22/01/2017 Sunday Politics Wales


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


Theresa May has had her say. what Labour will do next.


Next up, the Welsh government's wish-list on Brexit.


And who'll get the tax when houses are sold along the Welsh border?


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.


Hello, and welcome to the Sunday Politics Wales.


In today's programme: Crossing the line.


Why the first Welsh tax for 800 years needs an urgent revamp.


And we've heard from the PM, but what does the Welsh Conservative


leader and leading Brexiteer Andrew RT Davies make of the


But first, tomorrow morning Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood


are expected to announce their plan for Wales after Brexit.


The two leaders, along with the welsh Lib Dems have


The two leaders, along with the Welsh Lib Dems have


agreed a common platform where they will call


for continued access to the single market,


but also a fairer system of immigration.


So how will all that play into the current situation?


Two women who know all about the intricacies involved


are the Labour AM and former MEP Eluned Morgan and Doctor Jo Hunt


who's an expert in EU Law at Cardiff University.


What do you know about what we can expect tomorrow morning? The joint


platform between Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood? I haven't seen a copy


of the paper yet but this issue of having the best possible access to


the single market is top of the list. There is an understanding that


on immigration that there needs to be a different approach to


immigration so that if people come here they need to be here with the


job but there is also an understanding that we need people to


be helping us with our services, our health service and social service in


particular and we will be in trouble if some of these people have to go


broke. Everyone accepts that we want the best access to the single


market, everyone apart from North Korea have access to the single


market, how do you think the balance has to be struck between getting as


much access as possible and at the same time doing something on


immigration because Bert two aren't necessarily compatible? If we get


the access issue wrong it will impact jobs in this country


massively but it would not just impact jobs but it would impact


things like we're already seeing the haemorrhaging of jobs in the City of


London which provide 12% of the income of this country. That is


going to impact on jobs, not just on jobs but on our services in


hospitals and schools and people need to understand that this is not


just about jobs but about services and about what will happen in Wales


in future. It is just a huge gamble with the future of this country.


