18/12/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.

Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum

by forcing a second vote before we leave?

Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be

pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".

Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business

It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"

but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,

Carwyn Jones tells us why he decided to drop child poverty targets

and a look back on the Welsh political year that was

And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer

and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,

They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.

First this morning, some say they will fight

for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those

who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British

people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -

The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have

tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.

The original resolution called on the European Parliament

to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens

of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".

He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish

must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%

The amendments were proposed in October,

but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels

Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.

The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.

Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed

Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try

and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was

simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months

ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different

newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort

to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to

rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You

would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?

I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory

referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a

questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,

it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking

the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a

very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who

said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save

money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and

our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But

your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is

to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would

respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to

be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain

money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government

said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need

to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the

single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options

should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will

be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more

illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a

report about future treaty amendments down the road for years

to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side

reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will

you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the

text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if

the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you

mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,

was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of

the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European

Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of

action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and

disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to

think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you

might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be

clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European

Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am

acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating

things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out

to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are

going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the

shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,

in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is

implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about

whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because

that has to take account of the future framework of relationships

with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That

means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be

outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very

damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the

rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the

customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give

us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is

not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the

results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see

that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the

divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget

for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single

market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will

know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be

damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a

minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider

the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to

leave it there but thank you for joining us.

Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what

happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview

illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach

taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one

breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action

subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are

sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to

happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists

on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public

opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together

to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take

moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every

single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether

it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not

think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in

the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to

question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these

things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he

wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you

can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But

the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad

deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is

implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we

are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a

minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going

to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,

six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage

Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,

or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of

2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa

May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that

Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I

recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical

drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't

think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very

long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we

would stay in the customs union after Brexit.

There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff

setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at

all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it

is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the

customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the

cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a

member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would

make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs

union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as

binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would

suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to

do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that

is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his

opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in

Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury

PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is

Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the

customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the

customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is

proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do

free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade

deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment

but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade

deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line

for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought

Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to

suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an

argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he

wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet

about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country

we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,

but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look

at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is

happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I

think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it

becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we

are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this

country. So, we've had a warning this week

that it could take ten years to do a trade deal

with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand

trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first

countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal

with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told

us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film

for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High

Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined

the European Union, Now I'm in the job,

the UK is leaving. Australia supported

Britain remaining a member of the European Union,

but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,

we hope that Britain will get on with the process

of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make

the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,

Australia approached the British Government

with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,

to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian

governments have already established a working group to explore a future,

ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide

great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase

British-made cars for less We would give British

households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,

so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce

when the equivalent British or Australian households would have

access to British products Free-trade agreements

are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source

of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests

over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement

would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade

agreements are not just about trade and investment,

they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations

often work more closely together in other fields including security,

the spread of democracy We may have preferred

the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK

to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can

be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade

agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement

with the United States This is one of the reasons why

the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years

and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's

vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help

in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The

Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal

with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is

complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.

The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual

trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with

the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary

examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking

already, we have set up a joint working group with the British

Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what

questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have

formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no

free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long

and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian

agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its

access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,

is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a

scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union

and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.

But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but

one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain

leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has

always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not

happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European

Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality

which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international

relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.

It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose

that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped

out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a

free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is

about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless

you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that

case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and

that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of

negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up

nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this

free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other

than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both

free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not

think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the

UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to

Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot

of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years

is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has

made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal

is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin

and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we

returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country

rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we

will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the

transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have

other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate

would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to

achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a

free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is

more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with

China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and

they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing

with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think

Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there

is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and

the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.

So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct

barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved

in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade

system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United

Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European

Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will

try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly

commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a

free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the

Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our

present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate

against any country. The European Union's free movement means you

discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.

It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building

of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it

more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.

Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis

of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?

40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.

Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.

