11/02/2018 Sunday Politics Wales

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's moving

and shaking in the

world of politics.

After all the waiting we're

finally going to hear

the Prime Minister's vision

for Britain's future relationship

with the European Union,

but not for another couple of weeks.

Key to any agreement will be

whether we should bind our customs'

arrangements closely to the EU,

or strike out on our own.

We'll speak to leading figures

from both sides of the argument.

And Labour argue public

ownership of services

like the railways are

an "economic necessity".

We'll look at how

the policy could work

and whether it's on the right track.

and whether it's on the right track.

and whether it's on the right track.

Who needs the Winter Olympics

when there's plenty

of thrills, spills and potential

wipeouts in the world

of Westminster.

And with me today are three experts

who may very well go off piste:

Tom Newton Dunn from the Sun,

the Guardian's Zoe Williams

and Iain Martin from the Times.

So we hear that Theresa May

will finally be giving her

vision of a Brexit deal

in the next few weeks.

The news follows Mrs May hosting two

Brexit cabinet meetings this week

in an attempt to thrash out

the government's

negotiating position.

If reports are to be believed

not much was decided,

and so there will now have to be

a team building session

at the prime minister's

country residence Chequers.

Maybe a few trust exercises

will be in order.

At the moment however we're none

the wiser and the EU's Chief

Negotiator Michel Barnier seems

less than impressed.

To start the week the EU chief

negotiator, Michel Barnier,

made a trip to Downing Street

with Brexit secretary David Davis.

Pleasantries with the PM,

but the warning was clear.

Time has come to make choice.

Time has come to make choice.

All week the question was,

are the Cabinet running

away from making tough

decisions on Brexit?

As America woke up, the President

took a pop at the

National Health Service on Twitter.

But was it all fake news?

The Health Secretary hit back.

The Health Secretary hit back.

The Transport Secretary,

Chris Grayling, told the Commons

that yet again the East Coast

mainline franchise had failed,

with renationalisation an option.

While tensions in the

Conservative Party on Brexit

were on full display.

One leading Tory Remainer

did not hold back.

35 hard ideological Brexiteers

who are not Tories.

It's about time Theresa May stood up

to them and slung them out.

On Tuesday, deeds and words,

MPs celebrated 100 years since

some women were given the vote.

Westminster awash with suffragette

colours purple, green, and white.

Wednesday and Thursday,

the Brexit War Cabinet settled

in for crunch talks.

They were meant to decide

what the end state should look like.

Breakthrough?

Not yet.

Also on Thursday, a leaked EU paper

warned that the UK's single market

access in the Brexit transition

period could be revoked

in the event of a dispute.

Discourteous?

The Brexit secretary thought so.

It's not in good faith.

We think it's unwise

to publish that.

The week ended as it

began, with more warnings

from Michel Barnier on Ireland,

the customs union,

and continuing EU UK disputes.

If this disagreement persists,

the transition is not a given.

So, at the end of a busy week why

not let off steam with a glass

or two of Brexit juice,

that's English sparkling wine

to you and me, at the annual

Conservative fundraiser the black

and white ball.

The highest bid of the night?

£55,000 to spend a day with the PM.

£55,000 to spend a day with the PM.

We could not afford to get her on to

this programme but we will talk to

our panel of experts to find out

what is going on behind the

headlines. Iain Martin, by now we

thought we would know more about the

government's final negotiating

position. We had two Brexit

subcommittee meetings this week.

They were meant to come to a

conclusion I thought. Are we any

further forward?

No. It is possible

this is a cunning baldric style plan

to make Britain look as confused as

possible.

A very, very cunning plan.

Very cunning. But the chances of

that are highly unlikely. It seems

the meeting has happened, there was

discussion, the Prime Minister did

not express an opinion. The Prime

Minister was more interested in

secrecy and in fear of a leak, but

it seems there was not much to leak

anyway, because there was not a

decision. Actually, the UK's closer

to a position than people commonly

understand, definitely out of the

single market, but on this crucial

question of the customs union, or a

customs agreement after, there is

still no decision taken. I think the

feeling at Westminster, people on

both sides of the argument seems to

be will someone decide, make the

case and then get stuck into the

talks which lets remember our

supposed to begin in six or seven

weeks' time.

This Brexit

subcommittee is split between

Brexiteers and Remainers. The Prime

Minister sits in the middle we

understand not really expressing a

view, that is put together for

careful political reasons but it

cannot continue, can it?

I think the

presentation at the minute cannot

come to a decision because they have

not done their homework, student

essay style crisis conclusion and in

the case of David Davis you could

believe that is true but the main

reason they cannot come together is

because of an implacable deadlock.

There is no compromise between in

the customs union or not in the

customs union. One side has to

vanquish the other. The Remainers

really have to think it would be

economic suicide to leave the

customs union but they are also

really aware that this deadlock is

grinding government to halt. It is

national duty pulling them in two

directions. They will ultimately be

the ones to say I do not want to cut

the baby in half, you have the baby.

At some point it will have to go to

the country because it is a stupid

idea to cut a baby in half expect

what will happen for the Prime

Minister who will have to make a

decision for the kind Brexit she has

advocated?

She will do that and the

danger is huge. She will have to get

off the perch at some point. We have

been sitting in these chairs for 20

months saying the Prime Minister has

to choose between prioritising

market access and prioritise and

sovereignty. That is the simple

case. You may get a bit of both out

of the EU but you will get more of

one than the other. I think

interestingly, there is a lot of

movement going on under the surface

which Number Ten are desperate not

to show any of the machinations of

it because they want to present a

complete finished article. There is

some sense of consensus growing in

the Brexit community I am told, not

to sign off on a customs union but

to sign off on a semi-single market

alignment, soap aligning with all

the single market rules on

manufactured goods is what I am told

they are beginning to agree to do,

which they feel they should do

because British companies will go

ahead and stand by all the EU

regulations because that is what

they want to continue to sell into

the EU. There are some members of

the committee who are opposed to

this. Boris Johnson is the main one.

If they do agree to allow heavily on

manufactured goods but not on

services, in other words they choose

what to Jerry picked and can agree

what to cherish pick -- cherry pick,

but if they choose what to align on

Ben Boris Johnson has do make a

decision himself.

decision himself. We could

potentially see some Cabinet

resignations and I put Boris Johnson

at the head of it in two or three

weeks' time. That is the root of the

potential compromise.