Joel Hunt, you are our expert and we still like experts. With the point


of the balance between single market membership and freedom of


immigration, freedom to travel, how closely tied are those things? We


hear politicians saying they could do someone on freedom of movement


and still of full membership of the single market, is it possible? Well,


the single market, or the internal market, it is referred to in


different ways, but it is the same thing, the idea that we have free


movement of the factors of production, goods, services and


capital, and to start with it was workers but that has been expanded


out over the years. When we look at the Treaty tells us that the


internal market comprises both ball things so they are, as we have seen


so far indivisible, as far as we have experienced it so far. The


thing to recognise with the free movement provisions is that none of


them are absolute, there are restrictions and limitations


available on all of those things and if we take the free movement of


people, the free movement of workers, there is a piece of


legislation, EU law, citizenship directive, that makes it very clear


that EU citizens, those who have EU nationality, of one of the member


states, they can take advantage of the free movement rights but it


doesn't mean you can go and live in another member state without


restrictions and have full access to all the services in another member


state -- member state. The citizenship directive makes it clear


you have the right to be in another member state for three months but


after that, as far as EU law is concerned, then you need to be


either economically active, a worker, or a student, or retired,


but you have to have the resources to support yourself. Three months is


something that most people did not know what was happening, is it Jock


-- is it just not being implemented? It falls to the member states to


implement those rules. We have a court of justice that interprets


these provisions and it has taken quite a robust interpretation of


what these rights are because the free movement rights are allied to


the right of non-discrimination, that you get treated as though you


are a citizen of the state you are residing in. When we talk about the


directive not being a burden, talking about not being a burden, so


you would not be fulfilling the terms of the directive if you became


a burden on the social services of that member state, the court said


not to be an unreasonable burden, so there is space there to interpret


what that means. EU law provides for restrictions that perhaps haven't


always been fully given effect to. The other side of that is that many


voters would have voted with a view of regaining control of borders, but


the other side is the freedom of the rules of the single market making it


easy to trade internationally with countries outside the EU, do you not


have a note of optimism about the ability of the UK to strike a deal


there? The person with a note of optimism is Theresa May but I think


it is slightly naive to think that we can tear up a relationship that


has been developed over 40 years and is our biggest market by a long


shot. It is what we hand, it is a bird in hand, and we are tearing up


their relationship in the hope that we can develop relationships with


countries across the rest of the globe and we know from the Donald


Trump speech this week that he will put America first, if we have a


negotiation with him it will not be about the British benefit, it will


about the benefits of the United States so I think it is very high


risk and I think we are playing about with peoples lives and


livelihoods and it will impact on our schools and hospitals and we


need wake up to the reality of what is going on in this country. We know


that tomorrow Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood will have a plan for


Brexit. What is the danger that Theresa May ignores it completely?


What I'm hoping is that in the White Paper we will see an evidence -based


report, which will show categorically the impact of going


towards a World Trade Organisation agreements, for example, would have


on this country. That is not necessarily what will happen. It is


the worst-case scenario and it is being rather presumptuous to think


that all the other member states will just roll over and say that


they will give us agreements on all of these different sectors of the


economy. I think we need to wake up to the reality and make sure also


that we have a better relationship, a new relationship with the UK


Government backed constitutionally we are also won a different footing.


Touching on the element of the trade benefit for the EU to trade freely


with the UK, but those remaining countries of the EU are fighting for


their political future over the political union, how much of a


conflict is there between those two elements within the remaining EU


countries? Well, we have seen the economic case being made, that it


would be in the interest of the EU to continue having free movement and


open markets between the UK and the EU, but what is clear is that is not


simply about economics, there is a story and the history and a


narrative about being part of the European Union that the other member


states have a different engagement with a different understanding of


what being part of the European Union is and what it brings and


gives them, so it will not simply be an economic decision that they take.


So they are fighting for their future and it may be more punitive


than is needed? I think the language of being punitive and damaging, I


think that is not the position that they are taking. This is the deal,


you are not going to get a better deal than being part of the EU. The


EU brings you those rights to trade freely. If you want people to move.


There is no better deal on the table than that. We are out of time at the


moment so we have the Brexit tomorrow and the Supreme Court on


Tuesday so there are surely more opportunities. Thank you very much


for both of you. It's the first Welsh tax to be


raised here for 800 years, but is the devolution of stamp duty


going to cause a huge headache? There's been a call for urgent


clarification over what it will mean for more than 1,000 properties


which have land in both The Law Society says it


could be a right mess! This has taken on great political


significance over the past 20 years. Devolution has seen more and more


power drift across the border into Wales and sparking several


cross-border debates. As Wales prepares to raise its own taxes for


the first time in 800 years there is a new set of questions to consider.


Next year stamp duty will be replaced in Wales by the land


transaction tax, but what does it mean for properties like this one.