It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions

about air pollution, that this is a public health

emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,

But how bad is air quality in Britain really?

Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works

at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.

He has been looking into the recent claims

It's a problem and it affects people's health.

But when people start talking about the numbers

of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.

There have been tremendous improvements in air quality

There is a lot less pollution than there used to be

and none of that is coming through in the public

So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels

of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?

It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution

on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who

It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening

To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit

I asked him about the data on which these claims

They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities

First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure

29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000

I will just talk about this group for a start.

These are what are known as attributable deaths.

Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.

Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this

was based on a study of US cities and they found out that

by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had

a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.

They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying

each year for each small increase in pollution.

So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise

it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises

the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.

So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000

Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.

And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths

How much should we invest in cycling?

Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?

We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,

but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?

I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment

and for air pollution that they don't really

see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.

Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing

London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,

that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.

If you are poor and you are in social class five,

compared to social class one, that would take seven

If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.

Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all

of the cars in London and all of the road transport,

we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air

pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.

There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,

but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact

on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making

And we are joined now by the Executive Director

You have called pollution and national crisis and a health

emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are

remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the

studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the

UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air

pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if

you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is

impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of

solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is

down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which

we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from

the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is

something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.

If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of

the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really

worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe

good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far

from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is

it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the

last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health

Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they

need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if

you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if

you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities

and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very

high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors

and many studies by London University showing this to be true.

The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of

pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is

causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.

The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and

there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we

have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution

causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is

40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.

Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are

talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air

pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to

phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner

tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and

clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had

the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to

me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most

polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking

at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure

which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical

effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is

everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of

people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,

but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air

pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more

individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be

premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be

by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing

difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke

and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do

you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined

that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.

But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000

deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by

that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do

something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly

caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem

of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I

am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another

claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe

clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have

also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50

cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you

look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the

actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent

effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in

terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am

throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed

that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and

that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us

that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does

take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine

months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten

years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a

piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken

it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the

professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the

thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the

impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young

children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,

this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the

underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not

arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate

things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree

with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I

absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been

made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think

the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,

diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can

get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see

us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Hello and welcome to the programme, where we'll be taking a look back

at the most momentous political year for decades.

My panel will be here to talk about that and tell me what's

But first, the First Minister has been defending his decision

to abandon a target of getting rid of child poverty in Wales by 2020.

The UK Government aren't in the same position as us and we don't have

all the levers to make the kind of impression that we would want

in the absence of the UK Government being in the same place.

That said, the percentage of households living in poverty

in Wales has come down and we are looking to improve

what we do by reviewing schemes such as Communities First to see how

But all of what you have just said was true in 2011 when you reaffirmed

this target of eradicating it by 2020, so what has changed

We had hoped that we would be having in London a government

that shared our vision of eradicating child poverty.

Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case.

It doesn't mean we do nothing and say, sorry,

We are determined to use the tools that we have got in order to make

sure that poverty continues to come down.

But you said back then, for example, it's even more important now,

with the economic crisis and the cuts to welfare that

you tackle the issue of child poverty and here you are now saying,

we are just going to put our hands up.

From our perspective, what we can never do is say

all the levers are in London and there's nothing we can do.

It's true to say that major levers such as the taxation system

It doesn't mean we don't do anything.

It's why we are looking at how we can better

deliver our anti-poverty programmes through examining the schemes

we have had in place for some years to make them more effective.

No-one would expect me to say, there's nothing we can do.

We are determined to do as much as we can to alleviate poverty.

We have tended to look at communities and tight-knit

I think we have to be smarter and understand that there are people

and communities outside areas that are traditionally seen

as areas of deprivation and help them as well.

But that has been the case for decades.

What will change as a result of what we saw last week?

