29/01/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Arwyn Jones with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven


Should Wales follow Finland's lead and give


people a monthly income, no strings attached?


And what should Labour do about Brexit ahead of this


Should she have spoken out more strongly?


We'll ask former Ukip leader and Trump confidant Nigel Farage


what he makes of the travel ban and the Prime Minister's


In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,


has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze


and why it doesn't apply to everybody.


And with me, the best and brightest political


panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


It was soon after Theresa May left the White House on Friday that


Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven


President Trump's 90-day ban covers Iran, Iraq,


Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from


where refugees are banned from until further notice.


Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban


on all refugees coming to the US for the next 120 days.


Mr Trump said that the ban would keep radical Islamic terrorists out


But the ban has sparked protests across the US,


as people affected and already in the air were detained


US laws have begun legal action to challenge the ban, which many


At a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, Theresa May was asked


about the refugee ban three times before giving this response...


Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'


The United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy


on refugees, and our policy on refugees is to have a number


of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.


Downing Street later issued a statement saying:


This morning, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was asked why


Theresa May had refused to condemn the travel ban at yesterday's


The Prime Minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip


She wants to see the evidence, she wants


to understand precisely what the implications are.


She'd been in a series of very lengthy meetings with


President Erdogan, and she's someone who wants to see the briefing and


understand it, and then will respond to that.


I think there are times where, you know, there's always


pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.


The important thing is, we are saying we disagree with it


We're joined now from North London by the Conservative


Should the Government in general and Theresa May in particular be more


vocal in their criticism of Donald Trump's travel bans? Well, as David


just said, it is obviously right that Theresa has now said this is an


appropriate and not something we agree with in our Government, but I


wish she had said something at the time, not least because it affects


our own citizens. One of our own MPs, Nadhim, for example, because it


is also a global crisis. She had clearly built an excellent with


Donald Trump -- she had built an excellent relationship with him, but


she could have been firmer. Mrs May hasn't said any word of criticism


about the travel bans. She refused to say anything three times in


Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street


spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have


not heard from the Prime Minister at all on this matter in terms of


criticism. No, but the spokesperson will be speaking with her blessing,


so it is clearly something she has acknowledged. As I said before, I


wish she had said something at the time. The global climate at the


moment is delicate and we need our leaders to work together to address


things like the refugee crisis. Potentially, this plays into the


hands of Daesh. It is absolutely not the right message. What would you


like the Prime Minister to say? As with any new relationship, it is


about testing the boundaries. They had clearly got on well, so she


should have felt braver to say something there and then. I would


have preferred her to say, for example, I need to talk to Donald


Trump about this. It is not something I support and I want to


understand why because I believe there is a better way to deal with


the terrorist threat. I would have liked her to suggest that she would


engage with him to do that. The president has instituted a 90 day


temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority


population countries. The seven were on President Obama's list of the


biggest terrorist threats to the United States. Mr Trump wants this


temporary ban until he puts tougher vetting procedures in place. What is


wrong with that? Because it appeared to me that it wasn't thought through


and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.


It can't be right that a president in that position of power can


arbitrarily come up with executive powers like that. It has already


been challenged by his own courts. So it is not the considered approach


I want to see in a global leader. Who do you believe will be hurt by


this, given that there can be exceptions on a case-by-case basis?


I think potentially, our global reputation is going to be hurt by


this. I have been to the refugee camps in Europe myself. There are


desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by


this. We are trying to heal the wounds in this country not only


because of Brexit. This is a time of coming together, not about saying it


is located discriminatory against race and religion in this way. Do


you believe that Mr Trump's state visit should go ahead? Well, he is


the leader of America, so it does need to go ahead and we need to work


with him. I believe Theresa has started in a positive manner was


that she just needs to continue in that vein. If he comes to our


country, he needs to respect the way we feel about things. But yes, he is


the president, so he does need to come to the UK. There is some debate


within Westminster as to where it is appropriate for him to speak to MPs,


but it is right that he comes. But if he does come on a state visit,


should he be granted what this country has always thought of as a


great honour, which is a joint address to both Houses of


Parliament? I haven't been an MP long enough to understand the


protocol of where is the right location for him to do that, but I


believe in the past, it has been the greatest leaders, when they have


achieved great things globally, it is Westminster Hall. But there are a


number of MPs saying that is not the most appropriate place and I am


inclined to agree. You don't think he should be accorded the privilege


of speaking to a joint session of Parliament? I think there are places


where he can do that, but Westminster Hall is not yet the


right place. Thank you for joining us.