It has land in Powys and Shropshire. According to the map I am right on


the border and legislation dictates that as of April next year anyone


wanting to buy this property or one like it would have to make two


separate tax returns, paying the new Welsh land transaction tax, based on


the value of the land in Wales, and they would have to pay stamp duty on


the parts of the property in England. We foresee that separate


valuations of land and buildings will be required for English land


and for Welsh land. Is that a difficult process? It is an extra


additional cost for somebody that is selling. The changes will also


complicate things for solicitors like this who crossed the border on


the way to work in Oswestry. Emma and others in her profession are


calling for clarity on how the new arrangement will work in areas like


this. In terms of valuing the two separate areas of land, it has to be


done on a just and reasonable basis. There is no further guidance as to


what that means but it is ultimately the responsibility of the purchaser


and their advisers to make sure the correct tax is paid. Are you want


and need that mistakes will be made? If we don't get the clarity than I


am sure there will be. That is a concern for solicitors and for


buyers who are concerned with making sure the right taxes are paid. It


has been found that there are more than 1000 properties straddling the


border and experts believe there are many more. I don't think people


understood until we looked into it in detail just how many properties


could conceivably be caught up in broader issues. You would imagine


that the common-sense approach would be to say that something is mostly


in Wales or mostly in England and perhaps come to an arrangement that


might solve that, but the law is very clear, the basis on which we


have devolution is very clear, you must apportion that part of the land


of the building or the property to either Wales if any part of it is in


Wales, or to England if any part is in England. In terms of clearing up


the issue, what must happen next? We need to find where the border is,


which might sound curious because there is evidence of whether border


is, but the land Registry that keeps a copy of every land transaction now


in Wales and England hasn't needed to plot the border in the past so


its digital maps do not include the border. The government must engage


in those negotiations with the land Registry now. There is one year and


two months left to sort it out, and to not only sort it out but have the


IT stress tested and working on day one. If it is then the Welsh


government had Wales will have the money it is entitled to but if it is


not it will be a right mess to sort out really. The Welsh government


says it is working with the land Registry to identify all the


properties that could be affected and work is underway to make sure


the border is properly mapped. The land Registry told us it is a


complex issue but it is confident and appropriate resolution will be


found. In the meantime, and with more powers in the offing for Wales,


should we expect more similar difficulties in the future? Policy


in Wales and England will diverges devolution extends and we see


different policies emerge from both governments so naturally these are


things which we would expect to see more of in the next few years as


policy develops. We will develop ways of working out the effects of


different types of policy changes and also as legislation is being


implemented making sure that there is full public awareness of any


changes of policy and changes in law. As for the land transaction


tax, it will be introduced in Wales in April 2018 and we will see if it


is enough time to provide answers to all the questions being asked along


the border. We've heard what Labour,


Plaid and the Lib Dems plan to do about Brexit,


but what about the Conservatives? Their leader in Wales Andrew


RT Davies is here now. Good morning. Thank you for coming


in. Theresa May made a big speech last week and the headline figure


coming out of the single market and the single market and what did you


make of that speech overall? As you would expect me to say, it was a


very strong speech and outlined the 12 principles be negotiations would


be conducted under. Triggering article 50 will trigger those


negotiations at the legislative format will bring all of that under


one umbrella and it shows a government that is in control and


shaping its destiny and the destiny of this country, unlike what we are


seeing here in Wales from Welsh Labour. We have heard earlier in the


programme there are dangers of losing the membership of the single


market, should it be a concern? Well, Eluned is talking the same


language she spoke prior to June 23. We have a mandate here in Wales. The


people of Wales along with United Kingdom voted to renegotiate our


relationship with Europe, pull us out of Europe, I am not sure if


Eluned is talking membership, participation, access, depending on


the day the Labour position changes and what is important for us is that


we are able to trade and we can get access but we get access on a level


playing field. The important thing that people told us in the


referendum was that sovereignty needed to come back to the United


Kingdom and decisions be made here in the United


Kingdom. If you accept that then you can move forward but sadly Eluned


another Labour politicians and unplugged Cumbria in particular


cannot come to terms with that. The problem with an impediment on our


ability to trade with the European Union is when you look at how many


of our exports depend on those countries of the EU then it is a


huge chunk of our exports, over two thirds goes to European Union and


the rest of the world is almost not there. Anything that impairs that


ability will be a huge danger to the economy, went it? That is why the


Cabinet in London has been crafting the ability to trade and access with


markets, whether it is European or global, and we have a department


dedicated to bringing investment into the United Kingdom. I am in an


industry, agriculture, that has good trading relations with Europe, but


do not forget that your trades with us and in agricultural produce, the


Republic of Ireland, for example, depends on access to our market. We


want a strong Europe and a strong United Kingdom, this is not about


doing someone over. Regrettably Carwyn Jones turns to all the


parties here in Wales to see if there could be a consensus around a


negotiating position in Wales and that is a missed opportunity. You


wrote an article for the Sunday Times this morning and said that in


recent years the Welsh economy has become too reliant on EU market,


that 68%, is it who I? Doesn't need to be lower? I want to trade


globally and with our neighbours on the neocons and so wherever trade


can be sort we need access into those markets. I am a businessman


and I have traded all my life so we want a strong Europe and a strong


United Kingdom and the principles that Theresa May outlined, the 12


tenets of the negotiating principle but she has put on the table from


the speech on Tuesday outlined what the UK Government would be doing. It


is a government that has lead and Remainers in it. They sit on the


front row. When Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood make their speech