What will change in your, the way you are going to go

There's a consultation ongoing in terms of Communities First

and we want to hear what people say to draw on the best practice we have

learned through Communities First in order to develop a targeted

You have got to listen to people on the ground and the experience

they have had before you come to your own conclusions.

Going back around a decade to 2003, in Wales, the proportion of children

in poverty was proportionately less than in England.

Fast forward 13 years and we are further behind.

Does that mean in the last decade or so your policies have been

If you look at the economics of it, unemployment in Wales

is lower than England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

What we don't know is, we don't control the benefits system.

We know that people have been hit hard by changes in the benefit

system and that has had an effect on child poverty.

There are some areas where we would prefer to have had

a different UK Government with a different view

But it doesn't mean we say, there's nothing we can do.

We are determined to be as effective as we can.

During the course of the week, we have been hearing a lot

about Brexit and the effect that would have on immigration.

You said in First Minister's Questions to Leanne Wood that

you thought you were closer to her than you are to

She says immigration in Wales from the EU isn't a problem.

I think we have to listen to what people are saying to us.

Simply shouting louder about immigration is not going to help.

The reality is that we have very few people from the EU living in Wales

but the perception people have is different

For me, it's a question of getting to a point where we have a sensible

The current system, to me, is not supported by a number

of people in Wales so what do we do instead?

One of the suggestions I have said is freedom of movement to a job.

I think Welsh people will find that completely reasonable.

No-one has said to me that what we need is fewer doctors

and nurses coming into Wales so why not have a system where there

is an element of freedom of movement but it's for a purpose.

You're just pandering to people who think it is a problem

This is not pandering, it's listening.

One of the things politicians are accused of is not listening

You have to listen to their concerns.

But don't you have to lead as well on this?

For me, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say,

It's a model that's been adopted by other countries, more or less,

and I think most people would be content with that.

You have said you want to see the Norwegian style model and then

said you are going to a job, but the advice the Foreign Office

is giving to people moving to Norway is, you can go there for six months

and you don't have to have a job, you can search for a job for six

months, after that it becomes a bit more tricky.

Is that what you mean by the Norwegian model?

I haven't used the phrase Norwegian model.

I preferred the freedom of movement to work.

I'm going to Norway in two weeks' time.

I have heard different things about Norway and I want to make sure

I hear for myself how things work and the nature of their

I met with the Slavic ambassador to the EU and the Swiss ambassador

and I want to make sure that as we look for the best deal

for Wales, we actually look at the different models in different

countries and come up with a Welsh solution.

And if the deal Theresa May gets, because it will be Theresa May

securing this deal on behalf of the UK,

if you don't think that offers the best for Wales,

will you be arguing that Wales should have its own system?

I think we should have a deal that is good for the whole

First of all, there is not going to be a deal in two years.

The transitional arrangements are going to be important.

For me, what's important is that the UK Government gets

to a position where it agrees common ground with the devolved governments

Why not get the widest possible buy in before you begin negotiation?

It has been an incredible year in politics in Wales,

Looking ahead to next year, how hopeful are you in terms of Brexit?

I guess you have been, on the spectrum, the more concerned

How hopeful are you that in 12 months' time there will be more

What worries me, I sit there as the leader who has been

there longer than anyone else, is the naivete that I come

There are some who are realists but there are some who still say

You have to be realistic and understand this is a discussion

between not just two parties but more then 30 different parties

when you take into account the different parliaments

The UK has to learn the art of diplomacy rather

than shouting at foreigners, which is the impression you get

Everybody wants to see the best deal for all of us in Europe but you do

that through talking to people, persuading people, making your case,

There are some in the Tory party who seem to think

Now, we hear a lot about "three wise men" at this time of year.

So we have "three wise women" here instead.

They are Professor Laura McAllister from Cardiff University,

and the political commentator and businesswoman Shazia Awan.

Thanks very much for coming in. We will talk about Brexit in a moment

but the first half of that interview was getting rid of the Child poverty

target. As such a major part of what they were trying to do for so long

in the early years of devolution, how big a deal is it that they have

dropped it? I understand where the First Minister is coming from.