Steve, within 24 hours, we have seen the difficulty of becoming Donald


Trump's best friend. On the one hand, it could have huge advantages,


particularly for a Brexit Britain. On the other hand, if you are going


to be his best friend, you don't have to give a running commentary on


every major thing he does. Yeah. We have learned a bit about Theresa


May, that when she has to produce a set piece speech which she has time


to prepare, she can get it totally right and sometimes more than right.


When she is faced with a fast-moving story, she is leaden footed and


can't think quickly on her feet. We know, did she regret not saying


more? Evidently she did, because we got a statement from the Downing


Street spokesperson saying more. So she can't think quickly. She's going


to have to think very quickly in response to some of the things he's


going to be doing, because she will be asked about it all the time. It


does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special


relationship is always a safe and fertile place to be has been proven


wrong before and I think it will be proven wrong big-time in this case.


You're shaking your head. I don't see why we are responsible for


American domestic policy. I am as appalled as the next person by what


Donald Trump has done. He said he was going to do this, which was why


I did not want Americans to vote for him. In fact, what he has


implemented is much less than what he said he would do when he was


campaigning. I have always felt that the campaigning Trump was the real


Trump. But what he has done is actually constitutional. He has the


executive power to issue this order. It is within the rules in terms of a


class of aliens deemed to be a risk to the United States. It is a 90 day


limited ban. The last president who did this was a Democrat president,


President Carter. He did it in the aftermath of the Iranian crisis.


Well, given the spate of terror attacks on American territory in


recent years, you could argue that he meant well. I don't agree with


Donald Trump. But have people from these countries that he has banned


been involved in terrorist attacks? That is the absurdity. He has not


included Egypt or Pakistan. But I don't remove everyone getting in


such a state about President Carter. The reality is that it is a legal


thing for him to do. I don't like it. But it is not my territory. It


is illegal, because they have been given a right to remain by a judge


in Brooklyn and another judging Alexandra. That is a different issue


for people who have already gone through the vetting. I don't agree


with this. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Theresa


May, because she wants to do a deal with Donald Trump, I don't give is


reasonable to say she have to agree with each of his policies. It is


nonsense. But the issue, Janan, is not whether she needs to agree with


him. The question is that she will be questioned about him all the time


now. And although these are matters of domestic policy, the refugee


policy is international. They speak to issues that affect Britain as


well, and I would suggest that she will not get away with this


anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she


says something on the record. She would get away with it indefinitely.


These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does


something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her


administration from his. She will probably be in a better logistical


situation to do so. She has spent a big chunk of the past 72 hours in


the air. She flew from Washington to Ankara, than from Ankara to London.


We don't have Air Force One, we don't have those frictionless


communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for


large periods of time when this story was breaking. That doesn't


excuse the stiff response when she landed and issued a statement via


Downing Street. But during that delay, she did have a plausible


excuse. She has also got a much more tricky geopolitical situation than


many other world leaders. She has to strike a favourable trade deal with


the new US president. It is all very well people saying Justin Trudeau of


Canada was much more vociferous in his criticism of Donald Trump. He is


already in Nafta, he is not striking a new deal. For how long, we don't


know. Exactly, he's trying to stay in Nafta, but he is in a less tricky


situation than she is. Now, Theresa May's was the first


foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit


was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,


keen for a new trading relationship with the United States


in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated


the new US President for his "stunning election victory"


but might not have intended to be pictured walking


through the White House with him That picture of Donald Trump helping


Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade


will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President


told her he was "100% behind Nato". And for her part, the Prime Minister


said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries


increased their defence spending It's been announced


that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,


with high-level talks The hope is that this will lead


to a new trade deal between the two countries as soon as


Britain leaves the EU. Mr Trump said he believed "Brexit's


going to be a wonderful thing". On Russia, Theresa May made clear


to Donald Trump her continued


backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over


the President's support for torture, Mr Trump said he would defer


to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, who argues


that the practice doesn't work. And I'm joined now by the former


Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Do you agree with Mr Trump's


decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the


United States? I agree with the concept of democracy, a point which


appears to be missed by almost all commentators including the BBC. He


was elected to get tough and say he would do everything in his power to


protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven


countries on that list. He's entitled to do this. I didn't ask if


he was entitled, I asked if agree with it. I do, because if you just


look at what's happening in France and Germany, if you look at Angela


Merkel's policy which was to allow virtually anyone in from anywhere,


look what it led to. You said in 2013 there's a responsibility on all


of us in the free west to help some of those people fleeing Syria


literally in fear of their lives. That's the Christian community in


virtually all of those country, it is almost too late because many have


been wiped out but if you are looking for a genuine definition of


a refugee, going back to 1951, it is someone in direct fear of


persecution of their life because of their race, religion or beliefs. But


you didn't talk about only Christians, and in January 2014 you


said, I seem to recall it was Ukip who started the debate on allowing


Syrian refugees, you seem to be in favour of allowing proper refugees


into this country. If they can be defined. Mr Trump won't let any in.


He is running American policy, not British policy. Since I made those


comments, we have had the Angela Merkel madness and I think Trump's


policy in many ways has been shaped by what Angela Merkel did. He is


fully entitled to do this, and as far as we are concerned in this


country, I would like to see extreme vetting. Since 9/11 can you name any


terrorist event in the United States that has involved refugees that have


been allowed into the country? No, in fact the terrorist events have


been US citizens radicalised. When you have a problem already, why


would you wish to add to it? I would remind you that of the eight people


that committed those atrocities in Paris, five of them had got into


Europe posing as refugees so there is an issue here. But perhaps not


for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening


process in the world, especially for Syrians. You have to register with


the UN agency for refugees, which then recommend certain names to


America, they then go through biometric screening, database


screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence


agencies screening you. How more rigorous would you want it to be? It


is much more rigorous than we are or the rest of Europe. This is why we


have elections, so voters can make choices and they voted for Donald


Trump to become president and he said he would put bans in place and


then move towards extreme vetting. As far as the Syrians are concerned


he's made that decision but that's what he was voted in fourth. Since


you know him, you have met him, you are confident of his, I'm testing


you on the logic of it. Not that he's democratically elected, I'm not


asking about that, I'm trying to get the case, particularly since if you


take the seven countries of which the ban applies for 19 days, again,


of these seven countries, its citizens have not been involved in


terrorist attacks in the United States. It would be a mistake to say


it is just Muslim countries because the biggest Muslim countries in the


world have not been included in this. The point is they have made


this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about


the policy. This is exactly what Trump's voters would have wanted him


to do. You said the President's rhetoric on immigrants made even you


feel very uncomfortable. Because he started by saying there was a total


ban, then amended it to say there would be vetting. My guess is that


what he will do is try to genuinely help Syrian people and he will be


talking about the creation of some safe zones. Let's see. He hasn't. We


will see. I suspect something like that is coming down the trap. What


advice did you give to the president and his advisers ahead of Theresa


May's visit? That I wanted us to talk about trade and to give the


Prime Minister the impression that actually... When she has been


surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who


say that everything takes five years or seven years or ten years, to make


it clear to the Prime Minister that if there is will, these things can


be done quickly. Isn't there a danger of a British Prime Minister


who has to deal with the president of the United States, to Ally


herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial


president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building


a war with Mexico, threatening trade was with other countries, thinking


of ending sanctions against Russia? I missing something here, what is


controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke


in tough terms, George Bush built six miles of fence, and because it


is Donald Trump there is uproar. So you think there is no risk of the


British by Minister being the best friend of this type of president? I


think there is no risk in putting together a trade deal and no risk in


her being the bridge between America and the rest of Nato to say to Nato


members if you don't pay your 2% he is serious so on those things there


is no risk at all. It was clear from her Lancaster house speech that the


Brexiteers in the Government had won pretty much every argument in terms


of negotiations to come out. What you want from her? She was very good


as Home Secretary, Tory party conferences, the Tory press saying


this was the new Thatcher and she failed. She even failed to control


immigration from outside the European Union so yes, it was a good


speech and for many on the Eurosceptic side of the argument, I


could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying


things which I had been roundly abused and vilified for. But I have


a feeling we may be in for a very frustrating 2017. The mood as I can


see it in Brussels is that negotiating with Britain is not a


priority, they are far more worried about Dutch elections, French


elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I


worry that by the end of this year we may not have made much progress


and that's why the Trump visit suddenly things brings into focus.


