22/01/2017 Sunday Politics South East


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


Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott what Labour will do next.


And in the South East, dumping rubbish is on the rise.


So, do we need sharper teeth to help fight the fly-tippers?


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


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.


I'm Julia George and this is the Sunday Politics


Coming up later, dumping rubbish is a growing problem.


So, why are so few councils making the most of their new powers


Joining me in the studio today are Craig Mackinlay,


Conservative MP for South Thanet, and by Peter Chowney,


the Labour Leader of Hastings Borough Council.


It is budget time for our councils and, this week, West


and East Sussex and Surrey all published their financial


Surrey has proposed a 15% increase to council tax and that means


they will need to ask you if you agree, in a referendum.


Craig, I will start with you, as this is a Conservative council


I think we have to accept that we are having to deal


It is great that we have all living longer, but that brings


challenges for the NHS, challenges to adult social


care and, of course, also, to the pension system.


Now, of course, it is very difficult to know if the electors


There was was a piece on South East last night,


in which some people were saying, they thought


they felt it was all right, because it was an affluent area, etc,


but I'm sure it will be similarly opposed by some others.


What I think we need is we cannot just keep saying, "Oh, it is


central government", as if there is some magic money pit.


But you are happy for the electorate to make


It is maybe even wrong for me to assess whether there is


demographic problem different to Kent, but I would assume,


This is not a one-off council tax rise in Surrey, though.


They have routinely raised the council tax.


I was speaking to the Taxpayers' Alliance about this.


They say they have raised it 82% in real terms over recent years.


This is also a council where, not two years ago,


they voted themselves bumper increases in their allowances.


It is about ?200 for a Band D property in Surrey.


It is the weekly shop for many families.


It is up to the local people to decide,


are they going to go along with this or not?


How are we going to pay for the demands of an ageing population?


There was a report commissioned a few years ago about how we might


It was hoped that private insurance may cover that,


but we have not got there yet. It is a serious debate.


OK, it is a good way to also duck the question,


Is it time to bring elderly social care into being funded centrally,


so it is not is not at the mercy of richer or poorer


Yes, I think it is. I think Surrey will have difficulty


making a referendum for that amount to stick, to win that.


But I respect their right to do it and I can understand why they are


But I do think social care needs to be funded centrally.


But the money has to come from somewhere, in the end.


It is all very well just talking about


insurance schemes and "we need to think it through", but in the end,


it is an increasingly ageing population.


There are more old people and the money has got


It is an interesting one politically.


This is a Conservative council pretty much


sticking it to a conservative government.


I wonder if they are actually showing themselves to be a more


effective opposition than the Parliamentary Labour Party?


It is a local authority, same as we all are.


Many of us in local authorities are complaining about


the shortage of funding, the cuts, the massive cuts in local


I recognise it is particularly difficult for county councils.


And where they have huge bills with adult social care,


it is a big consumer of money and that is a big problem for them.


We will find out in May whether they get the


referendum through and also whether the council


is voted back in, as well. A bit of a wait for that.


I would say that referendums do tend to go funny ways.


You described it as funny. That's an interesting one.


Now, it was the biggest speech on Brexit since the referendum.


And although there was plenty discussion about the Prime


Minister's plan for Britain to leave the single market, there


was little detail for the one of the South East's most vocal


Many fishermen had supported Leave and, this week,


a group of them went to Downing Street to meet Ministers.


They campaigned to leave the European Union and sailed down


They say the Common Fisheries Policy, which restricts the quota,


size and type of fish they can catch, was broken.


The fishermen want Britain to reclaim its


waters and limit foreign boats fishing off UK shores.


Our industry has been decimated by EU regulations.


I have not got enough quota to earn a living at the moment.


I could earn a living less than two miles from the harbour and I am


having to travel 17-18 miles, to avoid species of fish that


Seven months after the vote to leave the


European Union there is still uncertainty


as to what Brexit will mean for the fishing industry.


If the UK opts for the Great Repeal Bill,


to absorb EU rules into British law,


the fisheries policy would still exist for the time being,


while Brexit negotiations take place.


But the campaign group, Fishing For Leave, are calling for:


So, what hope is there for these recommendations?


The minister in charge had this to say last month.


So, what hope is there for these recommendations?


The minister in charge had this to say last month.


The government remains committed to being a champion of sustainable


fisheries and ending discards, as set out in our manifesto.


We're also committed to the continued cooperation with


other countries for the management of shared stocks.


Fishing For Leave will publish its full list of demands in


So much remains unclear about what will be happen


once Brexit is in place, how many of them do


We can go to Ramsgate Port now and talk to the head of


the Thanet Fishermen's Association, John Nichols.