tomorrow in London it will just be the coalition pre-June 23. That will


not help the Welsh cause. What we will have is in North America, the


second largest chunk on our chart, it has a brand-new president who


says America first, by American, high American, we will not get a


look in. We are, I am comments to that, because you have a businessman


in the White House who realises that to create American jobs you need


trade and you need economic activity and ultimately we are a nation that


has traded globally and traded with our continental cousins to make sure


that we have a successful country. He won the election on putting


America first and not putting trade. But America became a superpower by


trade and driving trade around the globe. In Wales we have a very


strong off and we have a strong United Kingdom government, batting


for Wales, but we have a disorganised message coming from


Wales under Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood who signed up to his message,


that has changed numerous times since June 23. The other devolved


administrations were able to table their proposals last birthday and


Northern Ireland doesn't even have a government but they had proposals on


the table. Carwyn Jones had nothing on the table last Thursday. You have


an article in the Sunday paper, as does Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood


today and they say they want a plan that could tighten immigration


controls without breaching EU rules on freedom of movement. Is that


something you can sign up to? I am on record as being a pragmatist when


it comes to immigration, I think culturally and socially and --


economically it helps and benefits countries so actually I do believe


that we have to respond to the outcome of the referendum but Europe


needs to respond as well to its principles around the single market.


When the single market was created and the tenets underpinned the


single market, the mass movement of people around Europe was not a


consideration. It is today and when you look at one of Angela Merkel 's


key tenants today, talking up the possibility of a positive Brexit


then we can really see a change in direction on the continent. I am


positive about these negotiations. We just heard from an expert on EU


law from Cardiff University is saying that the only economic


freedom you have is to come here for three months but it hasn't been


implemented by the UK Government in the last six years and who has been


in charge that? Theresa May. Why has she not done more with the powers


she already has? I will point to many commentators who say the


problems around immigration as they see it and community see it began in


2004 when under various agreement Tony Blair could have put safeguards


in and restrictions in but he chose not to. Communities spoke with one


voice on June 23 and we are leaving the European Union so let us get on


with it. Sadly for Wales Carwyn Jones is going down the narrow path


of isolationism when he is talking his politics and he is leaning on


Plaid Cymru as a crutch to be safe with. Ultimately we could have had a


political axe consensus here in Wales that would lift the vision for


Wales and the aspiration for Wales. Where do you think you could have


found common ground with Carwyn Jones Leanne Wood when they say


immigration is not a problem? It is difficult to pre-empt the paper that


they will bring forward tomorrow because I have not seen it. Where


would you have tried to find agreement? If I can find agreement


within that paper I will be the first to recognise it but ultimately


what I am saying to you is that we weren't able to put a paper on the


table last Thursday when the other devolved administrations did that we


have been behind the curve at every opportunity on this because they are


in denial about the referendum result on June 23. We are leaving


the European Union, let's get on with it and build strong trading


relationships with the Globe and our cousins on the European continent


because ultimately a strong Europe and the strong UK and a strong


global economy is where we all prosper. Should the assembly have a


say before the final deal? Should they have a vote to ratify the final


deal? No, because Westminster is the sovereign parliament in this


discussion. What the assembly and the assembly government should be


doing is making sure we have a health service that gets people of


the waiting list and they should be dealing with the economy and the


situation as ?90 a week less pay goes to workers in Wales. They


should drive up education standards and they have driven those standards


down and they are I coalition we are being asked to trust to bring these


negotiations forward in Wales and I wouldn't.


We'll bring you the latest on Brexit and anything else that's going on,


Don't forget we're @walespolitics on Twitter, but for now that's


all from me, diolch am wylio, thanks for watching.


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.


'Alla I ddeud 'tha chi bod "man flu" yn bodoli.


Download Subtitles