What if by the middle of June, for argument 's sake, the Americans say


OK we reached this position with the British, compromised on the tough


stuff, food standards and things like that, we are ready to sign a


deal now, and Theresa May is to say actually Mr Juncker says I cannot


sign this until we leave. What will they do? They cannot throw us out,


we are living anyway. But everybody agrees you can talk about the deal,


maybe even do the heads of agreement but you cannot sign a treaty until


we have left the EU. Let me predict that at the end of this year we will


find a European Union who frankly don't want to talk to us and


countries around the world that want to get on and do things and that


will be the big tension for Mrs May over the course of this year. If the


Prime Minister is giving you everything you want on Brexit, you


agree that she's trying to get from your point of view the right things.


If she delivers on that and get Brexit on the terms of which you


approve, what's the point of Ukip? You could argue that about any


political party. If we have achieved the goal that we set out to achieve,


there are right now out there 4 million people who are Ukip


loyalists. They are delighted that by voting Ukip we got a referendum,


they will be even happier if they seek us leave the European Union and


I think there is still a gap in British politics for a party that


says it as it sees it, is not afraid by political correctness and is seen


to be on the side of the little people, and that's why, with the


Labour Party is fundamentally split, and it really is totally split over


this European question, I think Ukip is in good shape. That proposition


will be put to test at the Stoke Central by-election, one of Ukip's


best prospects in the country. Some people call it the capital of


Brexit. Labour is in chaos over Article 50, is picked a candidate to


fight Stoke Central who has described Brexit is a pile of notes.


If your successor, Paul Nuttall, cannot win the Stoke by-election,


there's not much hope for you, is there? I think he will. I've always


been told don't make predictions but I think he will win. If you doesn't


it will be tough, we will still have our 4 million loyalists, but if it


does we can actually see Labour are beatable in their heartlands and


Ukip will be off to the second big stage. Nigel Farage, thank you for


being with us. It's just gone 11.25,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 15 minutes, I'll


be talking to our political panel. Hello and welcome to


the Sunday Politics Wales. He's not a politician,


not officially at least, but in his last interview


as Archbishop, Barry Morgan tells us why the Church needs


to speak out on politics. And after Jo Stevens'