He is one of those representatives of the fishing industry who went to


John, you met with the ministers concerned.


Well, it was a golden opportunity to go and sit before


them and present this - the way forward for fishing in the UK.


The foundation stone of what we are looking to achieve.


What are you hoping to achieve? Boil it down for us.


We do not have time at the moment to read


the book, so tell us what you are looking for?


I think the first thing is we must remove ourselves 100%


which has been a failed policy since the day


We need to get away from that and then work out where we are going


with this document and find the proper way forward.


One of the most important things is to stop discarding.


When the country voted to leave the EU,


did you assume Brexit would set fishermen free?


I suppose it is a hope that it would set fishermen free.


But you also have to realise that, in the past,


Edward Heath traded us off for better things in Europe


We do not want to be traded off again.


So, yes, I totally believe we can achieve a


proper Brexit for the fisheries and hand our


When you talked to the ministers, what did they say to you?


Are you encouraged that they were listening to you?


I think we are encouraged at the moment, when you are there.


But when you are removed from it and then think


about it afterwards, there are big holes in what you have listened to.


As far as David Jones is concerned, I am reasonably confident that


he will read this document, take it on board and see the advantages of


With George Eustace, I am just worried that he


He's looking after both the agricultural


I think that is too much for one person to do.


I think, when you look at our sea mass, our square area of the sea


is three times greater than that of the land.


He is trying to look after the sea and trying to


I did not think he is capable of doing both.


John, thank you very much for joining us.


John Nichols is worried that they are going to be,


in his words, traded off again. There is a chance they will be.


Do you worry that the Leave campaign promised the fishermen too much?


I meet with the fishermen in Ramsgate


regularly and know what the demands are.


I have actually got that document and I am working my


I am actually working on my own Fishing After Brexit


How many of these things do we need?!


I think it will be very much a similar flavour to their one.


Let us be clear about how we got into this dreadful


The Common Fisheries Policy has not worked for Britain.


It has not worked for the under-12m fleet and it is time


You were making noises when they were talking


John and his crowd have put together a new policy forward, whereby


This is very workable, particularly for the inshore fleet,


It is sustainable, it is environmentally friendly and it is


not the huge volume of these factory ships.


Is there not a risk that, if we end the discard policy,


where you have to land anything you do not have a quota for,


you have to bring it in, on, but you cannot then sell it.


It goes into landfill, or whatever, you


have to entrust the fishermen to, what, not catch too much?


What John has been putting forward is an hours-based system.


So, you go to sea for a certain amount of hours and what


That seems to be infinitely sensible.


we have been discarding these perfectly good fish because it just


happens to be the wrong species at the wrong time of year.


So, I am fully supportive of what they are saying.


But we were rather hoodwinked into the Common Fisheries Policy.


I see a lot of sense in what they are saying


that we should take this outwith the Great Repeal Bill and have it


has a separate thing which is negotiated now.


Peter, what are the fishermen in Hastings saying?


They are hoping that Brexit will deliver more quota for them.


But I did not think they are convinced that it will,


insomuch as the problem with the system


is that too much of the national quota


is going to the big producer organisations and the big


factory ships, rather than the under-10m fleet.


Over 90% of the fleet is under ten metres.


But over 90% of the quota goes to the big factory ships.


One of the other issues is that, I believe, we get to sell


60% of our fish to the European Union.


If we want to continue to have that access, they are going to


ask us to play by the same rules as they are.


Do we want the access of do we want to ditch the rules?


Why not? Because they will not agree to that. We are actually net


importers of fish. That is quite remarkable for a country surrounded


by water. That is more to do with our tastes. Why can we not just have


the free trade agreement. In virtually everything we are net


importers from the European union. Why would they want to be upsetting


what is a good market to them. But if the house to stick to the rules


and we do not, that is not fear. But there are separate rules for the


likes of hours with Norway and a slimmed, as a result of the Cod Wars


in the 1970s. At the moment, this is not working for anybody. John


missing George use this as too much to concentrate on, on fishing and


agriculture. Is this just too difficult, because you have so many


huge industries wanting to be at the top of the table. There is a


knock-on effect. It is not just fishing. There are so many other


aspects of, particularly tourism in Hastings. Thank you very much.


It blights the countryside and it is on the rise.


Dumped rubbish is an increasing problem across England.


Last year, councils were given new powers to issue bigger


But few have made use of this punishment.


And what can be done to fight the fly-tippers?


Sara Neville went out on patrol to find out more.