On services,

on financial services, there is not

a functioning single market. The

question comes down to manufactured

goods. A lot of the regulations have

their origins in global standards,

something like the car industry. Is

Boris Johnson going to find himself

in a position where he will die in a

ditch over trying to make the UK

diverged from globally set standards

on carburettors? It would be an

interesting position if he does.

It

sounds ridiculous but it also sounds

like the sort of thing he will do.

We will come back to this later in

the programme.

As it's still not clear

what the government wants its final

relationship with the EU will look

like, we thought we'd

try to help out by looking

in detail at the key dilemma,

when it comes to working out

a customs arrangement,

should we hug the EU close,

or break out on our own?

We've lined up two politicians

from either side of the argument

and, just for a change,

they'll be asking

the questions not me.

So I'm joined by the soon to be

former Conservative MEP and leading

figure in the Leave campaign

Daniel Hannan and by the former

Labour frontbencher and supporter

of Open Britain Seema Malhotra.

Earlier this morning we tossed

a coin to see who would go first.

Daniel Hannan won and he agreed that

he would go first.

So here with thoughts

on what our end

relationship should be.

relationship should be.

90% of the world's economic growth

over the next 15 years will come

from outside the European Union.

Britain is a maritime nation, linked

to the world's fastest-growing

economies by language, law, culture

and kinship. But we cannot sign

trade deals, not while we are in the

EU's customs union. Staying in the

customs union after we leave, would

be the worst of all worlds. It would

give Brussels 100% of our trade

policy with 0% input from us. In

order to take advantage of Brexit,

we need to set our own regulations.

Sometimes, for reasons of economies

of scale, we might want to match

what the EU is doing. If we do want

to keep elements of the single

market, it must be through agreement

and on a case-by-case basis. In

1980, the states now in the European

Union counted for 30% of the world's

GDP. Today that figure is 15% and

falling. Britain needs to raise its

size. Our future bright, our future

is global.

Well, Seema and Dan are with me now.

And just to explain the rules.

Seema Malhotra has five minutes to

interrogate down.

This week a Tory

MP said I think the real concern

about the direction of travel when

it comes to Brexit, we are to real

crunch point and the government has

not worked out 19 months on what the

endgame is and we need to know. That

is pretty clear, isn't it? You and

others said Brexit will be easy so

why is this the case?

Nothing

worthwhile is ever easy. I do not

accept that the government has not

made it position clear. It made it

clear in Lancaster House beach and a

series of white papers since. As

Theresa May says we want to keep

control of our laws, taxes and

borders. But within that, we want to

have the closest possible

relationship with the rest of the

EU, compatible with being a

sovereign country. We want to be its

best friend and ally. We will align

with other countries but on our own

terms.

Things are not going

according to plan. You and others

said we will be keeping key

agencies. David Davis said we would

keep the agencies but now they are

leaving. The European medicines

agency is heading for Amsterdam, the

European banking agency will go to

Paris. That is 2000 highly skilled

jobs being lost from the capital.

Isn't this a high price we are

paying for certainty?

If you're that

fixated on Eurocrats jobs then you

there is something wrong with your

priorities. All of the worries we

had about job losses turned out to

be nonsense. Instead of losing half

a million, we have gained half a

million. More people are working

than ever before. I never claimed we

would be keeping these Euro agencies

in the UK. Of course if you leave

the EU you leave these Euro agencies

and you no longer have them on our

soil. We will make our own

regulations.

You are calling these

agencies Eurocrats, these are people

helping with key sectors of our

economy, scientists, those who are

experts in finance and other

sectors. I agree that Britain could

trade more with the world and we

need to, but evidence of leaks from

the government this week shows that

the impact of free trade deals

around the world will no way

compensate for the loss of trade

with the EU which a hard Brexit

would do for the UK. If you don't

believe me, you can listen to the

words of the Prime Minister who said

during the referendum we export more

to Ireland than we do to China,

twice as much to Belgium as we do to

India, it is not realistic to think

we could replace European trade than

these markets.

We export more to

Ireland than China, that is our

problem! Which is the better

long-term growth prospects?

Don't

you agree that there will be an

impact on British businesses and

families even in the short term and

isn't it right that you raise that

risk with the British people?

Obviously we want free and

frictionless trade with the EU and

the freedom to my trade deals

further of broad. EU does not have a

trade deal with US, with India and

old friends like Australia, the idea

that we cannot do trade deals and

bring benefits to this country I

think is incredibly defeatist. Are

we really saying it is a good idea

to sell more to Ireland with five

mil in people than to China with

more than a billion. -- 5 million

people.

Their study after study

which shows the proximity we have

two nations goes a long way to

determining our economic links, that

is not just the case for us but for

countries around the world. Of

course we can do more. We have a

trade surplus with the US already. I

have spoken to investors from other

countries who say they want to come

and do more in the UK but the point

is, part of the reason they do that

is because we have access and they

have access to the European markets

of 500 million people to sell those

goods as well. What do you say to

the genuine concerns from Nissan and

Honda, now even the Japanese

ambassador talking about a challenge

to the profitability of those

companies in the UK, and the threat

they may have to leave those

operations and go elsewhere?

They

made those threats during the

referendum and after the vote was in

they confirmed that not only were

they staying here but Nissan was

increasing its productivity and

activity in the UK. I think you

should look at what they are doing

rather than what they are saying.

This idea that we are defined by our

geography is an old-fashioned

18th-century way of looking at

trade. In the modern age where we

have low freight costs, the Internet

and cheap flights, geographical

proximity has never mattered less.

We are linked by language, law,

cultural, legal systems and

accountancy systems to the fastest

growing con is the planet.

I would like to ask you, you have

set all your vision for how you

would like to see our future

relationship with the EU. How

confident are you the Prime Minister

will outline a clear vision soon and

it will outline with Ewels?

She's

outlined the broad principles

already. -- with yours. Fleshing out

issues like how to make the Irish

border were, how to make the

facilitation of customs work. This

thing nobody has explained what we

can do in terms of customs is not

true. The government produced a

lengthy paper talking about how we

can do things like expand the ...

It's worth noting that both ahead of

HMR see here and his equivalent in

the Republic of Ireland have said

there is no need for a Customs

border, that companies can make

their customs declarations in the

way they make their tax

declarations. They are now

emphatically not choosing to listen

to the experts when they say they

don't need a hard order in Ireland.

Thanks.

Now it's the turn of Seema

to be grilled but first,

here's her thoughts on how

our future relationship

with the EU should look.