Targets are important but the kind of deadline that was being put in

place for that one was always unrealistic, bearing in mind the

economic state of Wales. Anything that is going to tackle something as

systemic and problematic as child poverty has got to be done in

partnership and has got to be done using levers that the Welsh

government doesn't own itself. But is it worth asking, they would have

known that in 2011 when they reaffirmed their commitment to the

target. Should they have dropped it back then? I think they should have

looked updates, certainly, but one of the refreshing things that came

out of that interview with the First Minister is there seems to be a real

drive towards focus now. This is something we have got horribly wrong

in the first 17 years of devolution. We have tried to do too much rather

than dealing with the messy problems of poverty and so on. This is a

unique opportunity. And in a small country like Wales, if we can't

focus, nobody can. We were hearing their not the best example of how

devolved powers can be used to get rid of child poverty, but what do

you think needs to change? I think a lot of things need to change and

whilst it is good that child poverty has come down in Wales, when I look

at my region, where there are 28% of families, and consequently children,

living in child poverty, obviously some policies have to change. With

child poverty comes inequality. These children are suffering

educationally, they are suffering with they can't afford to go out

recreationally. We have got to look at all these things to try and give

them an equal chance in life because these children are the people of our

future. If we don't look after them now, we are not going to be. What

needs to change? I think a lot needs to change in what the Welsh

government is doing. Listening to the First Minister's interview,

there seems to be a clear disconnect between a blue Westminster and a red

Assembly, but he can't keep blaming that for Welsh Labour's own

failings. Across Wales we have got 200,000 children living in poverty.

60% of those parents are working and Labour always claimed to be the

party of the working people but we have seen the rise of Ukip across

Wales, whether we like it or not. We have to engage with our Ukip

Assembly Members and that is a failing of Welsh Labour. 17 out of

22 local authorities voted leave under a Labour watch.

Now, there have been so many political comings and goings this

year that it's been difficult at times to keep track.

Time now then for Cemlyn Davies' cheeky look back at the main events,

which also has a few bits you may have forgotten.

Time to dust off the year's top political stories and put them

on display once more as we reflect on the year that was.

We have had a new Welsh Secretary and we nearly had a new

And then of course there was breakfast...Brexit.

It was Britain's EU future that brought Carwyn Jones

and Nigel Farage together for a heated debate on a chilly

A sign of things to come over the next five months.

I want you to grab this historic opportunity to take back

Wales is at home in Europe and Europe is at home in Wales.

A few weeks later, Alun Cairns was appointed Secretary of State

for Wales, replacing the new Work and Pensions Secretary

Meanwhile, in the Senedd, AMs were getting ready to head off

There was just one piece of legislation left to rubber-stamp.

This would be a formality, wouldn't it?

I thought at the time they were a rather cheap date.

In fact, Leighton Andrews must have regretted his remark almost

immediately because it led to those Plaid Cymru AMs who had

been prepared to back the Public Health Bill and a ban

on using e-cigarettes in some public places to withdraw their support.

But no sooner had they left that the AMs were back,

recalled to a makeshift chamber to discuss Tata Steel's intention

The election campaign brought with it big names.

But this was the lasting image of the election as Plaid leader

Leanne Wood beat Labour's Leighton Andrews in Rhondda.

That was the only seat Labour lost, leaving the party with 29 AMs.

Plaid Cymru came second, the Conservatives third,

and Ukip won its first seat here in the Assembly.

as the Liberal Democrats lost four of their five Assembly Members.

And so to the simple, straightforward task of reappointing

Yes, a dramatic tied vote forced Carwyn Jones to strike

When he was finally reinstated, he invited the only remaining

Lib Dem, Kirsty Williams, to join his cabinet.

Ukip group leader Neil Hamilton wasn't impressed.

I'm afraid that these two ladies have just made themselves political

But a month later, Mr Hamilton was much happier, as Christmas came

The UK, including Wales, had voted to leave the EU,

but that result provided plenty of food for thought.