resignation, what should Labour A senior Labour frontbencher


will be here to tell us. But first how would you feel


about getting a wad of money every Ministers in Wales say giving


everyone a guaranteed minimum income could help tackle


poverty and inequality. Others say it would be


far too expensive. Should every citizen receive


an automatic basic income to spend however they want,


no strings attached? It isn't a new question


and philosophers have debated it The policy does have fresh support


from the left and the right and here in Wales,


the Finance Secretary recently It is an idea with


considerable roots in our Always struggled to manage


to find a practical way of taking it forward but it is


an opportunity for us in Wales, to watch what is being attempted


elsewhere and to see whether we can do anything practical


with the idea ourselves. It isn't clear if or how


the Welsh Government could introduce a universal basic income


but Mark Drakeford says he will keep an eye on developments in Scotland


where there are efforts to launch The initiative has


cross-party support and the backing of


the RSA think tank. It explains a basic income


would be paid to everyone, regardless of whether they work


or not and so there is an extra incentive for unemployed people


to find a job as they wouldn't have to worry about losing benefits,


as happens under the current system. With a basic income,


moving from a system where you weren't working into one


you were, you will You retain your consistent payment


throughout that period. You are given the security to be


able to choose to work and also actually to be able to choose


work or training and set up your own In a way that is more beneficial


to you, rather than one Universal basic income has


already been trialled in a number of countries including


Brazil, India and the Netherlands and on the 1st of January this year,


Finland launched its own 2,000 unemployed people have been


picked at random to take part and they will each receive 560 euros


a month for the next two years, replacing money they


already get in benefits. And to put that figure into some


kind of context, the average private sector salary


in Finland is 3,500 euros a month. The scheme is managed by the agency


responsible for administering social The biggest response


from the big group of The biggest question has


been, is this for real? I can keep this 560 euros and then


take on a job and keep the earnings So this does not reduce my social


security and it is basically income. That is one response,


a very positive one. Critics say handing out


regular, unconditional payments to everyone could encourage


laziness and boost immigration. This is not a workable


scheme because it is It creates a tremendous tax


and disincentive for the average person further up


the income scale who is paying taxes Mark Drakeford has said he thinks


this is an attractive idea. It is quite worrying for Wales


because it is very expensive and if Wales did it on its own it is going


to be very expensive. Now, we are used to


the communist state north of Hadrian's Wall but I'm hoping Wales


won't go the same way towards this sort of extremely expensive


socialist experiment. The UK Government


rejected the idea last year, describing universal basic


income as unaffordable. Mark Drakeford meanwhile


accepts securing public support for the scheme


would be a challenge in light of negative tabloid


headlines in Scotland. This afternoon a special service


will be held for the retiring Barry Morgan is the longest serving


Archbishop in the Anglican Church, and he's never been afraid


to intervene in politics, He's busy today, of course,


so Felicity Evans spoke to him a few days ago,


when she asked whether having the Church interfere


in politics was appropriate. Some people, of course,


Christians among them, think that the Christian faith only


has to do with going to church, saying your prayers


and reading your Bible. They haven't looked very


carefully at the Bible because it has a great deal to say


about justice, a great deal to say about poverty and both the prophets


and Jesus said, it's no good just offering me worship unless you live


justly, if you don't take care of the poor,


if you don't look after refugees. Have you ever come out on a side


at some point and in retrospect thought, actually, I got that wrong


and I shouldn't have said that? I was on the wrong


side of the argument? There were some people who thought


I was wrong to come out over the deemed consent about organ


donation and the Welsh Government. I still believe that it was right


for the Church to speak as it did and I spoke on behalf


of the Church in Wales and on behalf of the bishops


because the clue was in the Some people misunderstood


that and thought that I was against organ donation


and of course, I'm certainly not. I was urging people to give organs


but to do so voluntarily. What about the Syria bombing


debate, when you urged MPs to vote against British military


involvement in bombing in Syria? In retrospect, having seen


the suffering inflicted upon civilian populations


across Syria by government and Russian bombing campaigns,


do you regret that Well, I'm not sure that


people listen to any advice that comes from


the episcopal bench anyway. You must have assumed


you had influence or you wouldn't have


said it, surely? Well, I'm speaking to my own


constituency and getting people to think about some


of the moral issues. I mean, our record in Iraq


and Afghanistan is not a happy one And when you look at the walls


of Llandaff Cathedral you see that we have been


involved in Afghanistan for a couple of hundred years and it has


always ended in tears. There is no kind of


right answer, is there? I just wish the situation


in Syria is not as it is but perhaps if we had gone in,


it might even be worse. What was your biggest


challenge, do you think, on taking up the position


of Archbishop of Wales? I don't know if I've thought of it


in terms of challenges like that. You know, you deal with


things from day-to-day So certainly I think it didn't make


any sense at all for women to be ordained to the diaconate


and to the priesthood and not to be ordained to the episcopate


because there are three orders I think that was pretty important


as a matter of justice, as a matter of equality and as a matter


of doing what was right, really. We have a resurgent Russia,


we have the crisis in Syria and the wider Middle East,


we have President Trump, What is your assessment


of the direction that we are heading in and


Wales's place in it? I think all the Church can do is be


with people as they wrestle with these issues and give


some kind of moral lead. I'm leaving, as you say,


and it is no longer my job to I will have my private


views but I think I shall It's been another week of high drama


on the Brexit front, but much of the focus has


been on Labour. The Shadow Welsh Secretary Jo


Stevens resigned on Friday over being forced to support triggering


Article 50. The Shadow Solicitor General and MP


for Torfaen, Nick Thomas-Simmonds, Good morning and thanks for coming


in. First of all, on the point about Jo Stevens and whether you think


more of your fellow Labour MPs will follow, is that what you expect?


Not necessarily. In respect of Jo Stevens, I think she was if a


drastic shadow were said and she has a great future in the party. Our


position is to respect the result of the referendum. It was the highest


national turnout since 1992. My constituency, Wales and the UK all


voted to leave. I think there is a crucial point here. Going around the


doors in the referendum I got the sense of people saying they didn't


feel politicians listened to them. I think it would be a mistake not to


listen to the result of the referendum, that would further


exacerbate the alienation in politics.


