so she was refused and
keen to see me in some distress, --
came to see me in some distress, and
it has caused a lot of attention in
Has it been sorted out?
The negotiations announced, the
first phase of the EU negotiations,
the document on Thursday, suggested
that marriage to a UK national will
be taken into account when assessing
whether or not people can remain in
the UK after Brexit. But it says it
has taken into account, it is not a
guarantee. The criteria is still not
clear enough as to what will be
applied when people apply for a
residential status after Brexit.
way you have described the case,
whatever the rights and wrongs, it
does not seem that her case had much
to do with Brexit in the first
place, did it?
No, residency was
refused, but it is a ridiculous
situation, she has lived here for 24
years, bringing up three citizens of
the UK, her husband is highly
respected, and even she was refused
residency, so this causes a lot of
doubt in people's minds about what
will be applied after Brexit went EU
nationals have to apply.
you're presumably encouraged by the
wording in the document?
encouraged, but the 3 million
organisation which represents the
views of many EU nationals, the 3
million who live in the UK, have
said they are not satisfied with the
fact there is not sufficient detail
as to what that criteria might be
for those wanting resident status
Are you happy with the
Yes, I take her point that
it is wording and a lot comes into
how that works for people who are
here achieving that settled status,
but in terms of the high-level clear
commitment made to these people, as
we come to be phase one, it is very
Are you happy that the
European Court will, it seems, have
a role in this for almost a decade?
I am personally comfortable with
that. I know some of my colleagues
may feel less comfortable, but for
me it is more important that we talk
about these individuals as people
and giving them that the assurance
they have built in the lights in the
On a more general point, the SNP
would like after Brexit for the to
be some Scottish immigration policy
which could be different from that
in England or Wales.
Are you getting
anywhere? Well, we're looking into
immigration at this moment. We have
had a couple of sessions already,
but it is not simply the SNP, they
are a number of organisations,
increasing numbers of organisations
concerned about what will happen
after Brexit to migration from
Scotland. It is very important for
the economy, not to mention the
social and cultural importance they
bring. But we have people like the
Scottish Chambers of commerce, FSB
Scotland, we have universities
Scotland, we have the College of
Scotland, different organisations
who feel that some sort of
differential approach to immigration
is required in the future.
that list of organisations, it seems
obvious for the Scottish
Conservatives to support it.
committee with Deidre, I said I'm
not convinced with any of the issues
outlined being unique to Scotland,
so some differentiated deal is
necessary or would have any economic
benefit for Scotland. It seems that
a lot of these issues are UK wide,
and they need a pan UK resolution.
Why, because for example the
Scottish Government says Scottish
industry and business needs more
immigrants. Without prejudice to the
idea that could be special
agreements -- there could be special
agreements to England and Wales
Cricket Board same thing. What is
wrong with the same idea that the
Scottish Government should be able
to determine these things? The
Conservatives have been saying for
weeks you can have an electronic
border between Ireland, Northern
Ireland and the Republic which would
mean you do not need to have a
tariff or customs barrier. Surely it
is possible to have an immigration
system where the Scottish Government
can have some separate policy and it
would work electronically?
it is possible, but it is whether it
is necessary or beneficial. A lot of
issues are sectoral, so issues
facing soft fruit farmers in Angus
are the same as those Down South. It
is about putting together an
immigration policy that works for
Britain and its new place.
take an issue like farming, a lot of
people who come and work in the soft
fruit industry in Scotland are from
Eastern Europe, exactly the same
issues that arise in East Anglia or
Lincolnshire, so doesn't Paul
Masterton have a point that it is
going -- if there is going to be
immigration rules, they should apply
to areas of Britain, rather than
something Scotland should have
I refer you to the Ernst
I refer you to the Ernst
& Young report talking about a
demographic time bomb to Scotland,
Scotland has a particular problem
with an ageing population, and
dependence on population growth on
migration. -- inward migration. I do
not hold that there is not a
specific need for Scotland to
address this. People are becoming
increasingly alarmed at the prospect
of losing those important migrant
workers after Brexit.
in England are alarmed as well.
But if we have a number of
organisations making a case for
flexible migration in Scotland, I
don't see why that should not be the
case. Even the head of the Tories
acknowledge there are differing
needs in Scotland, but they're just
not prepared to do anything about
If we can have an electronic
border, why not have it? I take your
point about some of the issues being
the same, but what the Scottish
Government would say is, where the
best people to decide that, not the
government in London.
My view is
that we need to have an immigration
system that works for the UK as a
whole. There are some specific
issues facing Scotland that they can
be met better than the UK where aid
Is this something we
discussed within the Scottish
Conservatives? There have been
suggestions in the papers over the
weekend of the Scottish
Conservatives might come round to
the kind of view that Deirdre is
I don't think so. We accept
that there are sectoral issues which
are more prolific in Scotland by way
of the workforce and the ageing
demographic but the Scottish
Government has a soft and hard
powers which you can use to attract
more inward migration to Scotland
and we need to focus on the overall
UK wide immigration policy.