Conference, mark my words, we will make breakfast...Brexit a success.

Christmas is a time for families to come together,

It's also when family fallouts are most keenly felt

and we have had our fair share of those this year.

Labour's problems were laid bare over the summer

as Pontypridd MP Owen Smith took on Jeremy Corbyn and lost.

Elsewhere, Ukip's Nathan Gill became an independent AM amid calls

for him to give up one of his two elected positions.

And then Dafydd Elis-Thomas announced he would also sit

As the year drew to a close, Brexit continued to dominate.

The Welsh Government went to court to make the case for MPs

A judgment on that issue is expected early in the New Year.

Who knows what else 2017 has in store?

I guess, looking back at that, you see how much happened in the

Assembly, but is everything through the prism of Brexit? I think Brexit,

we are going to be talking about it for a long time and we can't hide

away from the way Wales voted. 17 out of our 22 local authorities

voted to leave. In Brexit negotiations, that doesn't mean we

will have the same say as Scotland. We only have to look at the First

Minister's disastrous all white Brexit committee that he put

together this year to show that the Welsh government don't really have a

handle on equality and diversity issues, particularly when, as a

direct result of the EU referendum vote, we saw a huge spike in hate

crimes against our minority communities in Wales. But why do you

think that happened? Do you think there is a direct causal link

between those two things? We have seen the rise of hate crime and I

would say that it is a direct result from the vote to leave because a lot

of the language used in that was very irresponsible. But equally you

can look back to the irresponsible language that was used in the London

election, where they were effectively not fighting Sadiq Khan

for being Labour, they were fighting him for having the surname can't

because you can't justifiably call a human rights lawyer radical and

extreme. We saw that language at the start of the year and as someone who

was heavily involved in the Remain campaign, I saw the tide turned. We

saw the various derogatory words being used before the vote. And Ukip

did put out a lot of irresponsible posters and propaganda. Now what we

need is politicians to be held to account and acknowledge how they are

going to help those communities across Wales. Caroline, as a

prominent Leave campaigner, do you think that needs to be addressed? Of

course it needs to be addressed. Bullying and racism in any shape or

form, I deplore bullying. I worked in the prison, I had my own

department in the prison service, and I was in charge of

anti-bullying, writing policies. I deplore bullying in any shape or

form. What I would say to people is, there is going to be a distinction

between what we must not do, the British people, the people of Wales

in my case, have been very generous towards people coming into the

country. We can't take that away from people. What I say is, when

people voice their concerns in a logical way, we mustn't interpret

that as racism. We haven't got much time. Will that change and how do

you think that will change? Immigration post Brexit? We have to

look at an education policy, and immigration policy, sorry, that

works for everyone. But how? I think it has to be controlled and we have

to know who is coming into the country and how many people are

coming in. We have to look at our small country and we have two,

obviously, we have to take our responsibility as well with people

coming in, refugees. How much do you think 2016 has changed politics, not

just in the UK but across the world? Fundamentally. We are missing big

points here, which is why people voted in the way they did. Why did

they vote for Caroline's party in the Assembly election in significant

numbers and why did they vote Brexit in significant numbers? This is a

fundamental lack of connect and belief in our political classes.

What I think has changed fundamentally during 2016, in Wales,

the UK and globally, is that people are prepared to lash out at the

political classes and this will mean a fundamental change in politics,

whether we like it or not. I think it will mean a complete realignment

of parties, how they are run and how they operate. Do you think that

backlash is party political? They would have been lashing out against

the Conservatives in Westminster but Labour here. I said before the

election, it didn't matter what Ukip did in the campaign, how many rows

they had, disagreements, how many word was thrown at them, they were

going to win seats because people wanted a different party that they

felt would represent them differently. Once there is a mood

for change, as we sensed in the US election, the candidate that best

represent that concept of change are the ones that will pick up vote.