I respect the result of the

referendum. We need to move forward

to find a deal that protects jobs in

the economy. 43% of all of our trade

is done with the EU. Staying inside

the customs union gives us tariff

free trade access to our many new

partners. Issues surrounding

immigration and sovereignty can be

addressed while staying in the

customs union and the single market.

But on terms that we negotiate. We

can also then trade freely with

countries the EU has deals with.

Deals that we have helped negotiate.

And staying in the customs union is

key to a solution on Ireland. Our

select committee found that it is

unclear how we can avoid a hardboard

if we leave the customs union. I

agree we need reform and greater

controls on the freedom of movement,

but people did not vote to become

poorer. Let's leave the European

Union in a way that puts the

prosperity of families and

businesses first.

So as before you have five

minutes to give a grilling.

Off you go.

Two weeks ago Jeremy Corbyn says

said he was against staying in the

customs union because it is

protectionist against developing

countries, do you agree?

It's

important to balance what we do need

to see change in terms of

international trade and support for

developing countries. But also to

recognise the contribution that

being in the customs union and the

European Union has made for our

prosperity...

Do you agree with

Jeremy Corbyn?

I think that a lot

has been done to support

development, International

development...

Forgive me, that's a

different question... We're not

talking about that, do you agree

that the customs union is

protectionist against developing

countries?

It can be for those

countries that are in the customs

union. That's very understood

economics. It encourages trade

creation and development between

those countries, but it doesn't

preclude, as has been shown by the

over 60 trade agreements we have is

a European Union with countries

around the rolled, from having

strong relationships with other

countries. That's what I believe. --

countries around the world.

There

are lots of things we do not produce

ourselves. We have to impose tariffs

on oranges. In yours and my

constituencies there are not orange

plantations. Is it a reasonable

thing that to protect Mediterranean

orange growers we should be

discriminating against producers in

Africa, the Americas, developing

countries, at a cost our own

consumers?

I believe what you can do

is negotiate across the world in

terms of how you encourage greater

free trade and greater ways in which

we can trade with different nations.

That's what we do also already. We

had no Norma 's track record in

investing in farmers in Africa...

On

that point... -- we have had an

enormous track record. That means we

are giving Brussels total control of

our trade policies but we are no

longer EU members so we have no

control.

Almost 50% of our trade is

with the EU. Over 70% of the

companies... Over 70% of companies

that export to the EU, that is jobs

your constituents and my

constituents will be dependent on,

over 90% of that being small and

medium-size enterprises. They

look...

I'm not having much joy

getting answers to my questions. You

are going off on a tangent. Let me

have another go.

I'm saying we can

do both and that is what we should

be doing.

You think leaving the EU

but staying in the customs union so

Brussels controls 100% of our

Brussels controls 100% of our trade

but we have zero input... You think

that gives us more influence in

world trade than taking our own

voice and vote in the world trade

organisation and be able to do our

own deals, is that what you are

saying?

When you talk about the WTO

rules, if you look at the

government's analysis which was an

average of other studies, it shows

even in the South East if there is a

withdrawal based on...

I'm going to

have one more go to get an answer

because you are telling me lots of

interesting things which are nothing

to do with what I'm asking. Let me

have another go... The highest

tariffs imposed by the customs union

are on the items that most

negatively impact people on low

incomes, particularly food,

clothing, and footwear. They pay a

proportionately higher chunk of

their weekly Budget on these

commodities, these basic things.

They are the most badly hit. We are

clobbering poor people in this

country in order to hurt developing

nations. How can you come as a

progressive politician with a proud

history of standing up for people

who are underprivileged, now stand

there and defend a system that

forces us to give more to wealthy

French farmers than poor African

farmers, and forces the highest

bills to be paid by the lowest

income people in Britain?

I will

fundamentally disagree with you. I

believe being a member of the EU has

been fundamental for our prosperity,

for families and businesses. What

you fail to highlight is numerous

studies that show many British

families are worse off as a result

of us having had the referendum and

now the uncertainty that is

followed. People have already

suffered. -- that has followed.

You

are still not answering. Let me have

another crack at this. The countries

closest to the EU economically. The

countries that have opted to

parallel or join the single market

Norway, Switzerland, Iceland,

Liechtenstein, none of them is

interested in joining the customs

union. Why do you think that is?

They have separate arrangements.

They have arrangements with each

other. They have ways of resolving

disputes. It is like a mini European

Union in the way that they work

together. I believe that we could

consider approaching those countries

to see whether that would be an

arrangement that could work for

Britain.

That would mean leaving the

customs union, right?

Potentially

alongside how we negotiate being in

the customs union. Fundamental for

peace in Northern Ireland and the

Good Friday Agreement. It's not just

me saying that, it's the Irish

government, the head of the Irish

police, and the Irish people.

Time

is up. Thank you for your questions.

What you are advocating is not

Labour policy. Do you believe you

will change the mind of Jeremy

Corbyn?

You know there is a debate

going on in the Labour Party. That

is not unexpected, because as the

situation changes, as new facts come

to light, as we have to consider

what life will be like with the end

state post the transition, we will

have that debate. It is certainly

the case that the range of views

across the Labour Party are far less

in terms of the spectrum of what's

going on in the Conservative Party.

The fundamental issue is we have a

Prime Minister and cabinet that have

no idea about end state. They have

failed to reach any sort of

agreement after two days away this

week. And I think it is embarrassing

for us as a nation that 19 months

after the referendum we are in such

disarray.

Thank you both very much

for coming in and asking the

questions.

And those of you in the South

of England will be lucky

enough to see more of Dan Hannan

as he'll be appearing

in the Sunday Politics South

in just over ten minutes.

And you can find

more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

The recent collapse

of Carillion and the ending

of the East Coast Rail franchise

early has emboldened the

Labour Party to push its agenda

for renationalising key services

such as rail, water and energy.

But that's not all, the party

is looking into supporting local

economies by helping councils do

things like bringing

more services in house,

using local small businesses

where possible and helping to set up

new small scale energy companies.

So, is the plan workable,

and can it help Labour shed

the image that more state control

will lead to inefficiency and a lack

of innovation and investment?

Elizabeth Glinka has

travelled to Preston,

a Labour council the party

are championing as a model

for the future, to find out more.

When he visited in the 1850s car

Marks said industrial Preston might

be the staging post for an economic

revolution. It's taken 160 years but

he may have been onto. -- Karl Marx

said.

Preston described in the press

as a pilgrimage for London folk.