Is the difficulty for you and the Labour Party that around two thirds


of Labour Party members work for remain, but two thirds of Labour


constituencies were four leaf and to try to bring those things together


was almost impossible? -- were in favour of leaving.


The results are therefore everyone to see in various constituencies.


What unites us is the post Brexit Britain we want to see and in the


House of Commons we will see in above amendments by the Labour Party


to shape post Brexit Britain, maintaining the environmental


protections, workers' rights, trying to secure tariff free access to the


single market which is crucial to Wales because 60% of our exports go


to the EU and we need to ensure that we don't become some giant tax


haven. Coming onto those details in a


minute. Just on the Labour and Jeremy Corbyn issue. Was he right,


considering this is a huge issue for all Labour MPs, to use its three


line whip to say you must vote this way?


I think we need to be understanding about colleagues who take a


particular view because they have to. I do think it was very important


we sent out a signal that we respected the result of the


referendum. That is exactly what we are doing. We are now fighting to


protect jobs... Does that mean those Labour MPs who


don't vote to trigger Article 50 are not respecting the overall result,


such as Jo Stevens? What every MP has to do is look at


the conflicting issues, like all MPs do before they vote in the House of


Commons. Looking at their constituency and broader concerns


and what they judge best. This is a quite unprecedented situation and I


am sympathetic to colleagues who take a different view. Over the next


few weeks with the amendments being put down we will be fighting for the


kind of post Brexit Britain, a fair one that we want to see.


How local are you that over the next couple of weeks there will be


discussions about triggering Article 50 and it will be more broadbrush.


How confident are you that there will be a settled well in the House


of Commons that Labour MPs and surgeon Conservative MPs will have a


settled view on these votes? -- and surgeon Conservative MPs? I


don't know if we will until we see where the conversation is going


forward. We will do all we can to shape Brexit going forward but it is


the government that is doing the negotiation and people did not vote


to become poorer and it is for the government to carry out that


instruction from the public in a way that doesn't make Briton Laura.


They will be judged upon that. I guess on that point the government


won't want to have... You wouldn't want to see tightening of the


wriggle room you can give Theresa May because by doing that you are


handing the negotiation position by those dashed to those other EU


countries. I used to be a lawyer and mediator.


Nobody is suggesting you hand over the details of negotiation before.


We don't want Britain as an island tax haven... We need to be straight


on the trade-offs going forward. Immediately that cuts away to May's


last option because she has said she is willing to walk away and have low


tax, low regulation. You are immediately saying you can't have


that. What I'm absolutely saying is the


kind of nightmarish vision she is talking about, this bargain basement


Britain, where we would be competing to be a tax haven with the single


market would be a disaster. That doesn't cut away any of her


negotiating strength. Who would see that as an option to make the


country stronger? She needs to be held to account.


File with that sort of manifest itself over the next couple of


weeks? What kind of votes do you think we can see coming forward from


the Labour Party? You will see amendments on workers'


rights, environmental rights, consumer protection, a broader


amendment on post Brexit Britain, including tariff free access to the


single market, which is vital, but also an anti-tax avoidance amendment


to avoid is becoming a tax haven. Another big political week ahead -


we'll be back to talk about it We're @walespolitics on Twitter,


but for now that's all from me. Welcome back and let's get back


to Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven


mainly Muslim countries. Earlier, the Labour leader,


Jeremy Corbyn, told ITV that a state visit by President Trump to the UK


should not go ahead I think it would be totally wrong


for him to be coming here while that situation is going on. He has to be


challenged on this. So until the ban is lifted, you don't think he should


come? I am not happy about him coming here until the ban is lifted.