Looking at what has happened in the Assembly and Ukip having seven

Assembly Members. Six now because there is one independent. When you

look back at Neil Hamilton referring to political concubines, it has

shaken things up, but are you happy with all the stuff you have heard?

Obviously, people doing from home, they don't hear the remarks that are

made to everyone. To all of us. But that was a very high-profile thing.

The Presiding Officer is dealing robustly with anything which is

unacceptable. Elin Jones has set up... Do you think it was

unacceptable? Elin Jones has set out his stall and she is dealing with

anything she finds unacceptable and we all have a code of conduct and a

responsibility to each other. We need robust debate but what is

acceptable and unacceptable is going to be decided by the Presiding

Officer. I have asked you all for a prediction for 2017. What do you

think will be the main event? Anything that could have happened

has happened in 2016. I think we need to, I would like to see a

resurgence of the Lib Dems. Time is really tight. Caroline? Obviously, I

want to see Brexit happen and I want to see more people coming and

investing in our country and bringing jobs and prosperity. I

think divisions in parties across the piece. Not a highlight, a

prediction. That's all we have time

for today and this year. For now, Nadolig Llawen,

Merry Christmas, Will Article 50 be triggered

by the end of March, will President Trump start work

on his wall and will Front National's Marine Le Pen

provide the next electoral shock? 2016, the Brexit for Britain and

Trump for the rest of the world. Let's look back and see what one of

you said about Brexit. If Mr Cameron loses the referendum

and it is this year, will he be Prime Minister at the end

of the year? I don't think he will lose

the referendum, so I'm feeling It was clear if he did lose the

referendum he would be out. I would like to say in retrospect I saw that

coming on a long and I was just saying it to make good television!

It is Christmas so I will be benign towards my panel! It is possible,

Iain, that not much happens to Brexit in 2017, because we have a

host of elections coming up in Europe, the French won in the spring

and the German one in the autumn will be the most important. And

until we know who the next French president is and what condition Mrs

Merkel will be in, not much will happen? I think that is the

likeliest outcome. Short of some constitutional crisis involving the

Lords relating to Brexit, it is pretty clear it is difficult to

properly begin the negotiations until it becomes clear who Britain

is negotiating with. It will come down to the result of the German

election. Germany is the biggest contributor and if they keep power

in what is left of the European Union, will drive the negotiation

and we will have to see if it will be Merkel. So this vacuum that has

been seen and has been filled by people less than friendly to the

government, even when we know Article 50 has been triggered and

even if there is some sort of white paper to give us a better idea of

the broad strategic outlines of what they mean by Brexit, the phoney war

could continue? Iain is right. 2017 is going to be a remarkably dull

year for Brexit as opposed to 2016. We will have the article and a plan.

The plan will say I would like the moon on a stick please. The EU will

say you can have a tiny bit of moon and a tiny bit of stick and there

will be an impasse. That will go on until one minute to midnight 2018

which is when the EU will act. There is one thing in the Foreign Office

which is more important, as David Davis Department told me, they know

there is nothing they can do until the French and Germans have their

elections and they know the lie of the land, but the people who will be

more helpful to us are in Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, the

Nordic countries. We can do quite a lot of schmoozing to try and get

them broadly on side this year? It is very difficult because one of the

things they care most about in Eastern Europe is the ability for

Eastern European stew come and work in the UK. That is key to the

economic prospects. But what they care most about is that those

already here should not be under any pressure to leave. There is no

guarantee of that. That is what Mrs May wants. There are a lot of things

Mrs May wants and the story of 2017 will be about what she gets. How

much have we got to give people? It is not what we want, but what we are

willing to give. The interesting thing is you can divide this out

into two. There is a question of the European Union and our relationship

with it but there is also the trick the polls did to London -- there is

also the polls. There is question beyond the Western European

security, that is about Nato and intelligence and security, and the

rising Russian threat. That does not mean the Polish people will persuade

everyone else to give us a lovely deal on the EU, but the dynamic is

bigger than just a chat about Brexit. You cannot threaten a

punishment beating for us if we are putting our soldiers on the line on

the eastern borders of Europe. I think that's where Donald Trump

changes the calculation because his attitude towards Russia is very

different to Barack Obama's. It is indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit

was a global story but nothing can match and American election and even

one which gives Donald Trump as well. Let's have a look at what this

panel was saying about Donald Trump. Will Donald Trump win the Republican

nomination next year. So, not only did you think he would

not be president, you did not think he would win the Republican

nomination. We were not alone in that. And they're right put forward

a motion to abolish punditry here now because clearly we are

pointless! There is enough unemployment in the world already!

We are moving into huge and charted territory with Donald Trump as

president. It is incredibly unpredictable. But what has not been

noticed enough is the Keynesian won. Trump is a Keynesian. He wants

massive infrastructure spending and massive tax cuts. The big story next

year will be the massive reflation of the American economy and indeed

the US Federal reserve has already reacted to that by putting up

interest rates. That is why he has a big fight with the rest of the

Republican Party. He is nominally a Republican but they are not

Keynesian. They are when it comes to tax cuts. They are when it hits the

rich to benefit the poor. The big thing is whether the infrastructure

projects land him in crony trouble. The transparency around who gets

those will be extremely difficult. Most of the infrastructure spending

he thinks can be done by the private sector and not the federal

government. His tax cuts overlap the Republican house tax cuts speaker

Ryan to give not all, but a fair chunk of what he wants. If the

American economy is going to reflate next year, interest rates will rise

in America, that will strengthen the dollar and it will mean that Europe

will be, it will find it more difficult to finance its sovereign

debt because you will get more money by investing in American sovereign

debt. That is a good point because the dynamics will shift. If that

happens, Trump will be pretty popular in the US. To begin with. To

begin with. It is energy self-sufficient and if you can pull

off the biggest trick in American politics which is somehow to via

corporation tax cuts to allow the reassuring of wealth, because it is

too expensive for American business to take back into the US and

reinvest, if you combine all of those things together, you will end

up with a boom on a scale you have not seen. It will be Reagan on

steroids? What could possibly go wrong? In the short term for

Britain, it is probably not bad news. Our biggest market for exports

as a country is the United States. Our biggest market for foreign

direct investment is the United States and the same is true vice

versa for America in Britain. Given the pound is now competitive and

likely the dollar will get stronger, it could well give a boost to the

British economy? Could do bit you have to be slightly cautious about

the warm language we are getting which is great news out of President

Trump's future cabinet on doing a trade deal early, we are net

exporters to the US. We benefit far more from trading with US than they

do with us. I think we have to come up with something to offer the US

for them to jump into bed with us. I think it is called two new aircraft

carriers and modernising the fleet. Bring it on. I will raise caution,

people in declining industries in some places in America, the rust

belt who have faced big profound structural challenges and those are

much harder to reverse. They face real problems now because the dollar

is so strong. Their ability to export has taken a huge hit out of

Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the Mexican imports into America is now

dirt cheap so that is a major problem. Next year we have elections

in Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany, probably Italy. Which

outcome will be the most dramatic for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would

be a huge surprise. That is unlikely. And if it was not Filon in

France that would be unlikely. The consensus it it will be Francois

Filon against Marine Le Pen and it will be uniting around the far right

candidate. In 2002, that is what happened. Filon is a Thatcherite.

Marine Le Pen's politics -- economics are hard left. Francois

Filon is as much a cert to win as Hillary Clinton was this time last

year. If he is competing against concerns about rising globalisation

and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is a bold, brave strategy in the

context so we will see. It will keep us busy next year, Tom? Almost as

busy as this year but not quite. This year was a record year. I am up

in my hours! That's all for today,

thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be back

on BBC Two at noon tomorrow. I'll be back here

on the 15th January. Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. The most a writer

can hope from a reader