Council investigators in Dartford on the trail of fly-tippers. Carlos


like this have become routine. Fly-tipping has become much more


commonplace and the methodology is becoming much more sophisticated. In


this case, six tonnes of rubbish dumped in a field. It is an


increasing claim. Because of the clean-up costs involved, this is


almost on a scale of organised crime. These perpetrators were


caught during surveillance operations. The majority happens on


public land. It can cost councils ?15 million of taxpayers money to


clean it up. The officers received over 1000 calls last year.


Nationally, the number of recorded flight tips in England went up by


6%. The cost of cleaning it up in by 11%. Last year, the government give


councils more power to crack down on small-scale fly-tipping with on the


spot fines of up to 40 purse -- ?400. But 70% of councils have feel


penalty notices across the region. penalty notices across the region.


Dark Dartford council has a poor active approach. But there is worry


that the cost of disposing of rubbish encourages fly-tipping.


There are concerns about the tape of waste and the amount of waste that


environmental lobby, but that is environmental lobby, but that is


actually a negative side to that. This is a kind of place where


commercial rubbish should be brought. 58,000 tonnes was managed


here last year. But there are just four facilities in Kent. You need a


license to use them. And disposal costs around ?150 a tonne. Keep


Britain tidy wants to have fly-tipping in the next three years


and believes government needs more hill from local authorities to


achieve that. I want them to use some of the income they get from


landfill tax to help this. We want support for greater enforcement. We


want to raise awareness with households about what their


responsibilities and we want government to encourage retailers


and producers to play their part in reducing the amount of bulky waste


which could end up being used by fly-tippers. But with council


struggling to fund essential services, who is going to win in the


fight against fly-tippers? No Sussex councils have used these new signs


yet? Why not? I think the problem is catching people.


It seems to be so many mattresses left on the streets of Hastings. But


you don't know -- I have to catch them in the act. You have to have


the evidence. It could be a lot of DNA on a mattress. Do not go the! It


is a problem. One of the things we are looking at is offering rewards,


financial rewards. At the moment, people do not want to come forward.


They could appear in court potentially. The problem here is


councils need the resources to chase. It is easier and cheaper to


clean it banshees the perpetrators. I did not see we do not have the


resources, it is all about catching them. We would be prepared to do it,


even to the extent of offering rewards. It cost us a lot of money.


It cost about ?90,000 to clean up fly-tipping. If it is hard to catch


them, it is a pretty empty policy? them, it is a pretty empty policy?


There have been six prosecutions in Thanet for fly-tipping. We have two


different types of it. We have thus mass fly-tipping that we saw in the


video the, plus the more common than casual tape of fly-tipping, the


likes of household goods being left outside.


places' takeaway waste for ?200 and places' takeaway waste for ?200 and


that is that sort of stuff which is ending up in a field. When we go


back to the person find ?200. Both parties will be punished in these


cases? 27 times in Kent that happened last year. There is talk of


on the spot fines as a deterrent, but many people do not seem to even


know about them? I do not think it is enough money. If it went to


court, the court fine would be a lot more. Possibly thousands of pounds.


I think the councils could maintain their own streets better. We are


finding the fridges and mergers has been dumped on the road because the


collections have reduced. What about making dumping easier. A lot of


people have been falling into a radio show to see I got to the dump


and they said the trailer was two inches long, you cannot dump the


stuff here. We have to make things a bit more reasonable. Yes, we could


be doing things better but way. That is talk about making bulky items


free. It would not cost a lot more to do that. The analysis has been


done. People take their own stuff to the type and having it cheaper


having it collected. We would want that collected for free. I think the


waste disposal sites run by the council have to be a bit more free


and easy. Has to be slightly more accommodating.


And now, it is time for some of the other news you may have


Councillors from 19 local authorities are calling on


the government to crack down on gangs exploiting inner-city


children exploiting children to sell drugs in Kent and Sussex.


They have written a letter to the Home Secretary,


claiming the issue could be the next grooming scandal.


Grooming children to become drug dealers to sell drugs from London.


Members of the public could be excluded from part


of a beach in Whitstable, if plans to restrict


THe Whitstable Oyster Company Wants to establish an


exclusion zone on the land, which they own, which would


It cannot be right that people who have been using this beach,


like the sea cadets, like the sea scouts,


for more than 50 years should be brushed aside.


The Ukip-run Thanet District Council are consulting on plans to build


2,500 homes on the site of Manston Airport,


The party had been elected on a policy of reopening the airport.


It is game over on the airport? Absolutely not. It is a site of


national significance and they will keep fighting for it.


That is all we have got time for from the South East this week.


My thanks to our guests for today, Peter Chowney and Craig Mackinlay.


have to do this. Thank you to you both.


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,


It's just pain, but it doesn't feel like pain,


it feels much more violent, dark and exciting.


Download Subtitles