LAUGHTER

The Shadow Chancellor just dropping

in this week to heap praise on

Preston's new locally focused

economic plan. Nowhere is that plan

more visible than at the city's

trendy undercover market. Traders

rush to finish their new stalls

ahead of next week's reopening. The

so-called Preston model borrows

heavily from similar schemes in the

American rust belt. It installs the

virtues of keeping more services

in-house using worker let

cooperatives. And when it comes to

big contracts like the redevelopment

of this beautiful Victorian market,

they go not to the overextended big

boys like a religion but to smaller,

local firms, keeping the money in

the area. -- like Carillion but to

smaller, local firms. Matt Brown, a

local boy motivated by what he saw

as the continued decline of a once

great city, is behind this.

We came

to the conclusion that a fightback

we've got to do it ourselves. We

cannot be dependent on central

government that is cutting back on

money. The public sector is pretty

much buying locally from local

suppliers. We are looking to form

cooperatives. We're selling our own

energy in partnership with other

councils. Pensions are invested

locally. These alternatives around

the world. In American cities like

York, Cleveland, and Barcelona,

people are waking up to the fact

that we have an economy that works

for the top 1%. -- like New York and

Cleveland. And the rest of us are

basically fighting for the scraps.

Under the model the council has

spent an additional £4 million

locally since 2012. It has also

persuaded universities and hospitals

to redirect their spending towards

local suppliers. And it isn't just

Preston, a number of other Labour

authorities are trying something

new.

We have local councils now that

have set up energy companies to

provide cheaper, renewable energy

foot we have others running bus

networks. -- cheaper, renewable

energy and we have others running

bus networks. It is a way of getting

best value for money as well as

Democratic controlled of services.

Your critics might say this is

cuddly, cooperative windowdressing

for an agenda which, long-term, is

about mass renationalisation, which

you think the public would not be

keen on.

CHUCKLES

How sceptical people can be. I am a

socialist. We should share our

wealth. We have councillors going

out to get elected. When they get

elected they say they will use our

council resources locally and in

that way we can benefit local

people.

Is it back to the future? It

was revealed this week the

government may be on the brink of

renationalising the East Coast

mainline. Labour's frontbencher has

been clear about its aspiration to

renationalise not just a rail but

energy, the Post Office, and even

water. This weekend the party held a

conference to discuss the expansion

of the Preston model, but others

remain less convinced by its wisdom.

This idea is very popular nowadays,

both on the political right, people

like Trump promoting it, and on the

political left. But it is a failure

to understand the benefits of trade.

The idea you can enrich yourself

with the border. I draw a line

around an area. And somehow that

will make us better off is magical

thinking. How you become better off

is through becoming more productive.

These ideas are tricks for becoming

richer that involve boundaries. It

is an abiding fantasy, but it is a

fantasy.

The doubters may doubt, but

in a post-Carillion world labour is

convinced public opinion is pulling

in its direction.

Well, to help me to understand

more about Labour's

plans I'm joined by Labour's Shadow

Transport Secretary Andy McDonald

who's in Newcastle.

Good morning, thank you for joining

us.

John McDonnell says the plans to

re-nationalise energy, water and

rail would cost absolutely nothing.

That sounds too good to be true.

Explain how it could work?

In terms

of the rail Wales, it would bring

the railways back into public

ownership at no cost at all. -- in

terms of the railways. We would

bring them back once the franchises

expire. That would be considerable

savings of £1 billion per annum.

Then you will have to find £70

billion for the water industry,

nearly 40 billion for the National

Grid, how can that cost nothing?

Because you would be acquiring an

asset, you would be acquiring an

asset, you would be paying back the

revenues which you derive over the

businesses over time and you would

keep the costs down for the

consumer.

So you would be adding to

the national debt and you would have

to pay interest on that debt which

you would do out of the revenue you

get from the companies, but you also

say it will cost less from the

consumers that bills would come

down.

If you have £30.5 billion of

dividends paid out, if you run

things on a not-for-profit basis, it

can ensure that customers can get

the best possible returns.

That

profit might be good for customers

but it does not sound good for

paying back the interest on the

loans that you took out for buying

the organisations in the first

place?

You heard John McDonnell

express the analogy of having a

mortgage over a property. You have

acquired the assets, you have the

income derived from renting it out,

it pays the gas it and you have

still got it. It makes consulate

sent to hold those acids and make

them work for the benefit of the

citizens.

If interest rates rise,

after you bought that house and you

are renting it out, it is important

that costs can derive from the

rental income. We know that rates

can rise. There is every possibility

that the interest you will be paying

will not cover the profits and cost?

It is no different to the position

now. If water companies and energy

companies are financed, they have

those structures in place, the rate

of interest that they pay on their

financing is passed through to the

consumer ultimately.

I tell you how

it is different now, and your system

it would be passed to the taxpayer

presumably. If any of these

industries started making a loss,

who picks up the tab for that?

Have

they made a loss since they were

privatised? They have not, they have

made very great profits.

The reason

they are giving up the east Coast

franchise is because they have lost

£200 million.

That shows how the

franchising system is completely and

utterly flawed and should be

abandoned.

If the government run

East Coast Mainline lost £2 billion,

who would be on the hook, the

taxpayer?

When the government last

ran East Coast Mainline they ran it

at a profit, it brought money into

the Treasury. We have a good history

of running the railways correctly

and not having this bailout to

Richard Branson and Brian Souter and

the rest of them or seeing the

dividends and profits overseas to

the state-owned companies of

continental Europe. We want to put

an end to that and make sure we run

our railways for the benefits of the

public.

Let's look at one company,

Bristol energy which looks like the

kind of company you are advocating.

It is set up locally and has ethical

behaviour. There are no shareholders

so nobody is taking a profit out of

it. It has lost 2 million over two

years and does not expect to be

profitable until 2021. But does not

sound like a great deal for the

taxpayer if that is how you're going

to run the National Grid.

If they

are recouping the losses and they

have the trajectory of growth and

greater incomes, they will look at

that and say to successful.

The

Labour government...

They got tax

breaks, public capital to set them

up in the first instance, they were

heavily subsidised so they could go

on and enjoy the benefits of private

enterprise that does not benefit the

consumer or the taxpayer or the

citizens, however you wish to

describe it.

The consumer and the

taxpayer may be the same person but

they have a different financial

relationship with these companies.

What comes first, using any profit

or revenue you have used to acquire

these assets or cutting bills?

You

do both. If you have got that income

you can use it for those purposes.

Do cut energy bills or do you repay

the debt?

Those who have benefited

from privatisation of had the

benefit of not only using that money

to pay the debt they incurred to buy

the assets, they are now using it to

make dividend payments out to their

shareholders. It clearly can be done

and we want to be in that position

so it works for the benefit of

people and not for corporate

entities.

The shareholders are not

all millionaire individuals. A lot

of this is owned by pension funds to

which many workers pensions are

held, can you guarantee that you

will reinforce the Leave reimburse

them at full market value so that

nobody's pension will lose out?

The

market value is the market value at

the time these assets are required.

John McDonnell has made it clear

that they will be acquired at that

rate.

But not for cash, in exchange

for government bonds?

They are still

in that strong position of having

the value fully reflected. What is

happening is that not everybody is a

shareholder. It means there is

greater equity for all of the

population, not only an narrow

segment of it, surely that has got

to be for the benefit of everybody.

Thank you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Still to come:

We'll look at the implications

to the charity sector of the latest

allegations of sexual abuse

involving Oxfam staff

and the government's

promise to get tough.

Welcome to Sunday Politics Wales. In

a few moments, is the party over for

Ukip? Or will next week was that

meeting marked a new beginning.

Their leader in Wales, Neil

Hamilton, will be here live. But

first, one of Wales's top criminal

barristers says the criminal justice

system has hit a crisis point.

Andrew Taylor says problems over

disclosure of evidence and a major

forensic provider going to the wall

has caused a crisis of confidence.

He wants this -- warned this may

lead to guilty people going free and

innocent people being locked up.

The criminal justice system is a

complex machine. As many parts

working together to uphold the rule

of law, making sure the guilty end

up behind bars of the innocent go

free. But it is a system that is in

crisis. So says Andrew Taylor. He

spent decades as a barrister, acting

as defence and many high-profile

cases from sexual offences to

murder.

When I was qualifying as a barrister

many years ago, a very famous judge

said there was not a better country

in the world in which to be

arrested. In other words, we should

have confidence in the police, the

judges, the courts and the criminal

justice system. I think that was

well founded.

But I think, if you was around

today, he would have second

thoughts. And his main concern is

disclosure. The duty on police and

prosecutors to disclose evidence to

defence lawyers. Liam Allen had the

case against him dropped police

failed to disclose key evidence in

his rape trial.

I have come across on occasions to

numerous for me to specify what we

have been writing to the police and

the CPS, time after time, saying my

client says that you will find

evidence on a phone, you will find

evidence on social media. Very

often, we're told, well, we've

looked and we can't find it. Do you

really expect us to go trawling

through 4000 text messages or 400

hours of CCTV?

Now the woman in charge has ordered

an urgent review of all rape and

serious assault cases in Wales and

England.

It is a crisis for all sorts of

reasons and judges are warning now,

if we don't do something about it,

juries may very well decide, we

can't really convicted this person

because we can't be sure that the

police have done their job properly

and every piece of evidence has

properly been reviewed.

Just over a week ago one of the

largest private forensic providers

went bust. It oversaw 2000 cases of

30 forces including rape, murder and

serious drug crime. It covered

everything from DNA to drug testing.

Andrew Taylor said, the fallout

could not be more serious. Those

cases are going to be delayed. It

may well be that she exhibits are

lost or destroyed. It will delay

justice and still nine justice for

many people.

The former Labour crime and police

Minister now wants answers from

ministers.

We don't know what is

going to happen to the work they do.

That is about DNA, it's about

evidence, it's about murders

committed about domestic violence,

it's about burglary evidence.

We don't know what's happening to

that. The Home Office is to

supporting and working closely with

police to accept into temporarily

banned the forensic work and protect

live cases.

But there was something else that is

worrying barristers. With Government

cuts to both the police, the CPS, to

legal aid and to general funding

across the board in terms of

probation, and outside agencies and

feed into the system, the system is

not so much creaking, I think, as

almost coming to the point where we

can't cope any more.

This very issue made top billing at

Prime Minister's Questions this

week.

During the period the Prime

Minister was Home Secretary 2.3

billion was cut from police budgets.

These spectra of Constabulary warns

neighbourhood policing risks being

eroded and the shortage of

detectives is at a national crisis.

Does the Prime Minister think the

Inspectorate are scaremongering?

This is a Government that is

protecting police budgets. I would

like to remind the Right Honourable

gentleman that the Labour Party's

former Shadow Home Secretary, now

the police and crime commission of

Greater Manchester, himself said

that the police could take up to 10%

cut in their budgets.

Whilst attempted child, MP Mr Davies

is a former police officer.

Small money is not the answer. I

don't think it is at crisis point at

all. Criminal Justice is growing

through system, is going through a

period now some difficulty. And I

think that is more down to the

organisations that work within it as

opposed to any sort of funding issue

that people like to think or alleges

happening.

So it is not down to funding cuts?

No, I don't get is down to funding

cuts. I think some of the issues

that we have these days with

disclosure, and we've seen it in

some of the rape cases, that is more

a training issue.

You will find perhaps in the

long-term the conviction rate

dropping, less being charged, and a

dual crisis of innocent people going

to prison while guilty walk away.

And many more across the system are

warning that if the Government

doesn't action now, the cogs may

stop turning.

We've all heard the argument that

Wales could make more of her natural

resources in terms of generating

energy. In a lecture this week

Professor Calvin Jones from Calvin

University will be talking about

what options are practical and

beneficial to local people. When I

met him I asked whether capitalising

on these resources with a view to

making a profit on the energy they

create, was possible.

It is very difficult to imagine a

situation where you had a very large

Welsh owned company, muscling have a

presence in keeping some of that

money locally. In the fashion that

we did years ago. So, you know, yes,

it is feasible that we did have a

publicly owned nuclear power

station. There was not enough money

in Wales to make that happen so, you

know, we will probably be stuck for

something which, even if it is not

private, will be guaranteed at UK

level. In many of the best sites

have already been snapped up by

internationally owned firms. That is

not much left, really, for the

public to get involved in for Welsh

companies to get involved.

What would your message be to

politicians who say we need more

tidal lagoons, even. Need to be

generating the energy. As we could

be, you know, we could be making the

most of that.

What would your message be? You need

to think very carefully about what

sorts of benefits you expect from

the those so, yes, when you have

big, new capital investments such as

the lagoon or such, get lots of jobs

while it is being built. Then, once

it's built, they will be a few

hundred jobs, maybe. The nuclear

power station will have a few

hundred jobs in it. The lagoon have

a few dozen jobs looking after it,

probably. So, all right, a few

hundred jobs is important. Our

research recently suggested that

their appropriate moves a couple of

thousand people working in it across

Wales. Got a workforce of something

around 1 million people is a couple

of thousand is nothing. See would

get the employment benefits in the

long term that you might hope for.

Some sectors, lagoon is one, give

you the possibility of innovation

and are indeed benefits which we

might be at able to catch in Wales.

Different from nuclear where all the

Air India and all the IP is held

outside the UK let alone Wales. So

for lagoon you can imagine, tied

lagoon could be persuaded to let an

equity to the Welsh Government in

return for some sort of financial

assistance. In holding company, not

this one. So if it was part owned by

the Welsh Government or some other

Welsh entity then you could see the

possibility, of being a part of the

cluster. The Iraqi number of

opportunities that I think. But

think ownership is key. Only some of

this stuff and this capital is the

first stage to exploiting those

benefits.

One of the other point I been

reading of the last few days is Uber

talking about since devolution, on

the UK level, things have not

differently.

It is not necessarily by design. But

I think a few things have coalesced

and in Cardiff, as it was already,

it was the most important city in

Wales. And when you take a new

institution which, because of the

way the initial devolution act, had

to take responsibility effectively

from below. The UK Government did

not give the Welsh Assembly

Government much at the start under

Assembly much to do. It became like

a big local authority. So a decision

floating at Cardiff and other

places. If you combine that, with

the devolution settlement, which is

changing slowly, with a political

context which is very insecure,

which may be doesn't want power to

go beyond Cardiff Bay once it comes

down from Westminster or comes up.

When you get a situation where, you

can have a strong political call to

Wales, and there was debate over

where the Assembly should go and we

did some work on this in the late

90s about where we would put an

Assembly in Cardiff. On top of that

what you get is, I mean, I remember

a similar discussion about where the

new millennium Stadium should go.

There are several options we were

looking at. But it ended up in

Cardiff. And when you lay on top of

that a new, obviously museums and

galleries, the site in Cardiff,

organisations moving from North

Cardiff, the periphery of Wales,

North Cardiff, down to the centre of

Wales in the centre of the square,

and you lay top public investment on

top of the strong economic

infrastructure in the city, they

tend to be in Cardiff. So you lay

those things on top of what you have

is, in where's me think of Wales as

the country, it looks more like the

UK than it does somewhere like

Switzerland, which are separate

financial and economic and political

centres. Germany which is very

strong Southern economic heart of

Berlin and bond, the capital cities

of recent times in the North. The

US, game, Washington, New York, Los

Angeles. We look like Paris and

France the UK. That is the point.

What does that do? You think, in

Wales, does seem strange that to the

North there is not a single national

institution. Nothing north of the

National library.

Maybe the football Museum. We might

get.

But what does that do, do you

think? The idea people, people in

the North, who think, as you've been

saying, it all goes down to goes

down to the south.

I have lots of arguments about this

because there is a point of view

that says that, Wales are so small

that you have to put all your eggs

in the Cardiff basket because that

is the only way we can get

visibility and get noticed. And then

there is a kind of trend of thought

that says that actually, spreading

national institutions, spreading

activity will generally around Wales

is more important. Those things are

very different to reconcile. It

comes down to a value judgment on

what I think it comes down to is

whether you think it matters if

Wales gets noticed or not. That is a

very subtle thing because it doesn't

matter if the London media talk

about Wales? Doesn't matter if big

factories, big investors around the

world look around and don't notice

doesn't matter if we're on various

other world stages? My attitude has

always been, if we get, domestic

stuff right, from run the country

properly, if we develop a

functioning set of Welsh identities

which we can genuinely sign up to in

terms of... Because the Welsh are

all different we can all do with the

Scots seem to do. If you make that

work can become confident and that

would get noticed for own merits

rather than trying to get noticed

because of the flashes of our

buildings, which are victimising

Cardiff, when you look at it now

underway Cardiff has developed, it

has become a very generic property

led development story. There's not

much in Cardiff now that looks

distinctive of different in terms of

other cities in the UK. And those

divisions, there has been debate

obviously in the region and how that

should work, it comes down to a

value judgment. Economic theory,

economic evidence won't really tell

you which one works. Because

countries are all different and you

have two decide which one of those

divisions you feel more akin to.

Plenty to think about two with

Professor Alvin Jones from Cardiff

University. You give us had a torrid

time of it recently both that a UK

wide level and perhaps here in

Wales, too. The British party will

have extraordinary general meeting

next week to discuss the position of

the leader, Henry Bolton. He refused

to quit last month despite being

told to go by the party befuddling

committee. Will things kick off

again or will we enter a period of

calm? Ukip's Wales and Welsh leader

is Neil Hamilton. What we think of

next week in what will happen to

Henry Bolton who was on the Andrew

Marr and grant this morning, defied

Camille stand up to, he would try

and stay on as leader.

Do you think you can? It depends who

turns up at this extraordinary

general meeting in Birmingham. There

are people who live in far-flung

places you'll find it difficult to

get there. Almost MEP, lots of

branch chairman is, and members are

against him. I don't see how we can

survive and it is a great shame that

he is continued.

Why is him as delusional? He thinks

he can survive by vote of the

members but I don't think he is

going to be successful in that boat.

And it is most unfortunate that

we've had this merry-go-round farce

entirely because of his private life

which he continues to launder

public.

Other than his private life, would

you be happy with him or would you

be happy?

It is inconceivable. Because the

leader measure of followers. And

when all your elected members of

Aberdeen stew, see what is left to

lead.

He would be your sixth in a year.

Not quite.

If you can't Nigel Farage a couple

of times you are on five or six. It

seems farcical that you are going to

leader after leader after leader and

doing nothing else, it seems.

This is partly a function of the

fact that Nigel Farage was a super

dominant leader himself and didn't

bring on any potential alternatives.

Of another party gone through

similar structures. Look at the

Tories over the last 20 years. They

had leader after leader in the early

part of the century.

Not quite at this rate.

Nevertheless, the point is the same.

I think that, after next Saturday,

would have somebody like Gerard

Batten who is the MEP for London and

has been there since 2004, has been

the Ukip party member since the

party was founded.

We need a team leader now. It is not

just the leadership, to the point of

Ukip. Now that you've got Brexit,

peoples into question why is there

need for Ukip and that's why we're

seeing this turn of leadership,

because the bizarre to it?

It is certainly true that lobby

blood left Ukip thinking the job was

done after the referendum. I think

that is a mistake, as you know, in

elections in Wales in the general

election we still have a full

programme of domestic policies as

well. We are very different from all

the other parties and keeping within

the party will provide the cosy

Cardiff Bay consensus. The only

party who will oppose expansion of

the Assembly, want tough controls of

immigration, who once significant

cuts to the aid Budget, he wants to

democratise the health service, the

only party in Wales who believes in

grammar schools. There are lots of

things that you could stand for

quite apart from Brexit.

At the Assembly election you got 13%

of the vote. Last year were down to

2% of the vote in Wales a law

student bossing everyone of the 32

constituencies where you stood. You

may well list the things you want to

achieve the people maybe aren't

listening.

That is certainly true. We found it

difficult against all the baffling

noise in the background from Ukip

central to get our message across.

But I think, with some effective

leadership, we can show, and at the

Wales is going to be the shop window

after the MEPs disappear next year,

because the Cardiff Assembly is the

only parliamentary institution which

you'll then be represented. I think

we showed, day in and day out in the

Assembly, how effective we can be as

a professional group.

That is the message read more

generally. What kind of a I shown to

the rest of Ukip? One member walked

with the coach were relevant, and

others not joining the group, Gareth

Bennett been banned from speaking

for a while because of some of the

comments he made.

As a shop window, it is not ideal,

is it? I don't agree with you about

that. Nathan Gill took his bat

because was frustrated ambition for

the want of my job as the leader, my

colleagues voted for me instead.

You couldn't keep within the fold,

could you? He resigned. I didn't

force. He chose to become an

independent of the remaining eight

Ukip member. Mark success obviously

saw his future more the Conservative

Party. The Tories don't want him.

They won't allow them to join the

party somebody was going to say the

-- save his skin that way but he's

been sapping mistaken.

I don't know whether Mark reckless

would have taken the decision that

he did if he had realised the

Conservative Party would not allow

him to join. He naturally assumed

that he would be able to be a

Conservative candidate.

The point I'm trying to make is, you

are saying the party in the Assembly

in Wales would be a shop window and

the point I'm making is, other than

petty squabbling, comments which are

deemed to be, you know, not what

should be set in the Assembly,

there's not much to be said about

what Ukip has achieved.

I don't agree at all about Gareth

Bennett and what Gareth Bennett said

in the Assembly struck a chord I

think that many people in the wider

community.

That maybe but it shows that Ukip is

breaking the Cardiff Bay consensus.

And we will go on breaking that

consensus as well.

Showing that we're the only party

that poses political correctness in

all its forms. We heard Henry Bolton

this morning saying that Ukip, over

the past year, has lost hundreds of

members every month on a UK level.

Is that something you are seeing in

Wales as well? It isn't, actually.

Wellesley fight in a domestic

political conflict. He was appointed

as well because we are in the

Assembly on a feed every civil day,

articulating the feelings and views

of people who are not represented by

the other parties. So this is what I

mean by saying that Ukip will be the

shop window in Wales which looks out

from the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is very concerned, maybe, that

the main opportunity for Ukip now

will come from a failure of Brexit?

One thing you don't really want to

see is a failure of Brexit.

I certainly don't want to see a

failure of Brexit. But isn't that

the main way back for Ukip on the UK

level.

I think there was a campaign for a

second referendum it would lead to

an immediate change. Of course there

will be lots of details on the we

would be very keen to ensure is not

going to, by the back door, bring us

Brussels back in the game. Weird to

see the future for Ukip in a

domestic United Kingdom and the

Welsh context and I believe that

there a real scope for Ukip because

we are the only party.

When you look Brexit only see things

like the Treasury forecast saying

that a hard Brexit could bring Wales

9.5% worse off than it would

otherwise have been, doesn't worry

you at all about what might be

happening?

The Treasury is a haunt of

remainders. There has been

manoeuvres against the Prime

Minister.

You talk about Ukip been divided,

look at the Cabinet and they are

squabbling like rats in a sack. On

something which really matters, the

future of Britain as an independent

nation. We don't have those couples

inside Ukip on matters of policy.

All of our problems ultimately go

back to personalities.

But on the policy issues we are

absolutely united on the need for an

independent Britain.

Very quickly

then, you'd think after Saturday

will be there, you'll be voting for

Bolton to be out.

I will be voting against Henry

Bolton and so will my colleagues.

Thank you very much for coming in.

We will see how that goes. That is

it from us. We will take a short

break next week but we are back in a

fortnight. Wales lives will be here

Wednesday at 10:30pm and you can

always follow us on Twitter. For

now, that is all from

always follow us on Twitter. For

now, that is all from me.

university.

I said how old is your son?

She said he hasn't been born yet.

On that note, that's

all we have time for.

Thank you very much and thanks

to all of my guests.

Welcome back. A few minutes ago we

were talking about plans for

renationalisation, something which

they think is a good vote winning

policy in these times. Are they

right?

Nationalisation had a boom in

popularity. It never went out of

favour. Since the bailouts of rail

companies, since the appalling

things which happen to people who

have to get a train every day, never

mind just the south-east, it has

been a nightmare and costs are

ratcheting up. Even the water

companies are not opposing it. I

think they are pushing at an open

door and it is a worthwhile thing

for them to do.

John McDonnell says

it can be done at absolutely no cost

you would have an asset on your

government books, is that realistic?

No, that is the aspect of it. I can

see the political logic. That is the

aspect I find most confusing. This

argument that Parliament rather than

the market dictates the price at

which the acids is bought, the

signal is not just people who are in

those industries, the signal list to

all other investors in just about

everything else. If you start with

certain sectors, what will be

nationalised next? The impact that

then has on people who are investing

money in the UK is simply a dawning

realisation that what they have,

what they own, what they paid for

might be stolen or might be

discounted.

Labour were fairly clear

in their manifesto, they talked

about the National Grid, water, rail

and the Royal Mail, nothing else.

As

someone who has been paying

attention to what John McDonnell and

Seamus Milne think, I will take

their evidence of what they have

written and said over the last 30

years rather than what they are

trying to do now to win an election.

I would not try and extrapolate what

Labour policy would be over what she

must have said, he has only been

their communications guide for a few

years, before that he was a Guardian

columnist.

I'm judging people on

their record of what they have said

to Andrew Marr, what they have

written and what John McDonnell have

argued for. I simply question

whether we should accept their

guarantees when they are trying to

bargain their way into power.

Listen, nobody, it is something

which only happens to this lot of

Labour leaders, that if people

cannot critique the policy they

suggest, then critique what they

perceive to be the nefarious under

policy. The truth is, when we talk

about privatising industries we used

to talk about that, we never talked

about the outrageous bailouts they

would need, we never talked about

what they would do to actual costs,

we just talked about this in terms

of principle, do you want this

privatised with efficiency or

nationalised?

There problems with

some things that now Margaret

Thatcher would not say that was the

original intention. However, she and

those around her were completely

clear and explicit about that they

were prepared to privatise almost

everything. They were unambiguous.

The fairest possible reading of the

way Thatcher went about it is she

did not know how bad it would be.

She went into privatisation with the

explicit agenda of more British

people owning shares in industries

and when she went into it, 40% of

people own shares, 12 years later

12% did.

We will need to leave it

there and move on.

The charity Oxfam has said

it was "dismayed by what happened"

after the accusations of sexual

exploitation by its aid workers

and now the government has said

it's going to get tough.

I'm going to afford them the

opportunity to talk to me tomorrow,

but I'm broke clear, it does not

matter if you have got a

whistle-blower hotline, it does not

matter if you have got good

safeguarding practices in place, if

the moral leadership at the top of

the organisation is not there, then

we cannot have you as a partner.

That was Penny Mordaunt talking

specifically about Oxfam against

whom there have been allegations

this week. This could have

implications for the aid sector

generally?

Yes, and that is what

Penny Mordaunt said that donors

would be put off by the likes of

giving to Oxfam because they

giving to Oxfam because they have no

idea where their money is being used

at the end of it. The thought that

your good hard earned cash could be

subsidising Oxfam executives sexual

peccadilloes, at -- abusing the

people they are supposed to be

helping is not good. Penny Mordaunt

said we should all have done more.

Where this seems to be going as who

knew what? Furthermore, who was

happy to cover up what for the

greater good? If you shine a

spotlight on abuse will it kill off

the Holborn I'm concept of

international aid.

Oxfam does a lot

of good around the world.

Huge

amounts of good. Why would you want

to kill off a productive good

charity because of some horrendous

abuse going on? The political damage

for the government and we need to be

very careful, there are parallels

with for example the northern Asian

sexual grooming scandal. How much

was a blind eye turned to these

politically sensitive subject so the

greater good, for example racial

harmony, was not damaged? That will

be huge thing to unpick.

Tom was

talking about the damage of donors

who donate to charities but defeat,

the government, committed huge

amount of

amount of money -- DFID. Not

everyone is happy about this. Will

this be used as a debate about

international aid?

I think it is

being used as a way to reopen

debate. It should be remembered that

sexual predators use organisations.

They used boarding schools, the

church and aid programmes. They use

places with high vulnerability to

the sexual predators. Notably says

let's close down the church. It is

mistaken to say this is a taint on

the entire aid industry when the aid

industry by its nature would attract

some predatory behaviour. It is much

more important to have the

conversation about how

institutionally you prevent and deal

with the predatory behaviour rather

than turn a spotlight on the aid

industry than they should we have

any aid which is the wrong question

and has a completely obvious answer,

yes we should.

But if that is right,

if we extend that level of

understanding to Oxfam because it

does

does good work, why is that not

extended to the controversial

Presidents club a few weeks ago

which is now effectively shutdown

and people have given the money

back?

Iain, the Presidents club,

there are people in Oxfam who are

not using sex workers unlike the

Presidents club.

There were people

at that dinner who were not engaged

in the activity that the FDA accused

a few people.

But they were all

sitting there in an all male dinner

-- the FT accused people.

I am not

defending people.

We cannot finish

the programme without returning to

the topic we are always talking

about and we have always been

talking about, Brexit.

talking about, Brexit. We will hear

from some other Cabinet ministers.

Explain the choreography of the

talks.

The government have come

under pressure for not saying enough

about the decisions. Boris Johnson

made it clear he would make his own

speech on the case for a liberal

Brexit, whatever that ends up

meaning. Now we learn today that it

will not just be Boris, it will be a

whole is of other Cabinet ministers

making a useful contribution in

terms of speeches, David Davis,

David Liddington, Liam Fox and

Theresa May finally at the end of

this long list.

Not Philip Hammond

or any of the arch Remainers?

They

don't do Brexit central jobs. You

expect the Brexit ministers

themselves to do that.

I do not

agree with that at all.

What is

interesting is, were they always

going to do this or has the entirety

of government, now the dog is being

whacked by the tail, just to make

Boris Johnson... They have to give

him great cover by surrounding him

by others also making speeches.

What

a shocking waste of parliamentary

time this is?

At least we are

hearing from someone.

The pattern

with speech-making is somebody comes

out and says something and then

Number Ten immediately slapped them

down. You cannot listen to the thing

you think you are listening to

because you have no idea whether it

will be contradicted the day after.

Like Philip Hammond in Davos where

he said we would only diverged

moderately from the EU and then

Number Ten contradicted him.

And the

idea that Philip Hammond is not a

key Brexit Minister, the impact of

this is predominantly economic and

he is the Chancellor of the

Exchequer. Of course he is a Brexit

Minister.

They are quite worried

about the Remainers and they are

really worried about Jacob Rees-Mogg

and the hard Brexit faction who

could really bring down the Prime

Minister tomorrow if they wanted to.

And at some point, when the Prime

Minister fleshes out in a little bit

more detail her vision, she cannot

keep Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg

happy. Both of them have been vocal

this week and then the serious

problem in the Tory party?

Someone

will have to compromise at some

point. The hardest Brexiteers have

to get real and they have to realise

they have most of what they wanted.

If you said almost two years ago

that the UK would definitely be

leaving all the key institutions of

the EU, definitely be leaving the

single market, definitely be leaving

the customs union with a grey area

at around the customs agreement,

that is something that I think a lot

of pro-Brexit people have accepted

and pocketed as a good result.

But

the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of the

party sound very unhappy about the

direction of travel and they are

complaining about all sorts of

things?

But what is difficult to

work out is how much of that is

people positioning to shift the

argument within Cabinet, outliers

for an argument, so there is not too

much of a compromise. It is really

all a function of there not being

leadership and they're not being

someone in charge of the process.

This is going to have to be, we have

to confront this as a country at

some point and make a decision and

get on with it one way or another.