Wright, are you getting signals that
the Scottish Conservatives might
come round your point of view?
can't see that I've seen any
evidence of it yet. I would hope
that the evidence that the Scottish
Government submitted containing a
lot of data to the importance of
migration to Scotland to the
migration advisory Council recently
would be taken into the account when
the UK Government forms interviews.
But I would still argue that the
Home Office immigration service is
not fit for purpose and needs
review, and I would like to see
things altered for Scotland's
We will have to leave it
there, thank you very much.
Time now to take a look back
over events and a look
forwards to the week ahead.
With me this week are the former
Labour advisor Paul Sinclair.
And the Common Space
editor Angela Haggerty.
I just wonder, is this idea of a
separate immigration policy, an idea
that time has come? I don't know
what Labour's views are on this, I
guess we don't know what Labour's
views are on anything at the moment
because it has not been made clear.
It's an obvious thing that Labour
I think the idea will
be about practicalities. If the rest
of the country has voted to leave
the EU because we have got a problem
with freedom of movement, is
Scotland has a separate immigration
policy, the question is, can we
still have freedom of movement
within the United Kingdom? There is
a question of practicalities rather
than the principle.
It didn't occur
to me when I was doing the
discussions there, but in a way,
Paul Masterson conceded the
principle, because if you have what
he called sectoral deals, that
conceived the idea that you can have
a differential immigration policy.
Yes, the advice seems to be coming
from a range of different places now
that Scotland's needs are different
when it comes to immigration and I
think Scotland's attitude are
different when it comes to
immigration as well when it comes to
the rest of the country. The issues
affecting us with Brexit are quite
different to the issues that have
been brought up elsewhere. I don't
think that having a more open
immigration policy would go down so
badly in Scotland, I think people
recognise that it's necessary for
certain sectors in the economy. We
have other things devolved, why
can't we have this devolved as well
if it makes sense to do so, if the
advice is to do that? I take the
point about the practicalities could
be difficult, but we are in a
situation where the practicalities
of everything to do with Brexit
going to be difficult. They have to
be worked out, we had to find a way
around these things but I think it
can be done. There will be a way to
do that. I don't think that it
should be on stuck because of the
practicality question. I think in
principle we need to accept that
this makes good sense and went it
comes to unionists, I think the
Conservatives are pushing this UK
wide line because they think they
cannot keep separating things to
Scotland. Rather I think it's
actually a good thing to allow
Scotland to take control over
certain things otherwise they feel
like it's going to be detrimental
for them if it's a UK wide policy.
But budget, there will be a deal,
would there? It's just a question of
with whom, who is your money on?
think there will be a deal. I think
we are going to get into huge
difficulty here, it seems almost
certain that taxes are
certain that taxes are going to go
up. In principle and not against
income tax going up, but if you look
at the problems that Scotland have,
our income tax base is too small, we
don't have enough high earners or
middle earners. Anything that's
going to determine people moving
south or make people not want to
come to Scotland, we just talked
about immigration, why would you
come to Scotland if taxes are going
to be higher? The thing I fear about
it is this. For whatever, because
getting a cost into deeper's pay
packets, the benefit they will --
people's pay packets, they will not
see any benefit in public services,
I think this is an electoral tactic
by Nicola Sturgeon saying, I raised
taxes, Richard Leonard wants to
raise their more and Tories wants to
The other thing and I'm
sure the SNP government is aware of
this, it's one thing to say that all
the people support taxes going up in
opinion polls, when it comes to
voting for a party that puts your
taxes up, people are not maybe quite
so keen. As the SNP know to their
One of the issues that we need
to be aware of is that of the
options of the SNP Scottish
Government has laid out so far on
raising taxes, even the best and
most optimistic projections for how
much could be raise are still only
going to offset the cuts coming into
the Scottish budget.
200 million --
£290 million according to their
So the tax rate may not go
to improve public services.
important point, we should explain.
£290 million, if you take action to
not pay these extra taxes, and maybe
430 million, but as you say, in the
bigger scheme of things, it's not
enormous sums of money. Kezia
Dugdale, you've been very critical
I have merely passed an
And what is the opinion?
think it's rather sad that Kez, who
I think is a woman of ability
although we didn't see that when she
was leader of the Scottish party,
has trashed her own credibility. I
think we will find it a sad when she
gets back from Australia, we're
going to find, the question will be
how much of money of her £100,000
fee will she actually give to
charity, which she said.
opposition... It says, stop being so
perfect, it's a bit of fun.
it nearly broke the Internet with
the economy right on Kezia Dugdale.
It's a TV show, it's not that big a
deal, she will probably come back
and will be a bit of controversy and
squabbling but it will be fine.
you think Richard Leonard should
bring her in?
all we have time for this week. I
will be back for the same time next
week for our final programme before
the Christmas break.
Until then, goodbye.
Sarah Smith and Gordon Brewer present the latest political news, interviews and debate. Sarah is joined by the Northern Ireland secretary James Brokenshire and shadow first secretary of state Emily Thornberry. They discuss the Brexit deal between the UK and the EU. The programme also includes a film on Momentum and Labour party selections. Isabel Oakeshott, Helen Lewis and Tim Shipman form the political panel.