Look at what is happening with those countries. What will be the long


term effect of this on the rest of the world? Is this state visit going


to become a matter of huge political debate in this country? It would be


anyway, but it is a temporary ban, so Jeremy Corbyn is on safe


territory. It will be over by April and he is not due to come until


summer. But there are three bands. There is the 90 day ban on people


coming from the southern countries. There is the 120 day ban on refugees


from anywhere in the world, and there is the indefinite ban on


Syrian refugees. So there may still be some bans in place. But bear in


mind the number of Syrian refugees and refugees from around the world


that President Obama took over his eight years. There were years when


it was not even up to 50 Syrian refugees that were taken since the


civil war has started. This is an ongoing American policy. 12,500


Syrian refugees have come in the last year. Before that, it was a


hundred and sometimes under 50. But they are reasonable numbers now,


although not something America couldn't absorb. Donald Trump is


discovering that being a president is different from being a business


man. And Jeremy Corbyn has to learn the art of leadership, having been a


backbench MP, and has struggled to do it, as we are about to discuss


with article 50. With this, you have to dramatise the politics of this,


and this is what he has done with that statement. Most controversial


ever state visit now? I would imagine so. Even regardless of any


opposition from the opposition to trump's physical presence in the


streets, the presence of demonstrators will be an


international new story. If trump's demands for the details of the visit


are quite as extreme and as picky as some of the Sunday papers have


suggested, that could also be the source of controversy. What do you


have in mind? Isn't he anxious that only certain members of the Royal


Family turn up? He doesn't want a one-on-one with Prince Charles. Who


would, though! Some people may be sympathetic on that. It is the one


subject where he is in line with British opinion. Playing golf in


front of the Queen may be a higher priority. We have to be realistic.


Given the other people from around the world that the Queen has played


host to, like the Chinese president and Saudi kings and the like, we


have had a lot worse come to visit than Donald Trump. Brexit - how


serious our neighbour's problems on this? Very serious, but they often


are with Europe. Labour were splits when we joined in the 70s, and still


won general elections, in 1974 and 1975. There were all over the place


in terms of the single currency. Blair said one thing one day and the


opposite the next day. Brown did the same.


Brown usually set the opposite of what Blair said! They won landslide


because they have the political skills to put all of the pressure on


the major government, even though their position on the single


currency was the same as major's. It is about with Europe the art of


leadership. You have to be a political conjuror, you have to


dissemble authoritative leak when you lead a divided party over


Europe, and Jeremy Corbyn to his personal credit cannot dissemble,


but he's not an individual person on this. He's leading a split party in


danger of falling apart, and you need the skills of a political


conjurer. Clearly self-evidently he's not displaying it because we


are talking about the chaotic split which will manifest itself in that


vote on Article 50. Labour and the SNP and the Lib Dems too I would


have thought will all put amendments down to the short Article 50 piece


of legislation. Do they have any chance of succeeding? No substantial


world is changing amendments. I don't think Theresa May has much to


worry about actually. I think if anything the reason she's pushed the


legal appeal is that it helps her to have a big chunk of the media and a


big chunk of public opinion worrying that the popular will of last year


is in danger of being overturned and so even if it was a completely


hopeless legal appeal, it generated headlines for a week that as an


incumbent Prime Minister trying to execute believe vote suits you


politically. I think it is a much bigger problem for Labour, we've


already seen some Shadow Cabinet issues in the previous week. You


have got to remember it's not just a majority of Labour MPs that want to


stay in the European Union, but a majority of Labour constituencies,


and a majority of labour macro voters wanted to stay as well so we


have three lines of division. One amendment that might get through if


it was called, and it is in the hands of the Deputy speaker who will


be chairing these debates, and that will be an amendment that said


regardless of how the Europeans treat our citizens in Europe, all EU


citizens here will be afforded full rights to remain. That might get


through. It may indeed and lots of backbench MPs would backpack. We all


know there will not be mass deportations, it is not legal, it


won't happen, it is simply a negotiating tactic. I agree with


those who say you shouldn't be using people as a negotiating tactic, but


the reality as it is the EU leaders that are doing that because it's


already been offered. The remain as should be attacking the EU


governments for not offering that in return. Article 50 is the easy bit


for her. I agree with other members of the panel that she will get it


through and the court case almost helps her by getting an easy journey


through Parliament, then it gets really difficult. All of this has


been a preamble and once she begins that nightmarish negotiation, there


will be opportunities for a smart opposition to make quite a lot of


the turmoil to come. Whether Labour are capable of that, let's wait and


see. The divisions in Labour are nightmarish for them but by no means


unprecedented. Arguably it was much more complicated in the early 1970s


when you had Titans on either side, big ex-cabinet ministers... Tony


Benn... Michael Foot, they were all at it. The fundamental issue of in


or out, and they won two elections, so you have got to be really clever.


But also how money more Labour MPs will resign. We shall find out this


week. The Daily Politics is back


tomorrow at midday and all I'll be back here


on BBC one next week. Remember - if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics.